The double jeopardy of low family income and negative emotionality: The family stress model revisited

Gülbin Şengül-İnal,Nicolai Topstad Borgen,Eric Dearing,Henrik Daae Zachrisson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579424000373

2024-03-05

Development and Psychopathology

Abstract:The family stress model has, for decades, guided empirical work linking poverty with increased risk of child social-emotional dysfunction. The present study extends this line of work by examining whether child negative emotionality moderates associations between family income, family stress (maternal distress, parental locus of control, and relationship dissatisfaction), and later externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. In a longitudinal population-based sample (n ~ 80,000) of Norwegian children followed from birth through age five (The Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study; MoBa), we examined whether high (vs. moderate or low) negative emotionality families would display: (a) compounding stress (i.e., particularly strong associations between low family income and family stress), (b) diathesis-stress (i.e., particularly strong associations between family stress and behavior problems), or (c) double jeopardy (i.e., both compounding stress and diathesis-stress moderating effects). Negative emotionality significantly moderated the association between family income and behavior problems in a manner most consistent with double jeopardy. As a result, compared with children with moderate/low negative emotionality, the family income-behavior problems association was two to three times larger for those with higher negative emotionality. These findings underscore the active role children may play in family processes that link low family income with behavior problems.

psychology, developmental

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The paper attempts to address the issue of how children's negative emotionality moderates the relationship between family income and behavioral problems within the framework of the Family Stress Model (FSM). Specifically, the study focuses on the following aspects:

1. **Compounding Stress Hypothesis**: The paper explores whether children with high negative emotionality exacerbate parental stress in low-income families, i.e., whether negative emotionality strengthens the association between low income and family stress.

2. **Diathesis-Stress Hypothesis**: The paper also examines whether children with high negative emotionality are more likely to exhibit behavioral problems in adverse family environments, i.e., whether negative emotionality makes children more susceptible to the effects of family stress.

3. **Double Jeopardy Hypothesis**: Finally, the paper proposes a more comprehensive view, suggesting that children with high negative emotionality not only exacerbate family stress caused by low income but also become more susceptible to the impact of these stress factors on behavioral problems, thereby forming a double risk effect.

Through these hypotheses, the study aims to further expand and refine the Family Stress Model to reveal how family economic status, children's temperament characteristics, and family stress jointly influence children's behavioral development. The study utilizes large-scale data from the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study (MoBa) to test these hypotheses.