Individual and Family Level Risk and Resilience Factors:

1
Individual and Family Level Risk and Resilience
Factors Impact on Internalizing and
Externalizing Behaviors in Middle Childhood T.
Caitlin OBrien, Kathryn Lemery-Chalfant,
Carlos Valiente
Figure1 Interaction of negative parenting and
resilience when predicting childrens
internalizing symptoms
Figure2 Interaction of resilience and ethnicity
when predicting childrens externalizing symptoms
Introduction
Method
Children today encounter many risks that
challenge successful development and research has
illustrated how these risks can lead to
internalizing and externalizing problems. Many
risk factors such as SES are difficult to change
however, other factors may be present to negate
or lessen the impact of growing up in a low
income environment. Further, many theoretical
models of resilience suggest that protective,
compensatory, or resilience factors play a
moderating role, influencing outcomes through
statistical interaction with risk factors.
Following Bronfenbrenners ideology, we propose
that resilience effects may also be additive,
especially with normative samples. Specifically,
we hypothesize that a broad composite of
compensatory factors will have an additive
effect, reducing problem behaviors. Risk Factors
for Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms The
Surgeon General Report estimates that almost
twenty percent of children between the ages of 9
and 17 deal with some form of mental disorder
(Satcher, 1999) and research can contribute to a
clearer understanding of what risk factors are
driving disordered outcomes. Socioeconomic
Status (SES) - Children who experience economic
hardships are at an increased risk for negative
developmental outcomes in normative as well as
selected high or low risk samples, and throughout
development (Carlson Corcoran, 2001). Family
Stress - Family changes and chaos in the home can
be stressful, and have been linked to increased
behavior problems (Valiente, Lemery-Chalfant,
Reiser, in press). Marital conflict is another
family stressor that can lead to higher rates of
internalizing and externalizing problems (Low
Stocker, 2005). Negative Parenting Parental
negative reactions to their childs expression of
negative emotions can lead to both internalizing
and externalizing behaviors (Eisenberg et al.,
1999). Parental lack of knowledge of their
childs behaviors also relates to risky behaviors
(Crouter, Bumpus, Davis, McHale, 2005).
Compensatory Resilience Factors and
Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms
Resilience is a construct with many operational
definitions. It can be seen as a characteristic
of the child, as ordinary development and system
functioning despite less than optimal
circumstances, or as a product of the
relationship between the child and his/her
environment. There is a combination of sources
necessary to reduce vulnerability and increase
resilience. This makes a holistic approach that
integrates multiple levels useful for obtaining a
clear view of resilience (Cook, 2003). Ego
Resilience - Ego resilience is a characteristic
of the child that allows the child to be flexible
and adapt to changing situational demands,
ego-resilient children show little to no
behavioral problems (Eisenberg, Spinrad,
Morris, 2002). Effortful Control - The ability to
self-regulate and suppress a dominant response in
order to perform a secondary response is another
characteristic of the child that relates to fewer
internalizing and externalizing behaviors
(Rothbart Bates, 2006). School Liking - A
childs involvement and liking of his/her school
environment helps him/her to have better academic
outcomes and better transitions through changes
(Ladd Price, 1987). Popularity - Social
relationships with peers are especially important
in the school environment. Positive
relationships and peer standing contribute to the
childs resilience and fewer behavioral problems
(Criss, Pettit, Bates, Dodge, Lopp, 2002).

• Participants
• 220 children with a mean age of 9.57.
• 32 Mexican American, 24 Caucasian, 4 African
  American, 6 American Indian, and 13 of other
  origins.
• Procedure
• Teacher and child questionnaires administered at
  school, parent questionnaires mailed to the home
  in the parents
• chosen language.
• Children were read all items from their
  questionnaires by a research assistant.
• Measures
• Risk Variables
• Socioeconomic Status
• Mean composite of primary caregiver employment,
  primary and secondary caregiver education, and
  total family
• income.
• Family Stress
• Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale, 10 items on a
  true/false scale (CHAOS Matheny, Wachs, Ludwig,
  
• Phillips,1995)
• Marital Adjustment Test, 10 items on a five point
  scale (MAT Locke Wallace, 1959)
• Negative Parenting
• Coping with Childrens Negative Emotions Scale,
  48 items on a seven point scale (CCNES Fabes,
  Eisenberg,
• Bernzweig,1990)

