Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2015 Dec 14;30(6):647–656. doi: 10.1037/fam0000171

The Intergenerational Continuity of SES: Effects of Parenting, Personality, and Age at First Romantic Partnership

Jennifer M Senia 1, Tricia K Neppl 2, Clinton G Gudmunson 3, M Brent Donnellan 4, Frederick O Lorenz 5
PMCID: PMC4907882  NIHMSID: NIHMS734465  PMID: 26651350

Abstract

Research indicates that socioeconomic status (SES) is related to individual health and wellbeing, and may be transmitted across generations. The interactionist model proposes that circumstances in the family of origin and individual characteristics both account for social, economic, and developmental outcomes associated with SES. Thus, the present investigation evaluated continuities in SES across two generations (G1, G2) as mediated through G1 maternal positive parenting, G2 personality, and G2 age of first committed romantic partnership. Participants were 432 emerging adults from an ongoing longitudinal study. Consistent with the interactionist model, G1 SES was associated with G2 personality indirectly through G1 maternal positive parenting. G1 SES, G2 personality, and G2 first partnership directly predicted G2 SES. G1 maternal positive parenting was also indirectly associated with G2 age at first partnership through G2 personality. Findings were consistent across two broad personality domains – negative emotionality and constraint. However, positive emotionality was not associated with G2 age at partnership.

Keywords: socioeconomic status, parenting, personality, age at partnership, interactionist model

Socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with individual well-being and family functioning as well as a number of developmental outcomes including physical health, emotional and psychological functioning, family relations, and mortality (see Bornstein & Bradley, 2003; Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Conger, Conger, Martin, 2010; Conger & Donnellan, 2007; Crosnoe & Cavanagh, 2010; Scaramella, Neppl, Ontai, & Conger, 2008). Importantly SES appears to be transmitted across generations. Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that the correlation between parents’ and children’s earnings is around .60 (e.g., Mazumder, 2005). Hence, economic conditions in one generation tend to be reconstructed in the next generation. However, the precise mechanisms that explain this intergenerational continuity in SES are not well documented. Accordingly, the goal of the current study is to examine continuities in SES from the first generation during adolescence to SES in the second generation assessed 15 to 16 years later. Positive maternal parenting, adolescent personality, and age of entry into a first committed romantic partnership will be examined as possible mediators of this association.

Two broad explanations have been offered to explain the observed connections between SES in one generation and SES in the next generation. According to the interactionist model, both social influence and social selection processes help to explain intergenerational consistencies in SES (Conger & Donnellan, 2007). The social influence perspective posits that social and economic circumstances in the family of origin (Generation 1 or G1), help explain developmental outcomes in the next generation (Generation 2 or G2). Under this account, exposure to low SES during childhood and adolescence sets in motion a series of events that constrains social and economic mobility. On the other hand, the social selection perspective suggests that individual differences and characteristics of individuals passed from one generation to the next account for intergenerational consistencies in social, economic, and other developmental outcomes (Conger & Donnellan, 2007). That is, personal characteristics help explain why some individuals attain higher levels of SES than others. Current research provides evidence for both viewpoints and the interactionist perspective integrates both into a dynamic model that helps to explain intergenerational continuities in SES and how social processes and individual differences both contribute to human development across generations (Conger, Conger, Martin, 2010; Conger & Donnellan, 2007).

Unfortunately, relatively few studies have tested specific predictions from the interactionist model regarding mediating pathways using longitudinal data (Conger, Conger, Martin, 2010). Earlier findings from the same longitudinal study used for the present analyses demonstrated the mediating role of parent personality and age at first parenthood as a predictor of later parenting of toddler-aged offspring (Trentacosta, Neppl, Donnellan, Scaramella, Shaw, & Conger, 2010). Also important, results from this study demonstrate intergenerational continuity in SES across generations. Adolescent personality and timing of entry of parenthood may help explain this association as the results also suggested that early parenthood was associated with lower SES (Trentacosta et al., 2010). In addition, Schofield and colleagues (2011), who also used the same longitudinal study as the present analyses, found that continuity in SES was mediated by adolescent alpha personality traits characterized by social competence, goal-setting, hard work, and emotional stability. Collectively, these studies examine the importance of individual and social factors that may account for the transmission of SES across generations. However, these mediators did not fully explain the intergenerational continuities of SES, as the association still persisted in these studies even after controlling for personality and age at parenting. Thus, the current study extends this earlier work by including additional social factors (e.g. romantic relationships) that may also help to explain the intergenerational continuity in SES. In particular, age at first committed romantic partnership was used as it might be an important consideration that has been largely overlooked in previous tests of predictions from the interactionist model.

Life-course theory (Elder, 1998; Elder & Shanahan, 2006) posits that the timing of critical role transitions (e.g. parenthood or first committed romantic partnership) has consequences for subsequent developmental trajectories. A generalization from this approach is that early or off-time transitions are generally linked to poorer developmental outcomes. Moreover, the social and economic conditions of the family of origin may contribute to the timing of life transitions such as first entering a committed romantic partnership. For example, early entry into romantic partnerships might provide individuals a path out of an adverse family background or harsh environment (Booth, Rustenback, & McHale, 2008).

