Rolul Implicarii Si Apropierii Parintilor in Copilarie

8/10/2019 Rolul Implicarii Si Apropierii Parintilor in Copilarie

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rolul-implicarii-si-apropierii-parintilor-in-copilarie 1/25

EIRINI FLOURI

SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN MIDLIFE:

THE ROLE OF INVOLVEMENT OF ANDCLOSENESS TO PARENTS IN CHILDHOOD

(Received 25 June 2003; Accepted 5 December 2003)

ABSTRACT. This study used data from the British National Child Development

Study to examine therole of parentingin later subjective well-being (SWB).Parenting

was defined as mother involvement and father involvement (measured at age 7) and as

closeness to mother and closeness to father (measured at age 16). SWB was measured

at age 42 and was defined as life satisfaction, psychological functioning (measured

with the GHQ-12), and absence of psychological distress (measured with the Malaise

Inventory). Control factors were parental social class at birth, parental family struc-

ture throughout childhood, domestic tension in the parental home, parental ill mentalhealth in early childhood, psychological maladjustment in adolescence, financial

difficulties throughout childhood, educational attainment, self-rated health in early

adulthood, and current socio-demographic correlates of SWB (labour force partici-

pation, religion and being partnered). It was found that even after adjusting for these

factors closeness to mother at age 16 predicted life satisfaction at age 42 in both

men and women, whereas mother involvement at age 7 predicted life satisfaction at

age 42 in men. Closeness to mother at age 16 was also negatively related to poor

psychological functioning at age 42 in women.

KEY WORDS: parenting, subjective well-being.

INTRODUCTION

Subjective well-being (SWB) is a person’s evaluation of his or her

life. This evaluation can be in terms of cognitive states such as satis-

faction with one’s life, and in terms of ongoing affect (i.e. presence

of positive and absence of negative affect) (Diener et al., 1998).

Progress in the field of the antecedents of SWB is considerable since

the 1970s when psychologists first started to explore what makes

people happy (DeNeve, 1999). It is now suggested that SWB has

both trait-like (Lykken and Tellegen, 1996) and state-like proper-

ties (Veenhoven, 1994). However, SWB researchers have only rarelyexplored the causal status of its predictors (Diener et al., 1999).

Parenting, and in particular parental involvement and closeness to

parents have been investigated as predictors of both later demographic

outcomes (Flouri and Buchanan, 2002a) and later psychological out-

comes (Flouri and Buchanan, 2002b) which are likely to determine

SWB (Ryan and Deci, 2001), and in fact aspects of SWB such as

Journal of Happiness Studies 5: 335–358, 2004.

© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.



336 EIRINI FLOURI

psychological distress and negative affect (Maccoby, 2000), but very

little research has been carried out to explore long-term links betweenparenting and all three aspects of SWB (life satisfaction, positive

affect, and negative affect). Previous research has pointed to useful

directions, however (Amato, 1994). For example, positive relations

influence health outcomes via changes in cardiovascular, endocrine,

and autoimmune systems (Uchino et al., 1999) and so positive parent–

child relations are likelyto affect a strong determinantof SWB, physical

health (Ryff et al., 2001). Parenting has also been linked with several

socio-demographic determinants of SWB, such as labour force partic-

ipation (Flouri and Buchanan, 2002a), religiosity (Franz et al., 1991),

and marriage (Mahoney et al., 2001).There are several reasons why one should expect early parenting

to affect later SWB. According to attachment theory, children raised

in rejecting or authoritarian environments learn to expect rejection and

hostility, and develop avoidant attachments, which in turn directly influ-

ence subsequent intimate relationships (Belt and Abidin, 1996), which

affect SWB(Ryan andDeci,2001).Further,parentalnegativity hasvery

strong connections with offspring depression and internalizing behav-

ior (Angoff, 1988; Maccoby, 2000), and therefore one might expect

that low parental involvement should be positively related to negative

affect and negatively related to positive affect. On the other hand, social

control and social capital hypotheses (Coleman, 1988) argue that both‘adequate’ parenting and children’s mental health are associated with

parents who are more effective in developing their children’s human

capital, although this might also be due to the transmission of genetic

endowments (Haveman and Wolfe, 1995). Finally, parenting affects

children’s mental health indirectly, as parents who are ‘involved’ and

parents who are close to their children tend to financially support their

children and so parenting can affect child outcomes by influencing the

economic structure of the household (Buchanan et al., 2000). Using

longitudinal data from the National Child Development Study (NCDS)

which traces all 17000 children born between 3 and 9 March 1958 in

Britain, this study aimed to explore the role of parental involvementand closeness to parents in childhood in SWB in adult life after control-

ling for known confounding factors. In accordance to Bronfenbrenner’s

(1979) paradigm, these confounding variables reflected factors from

different ‘ecological’ domains, such as individual factors and factors

relating to the family.



THE ROLE OF PARENTING IN SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING 337

SWB and Individual Factors

Early research on what determines SWB has focused on identifying itsdemographic and environmental correlates (Argyle, 1999), but because

SWB is strongly correlated with personality traits more recent psycho-

logical research has focused on exploring the role of trait or non-trait

features of personality in SWB (Diener et al., 2003). In her review of

the role of personality in SWB DeNeve (1999), for example, showed

that self-reported health is one of the strongest positive correlates of

SWB. Of the demographic variables religion, marriage and work have

been shown to provide both psychological and social benefits that are

related to SWB. Religion provides a sense of meaning in life and offers

a collective identity and social networks, whereas marriage generateswell-being through its role as a buffer in difficult times, and through the

emotional and economic support it provides. Work is also positively

related to SWB as it provides an optimal level of stimulation, positive

social relationships and a sense of identity (Diener et al., 1999). The

relationship of income to SWB has attracted a considerable amount

of research but contrary to popular belief income enhances SWB only

to the point that it allows an individual to meet basic survival needs

and avoid socio-economic disadvantage (DeNeve, 1999). Educational

attainment is also usually protective against adverse outcomes in high-

risk individuals (Compas, 1995; Resnick et al., 1998) mainly because

it is associated with stable career lines, and interesting and well-paidemployment (Pulkkinen et al., 2002), although it has also been argued

that because education raises aspirations it may interfere with psy-

chological well-being if it leads to expectations that cannot be met,

especially in rich nations (Hartog and Oosterbeek, 1998). Finally, psy-

chological maladjustment in childhood is negatively related to later

SWB (Farrington, 1995; Kovacs and Devlin, 1998).

SWB and Family-Related Factors

With respect to family-related influences, it has been shown that

children experiencing family disruption carry a heightened risk of

short-term and long-term psychological disorders (Wallerstein, 1991)although not consistently (Buchanan et al., 2000), and that family con-

flict impacts on children’s mental health (Buchanan et al., 2000). There

is also considerable evidence that maternal depression is a major risk

factor for child maladjustment (Weissman and Jensen, 2002) and some

evidence that paternal depression is linked to child maladjustment



338 EIRINI FLOURI

(Downey and Coyne, 1990; Foley et al., 2001). Finally, social cau-

sation has explained mental health differences through the experienceof adversity and stressors in low status, and conversely, with more

favourable conditions experienced in higher social groups (Power and

Matthews, 1997). Recently, Schoon et al. (2002) showed that per-

sisting and accumulating experiences of socio-economic disadvantage

throughout childhood and adolescence was one of the most impor-

tant risk factor of poor adult attainments. Power et al. (2002) who

also looked at mental health outcomes of the NCDS cohort showed

that women were particularly vulnerable to socio-economic adver-

sity in childhood, and that the association between social origins and

destinations was stronger among women.

METHOD

The National Child Development Study

This study used data from sweeps of the NCDS. NCDS is a contin-

uing longitudinal study of some 17000 children born between 3 and

9 March 1958 in England, Scotland and Wales. The aim of the study

was to improve understanding of the factors affecting human develop-

ment over the whole lifespan. To date, six follow-ups have been made.

These were carried out in 1965 (when the cohort members were aged7 years), in 1969 (aged 11), in 1974 (aged 16), in 1981 (aged 23), in

1991 (aged 33), and in 2000 (aged 42). In addition, records of exam-

ination attainments at school-leaving were obtained from schools and

education authorities in 1978, when the cohort members were aged 20.