Figure 3 Interaction of family stress and
ethnicity when predicting childrens
externalizing symptoms
Figure 4 Significant Additive and Interactive
Effects
Ethnicity
Resilience
Internalizing
Family Stress
Externalizing
SES
Neg Parenting
Discussion
Results

• Summary of Findings
• The risk composites of SES, family stress, and
  negative parenting all had significant main
  effects on number of externalizing behaviors, but
  were nonsignificant for internalizing.
• Internalizing may be predicted by risk factors
  not included in this study, such as parental
  psychopathology and behavioral inhibition, or it
  may be that the children were not good reporters
  of their internalizing problems.
• The resilience composite of ego resilience,
  effortful control, school liking, and popularity
  related significantly to fewer internalizing and
  externalizing behaviors.
• Resilience was a significant moderator for the
  association between negative parenting and
  internalizing behaviors. The children who were
  one standard deviation above the mean on
  resilience experienced more internalizing
  problems than those who were low on resilience.
• This interaction works in the opposite direction
  from what was expected. It could be that
  resilient children are better equipped to report
  on internalizing feelings and behaviors than are
  non-resilient children.
• The relation of resilience to externalizing was
  moderated by ethnicity, in that as resilience
  increased, Caucasian children experienced
  significantly fewer externalizing behavior
  problems than Hispanic children.
• Future studies should test other measures of
  resilience to see if other aspects of resilience
  are more influential for Hispanic children, such
  as social support or ethnic identity.
• Ethnicity was also a moderator for the relation
  between family stress and externalizing
  behaviors. As family stress increased, Caucasian
  children exhibited significantly more
  externalizing behaviors while Hispanic children
  did not.
• This finding supports our hypothesis that
  family-level risk factors will have differential
  impacts in the two cultures. Mexican culture
  values a higher level of familism, and a
  dependence on multiple caregivers and
  family-style living.
• Conclusions
• These results underscore the importance of the
  additive effect of resilience in normative
  samples.
• Limitations include questionable reports of
  internalizing and a non culturally-sensitive
  research design.
• Children have been suggested to be better
  reporters of unobservable internalizing states
  (Barrett et al., 1991), however it is still more
  difficult to accurately measure internalizing
  than externalizing.
• As this study was not designed to be a study on
  ethnicity, the results are exploratory. A study
  designed and administered in culturally sensitive
  ways would be able to draw stronger conclusions.
• Future research should attempt to measure the
  specific risks that children from different
  situations face as well as validate culturally
  sensitive measures of risk and resilience in
  different ethnicities and include a broader
  spectrum of possible resilience factors.

• Principle component analysis was used to
  identify a broad composite of resilience, onto
  which ego resilience, effortful control, school
  liking, and popularity loaded.
• SES, family stress, and negative parenting were
  significant predictors of parent report
  externalizing. The resilience component was a
  significant predictor of both parent report
  externalizing and child report internalizing.
  The risk factors were not significant predictors
  of internalizing.
• Interaction terms were tested for each risk
  factor by resilience and then by ethnicity
  (Hispanic vs. Caucasian), significant additive
  and interactive effects are in bold.
• 
  

Hypotheses

• Risk and resilience will jointly predict child
  psychopathology in a linear (additive) fashion.
• Risk composites will increase the occurrence of
  internalizing and externalizing behaviors.
• The resilience component will have a compensatory
  effect, decreasing the occurrence of
  internalizing and externalizing behaviors.
• The interaction term Ethnicity (Mexican
  American vs. Caucasian) will moderate the
  pathways from risk and resilience to
  internalizing and externalizing behaviors.
  Resilience is expected to differ by culture and
  ethnicity, and the family-level risk factors are
  expected to be less predictive for Mexican
  American children because of a higher level of
  familism and dependence on multiple caregivers in
  the Mexican culture.

Table 1 Additive and Interactive Risk and
Resilience Influences on Internalizing and
Externalizing Behaviors.
Risk
Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms
Resilience
Ethnicity
Risk
Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms
Resilience
Note. ß Standardized Beta Coefficient. plt.10
plt.05 plt.01 plt.001