As it stands, empirical evidence suggests that higher SES and positive parenting in the family of origin are connected with later entry into romantic partnerships perhaps because youth from advantaged backgrounds focus on higher educational attainment rather than early entry into a romantic union (Melby, Conger, Fang, Wickrama, & Conger, 2008). Additionally, family of origin processes, such as nurturant-involved parenting, promote interpersonal competence in romantic relationships (Bryant & Conger, 2002; Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000). Thus, youth from more advantaged backgrounds might choose to both delay entry into committed relationships and have a greater likelihood of possessing the interpersonal skills and characteristics that promote successful and stable romantic unions. Therefore, the timing of entry into a first committed romantic partnership might serve as an important mediator to add to the interactionist model. Indeed, previous research has shown greater long-term relationship success when individuals postpone family formation after their college education or occupational and career advancements (Amato, Booth, Johnson, & Rogers, 2007; Teti, Lamb, & Elster, 1987). The current study therefore incorporates age at first committed partnership into the interactionist framework. The next sections review key theoretical assumptions guiding the specific model tested in this study as presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Conceptual Model

SES, G1 Parenting, and G2 SES

A considerable amount of empirical and theoretical literature on socioeconomic status posits that the impact of family of origin SES on subsequent developmental outcomes is primarily transmitted through G1 parenting (Conger & Donnellan, 2007). In particular, the Family Stress Model, (e.g., Conger et al., 1992) theorizes that socioeconomic disadvantage impacts family processes (i.e., parenting) primarily through the economic pressures that financial hardship creates. Economic pressures reflect the psychological reality of SES and changes in SES (Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010) that tap various dimensions of financial hardship including unmet material needs such as adequate food and clothing, the inability to pay bills or make ends meet, and having to cut back on necessary expenses (Conger & Conger, 2002). Collectively, these economic pressures generate parental emotional distress which spills over into their parenting practices (Conger, Wallace, Sun, Simons, McLody, & Brody, 2002; Nelson, O’Brien, Blankson, Calkins, & Keane, 2009). Moreover, studies have demonstrated a direct association between SES and parenting practices, as indicated in Figure 1. For example, in the same longitudinal study used in the present analyses, Neppl and colleagues (2009) found that low SES was linked to harsher parenting behaviors which has been transmitted across generations as well as linked to less competent social and cognitive functioning in children (Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010).

In contrast to the cascade proposed by the Family Stress Models, parents with more socioeconomic resources often demonstrate more positive and supportive parenting behaviors. Moreover, more advantaged families have the resources to make investments in the development of their children when compared to the resources found in low SES parents (Conger, Conger, Martin, 2010; Duncan & Magnuson, 2003; Linver at al., 2002). These investments help children advance their education, which, in turn, increases their income-earning potential. These individuals are also more likely to delay the transition into a romantic partnership until after completing their schooling and securing a job. In contrast, economic strain in the family of origin limits the resources that parents can invest in their children. In particular, children from lower SES may enter the workforce instead of advancing their education, which in turn, may lower their long-term income-earning potential. Indeed, Sobolewski and Amato (2005) demonstrated that the effects of SES in the family-of-origin persist even into adulthood and can affect financial, educational, and occupational success across generations. Also important, the continuities of SES remained even after accounting for parental marital discord, parent-adolescent relationship quality, and adolescent psychological well-being (Sobolewski & Amato, 2005). Taken together, this empirical and theoretical evidence supports the social causation perspective (represented by solid lines in Figure 1) which suggests that family of origin (G1) SES is associated with family processes and ultimately the social, cognitive, and psychological developmental outcomes in the second generation (G2; Conger & Donnellan, 2007).

G2 Personality, G2 Age at First Partnership, and G2 SES

The social selection perspective (represented by dashed lines in Figure 1) argues that individual traits and characteristics are important predictors of socioeconomic development (Conger & Donnellan, 2007). According to most contemporary definitions, personality attributes represents relatively stable patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behavior (e.g., Caspi, 1998) that exert a causal force on how individuals adapt across the life span. There are a number of models for understanding the structure of personality but the current study focused on the higher-order personality traits measured by the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Harkness, Tellegen, & Waller, 1995). Positive emotionality (PEM), negative emotionality (NEM), and constraint (CN) are three domains or “superfactors” that tap into different dimensions of psychological development in ways that have theoretical, conceptual, and empirical ties to the Big Five traits (Belsky, 1984; Church, 1995; Clark & Watson, 2008; Harkness et al., 1995; Trentacosta et al., 2010). Positive emotionality captures interpersonal connectedness and an active and energetic engagement with the environment. Negative emotionality captures the tendency to become distressed and easily experience negative emotions such as anger, hostility and anxiety. Constraint captures the tendency to follow rules, avoid risks, and exert self-control (Clark & Watson, 2008; Trentacosta et al., 2010). Collectively, these three personality traits predict the quality of romantic relationships (Donnellan, Larsen-Rife, Conger, 2005; Humbad et al., 2010), the quality of parenting (Conger, Conger, Martin, 2010), the age at parenthood and family SES (Trentacosta et al., 2010), and presumably the age at first committed romantic partnership.