Over the years there was attrition from lost contact, refusals,

emigration and death, but response rates are respectable, even by

cross-sectional standards. By age 33, 11407 cohort members were

interviewed, a 73% response rate out of those still living in Britain

who had not permanently refused. By the latest sweep at age 42 in

2000, the number of cohort members targeted was 15147, a tribute

to investment in tracing and persistence in fieldwork. The contact rate

was 84.9%, and the response rate 75.4% (88.9% of those contacted). At

age 42 information was collected for 11419 cohort members. However,

a major problem with NCDS is the possibility of bias in the responding

sample. Analysis of non-response bias has indicated that there were

particularly high losses of participants in some more disadvantaged




groups. Parental social class was used to assess if the cohort mem-

bers interviewed at age 42 were representative of the original birthcohort. The proportion in social class V – the most disadvantaged –

was reduced from 9.8% to 8.0% in NCDS (Montgomery et al., 2002).

This is consistent with previous reports indicating that on the whole

the cohort members interviewed in the adulthood sweeps of NCDS are

broadly representative of their birth cohort (Shepherd, 1993).

MEASURES

Subjective Well-Being (Age 42)

SWB at age 42 was assessed with three measures: poor psychologicalfunctioning, psychological distress, and life satisfaction. Poor psy-

chological functioning was measured with the 12-item version of the

General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)(Goldberg, 1978; Goldberg and

Williams, 1988). The GHQ was designed to focus on breaks in nor-

mal function. Sample items include: ‘Have you recently been feeling

unhappy and depressed’,and‘Have yourecently felt understrain’. Most

studies that have used the GHQ report female rates in excess of male

rates, not very strong social class effects, increased rates for divorced

and separated women although not for men, and higher rates for the

unemployed (Goldberg and Williams, 1988). Cronbach’s alpha for theNCDS cohort at Sweep 6 was 0.84. Psychological distress was mea-

sured with the Malaise Inventory (Rutter et al., 1970), a 24-item list of

symptoms from the Cornell Medical Index. The 24 Malaise symptoms

are positive responses to items such as ‘feels miserable and depressed’,

‘gets annoyed by people’, and ‘has had a nervous breakdown’. Cron-

bach’s alpha was 0.82 for the 6th NCDS sweep. Life satisfaction was

measured with two items (each anchored in an 11-point scale, ranging

from 0 to 10): ‘How has life turned out so far’, and ‘Where do you

expect to be in 10 years’. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.79 for the whole 6th

NCDS sweep.

Family-Related Factors (Ages 0–16)

These included factors relating to family environment (both psycholog-

ical and socio-economic) and factors relating to parenting. The psycho-

logical environment of the family was tapped by domestic tension and

parental ill mental health (both 1-item dichotomous assessments of the



340 EIRINI FLOURI

Health Visitor when cohort members were aged 7). The socio-economic

environment was tapped by three variables: family structure (assessedas ‘continuously intact’ from age 7 until age 16 or ‘otherwise’), parental

socio-economic status at birth, and socio-economic disadvantage in

childhood. Parental socio-economic group at birth was ‘manual’ if

both father’s and mother’s socio-economic group was manual, and was

‘non-manual’ if both father’s and mother’s socio-economic group was

non-manual. Father’s socio-economic group was usedto assess family’s

socio-economic group in cases where father’s and mother’s groups were

different. Mother’s socio-economic group was used to assess family’s

socio-economic group if father’s socio-economic group was missing.

Socio-economic disadvantage in childhood was assessed using a com-posite measure (of the Health Visitor’s report at age 7 and receipt of

free school meals at age 11 and 16) as follows: If neither the Health Vis-

itor reported the family to be in financial difficulties when the cohort

member was aged 7 nor anyone in the family received free school

meals when the cohort member was aged 11 or 16, then there was no

evidence of socio-economic disadvantage in the family as the cohort

member was growing up. If either the Health Visitor reported the fam-

ily to be in financial difficulties when the cohort member was aged 7

or anyone in the family received free school meals when the cohort

member was aged 11 or 16, then there was evidence of socio-economic

disadvantage in the family as the cohort member was growing up.Parenting was assessed as closeness to father and closeness to mother

at age 16, and as father involvement and mother involvement at age 7.

In NCDS, children’s self-reported closeness to their mother and father

were two 5-point scales anchored with ‘very true and ‘very untrue’,

whereas father and mother involvement were assessed by both the

child’s parent and the child’s teacher. Four 3-point scales pertained to

father involvement and three 3-point scales pertainedto mother involve-

ment. The items on father involvement were ‘outings with father’,

‘father manages the child’, ‘father reads to child’ and ‘father is inter-

ested in child’s education’. The items on mother involvement were

‘outings with mother’, ‘mother reads to child’ and ‘mother is inter-ested in child’s education’. All but mother’s and father’s interest in

child’s education, which were assessed by the child’s teacher, were

parental (mostly maternal) reports. A small percentage of mother’s and

father’s were rated as ‘over-concerned’ about their child’s education at

age 7 and were combined with those parents rated as ‘very interested’.




Because of the very small occurrence of low involvement responses in

both mother’s and father’s, the low/middle involvement responses werecombined, and two scales measuring father involvement and mother

involvement were computed from the sum of the four and the three

dichotomous items, respectively. Thus, the father involvement scale

ranged from 0 to 4 and the mother involvement scale from 0 to 3.

Individual Factors (Ages 16–42)

These included both early and contemporaneous factors. The early

factors were psychological maladjustment at age 16, educational attain-

ment by age 20, and self-reported physical health at age 23. The

contemporaneous (age 42) factors were employment status, partnerstatus, and religion. Psychological maladjustment in childhood was

assessed with the Rutter ‘A’ Health and Behaviour Checklist (Rutter

et al., 1970), which has been widely used to measure emotional and

behavioural well-being both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

At age 16 the full scale (31 items) was completed by the parent or

primary caregiver. Items were measured in 3-point scales where 0

denotes the absence of a problem and 2 very serious problem. Sam-

ple items include: the child has headaches, sleep problems, worries,

fidgety, destroys things, fights, and is unsettled. Cronbach’s alpha was

0.73. Educational attainment in this study was operationalised as in

Maughan et al. (1998): When cohort members were aged 20 resultsin all public examinations taken up to the time each cohort member

left school were collected from school and educational authorities.

Passes in each type and level of examination were combined to form

a 4-item scale of the highest qualification achieved which was as fol-

lows: (0) none, (1) <O-level equivalent grades, (2) one or more O-level

equivalent grades, (3) one or more A-level equivalent grades. Self-

reported physical health at age 23 (measured in a 4-point scale ranging

from (1) ‘excellent’ to (4) ‘poor’). Current (age 42) employment status

was assessed as ‘employed’ if the cohort member was full- or part-

time employed or self-employed, ‘unemployed’ if the cohort member

described themselves as unemployed/seeking work, and ‘outside thelabour force’ if the cohort member was retired, temporarily or perma-

nently sick/disabled, a student or in a government training scheme, and

looking after home/family. Current partner status was assessed by ask-

ing cohort members to state if they are partnered or not, and current

religion was assessed by asking cohort members to state if they belong



342 EIRINI FLOURI

TABLE I

The characteristics of the participants (N = 4371)

Variables N % of Mean SD

validcases

Poor psychological functioning, age 42 (12–45) 22.88 4.59

Psychological distress, age 42 (0–23) 3.36 3.38

Life satisfaction, age 42 (0–20) 15.48 3.15Father involvement, age 7 (0–4) 2.21 1.19

Mother involvement, age 7 (0–3) 1.92 0.90

Closeness to father, age 16 (1–5) 4.10 0.91

Closeness to mother, age 16 (1–5) 4.24 0.80

Female gender, birth 2168 49.6

Non-manual socio-economic group of parents (SEG), birth

3437 81.5

No mental illness in the family, age 7 3996 97.6

Domestic tension, age 7 130 3.4

Parental family throughout childhood

(7–16 years) is not intact

230 6.9

Financial difficulties in the family in

childhood (7–16 years)

473 15.1

Psychological maladjustment, age 16 (0–35) 5.01 4 .12

Educational qualifications by age 20 (0–3) 1.74 0.93

Poor self-rated physical health, age 23 (1–4) 1.62 0.64

Unemployed, age 42 84 1.9

Outside the labour force, age 42 499 11.4

Belongs to religion, age 42 3642 83.4Partnered, age 42 3529 81.1

to a religion or not. Because the aim of this study was to assess the role

of parental involvement and closeness to parents in SWB in adult life

only those cohort members with valid data in all these seven factors

(N = 4371) took part in the study. This was the initial sample size.

Table I describes the participants.

Statistical Analysis

Relationships between continuous variables were analysed by using

Pearson’s r correlations. Differences between group means were anal-

ysed by ANOVAs. All tests were two-tailed and an alpha level of

p < 0.05 was used. For the multivariate analyses the variables were

entered in subsequent hierarchical multiple linear regression analysesto

predict SWB at age 42. The results of multicollinearity checks showed




that the variance inflation factor (VIF) values for all variables were

well below the common cutoff threshold of 10, which suggests thatmulticollinearity did not unduly influence the least squares estimates

(Hair et al., 1995). In this study, the VIF values were between 1.036

and 1.660 in men’s final regression models (Models 2 of Table IV), and

between 1.019 and 1.625 in women’s final regression models (Models 2

of Table V).

RESULTS

Compared to men, women reported both higher levels of psychologi-

cal distress and poor psychological functioning (F (1, 4369) = 68.703,p < 0.001 and F (1, 4369) = 29.333, p < 0.001, respectively), and

higher levels of life satisfaction (F (1, 4369) = 28.426, p < 0.001).

There were no gender differences, however, in father involvement

(F (1, 4369) = 1.419, p > 0.05), mother involvement (F (1, 4369) =

0.792, p > 0.05), or closeness to mother (F (1, 4369) = 0.025, p >

0.05), although compared to girls boys in adolescence felt closer to their

father (F (1, 4369) = 6.912, p < 0.01). Table II shows the raw corre-

lations between the continuous measures used in the study separately

by gender. As can be seen in Table II for both men and women mother

involvement and father involvement were interrelated as were closeness

to father and closeness to mother. Psychological distress and psycholog-ical functioning were moderately correlated, and life satisfaction was

modestly related to poor psychological functioning and psychological

distress. Educational attainment was negatively related to poor psy-

chological functioning only in women. Life satisfaction was associated

with father involvement in women and with mother involvement in men.

In both men and women, mother involvement and father involvement

were unrelated to poor psychological functioning but were negatively

related to psychological distress, whereas closeness to father and close-

ness to mother were negatively related to poor psychological function-

ing and psychological distress,and positively related to life satisfaction.

Table III shows the results from the hierarchical multiple linear

regression analyses (with listwise omission of missing data) carried

out to predict SWB at age 42 in the whole sample, and Tables IV and

V show the results separately for men and women. As can be seen in

Table III, compared to men, women reported both higher levels of poor

psychological functioning and psychological distress, and higher levels



344

T A B L E I I

R a w c o r r e l a t i o n s ( P e

a r s o n ’ s r ) b e t w e e n t h e c o n t i n u o u s m e

a s u r e s u s e d i n t h e s t u d y

1 . P o o r

p s y c h o l o g i c a l

f u n c t i o n i n g ,

4 2

2 . P s y c h o l o g i c a l

d i s t r e s s ,

4 2

3 . L i f e

s a t i s f a c t i o n ,

4 2

4 . F a t h e r

i n v o l v e m e n t ,

7

5 . M o t h e r

i n v o l v e m e n t ,

7

6 . C l o s e n e s s

t o f a t h e r ,

1 6

7 . C l o s e

n e s s

t o m o t h e r ,

1 6

8 . P s y c h o l o g i c a l

m a l a d j u s t m e n t ,

1 6

9 . E d u c a t i o n a l

q u a l i fi c a t i o n s ,

2 0

1 0 . P o o r

p h y s i c a l

h e a l t h ,

2 3

M e n ( N =

2 2 0 3 )

1

—

2

0 . 5 6 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

—

3

− 0 . 3 4 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 3 4 5 ∗ ∗ ∗

—

4

− 0 . 0 2 2

− 0 . 0 5 5 ∗

0 . 0 3 3

—

5

− 0 . 0 1 8

− 0 . 0 5 7 ∗ ∗

0 . 0 6 0 ∗ ∗

0 . 6 1 1 ∗ ∗ ∗

—

6

− 0 . 0 7 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 0 9 1 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 0 7 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 0 9 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 0 6 6 ∗ ∗

—

7

− 0 . 0 7 1 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 0 6 2 ∗ ∗

0 . 0 8 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 0 4 6 ∗

0 . 0 5 1 ∗

0 . 4 9 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

—

8

0 . 0 8 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 2 0 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 2 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 3 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 0 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 1 8 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 1 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

—

9

0 . 0 3 5

− 0 . 1 0 8 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 0 6 8 ∗ ∗

0 . 3 0 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 3 5 9 ∗ ∗

0 . 0 7 1 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 0 4 8 ∗

− 0 . 2 0 5 ∗ ∗ ∗

—

1 0

0 . 0 9 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 1 4 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 5 5 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 0 5 8 ∗

− 0 . 1 0 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 2 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 0 9 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 1 0 1 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 1 1 ∗ ∗ ∗

—



345

W o m e n ( N =

2 1 6 8 )

1 .

—

2 .

0 . 5 6 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

—

3 .

− 0 . 3 7 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 3 5 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

—

4 .

− 0 . 0 3 8

− 0 . 0 8 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 0 5 5 ∗

—

5 .

− 0 . 0 2 3

− 0 . 0 9 9 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 0 3 9

0 . 6 1 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

—

6 .

− 0 . 0 8 2 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 1 2 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 0 8 8 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 1 2 9 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 0 6 8 ∗ ∗

—

7 .

− 0 . 1 1 9 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 1 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 1 3 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 0 5 0 ∗

0 . 0 5 9 ∗ ∗

0 . 4 1 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

—

8 .

0 . 1 4 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 2 2 1 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 0 9 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 0 9 9 ∗

∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 1 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 2 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

−

0 . 1 1 1 ∗ ∗ ∗

—

9 .

− 0 . 0 5 2 ∗

− 0 . 2 3 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 0 7 5 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 2 7 9 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 3 4 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 0 7 5 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 0 4 8 ∗

− 0 . 2 6 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

—

1 0 .

0 . 1 2 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 2 1 2 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 6 9 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 0 5 6 ∗

− 0 . 0 6 1 ∗ ∗

− 0 . 0 6 4 ∗ ∗

−

0 . 0 6 8 ∗ ∗

0 . 0 8 5 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 4 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

—

∗ p <

0 . 0 5 ; ∗ ∗ p <

0 . 0 1 ; ∗ ∗ ∗ p

<

0 . 0 0 1 .



346

T A B L E I I I

R e g r e s s i o n c o e f fi c i e n t s ( b )

w i t h s t a n d a r d e r r o r s ( S E b ) a n d t - s t a t i s t i c s ( t )

p r e d i c t i n g i n d i c a t o r s o f s u b j e c t i v e w e l l - b e i n g a t a g e 4 2 i n t h e w h o l e s a m p l e ( N =

2 1 8 9 )

P o o r

p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n i n g

P s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s t r e s s

L i f e s a t i s f a c t i o n

P r e d i c t o r s

M o d e l 1

M o d e l 2

M o d e l 1

M o d e l 2

M o d e l 1

M o d e l 2

C o n t r o l f a c t o r s

b ( S E b )

t

b ( S E b )

t

b ( S E b )

t

b ( S E b )

t

b ( S E b )

t

b ( S E b )

t

C o n s t a n t

2 3

. 5 1 2

( 2

. 1 9 1 )

1 0 . 7 3 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

2 5 . 3 7 1

( 2 . 2 9 1 )

1 1 . 0 7 2 ∗ ∗ ∗

4 . 5 7 1

( 1 . 5 4 4 )

2 . 9 6 1 ∗ ∗

5 . 8 5 7

( 1 . 6 1 6 )

3 . 6 2 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

1 6 . 5 4 2

( 1 . 4 2 2 )

1 1 . 6 3 5 ∗ ∗ ∗

1 4 . 3 7 0

( 1 . 4 8 0 )

9 . 7 0 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

F e m a l e g e n d e r

0

. 2 7 7

( 0

. 0 9 8 )

2 . 8 3 5 ∗ ∗

0 . 2 7 4

( 0 . 0 9 8 )

2 . 8 1 0 ∗ ∗

0 . 2 8 3

( 0 . 0 6 9 )

4 . 1 0 9 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 2 7 9

( 0 . 0 6 9 )

4 . 0 4 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 3 5 5

( 0 . 0 6 3 )

5 . 5 9 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 3 5 4

( 0 . 0 6 3 )

5 . 6 1 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

N o n - m a n u a l S E G o f

p a r e n t s , b i r t h

− 0

. 1 1 8

( 0

. 1 3 3 )

0 . 8 9 2

− 0 . 1 0 6

( 0 . 1 3 3 )