Moreover, evidence also suggests that personality influences later SES, as shown in Figure 1. Consistent with earlier research using the same longitudinal study, Schofield, et al. (2011) found that personality directly predicted less economic pressure and greater SES. Personality has also been linked to economic pressure during the transition to adulthood even after controlling for parental SES (Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010; Donnellan, Conger, McAdams, & Neppl, 2009). One explanation is that personality, in part, may reflect attributes transmitted from successful parents to offspring (e.g., self-control, emotional stability, planful competence). This suggests that maturational personality traits can be enduring characteristics facilitating higher educational attainment, career advancement and work success, and also occupational stability (Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003).

The Present Investigation

Taken together, we hypothesize that personality and experiences in the family of origin will predict the timing of entry into a first committed romantic partnership. These factors are part of a dynamic process that helps to explain the intergenerational continuity of SES. Indeed, the broad goal of this study is to empirically test the model implied by Figure 1. In other words, the aim was to evaluate whether continuities in SES across two generations was mediated through G1 maternal parenting, G2 personality, and G2 age of first committed romantic partnership (see Figure 1). The social influence perspective, represented by solid lines in Figure 1, hypothesizes that G1 SES directly influences G1 maternal parenting, G2 personality, G2 age at first committed romantic partnership, and G2 SES. In addition, the social influence perspective accounts for the direct influence of G1 maternal parenting on G2 personality, G2 age at first committed romantic partnership, and G2 SES. In contrast, the social selection perspective, represented by dashed lines in Figure 1, hypothesizes that G2 personality directly influences G2 age at first committed romantic partnership and G2 SES. In addition, the social causation perspective accounts for the direct influence of G2 age at first committed romantic partnership on G2 SES. Consistent with the interactionist model, this study expands Trentacosta’s and colleagues (2010) research by examining G1 maternal parenting as a prospective predictor of age at first committed romantic partnership in its relationship to SES across two generations.

Method

Participants

Data came from the Family Transitions Project (FTP), an ongoing 24-year study that recruited 559 target adolescents and their families. The FTP began as a continuation of two existing studies that were originally designed to assess the impact of family economic stress during the farm crisis in Iowa in the late 1980s: The Iowa Youth and Families Project (IYFP) and the Iowa Single Parent Project (ISSP). The IYFP began in 1989, and recruited 451 families by selecting two-parent households (451 mothers, M age = 38.2; 451 fathers, M age = 40.4) with a target adolescent in seventh grade (M age = 12.7 years; 236 girls, 215 boys) who also had a sibling within 4 years of age of the target adolescent. Of all of the eligible families, 78% agreed to participate in the study during annual assessments from 1989 to 1992.

The ISPP began in 1991, and recruited 108 families by selecting single-parent households (108 mothers) with a target adolescent in ninth grade (M age = 14.8 years) who also had a sibling within 4 years of age of the target adolescent. Telephone screeners identified families headed by a single mother who had experienced divorce within two years prior to the start of the study and all but three of the eligible families agreed to participate during annual assessments from 1991 to 1993.

Because of the rural nature of both samples, and due to the underlying demographics of rural Iowa during the late 1980s, the vast majority of IYFP participants were Caucasian (with minority families accounting for less than 1% of the population at the time of recruitment). The IYFP families were primarily lower middle- or middle-class having median family incomes of $33,700 and parents averaged 13 years of completed schooling in 1989. The participating IYFP families ranged in household size from 4 to 13 members, with an average size of 4.94 members. The IYFP families were recruited from eight rural counties in Iowa with 54% of families residing in communities with fewer than 6,500 residents, 34% of families residing on farms, and 12% lived in nonfarm rural areas. The ISPP families were also Caucasian, primarily lower middle- or middle-class, and lived in the same eight rural counties as the IYFP families. The measures and procedures of data collection for the IYFP and ISPP studies were identical, with the exception that ISPP fathers did not participate in the in-home interviews.

In 1994, the families from the IYFP and ISPP studies were combined to create the FTP. At the time, the target adolescents from both studies were in the 12th grade. In 1994, target youth participated in the study with their parents as they had during earlier years of adolescence. Beginning in 1995, each target adolescent (1 year after completion of high school) participated in the study with a romantic partner or friend. Thus, the FTP has followed the target youth from as early as 1989 through 2003 (M target age = 27.3 years), with a 90% retention rate.

The present investigation includes 432 targets who participated from adolescence through adulthood. The data were analyzed beginning when the target adolescent was 15 years old (1991) through age 31 years (2007). Throughout adulthood, targets participated with a romantic partner at the time of the visit. The present report examines the target participants who entered into marriage or lived with their romantic partner in a marriage-like relationship from 1995 through 2005 (68.1% participated with a romantic partner by 1999). The romantic partner could include a cohabitating partner or a married spouse. Of the 432 original target adolescents (56.9% female), 222 of them participated with a spouse and 210 participated with a cohabitating partner.

Procedures

When the target was an adolescent, all of the families of origin were visited twice in their homes each year by a trained interviewer. Each visit lasted approximately two hours, with the second visit occurring within two weeks of the first. During the first visit, each family member (mother, father, target adolescent, and sibling closest in age to the target) completed questionnaires covering topics such as parenting and individual characteristics. During the second visit, family members participated in structured interaction tasks that were videotaped. In the present analyses, we used observer ratings from the family interaction task. This was a 25 minute parent-child discussion task that involved the parent and adolescent engaging in a conversation about family rules, events, and problems. Parents and the target youth were given cards that had questions related to subjects such as school activities, family rules, parental discipline, and the cards were labeled to be read specifically by the parent or the target youth. The card reader (parent or target youth) was instructed to read the card and give their answer first before family members gave their individual answers. All family members then talked together about the answers that were given and once they felt they had said everything they wanted to convey for each question, they would move on to another card. The family interaction task was designed to elicit both negative and positive interactions between family members. Trained observers coded the quality of these interactions using the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (Melby et al., 1998). These scales have been shown to demonstrate adequate reliability and validity (Melby & Conger, 2001).