0 . 7 9 7

− 0 . 1 5 7

( 0 . 0 9 3 )

1 . 6 8 1

− 0 . 1 4 9

( 0 . 0 9 4 )

1 . 5 9 4

− 0 . 1 5 8

( 0 . 0 8 6 )

1 . 8 4 0 +

− 0 . 1 8 0

( 0 . 0 8 6 )

2 . 1 0 2 ∗

N o m e n t a l i l l n e s s i n

t h e f a m i l y , a g e 7

− 0

. 1 8 1

( 0

. 7 0 0 )

0 . 2 5 8

− 0 . 1 9 9

( 0 . 7 0 1 )

0 . 2 8 5

− 0 . 4 4 3

( 0 . 4 9 3 )

0 . 8 9 9

− 0 . 4 8 9

( 0 . 4 9 5 )

0 . 9 8 9

− 0 . 2 3 6

( 0 . 4 5 4 )

0 . 5 1 9

− 0 . 2 0 7

( 0 . 4 5 3 )

0 . 4 5 7

D o m e s t i c t e n s i o n ,

a g e 7

0

. 1 5 1

( 0

. 3 1 6 )

0 . 4 7 9

0 . 1 3 4

( 0 . 3 1 6 )

0 . 4 2 4

0 . 1 0 5

( 0 . 2 2 2 )

0 . 4 7 1

− 0 . 0 9 3

( 0 . 2 2 3 )

0 . 4 1 8

− 0 . 3 3 7

( 0 . 2 0 5 )

1 . 6 4 7

− 0 . 3 0 7

( 0 . 2 0 4 )

1 . 5 0 2

P a r e n t a l f a m i l y i s

n o t i n t a c t

( a g e 7 – 1 6 )

− 0

. 0 3 0

( 0

. 3 9 8 )

0 . 0 7 5

− 0 4 8

( 0 . 3 9 7 )

0 . 1 2 1

− 0 . 1 3 3

( 0 . 2 8 0 )

0 . 4 7 3

− 0 . 1 5 3 0

( 0 . 2 8 0 )

0 . 5 4 7

− 0 . 1 2 5

( 0 . 2 5 8 )

0 . 4 8 5

− 0 . 1 0 5

( 0 . 2 5 7 )

0 . 4 1 0

F i n a n c i a l d i f fi c u l t i e s

i n t h e p a r e n t a l

f a m i l y ( a g e 7 – 1 6 )

− 0

. 1 4 6

( 0

. 1 6 1 )

0 . 9 0 6

− 0 . 1 3 7

( 0 . 1 6 2 )

0 . 8 4 3

− 0 . 0 8 8

( 0 . 1 1 3 )

0 . 7 8 0

− 0 . 0 8 6

( 0 . 1 1 4 )

0 . 7 4 8

− 0 . 0 9 7

( 0 . 1 0 4 )

0 . 9 2 8

− 0 . 0 8 8

( 0 . 1 0 5 )

0 . 8 4 0

P s y c h o l o g i c a l


a g e 1 6

0

. 1 0 7

( 0

. 0 2 5 )

4 . 2 3 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 0 9 7

( 0 . 0 2 5 )

3 . 8 3 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 1 3 9

( 0 . 0 1 8 )

7 . 8 2 8 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 1 3 3

( 0 . 0 1 8 )

7 . 4 3 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 0 3 7

( 0 . 0 1 6 )

2 . 2 7 1 ∗

− 0 . 0 2 8

( 0 . 0 1 6 )

1 . 7 0 5 +

E d u c a t i o n a l

q u a l i fi c a t i o n s b y

a g e 2 0

0

. 1 3 0

( 0

. 1 1 4 )

1 . 1 4 1

0 . 1 4 7

( 0 . 1 1 8 )

1 . 2 4 8

− 0 . 3 1 6

( 0 . 0 8 0 )

3 . 9 3 8 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 3 1 3

( 0 . 0 8 3 )

3 . 7 5 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 0 3 8

( 0 . 0 7 4 )

0 . 5 1 5

− 0 . 0 8 0

( 0 . 0 7 6 )

1 . 0 4 4



347

S e l f - r a t e d p o o r

p h y s i c a l h e a l t h ,

a g e 2 3

0 . 6 4 3

(

0 . 1 5 6 )

4 . 1 3 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 6 0 2

( 0 . 1 5 6 )

3 . 8 5 2 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 7 1 7

( 0 . 1 1 0 )

6 . 5 3 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 6 8 6

( 0 . 1 1 0 )

6 . 2 2

3 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 6 8 3

( 0 . 1 0 1 )

6 . 7 6 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 6 3 3

( 0 . 1 0 1 )

6 . 2 6 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

U n e m p l o y e d , a g e 4 2

0 . 4 4 8

(

0 . 3 8 5 )

1 . 1 6 4

0 . 4 4 0

( 0 . 3 8 4 )

1 . 1 4 5

0 . 0 8 1

( 0 . 2 7 1 )

0 . 2 9 8

− 0 . 0 7 4

( 0 . 2 7 1 )

0 . 2 7

2

− 0 . 0 3 8

( 0 . 2 5 0 )

0 . 1 5 2

− 0 . 0 3 5

( 0 . 2 4 8 )

0 . 1 4 1

O u t s i d e t h e l a b o u r

f o r c e , a g e 4 2

1 . 0 2 0

(

0 . 1 6 6 )

6 . 1 3 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

1 . 0 3 6

( 0 . 1 6 6 )

6 . 2 4 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 8 3 6

( 0 . 1 1 7 )

7 . 1 3 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 8 4 5

( 0 . 1 1 7 )

7 . 2 1

1 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 4 1 7

( 0 . 1 0 8 )

3 . 8 6 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 4 3 5

( 0 . 1 0 7 )

4 . 0 5 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

B e l o n g s t o r e l i g i o n ,

a g e 4 2

−

0 . 3 7 5

(

0 . 1 3 1 )

2 . 8 7 0 ∗ ∗

− 0 . 3 5 5

( 0 . 1 3 1 )

2 . 7 1 5 ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 2 4

( 0 . 0 9 2 )

1 . 3 5 0

− 0 . 1 1 1

( 0 . 0 9 2 )

1 . 2 0

8

0 . 1 7 3

( 0 . 0 8 5 )

2 . 0 3 9 ∗

0 . 1 5 8

( 0 . 0 8 4 )

1 . 8 7 5 +

P a r t n e r e d , a g e 4 2

−

0 . 4 2 1

(

0 . 1 2 4 )

3 . 3 9 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 4 2 5

( 0 . 1 2 4 )

3 . 4 2 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 2 2 5

( 0 . 0 8 7 )

2 . 5 7 6 ∗ ∗

− 0 . 2 2 4

( 0 . 0 8 7 )

2 . 5 6

4 ∗ ∗

0 . 6 8 2

( 0 . 0 8 1 )

8 . 4 7 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 6 8 1

( 0 . 0 8 0 )

8 . 5 0 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

P a r e n t i n g

F a t h e r i n v o l v e m e n t ,

a g e 7

− 0 . 1 2 7

( 0 . 1 0 2 )

1 . 2 4 6

− 0 . 0 0 4

( 0 . 0 7 2 )

0 . 0 6

1

0 . 0 4 4

( 0 . 0 6 6 )

0 . 6 6 3

M o t h e r

i n v o l v e m e n t , a g e 7

0 . 0 9 3

( 0 . 1 3 8 )

0 . 6 7 1

− 0 . 0 1 4

( 0 . 0 9 7 )

0 . 1 4

4

0 . 0 8 7

( 0 . 0 8 9 )

0 . 9 7 4

C l o s e n e s s t o f a t h e r ,

a g e 1 6

0 . 0 2 9

( 0 . 1 2 2 )

0 . 2 3 3

− 0 . 1 0 5

( 0 . 0 8 6 )

1 . 2 1

0

0 . 0 0 4

( 0 . 0 7 9 )

0 . 0 5 4

C l o s e n e s s t o

m o t h e r , a g e 1 6

− 0 . 4 1 0

( 0 . 1 3 9 )

2 . 9 4 0 ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 5 7

( 0 . 0 9 8 )

1 . 5 9

9

0 . 4 1 8

( 0 . 0 9 0 )

4 . 6 4 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

R 2 a d j

0 . 0 4 9

0 . 0 5 3

0 . 1 1 0

0 . 1 1 1

0 . 0 7 9

0 . 0 9 0

F ( d f 1 , d f 2 )

9 . 6 9 5 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1

3 , 2 1 7 5 )

8 . 1 4 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 7 , 2 1 7 1 )

2 1 . 7 4 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 3 , 2 1 7 5 )

1 7 . 0 8 9 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 7 , 2 1 7 1 )

1 5 . 3 8 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 3 , 2 1 7 5 )

1 3 . 7 9 1 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 7 , 2 1 7 1 )

F c h a n g e ( d f 1 , d f 2 )

9 . 6 9 5 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1

3 , 2 1 7 5 )

2 . 9 8 8 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 4 , 2 1 7 1 ) ∗

2 1 . 7 4 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 3 , 2 1 7 5 )

1 . 8 4 9

( 4 , 2 1 7 1 )

1 5 . 3 8 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 3 , 2 1 7 5 )

7 . 9 8 5 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 4 , 2 1 7 1 )

+ p <

0 . 1 0 ; ∗ p <

0 . 0 5 ; ∗ ∗ p

<

0 . 0 1 ; ∗ ∗ ∗ p <

0 . 0 0 1 .