From 1995 through 2007 the target adolescents, now adults, and their romantic partner participated in data collection. Each target adult and his or her romantic partner were visited biennially in their home by trained interviewers. During that visit, adults completed a series of questionnaires as well as participated in a videotaped 25-minute discussion task where the target and their romantic partner discussed topics such as employment and other life events. The means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum scores for the interaction tasks as well as for all study variables are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables (N = 432)

Variables Minimum Maximum M SD
G1 SES
 G1 per capita income 717.83 48,518.75 8,990.20 6,312.18
 G1 education 1.00 5.50 2.77 0.75
G1 Maternal Positive Parenting
 Positive Mood 1.00 9.00 6.13 1.22
 Listener Responsiveness 1.00 9.00 6.11 1.28
 Prosocial 3.00 9.00 6.22 1.22
G2 PEM
 Achievement 3.00 15.00 10.20 2.59
 Social Closeness 5.00 15.00 11.29 2.29
 Social Potency 3.00 15.00 9.95 2.23
 Well-being 3.00 15.00 11.09 2.31
G2 NEM
 Aggression 3.00 14.00 6.39 2.44
 Alienation 3.00 14.00 6.83 2.43
 Stress Reaction 3.00 15.00 8.15 2.43
G2 CN
 Control 3.00 15.00 9.98 2.44
 Harm Avoidance 4.00 15.00 10.10 2.29
 Traditionalism 3.00 15.00 10.24 2.44
G2 Age at First Partnership 17 30 22.86 2.86
G2 SES
 G2 per capita income 0.00 173,350.00 27,996.96 22,532.95
 G2 education 1.00 6.00 3.31 1.10
Open in a new tab

Note. G1 = Generation 1; G2 = Generation 2; PEM = Positive Emotionality; NEM = Negative Emotionality; CN = Constraint

Measures

G1 and G2 SES

The G1 SES manifest variable was created using G1 family’s per capita income and G1 education. In 1991 and 1992 (when G2 was age 15 and 16 years respectively), G1 mothers and fathers reported their family income for the previous years from all sources. This was obtained from an extensive reporting of family finances and then divided by household size to obtain a measure of G1 family per capita income at each assessment. G1 mother’s self-report was used in single mother households, and the average of G1 mother’s and father’s self-reports was used in two-parent families. A summary per capita income in the family of origin was calculated by taking the average of the two assessments (median = $7,807.81). Income was adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index and a log transformation was applied. G1 mothers and fathers also reported their highest grade of completed schooling by the 1991 and 1992 assessments. Responses were coded as (1) less than high school to (6) PhD or professional degree. G1 mother’s self-report was used in single mother households, and the average of G1 mother’s and father’s responses were combined and averaged across the two assessments. Since G1 family per capita income and G1 education had different response categories, the scores were standardized and averaged (r = .29, p < .001).

The G2 SES manifest variable was created using G2 family’s per capita and G2 education. In 2007 (31 years old), G2 targets reported their family income from all sources for the previous year. This was divided by household size to obtain a measure of G2 family per capita income (median = $22,250.00). Income was adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index and a log transformation was applied. G2 targets reported their highest grade of completed schooling by the 2007 assessment. Possible answers ranged from (1) less than high school to (6) PhD or professional degree. Since G2 family per capita income and G2 education had different response categories, the scores were standardized and averaged (r = .39, p < .001).

G1 maternal positive parenting

G1 maternal positive parenting was assessed in 1991, 1992, and 1994 (when G2 targets were 15, 16, and 18 respectively) using the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (IFIRS; Melby & Conger, 2001; Melby et al., 1998). In order to include both two-parent and single mother participants in the same analyses, only the G1 mothers’ behaviors were used in the present analyses. Observers rated G1 mother’s positive parenting toward the target youth (G2) during the family interaction task.

Observer ratings of G1 mother parental behavior were rated on a 9-point scale with higher scores indicating that the behavior is highly characteristic of the mother. Three behavioral codes were used as separate indicators for G1 maternal parenting: positive mood, listener responsiveness, and prosocial behavior. Positive mood was rated as the G1 mothers’ expressions of contentment, happiness, and optimism and/or her demonstration of positive behavior toward self, others, or things in general. Listener responsiveness was rated as the G1 mothers’ use of nonverbal or verbal cues that captures validation, and attending to the G2 adolescent. Prosocial behavior was rated to include G1 mothers’ acts of helpfulness, sensitivity, and cooperation toward their G2 adolescent. G1 maternal parenting scores were averaged across 1991, 1992, and 1994, with internally consistent ratings (α = .82), and acceptable interrater reliability (α =.84).

G2 personality

G1 mothers rated their G2 target’s personality in 1994 (when G2 was 18 years old) using a 33-item informant report version of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Harkness, Tellegen, & Waller, 1995). G1 mothers rated their adolescent on a 5-point scale that asked them to compare their adolescent on a particular trait relative to other individuals of the same age and gender (1 = lowest 5%; 2 = lower 30%; 3 = middle 30%; 4 = higher 30%; 5 = highest 5%). The MPQ constructs measure three broad personality traits: positive emotionality (PEM), negative emotionality (NEM), and constraint (CN). Each personality superfactor was measured as a latent variable with lower order subscales. Achievement, social closeness, social potency, and well-being subscales served as indicators of the positive emotionality latent variable (α = .76). Aggression, alienation, and stress reaction subscales served as indicators of the negative emotionality latent variable (α = .78). Control, harm avoidance, and traditionalism subscales served as indicators of the constraint latent variable (α = .73). Maternal reports of the three traits were correlated (r = −.77, p < .001, PEM to NEM; r = .67, p < .001, PEM to CN; and r = −.69, p < .001, NEM to CN).

G2 age at first committed romantic partnership

Age at first committed romantic partnership was recorded as the first time G2 was married or living with a romantic partner in a marriage-like relationship. A time-shifted dataset was utilized for this analysis such that G2 romantic relationship was measured the first time G2 participated in the study with a spouse or cohabitating partner (n = 432). The assessment point for G2 romantic relationship ranged from 1995 to 2005. The median age at first committed romantic partnership was 22 for women and 23 for men.

Control variables

The control variables included marital status of G1 (0 = divorced or separated, 1 = married) as well as G2 gender (0 = female, 1 = male). Of the 432 original target adolescents (56.9% female), 80.6% of them had married parents and 19.4% participated with a separated or divorced parent. Research suggests that G1 marital status is an important factor in family of origin history that has been linked to marital timing in the family of procreation (South, 2001). Demographic trends in family formation behavior consistently document gender differences in timing of entry into marriage with women consistently marrying at earlier ages than men (see US Census Bureau, 2015).

Results

Data were analyzed in multiple steps using SPSS and Amos with full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation procedures (Arbuckle, 2003). We used FIML because it is one of the most widely recommended approaches for dealing with missing data (Allison, 2003; Arbuckle, 2003). Studies indicate that it provides better estimation of model parameters than procedures such as listwise or pairwise deletion. For the present investigation, the overall rate of missing data was 10% and was most likely missing at random. Basic correlational analyses were conducted and then structural equation models (SEMs) were used to test the study hypotheses. G1 SES, age at first committed romantic partnership, and G2 SES were examined as a manifest variable, whereas multiple indicators were used to create latent constructs for observer rating of G1 maternal parenting and G1 mother report of G2 personality. G1 marital status and G2 gender were tested as control variables.

Table 2 provides the correlation coefficients for the latent constructs. Results show a strong correlation between G1 SES and G2 SES (r =.42, p < .001), suggesting a considerable degree of intergenerational consistency in SES. G1 SES was also related to observed G1 parenting, G1 mother report of G2 personality, and G2 age at first committed romantic partnership. G1 maternal parenting was significantly related to G2 personality, G2 age at first committed romantic partnership, and G2 SES. All of the G2 personality superfactors were significantly related to both G2 age at first committed romantic partnership as well as to G2 SES. The personality superfactors were also related to one another. Finally, G2 age at first committed romantic partnership was statistically and significantly related to G2 SES. The control variables show that G2 gender was only significantly correlated to G2 age at first committed romantic partnership with males more likely to delay entry into a romantic relationship. G1 marital status was significantly correlated to G1 mother report of G2 personality in that having married G1 parents was significantly correlated to higher levels of G2 PEM, higher levels of G2 CN, and lower levels of G2 NEM. G1 marital status was also significantly associated with G1 SES, G1 maternal parenting, and G2 SES. G1 marital status was significantly correlated to G2 age at first committed romantic partnership in that having married G1 parents correlated to later entry into a romantic relationship.

Table 2.

Correlations between the Variables Used in Analyses

Study Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. G1 SES -
2. G1 Parenting .32*** -
3. G2 PEM .23*** .34*** -
4. G2 NEM −.19** −.26*** −.76*** -
5. G2 CN .25*** .41*** .67*** −.69*** -
6. G2 AFP .16** .11* .13* −.20*** .19** -
7. G2 SES .42*** .25*** .41*** −.33*** .32*** .30*** -
8. G1 Marital Status .18*** .21*** .20*** −.17** .24*** .10* .07 -
9. G2 Gender −.01 .07 .05 −.09 −.06 .15** −.03 .03
Open in a new tab

Note. G1 = Generation 1; G2 = Generation 2; G1 Parenting = G1 Maternal Positive Parenting; PEM = Positive Emotionality; NEM = Negative Emotionality; CN = Constraint; AFP = Age at First Partnership.

*

p < .05.