348

T A B L E I V

R e g r e s s i o n c o e f fi c i e n t s ( b ) w i t h s t a n d a r d e r r o r s ( S E b ) a n d t - s t a t i s t i c s ( t ) p r e d i c t i n g i n d i c a t o r s o f s u b j e c t i v e w e l l - b e i n g

a t a g e 4 2 i n m e n ( N =

1 0 6 8 )

P o o

r p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n i n g



P r e d i c t o r s

M o d e l 1

M o d e l 2

M o d e l 1

M o d e l 2

M o d e l 1

M o d e l 2


b ( S

E b )

t

b ( S E b )

t

b ( S E b )

t

b ( S E b )

t

b ( S E b )

t

b ( S E b )

t

C o n s t a n t

2

4 . 0 2 0

( 3 . 2 8 1 )

7 . 3 2 2 ∗ ∗ ∗

2 6 . 6 3 8

( 3 . 4 4 5 )

7 . 7 3 2 ∗ ∗ ∗

6 . 1 2 2

( 2 . 2 9 2 )

2 . 6 7 1 ∗ ∗

7 . 6 1 9

( 2 . 4 1 3 )

3 . 1 5 8 ∗ ∗

1 7 . 1 2 2

( 2 . 1 4 3 )

7 . 9 9 1 ∗ ∗ ∗

1 4 . 7 7 5

( 2 . 2 4 3 )

6 . 5 8 7 ∗ ∗ ∗



−

0 . 1 8 4

( 0 . 1 8 7 )

0 . 9 8 3

− 0 . 1 3 6

( 0 . 1 8 7 )

0 . 7 2 6

− 0 . 1 9 8

( 0 . 1 3 1 )

1 . 5 1 4

− 0 . 1 8 1

( 0 . 1 3 1 )

1 . 3 8 6

− 0 . 2 5 0

( 0 . 1 2 2 )

2 . 0 5 1 ∗

− 0 . 2 9 2

( 0 . 1 2 2 )

2 . 3 9 7 ∗



0 . 2 9 6

( 1 . 0 5 3 )

0 . 2 8 1

0 . 2 8 1

( 1 . 0 5 4 )

0 . 2 6 6

− 0 . 6 7 4

( 0 . 7 3 6 )

0 . 9 1 6

− 0 . 7 2 4

( 0 . 7 3 8 )

0 . 9 8 0

− 0 . 6 7 2

( 0 . 6 8 8 )

0 . 9 7 6

− 0 . 5 9 5

( 0 . 6 8 6 )

0 . 8 6 8


a g e 7

0 . 5 5 1

( 0 . 5 3 1 )

1 . 0 3 8

0 . 4 5 1

( 0 . 5 3 1 )

0 . 8 4 9

0 . 0 6 8

( 0 . 3 7 1 )

0 . 1 8 4

0 . 0 4 5

( 0 . 3 7 2 )

0 . 1 2 0

− 0 . 1 7 8

( 0 . 3 4 7 )

0 . 5 1 3

− 0 . 0 6 4

( 0 . 3 4 6 )

0 . 1 8 5


n o t i n t a c t

( a g e 7 – 1 6 )

0 . 0 8 4

( 0 . 5 5 1 )

0 . 1 5 3

0 . 0 6 9

( 0 . 5 5 0 )

0 . 1 2 5

0 . 1 7 8

( 0 . 3 8 5 )

0 . 4 6 3

0 . 1 4 5

( 0 . 3 8 5 )

0 . 3 7 5

− 0 . 3 6 8

( 0 . 3 6 0 )

1 . 0 2 4

− 0 . 3 6 6

( 0 . 3 5 8 )

1 . 0 2 4



f a m i l y

( a g e 7 – 1 6 )

−

0 . 1 0 3

( 0 . 2 3 7 )

0 . 4 3 4

− 0 . 1 5 7

( 0 . 2 3 9 )

0 . 6 6 0

− 0 . 0 8 1

( 0 . 1 6 5 )

0 . 4 9 3

− 0 . 0 9 7

( 0 . 1 6 7 )

0 . 5 8 0

− 0 . 0 0 2

( 0 . 1 5 4 )

0 . 0 1 1

0 . 0 6 3

( 0 . 1 5 5 )

0 . 4 0 5



a g e 1 6

0 . 0 6 4

( 0 . 0 3 7 )

1 . 7 2 8 +

0 . 0 5 0

( 0 . 0 3 7 )

1 . 3 3 9

0 . 1 1 2

( 0 . 0 2 6 )

4 . 3 6 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 1 0 3

( 0 . 0 2 6 )

3 . 9 6 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 0 3 6

( 0 . 0 2 4 )

1 . 5 1 0

− 0 . 0 3 0

( 0 . 0 2 4 )

1 . 2 4 0



a g e 2 0

0 . 2 1 1

( 0 . 1 5 7 )

1 . 3 4 6

0 . 2 9 7

( 0 . 1 6 3 )

1 . 8 2 7 +

− 0 . 0 9 4

( 0 . 1 0 9 )

0 . 8 6 4

− 0 . 0 7 2

( 0 . 1 1 4 )

0 . 6 3 0

0 . 0 3 4

( 0 . 1 0 2 )

0 . 3 2 8

− 0 . 0 4 6

( 0 . 1 0 6 )

0 . 4 3 2



349



a g e 2 3

0 . 4 3 5

( 0 . 2 2 6 )

1 . 9 2 3 ∗

0 . 3 3 8

( 0 . 2 2 8 )

1 . 4 8 4

0 . 4 8 3

( 0 . 1 5 8 )

3 . 0 5 6 ∗ ∗

0 . 4 3 1

( 0 . 1 6 0 )

2 . 6 9 9 ∗ ∗

− 0 . 6 3 1

( 0 . 1 4 8 )

4 . 2 7 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 5 4 9

( 0 . 1 4 8 )

3 . 7 0 1 ∗ ∗ ∗


0 . 6 7 8

( 0 . 4 6 2 )

1 . 4 6 7

0 . 6 8 9

( 0 . 4 6 1 )

1 . 4 9 4

0 . 3 1 9

( 0 . 3 2 3 )

0 . 9 8 8

0 . 3 2 2

( 0 . 3 2 3 )

0 . 9 9 9

− 0 . 1 7 7

( 0 . 3 0 2 )

0 . 5 8 5

− 0 . 1 8 9

( 0 . 3 0 0 )

0 . 6 3 1


f o r c e , a g e 4 2

2 . 6 1 9

( 0 . 3 4 0 )

7 . 6 9 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

2 . 6 6 6

( 0 . 3 4 0 )

7 . 8 4 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

2 . 3 2 9

( 0 . 2 3 8 )

9 . 7 9 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

2 . 3 5 2

( 0 . 2 3 8 )

9 . 8 8 1 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 1 . 0 8 6

( 0 . 2 2 2 )

4 . 8 8 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 1 . 1 3 4

( 0 . 2 2 1 )

5 . 1 2 4 ∗ ∗ ∗


a g e 4 2

−

0 . 5 7 0

( 0 . 1 7 2 )

3 . 3 1 1 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 5 5 9

( 0 . 1 7 2 )

3 . 2 4 8 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 0 9

( 0 . 1 2 0 )

0 . 9 0 6

− 0 . 0 9 6

( 0 . 1 2 1 )

0 . 7 9 4

0 . 2 8 8

( 0 . 1 1 3 )

2 . 5 5 8 ∗ ∗

0 . 2 9 2

( 0 . 1 1 2 )

2 . 5 9 9 ∗ ∗


0 . 1 1 4

( 0 . 1 7 4 )

0 . 6 5 5

0 . 0 7 7

( 0 . 1 7 4 )

0 . 4 4 5

0 . 1 0 9

( 0 . 1 2 1 )

0 . 8 9 6

0 . 0 9 0

( 0 . 1 2 2 )

0 . 7 4 3

0 . 4 9 8

( 0 . 1 1 4 )

4 . 3 8 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 5 1 7

( 0 . 1 1 3 )

4 . 5 7 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

P a r e n t i n g


a g e 7

− 0 . 2 5 3

( 0 . 1 4 7 )

1 . 7 2 8 +

− 0 . 1 1 7

( 0 . 1 0 3 )

1 . 1 3 5

0 . 0 3 0

( 0 . 0 9 5 )

0 . 3 1 2

M o t h e r


− 0 . 0 1 8

( 0 . 1 9 5 )

0 . 0 9 4

0 . 0 7 8

( 0 . 1 3 7 )

0 . 5 6 8

0 . 2 5 2

( 0 . 1 2 7 )

1 . 9 8 3 ∗


a g e 1 6

− 0 . 1 1 3

( 0 . 1 8 8 )

0 . 6 0 2

− 0 . 2 0 8

( 0 . 1 3 2 )

1 . 5 7 6

0 . 0 5 2

( 0 . 1 2 2 )

0 . 4 2 1


m o t h e r , a g e 1 6

− 0 . 3 5 8

( 0 . 2 1 1 )

1 . 6 9 4 +

− 0 . 0 6 5

( 0 . 1 4 8 )

0 . 4 4 1

0 . 3 4 0

( 0 . 1 3 8 )

2 . 4 7 0 ∗

R 2 a d j

0 . 0 6 6

0 . 0 7 3

0 . 1 2 0

0 . 1 2 2

0 . 0 7 8

0 . 0 9 0

F ( d f 1 , d f 2 )

7 . 0 3 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1

2 , 1 0 5 5 )

6 . 2 1 5 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 6 , 1 0 5 1 )

1 3 . 0 8 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 2 , 1 0 5 5 )

1 0 . 2 2 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 6 , 1 0 5 1 )

8 . 5 1 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 2 , 1 0 5 5 )

7 . 6 0 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 6 , 1 0 5 1 )

F c h a n g e ( d f 1 , d f 2 )

7 . 0 3 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1

2 , 1 0 5 5 )

2 . 8 0 1 ∗

( 4 , 1 0 5 1 )

1 3 . 0 8 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 2 , 1 0 5 5 )

1 . 5 8 4

( 4 , 1 0 5 1 )

8 . 5 1 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 2 , 1 0 5 5 )

4 . 5 0 9 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 4 , 1 0 5 1 )

+ p <

0 . 1 0 ; ∗ p <

0 . 0 5 ; ∗ ∗ p

<

0 . 0 1 ; ∗ ∗ ∗ p <

0 . 0 0 1 .



350

T A B L E V

R e g r e s s i o n c o e f fi c i e n t s ( b ) w i t h s t a n d a r d e r r o r s ( S E b ) a n d t - s t a t i s t i c s ( t ) p r e d i c t i n g i n d i c a t o r s o f s u b j e c t i v e w e l l - b e i n g

a t a g e 4 2 i n w o m e n ( N =

1 1 2 1 )

P o o

r p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n i n g



P r e d i c t o r s

M o d e l 1

M o d e l 2

M o d e l 1

M o d e l 2

M o d e l 1

M o d e l 2


b ( S

E b )

t

b ( S E b )

t

b ( S E b )

t

b ( S E b )

t

b ( S E b )

t

b ( S E b )

t

C o n s t a n t

2

4 . 5 8 9

( 2 . 9 3 0 )

2 . 9 3 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

2 6 . 1 3 2

( 3 . 0 5 1 )

8 . 5 6 5 ∗ ∗ ∗

4 . 5 4 9

( 2 . 0 6 0 )

2 . 2 0 8 ∗

5 . 9 2 0

( 2 . 1 4 7 )

2 . 7 5 7 ∗ ∗

1 5 . 6 9 6

( 1 . 9 1 5 )

8 . 1 9 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

1 3 . 4 5 0

( 1 . 9 8 2 )

6 . 7 8 5 ∗ ∗ ∗



−

0 . 0 5 8

( 0 . 1 8 6 )

0 . 3 1 2

− 0 . 0 9 5

( 0 . 1 8 7 )

0 . 5 0 6

− 0 . 1 0 5

( 0 . 1 3 1 )

0 . 8 0 3

− 0 . 1 1 1

( 0 . 1 3 1 )

0 . 8 4 1

− 0 . 0 7 0

( 0 . 1 2 1 )

0 . 5 8 0

− 0 . 0 6 2

( 0 . 1 2 1 )

0 . 5 1 0



−

0 . 5 8 5

( 0 . 9 2 8 )

0 . 6 3 1

− 0 . 7 5 9

( 0 . 9 3 2 )

0 . 8 1 5

− 0 . 2 4 6

( 0 . 6 5 2 )

0 . 3 7 7

− 0 . 3 4 3

( 0 . 6 5 6 )

0 . 5 2 3

0 . 1 8 3

( 0 . 6 0 6 )

0 . 3 0 3

0 . 2 5 8

( 0 . 6 0 5 )

0 . 4 2 7


a g e 7

−

0 . 1 0 2

( 0 . 3 9 2 )

0 . 2 6 1

− 0 . 0 5 8

( 0 . 3 9 3 )

0 . 1 4 8

0 . 0 8 6

( 0 . 2 7 6 )

0 . 3 1 3

0 . 1 0 5

( 0 . 2 7 6 )

0 . 3 8 0

− 0 . 3 5 5

( 0 . 2 5 6 )

1 . 3 8 5

− 0 . 3 6 4

( 0 . 2 5 5 )

1 . 4 2 7


n o t i n t a c t

( a g e 7 – 1 6 )

−

0 . 2 0 6

( 0 . 5 6 8 )

0 . 3 6 3

− 0 . 2 1 3

( 0 . 5 6 7 )

0 . 3 7 5

− 0 . 5 2 6

( 0 . 3 9 9 )

1 . 3 1 7

− 0 . 5 4 1

( 0 . 3 9 9 )

1 . 3 5 4

0 . 1 3 4

( 0 . 3 7 1 )

0 . 3 6 0

0 . 1 5 9

( 0 . 3 6 9 )

0 . 4 3 3



f a m i l y ( a g e 7 – 1 6 )

−

0 . 1 3 9

( 0 . 2 1 8 )

0 . 6 3 9

− 0 . 0 8 7

( 0 . 2 1 9 )

0 . 3 9 5

− 0 . 0 8 7

( 0 . 1 5 3 )

0 . 5 6 8

− 0 . 0 6 7

( 0 . 1 5 4 )

0 . 4 3 7

− 0 . 1 7 7

( 0 . 1 4 2 )

1 . 2 4 3

− 0 . 2 0 6

( 0 . 1 4 2 )

1 . 4 4 9



a g e 1 6

0 . 1 4 0

( 0 . 0 3 4 )

4 . 0 9 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 1 3 3

( 0 . 0 3 4 )

3 . 8 5 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 1 5 6

( 0 . 0 2 4 )

6 . 4 8 1 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 1 4 9

( 0 . 0 2 4 )

6 . 1 6 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 0 4 4

( 0 . 0 2 2 )

1 . 9 4 9 ∗

− 0 . 0 3 3

( 0 . 0 2 2 )

1 . 4 6 6



a g e 2 0

0 . 0 6 3

( 0 . 1 6 4 )

0 . 3 8 7

0 . 0 1 4

( 0 . 1 6 9 )

0 . 0 8 2

− 0 . 5 3 5

( 0 . 1 1 5 )

4 . 6 4 5 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 5 4 8

( 0 . 1 1 9 )

4 . 6 0 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 1 1 6

( 0 . 1 0 7 )

1 . 0 8 1

− 0 . 1 2 2

( 0 . 1 1 0 )

1 . 1 0 7



351



a g e 2 3

0 . 7 5 5

( 0 . 2 1 3 )

3 . 5 4 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 7 2 5

( 0 . 2 1 4 )

3 . 3 9 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 8 5 3

( 0 . 1 5 0 )

5 . 6 9 1 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 8 2 2

( 0 . 1 5 0 )