**

p<.01

***

p < .000

Given that these basic correlations were consistent with predictions from Figure 1, we tested the theoretical model guiding the study. Overall model fit was examined with the standard chi–square index of statistical fit that is routinely provided under maximum likelihood estimation of parameters. Two additional indices of practical fit, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the comparative fit index (CFI) were used to evaluate the fit of the structural model to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999). RMSEA values under .05 indicate close fit to the data, and values between .05 and .08 represent reasonable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). For the CFI, fit index values should be greater than .90 and preferably greater than .95, to consider the fit of a model to the data to be acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The SEMs were estimated with and without the control variables (G1 marital status and G2 gender) included in the model. G2 gender was also tested as a moderator for the model presented in Figure 1. First, we examined an unconstrained multigroup model with the focal paths set to be unconstrained across gender. Next, we examined a constrained model for each personality superfactor with the focal paths set to be equal across gender. Chi-square difference tests were nonsignificant (p > .05) when comparing the unconstrained model to the constrained model for each personality superfactor across gender. Thus, G2 gender was not supported as a moderator. Therefore, the final results presented were estimated with the control variables included in the models. We present the findings from SEMs run separately for each personality superfactor: PEM, NEM, and CN.

Positive Emotionality

The full model shown in Figure 1 evaluated the hypothesis that G1 SES and observer ratings of G1 maternal parenting would be associated with G1 mother report of G2 positive emotionality, and that G2 positive emotionality would be associated with both G2 age at first committed romantic partnership and G2 SES. The model for positive emotionality demonstrated acceptable fit, χ2 (38) = 133.32, p < .001, RMSEA = .08, CFI = .92. All factor loadings were statistically significant (p < .001). For example, the standardized loadings for observed G1 maternal parenting ranged from .70 to .88 and .51 to .82 for G1 mother report of G2 positive emotionality.

As shown in Table 3, G1 SES was significantly associated with observed G1 maternal parenting (β=.29, p < .001), G1 mother report of G2 PEM (β=.16, p < .01), G2 age at first committed romantic partnership (β=.12, p < .05), and G2 SES (β=.30, p < .001). In addition, the path from G1 maternal parenting to G2 PEM was statistically significant (β=.28, p < .001), but the paths from G1 maternal parenting to G2 age at first committed romantic partnership and G2 SES were nonsignificant. G1 mother report of G2 PEM had a direct positive relationship with G2 SES (β=.36, p < .001), however the path was nonsignificant from G2 PEM to G2 age at first committed romantic partnership. Finally, G2 age at first committed romantic partnership was significantly related to G2 SES (β=.23, p < .001).

Table 3.

Standardized Coefficients for Direct Paths in the Models of G1 SES, G1 Maternal Positive Parenting, G2 Personality, and G2 Age at First Partnership as Predictors of G2 SES

Direct paths from Figure 1 Positive Emotionality Negative Emotionality Constraint
G1 SES to G1 Maternal Positive Parenting .29(0.06)*** .29(0.06)*** .29(0.06)***
G1 SES to G2 Personality (PEM, NEM, CON) .16(0.09)** −.10(0.15) .11(0.08)
G1 SES to G2 AFP .12(0.18)* .12(0.18)* .11(0.18)*
G1 SES to G2 SES .30(0.05)*** .33(0.05)*** .33(0.05)***
G1 Maternal Positive Parenting to G2 Personality .28(0.09)*** −.20(0.15)** .35(0.09)***
G1 Maternal Positive Parenting to G2 AFP .02(0.19) .01(0.18) −.02(0.20)
G1 Maternal Positive Parenting to G2 SES .03(0.05) .08(0.05) .06(0.05)
G2 Personality to G2 AFP .07(0.15) −.15(0.08)* .17(0.18)**
G2 Personality to G2 SES .36(0.05)*** −.23(0.02)*** .20(0.05)**
G2 AFP to G2 SES .23(0.01)*** .21(0.01)*** .22(0.01)***
Open in a new tab

Note. Standard errors appear in parentheses. G1 = Generation 1; G2 = Generation 2; PEM = Positive Emotionality; NEM = Negative Emotionality; CN = Constraint; AFP = Age at First Committed Romantic Partnership.

*

p < .05.

**

p<.01

***

p < .000

Negative Emotionality

The model for negative emotionality demonstrated acceptable fit, χ2 (28) = 77.62, p < .001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .95, and all factor loadings were statistically significant (p < .001). For observer ratings of G1 maternal parenting, standardized loadings ranged from .70 to .89 and .66 to .83 for G1 mother report of G2 negative emotionality.

As shown in Table 3, G1 SES was significantly associated with observed G1 maternal parenting (β=.29, p < .001), G2 age at first committed romantic partnership (β=.12, p < .05), and G2 SES (β=.33, p < .001). The path from G1 SES to G1 mother report of G2 NEM was nonsignificant (p < .10). Observed ratings of G1 maternal parenting was significantly associated with G2 NEM (β=−.20, p < .001), but the paths from G1 maternal parenting to G2 age at first committed romantic partnership and G2 SES were nonsignificant. In addition, there was a negative relationship between G1 mother report of G2 NEM and G2 age at first committed romantic partnership (β=−.15, p < .05) and G2 SES (β= −.23, p < .001). Finally, G2 age at first committed romantic partnership was significantly related to G2 SES (β=.21, p < .001).

Constraint

The model for constraint demonstrated acceptable fit, χ2 (28) = 78.70, p < .001, RMSEA = .07, CFI = .95. All factor loadings were statistically significant (p < .001). Standardized loadings for observed G1 maternal parenting ranged from .70 to .89 and .46 to .84 for G1 mother report of G2 personality.

As shown in Table 3, G1 SES was significantly associated with observed G1 maternal parenting (β=.29, p < .001), G2 age at first committed romantic partnership (β=.11, p < .05), and G2 SES (β=.33, p < .001). The path from G1 SES to G1 mother report of G2 CN was nonsignificant (p < .10). Observed ratings of G1 maternal parenting was significantly associated with G1 mother reports of G2 CN (β=.31, p < .001), but the paths from G1 maternal parenting to G2 age at first committed romantic partnership and G2 SES were nonsignificant. There was a positive relationship between G1 mother report of G2 CN and G2 age at first committed romantic partnership (β=.17, p < .01) and G2 SES (β=.20, p < .01). Lastly, G2 age at first committed romantic partnership was significantly associated with G2 SES (β=.22, p < .001).

Discussion

The current study evaluated the interactionist model by incorporating observer ratings of G1 maternal parenting, G1 mother report of adolescent personality, and age at first committed romantic partnership as individual and social factors for understanding the continuity of SES across generations. Consistent with the social influence perspective, G1 SES, G1 mother report of G2 personality, and G2 age at first partnership were directly related to G2 SES, assessed 15 to 16 years later. Specifically, G2 age of entry into a committed romantic partnership was associated with the continuity of SES across generations, with later entry suggesting higher SES. This is supported with previous research that suggests that higher SES in the family of origin delays transition to romantic partnerships provided that higher G1 SES and positive G1 parenting facilitates material demands and additional resources for higher educational attainment (Melby, Conger, Fang, Wickrama, & Conger, 2008), which in turn is an important indicator of socioeconomic development in young adulthood (Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010). In short, the current findings are consistent with interactionists perspectives (e.g., Conger & Donnellan, 2007) and extend Trentacosta’s and colleagues (2010) work by considering the role of the timing of committed romantic partnership. Next, consistent with the social selection perspective, the findings also suggest that certain G2 personality attributes may indirectly influence G2 SES through the timing of critical life events such as forming a committed romantic partnership.

Importantly, these findings highlight the importance of personality and age at first committed romantic partnership on intergenerational continuities of SES. Emerging adulthood is an import time of psychosocial development marked by transitions to family and work roles, such as marriage, parenthood, and career development (Arnett, 2000). The transition to a first serious romantic partnership can be an important harbinger of psychosocial maturity and development in early adulthood especially when individuals are prepared for the challenges of relationships (Lehnart, Neyer, & Eccles, 2010; Neyer & Asendorpf, 2001; Neyer & Lehnart, 2007). It is important to also consider that emerging adulthood is characterized by greater variability in the timing or transition to adult roles (Arnett, 2000). Specifically, identity development may extend beyond adolescence and into young adulthood. Thus, demographic trends show that young adults are forming romantic unions, but delaying marriage, suggesting they are spending more time on identity development and selecting a romantic partner than in previous generations (Arnett, 2000; Cherlin, 2010). Furthermore, examination of development during this seemingly critical period is important because completing a developmental task may aid or undermine long-term adaptive functioning or future success in later adulthood.

Moreover, personality can also be instrumental to intergenerational continuities of SES, as our results demonstrated higher levels of positive emotionality and constraint and lower levels of negative emotionality assessed in adolescence to be associated with higher SES measured more than a decade later. Indeed, this suggests that personality is an important catalyst facilitating higher educational attainment, career advancement and work success, and also occupational stability (Neyer & Asendorpf, 2001; Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003).

An interesting finding was the association between observer ratings of G1 maternal parenting to G2 age at first committed romantic partnership and G2 SES. While the SEM showed nonsignificant pathways between these constructs, G1 maternal parenting was statistically significantly correlated with G2 age at first committed romantic partnership and with G2 SES. One explanation could be that when G1 SES and G1 parenting are assessed together in the same model, it is an individual’s socioeconomic family background or current educational status (Amato, Booth, Johnson, & Rogers, 2007; Melby, Conger, Fang, Wickrama, & Conger, 2008; Teti, Lamb, & Elster, 1987) that may have more of an influence on the age at first committed romantic partnership. Thus, economic resources or postsecondary education status may be a more proximal predictor of timing into a romantic partnership. Parenting, however, has been empirically supported in forecasting relationship quality (Bryant & Conger, 2002; Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000).

This study poses specific limitations. The homogeneous ethnic and geographic characteristics of the sample limit the ability to generalize results to more diverse samples. However, the theoretical premises that underlie the social influence and social selection perspectives have generalized to other samples (Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010). In addition, G1 parenting was measured using observer ratings of mother’s behavior towards the adolescent and G2 personality was measured using G1 mother’s report of adolescent personality. Future work should expand to include the effects fathers on these study constructs. Also, the analyses were limited to individuals in the study who formed a romantic partnership in early adulthood. Indeed, replication is needed to assess the role of romantic relationships established in middle to later adulthood.

Given that G1 mother’s report of adolescent personality was indirectly associated with later entry into G2 partnership and higher levels of G2 SES, future work could also explore factors that help promote the development of positive personality as well as reduce the development of a negative personality. Specifically, researchers could assess levels and changes in self-reported personality traits before and after pivotal transitions, such as entry in a first committed romantic relationship, to better understand the context for personality maturation in adulthood. That said, findings demonstrate the longitudinal effects of socioeconomic status in the family of origin to later SES in the second generation adults. That is, individual’s own SES development is sensitive to the SES composition in their family of origin. Thus, the timing and duration of exposure to economic hardship in adolescence can have a significant influence on SES development in adulthood. Such research can be informative in programs that work directly with low-income families to explore ways to improve economic conditions in the family of origin. Furthermore, these findings help understand how parenting, personality, and age at first romantic partnership can be enduring resources to the socioeconomic development in adulthood. This research could help inform interventionists and professionals working with individuals and families to weather financial difficulties.