5 . 4 7 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 6 7 6

( 0 . 1 3 9 )

4 . 8 5 5 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 6 3 4

( 0 . 1 3 9 )

4 . 5 6 9 ∗ ∗ ∗


0 . 5 6 0

( 0 . 6 7 9 )

0 . 8 2 5

0 . 4 2 3

( 0 . 6 8 1 )

0 . 6 2 2

0 . 0 2 8

( 0 . 4 7 8 )

0 . 0 6 0

− 0 . 0 4 5

( 0 . 4 7 9 )

1 . 0 9 5

0 . 1 1 5

( 0 . 4 4 4 )

0 . 2 5 9

0 . 2 2 8

( 0 . 4 4 2 )

0 . 5 1 6


f o r c e , a g e 4 2

0 . 5 6 2

( 0 . 1 9 0 )

2 . 9 6 0 ∗ ∗

0 . 5 6 6

( 0 . 1 9 0 )

2 . 9 8 3 ∗ ∗

0 . 4 0 5

( 0 . 1 3 4 )

3 . 0 3 7 ∗ ∗

0 . 4 0 7

( 0 . 1 3 3 )

3 . 0 4 7 ∗ ∗

− 0 . 2 2 6

( 0 . 1 2 4 )

1 . 8 2 1 +

− 0 . 2 3 4

( 0 . 1 2 3 )

1 . 9 0 2 +


a g e 4 2

−

0 . 1 0 8

( 0 . 1 9 7 )

0 . 5 4 7

− 0 . 0 9 6

( 0 . 1 9 7 )

0 . 4 8 8

− 0 . 1 1 8

( 0 . 1 3 9 )

0 . 8 5 0

− 0 . 1 0 8

( 0 . 1 3 9 )

0 . 7 7 7

0 . 0 2 8

( 0 . 1 2 9 )

0 . 2 1 8

0 . 0 0 5

( 0 . 1 2 8 )

0 . 0 3 9


−

0 . 9 1 3

( 0 . 1 7 6 )

5 . 2 0 3 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 9 3 6

( 0 . 1 7 6 )

5 . 3 0 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 4 9 7

( 0 . 1 2 3 )

4 . 0 2 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

− 0 . 4 9 8

( 0 . 1 2 4 )

4 . 0 0 9 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 8 3 7

( 0 . 1 1 5 )

7 . 2 9 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 8 3 0

( 0 . 1 1 5 )

7 . 2 4 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

P a r e n t i n g


a g e 7

0 . 0 0 1

( 0 . 1 4 0 )

0 . 0 1 1

0 . 1 0 8

( 0 . 0 9 9 )

1 . 0 9 5

0 . 0 4 1

( 0 . 0 9 1 )

0 . 4 5 2

M o t h e r


0 . 2 2 5

( 0 . 1 9 3 )

1 . 1 6 7

− 0 . 0 4 0

( 0 . 1 3 6 )

0 . 2 9 8

− 0 . 0 6 5

( 0 . 1 2 5 )

0 . 5 2 1


a g e 1 6

0 . 1 2 9

( 0 . 1 6 1 )

0 . 8 0 4

− 0 . 0 5 2

( 0 . 1 1 3 )

0 . 4 5 8

− 0 . 0 3 5

( 0 . 1 0 4 )

0 . 3 3 2


m o t h e r , a g e 1 6

− 0 . 4 3 3

( 0 . 1 8 4 )

2 . 3 4 7 ∗

− 0 . 2 2 6

( 0 . 1 3 0 )

1 . 7 3 8 +

0 . 5 0 7

( 0 . 1 2 0 )

4 . 3 3 2 ∗ ∗ ∗

R 2 a d j

0 . 0 5 4

0 . 0 5 6

0 . 1 2 7

0 . 1 2 8

0 . 0 6 8

0 . 0 8 2

F ( d f 1 , d f 2 )

6 . 3 0 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1

2 , 1 1 0 8 )

5 . 1 8 7 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 6 , 1 1 0 4 )

1 4 . 5 4 9 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 2 , 1 1 0 8 )

1 1 . 2 8 1 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 6 , 1 1 0 4 )

7 . 8 4 9 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 2 , 1 1 0 8 )

7 . 2 4 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 6 , 1 1 0 4 )

F c h a n g e ( d f 1 , d f 2 )

6 . 3 0 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1

2 , 1 1 0 8 )

1 . 7 7 5

( 4 , 1 1 0 4 )

1 4 . 5 4 9 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 2 , 1 1 0 8 )

1 . 4 1 3

( 4 , 1 1 0 4 )

7 . 8 4 9 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 1 2 , 1 1 0 8 )

5 . 0 8 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

( 4 , 1 1 0 4 )

+ p <

0 . 1 0 ; ∗ p <

0 . 0 5 ; ∗ ∗ p

<

0 . 0 1 ; ∗ ∗ ∗ p <

0 . 0 0 1 .



352 EIRINI FLOURI

of life satisfaction. Poor self-rated physical health, being outside the

labour force, and being unpartnered were associated with lower levelsof life satisfaction and higher levels of psychological distress and poor

psychological functioning. Parenting improved the poor psychological

functioning and the life satisfaction models, but not the psychologi-

cal distress model. Closeness to mother at age 16 predicted both life

satisfaction and psychological functioning at age 42. The amount of

variance in SWB explained by the variables in the final models of

Table III ranged from 5% to 11%.

As can be seen in Table IV which predicts SWB in men, as a whole,

parenting significantly improved the regression models for psychologi-

cal functioning and life satisfaction but not the model for psychologicaldistress. Father involvement at age 7 and closeness to mother at age 16

marginally failed to be negatively related to psychological functioning

at age 42, and mother involvement and closeness to mother were signif-

icantly related to life satisfaction at age 42. None of the four parenting

variables were related to psychological distress, however.

As can be seen in the second models of these indicators of SWB, sev-

eral variables mediated the relationship between parenting and SWB.

A notable decrease (e.g. >10%) in the coefficient b estimate describ-

ing the relationship between one of the control variables and SWB

after parenting variables are added to the model would support the

hypothesis of mediation. As can be seen in Table IV, psychologicalmaladjustment at age 16, self-reported physical health at age 23, and

being partnered at age 42 mediated the relationship between parent-

ing and psychological functioning at age 42 (when the four parenting

variables were introduced in the model the regression coefficients for

these variables decreased by 21.9%, 22.3%, and 32.5%, respectively).

In fact, self-reported physical health completely mediated the rela-

tionship between parenting and psychological functioning at age 42.

Whereas before entering the parenting variables poor self-reported

physical health predicted poor psychological functioning (t = 1.923,

df : 1055, p < 0.05), when the parenting variables were entered in the

model self-reported physical health became insignificant (t = 1.484,df : 1051, p > 0.05) suggesting that parenting is related to later SWB

by affecting self-reported physical health. Similarly, educational attain-

ment, self-reported physical health at age 23, religiosity at age 42, and

being partnered at age 42 mediated the relationship between parent-

ing and psychological distress at age 42 (when the parenting variables




cluster was entered in the model the regression coefficients for these

variables decreased by 23.4%, 10.8%, 11.9%, and 17.4%, respectively).Finally, psychological maladjustment at age 16 and self-reported phys-

ical health at age 23 mediated the relationship between parenting and

life satisfaction at age 42 (their regression coefficients decreased by

16.7% and 13%, respectively when parenting was introduced in the

regression equation).

As can be seen in Table V which shows the regression results for

women, although as a whole parenting did not improve the regression

model for either psychological functioning or psychological distress

later in life, closeness to mother at age 16 was significantly related to

low GHQ scores, and was marginally related to low Malaise scoresat age 42. Several variables mediated the effect of parenting in psy-

chological functioning. In particular, when parenting was entered in

the psychological functioning model the regression coefficients for

financial difficulties throughout childhood, educational attainment by

age 20, being unemployed at age 42, and religiosity at age 42 decreased

by 37.4%, 77.8%, 24.5%, and 11.1%, respectively. When parenting

was entered in the psychological distress model only the regression

coefficient for financial difficulties throughout childhood decreased

substantially (by 23%). On the whole, parenting significantly improved

the regression model for life satisfaction, however. Closeness to mother

at age 16, in particular, was positively related to life satisfaction atage 42. Two variables mediated the relationship between parenting

and life satisfaction, namely psychological maladjustment at age 16

and religiosity at age 42 (the regression coefficient for psychologi-

cal maladjustment decreased by 25% and the regression coefficient

for religiosity decreased by 82.1% after the parenting variables were

entered into the regression model). In fact, psychological maladjust-

ment completely mediated the relationship between parenting and life

satisfaction (psychological maladjustment was negatively associated

with life satisfaction in Model 1 which showed the regression results

before parenting was introduced in the regression equation, but ceased

to be significant when parenting was introduced in Model 2).

Non-Response Bias Analysis Results

Non-response bias analyses were undertaken to see if those missing

biased the results in any way. When index variables representing miss-

ing information on parental social class, family structure, domestic



354 EIRINI FLOURI

tension, andill mental health in the family, for instance,were introduced

into the men’s and women’s regression models predicting poor psy-chological functioning, psychological distress and life satisfaction

alongside parental social class, family structure, domestic tension, and

ill mental health in the family, it was found that in both men and women

those with complete data on parental social class reported lower psy-

chological distress than those with missing data. In women but not in

men those with complete data on parental family structure and parental

mental health reported lower psychological distress than those with

missing data. Finally, men with complete data on domestic tension

reported lower psychological distress than men with missing data on

domestic tension, and women with complete data on domestic ten-sion reported higher life satisfaction than women with missing data on

domestic tension.

DISCUSSION

This study explored the long-term effect of parents’ involvement and

quality of parent–child relationships in later SWB. Although closeness

to father and father involvement were not related to later SWB at the

multivariate level in either men or women, mother involvement at age 7

was related to life satisfaction at age 42 in men, and closeness to mother

at age 16 was related to positive psychological functioning at age 42

in women. In addition, closeness to mother at age 16 predicted life

satisfaction at age 42 in both men and women. However, only a very

modest amount of the variance in subjective well-being (ranging from

6% to 13%) was explained by the variables in the models. In fact, the

unique contribution of the parenting variables in the variance in SWB

never exceeded 1%.

Perhaps more importantly, however, this study identified several

pathways of influence through which parenting in childhood might

be related to SWB in midadulthood. In particular, parenting predicted

subjective psychological functioning in midadulthood in men by pro-moting subjective physical health in early adulthood, and it predicted

life satisfaction in midadulthood in women by promoting psycholog-

ical adjustment in adolescence. Parenting also partially mediated the

effects of other correlates of adult SWB. In men, for instance, par-

enting influenced psychological functioning via its effect in lowering



356 EIRINI FLOURI

REFERENCES

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, pp. 1031–1042.

Angoff, W.H.: 1988, ‘The nature–nurture debate, aptitudes and group differences’,

American Psychologist 43, pp. 713–720.

Argyle, M.: 1999, ‘Causes and correlates of happiness’, in D. Kahneman, E. Diener

and N. Schwarz (eds), Well-being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology

(Sage, New York) pp. 353–373.

Belt, W. and R.R. Abidin: 1996, ‘The relation of childhood abuse and early parenting

experiences to current marital quality in a nonclinical sample’, Child Abuse &

Neglect 20, pp. 1019–1030.

Bronfenbrenner, U.: 1979, The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments byNature and Design (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).

Buchanan, A., J. Ten Brinke and E. Flouri: 2000, ‘Parental background, social

disadvantage, public ‘care’, and psychological problems in adolescence and adult-

hood’, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 39,

pp. 1415–1423.

Coleman, J.S.: 1988, ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’, American

Journal of Sociology 94 (Suppl. S), pp. S95–S120.

Compas, B.: 1995, ‘Promoting successful coping during adolescence’, in M. Rutter

(ed.), Psychosocial Disturbances in Young People: Challenges for Prevention

(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp. 247–273.

Cox, A., M. Rutter, B. Yule and D. Quinton: 1977, ‘Bias resulting from missing

information: Some epidemiological findings’, Journal of Epidemiology and

Community Health 31, pp. 131–136.

DeNeve, K.: 1999, ‘Happy as an extraverted clam? The role of personality for sub-

jective well-being’, Current Directions in Psychological Science 8, pp. 141–144.

Diener, E., S. Oishi and R.E. Lucas: 2003, ‘Personality, culture, and subjective well-

being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life’, Annual Review of Psychology

54, pp. 05.1–05.23.

Diener, E., J.J. Sapyta and E. Suh: 1998, ‘Subjective well-being is essential to

well-being’, Psychological Inquiry 9, pp. 33–37.

Diener, E., E.M. Suh, R.E. Lucas and H.L. Smith: 1999, ‘Subjective well-being:

Three decades of progress’, Psychological Bulletin 125, pp. 276–302.

Downey, G. and J.C. Coyne: 1990, ‘Children of depressed parents: An integrative

review’, Psychological Bulletin 108, pp. 50–76.

Farrington, D.: 1995, ‘The development of offending and antisocial behaviour fromchildhood: Key findings from the Cambridge study of delinquent development’,

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 36, pp. 929–964.

Flouri, E. and A. Buchanan: 2002a, ‘Childhood predictors of labor force participation

in adult life’, Journal of Family and Economic Issues 23, pp. 101–120.

Flouri, E. and A. Buchanan: 2002b, ‘What predicts good relationships with parents

in adolescence and partners in adult life: Findings from the 1958 British birth

cohort’, Journal of Family Psychology 16, pp. 186–198.




Foley, D.L. A. Pickles, E. Simonoff, H.H. Maes, J.L. Silberg, J.K. Hewitt and

L.J. Eaves: 2001, ‘Parental concordance and comorbidity for psychiatric disorderand associate risks for current psychiatric symptoms and disorders in a commu-

nity sample of juvenile twins’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 42,

pp. 381–394.

Franz, C.E., D.C. McClelland and J. Weinberger: 1991, ‘Childhood antecedents

of conventional social accomplishment in midlife adults: A 36-year prospective

study’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60, pp. 586–595.

Fromm, E.: 1949, Man for Himself: An Enquiry into the Psychology of Ethics

(Routledge and Kegan Paul, London).

Goldberg,D.P.: 1978,Manual of the General Health Questionnaire (NFER-NELSON,

Windsor).

Goldberg, D.P. and P. Williams: 1988, A User’s Guide to the General Health

Questionnaire (NFER-NELSON, Windsor).Hair, J.F. Jr., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham and W.C. Black: 1995, Multivariate Data

Analysis with Readings (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey).

Hartog, J. and H. Oosterbeek: 1998, ‘Health, wealth and happiness: Why pursue a

higher education’, Economics of Education Review 17, pp. 245–256.

Haveman R. and B. Wolfe: 1995, ‘The determinants of children’s attainments.

A review of methods and findings’, Journal of Economic Literature 33,

pp. 1829–1878.

Kovacs M. and B. Devlin: 1998, ‘Internalizing disorders in childhood’, Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry 39, pp. 147–163.

Lykken, D. and A. Tellegen: 1996, ‘Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon’,

Psychological Science 7, pp. 186–189.

Maccoby, E.E.: 2000, ‘Parenting and its effects on children: On reading and

misreading behavior genetics’, Annual Review of Psychology 51, pp. 1–27.

Mahoney, A., K.I. Pargament, N. Tarakeshwar and A.B. Swank: 2001, ‘Religion in

the home in the 1980s and 1990s: A meta-analytic review and conceptual analysis

of links between religion, marriage, and parenting’, Journal of Family Psychology

15, pp. 559–596.

Matthews, S., C. Power and S.A. Stansfeld: 2001, ‘Psychological distress and work

and home roles: A focus on socio-economic differences in distress’, Psychological

Medicine 31, pp. 725–736.

Montgomery, S.M., A.G.C. Ehlin, A. Ekbom and A.J. Wakefield: 2002, ‘Pertussis

infection in childhood and subsequent Type 1 diabetes mellitus’, Diabetic

Medicine 19, pp. 986–993.

Maughan, B., S. Collishawand A. Pickles: 1998, ‘School achievement and adult qual-

ifications among adoptees: A longitudinal study’, Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry 39, pp. 669–685.

Power, C. and S. Matthews: 1997, ‘Origins of health inequalities in a national

population sample’, Lancet 350, pp. 1584–1589.

Power, C., S.A. Stansfeld, S. Matthews, O. Manor and S. Hope: 2002, ‘Childhood and

adulthood risk factors for socio-economic differentials in psychological distress:

Evidence from the 1958 British birth cohort’, Social Science and Medicine 55,

pp. 1989–2004.



Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

Rolul Implicarii Si Apropierii Parintilor in Copilarie

Documents

Transcript of Rolul Implicarii Si Apropierii Parintilor in Copilarie