All in all, the results suggest that the continuity of SES across generations is explained by a dynamic developmental process involving social influence and social selection. Family of origin SES sets in motion a series of events that constrains social and economic mobility in the next generation. Moreover, parenting, adolescent personality, and timing of entry into a first committed romantic partnership may be instrumental in explaining socioeconomic continuities across generations. The timing of entry into adult family and work roles is important because it reflects both family of origin experiences and personality characteristics. In sum, the results reported here provide empirical support that positive parenting, personality attributes, and age of entry in a first committed romantic partnership may be important sources for intergenerational continuity of SES and long-term adaptive functioning.

Acknowledgments

This research is currently supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (HD064687, HD051746, MH051361, and HD047573). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies. Support for earlier years of the study also came from multiple sources, including the National Institute of Mental Health (MH00567, MH19734, MH43270, MH59355, MH62989, and MH48165), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA05347), the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD027724), the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health (MCJ-109572), and the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Adolescent Development Among Youth in High-Risk Settings.

Contributor Information

Jennifer M. Senia, Department of Human Development & Family Studies Iowa State University.

Tricia K. Neppl, Department of Human Development & Family Studies Iowa State University tneppl@iastate.edu.

Clinton G. Gudmunson, Department of Human Development & Family Studies Iowa State University cgudmuns@iastate.edu.

M. Brent Donnellan, Department of Psychology Texas A&M University mbdonnellan@tamu.edu.

Frederick O. Lorenz, Department of Statistics & Department of Psychology Iowa State University folorenz@iastate.edu.

References

  1. Allison PD. Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2003;112:545–557. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.545. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Amato PR, Booth A, Johnson D, Rogers S. Alone together: How marriage in America is changing. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, MA: 2007. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arbuckle JL. AMOS 5.0 update to the AMOS user’s guide. Small Waters; Chicago: 2003. [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnett JJ. Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist. 2000;55:469–480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Belsky J. The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development. 1984;55:83–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1984.tb00275.x. doi:10.2307/1129836. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Booth A, Rustenback E, McHale S. Early family transitions and depressive symptom changes from adolescence to early adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2008;70:3–14. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00457.x. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bornstein MH, Bradley RH. Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ: 2003. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bradley RH, Corwyn RF. Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2002;53:371–399. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brooks-Gunn J, Duncan GJ. The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children. 1997;7:55–71. doi:10.2307/1602387. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bryant CM, Conger RD. In: An intergenerational model of romantic relationship development. Stability and change in relationships. Vangelisti AL, Reiss HT, Fitzpatrick MA, editors. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2002. pp. 57–82. [Google Scholar]
  11. Caspi A. Personality development across the life course. In: Damon W, Eisenberg N, editors. Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons, Inc; New York: 1998. pp. 311–388. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cherlin A. Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family: Decade in Review. 2010;72:403–419. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00710.x. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00710.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Church AT. Relating the Tellegen and five-factor models of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;67:898–908. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.67.5.898. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.898. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Clark LA, Watson D. Temperament: An organizing paradigm for trait psychology. In: John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA, editors. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. 3rd Guilford Press; New York: 2008. pp. 265–286. [Google Scholar]
  15. Conger RD, Conger KJ. Resilience in midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2002;64:361–371. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00361.x. [Google Scholar]
  16. Conger RD, Conger KJ, Elder GH, Lorenz FO, Simons RI, Whitbeck LB. A family process model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Development. 1992;63:526–541. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01644.x. doi: 10.2307/1131344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Conger RD, Conger KJ, Martin MJ. Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010;72:685–704. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Conger RD, Cui MK, Bryant CM, Elder GH., Jr. Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000;79:224–237. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.79.2.224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Conger RD, Donnellan MB. An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007;58:175–199. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Conger RD, Wallace LE, Sun Y, Simons RL, McLoyd VC, Brody G. Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental Psychology. 2002;38:179–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.179. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Crosnoe R, Cavanagh SE. Family with children and adolescents: A review, critique, and future agenda. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010;72:594–611. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00720.x. [Google Scholar]
  22. Donnellan MB, Conger K,J, McAdams KK, Neppl TK. Personal characteristics and resilience to economic hardship and its consequences: Conceptual issues and empirical illustrations. Journal of Personality. 2009;77:1–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00596.x. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00596.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Donnellan MB, Larson-Rife D, Conger RD. Personality, family history, and competence in early adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005;88:562–576. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.562. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Duncan GJ, Magnuson KA. Off with Hollingshead: Socioeconomic resources, parenting, and child development. In: Bornstein MH, Bradley RH, editors. Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ: 2003. pp. 83–106. [Google Scholar]
  25. Elder GH., Jr. The life course as developmental theory. Child Development. 1998;69:1–12. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06128.x. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Elder GH, Jr., Shanahan MJ. The life course and human development. In: Damon W, Lerner RM, editors. Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 1. Wiley; New York: 2006. pp. 665–715. [Google Scholar]
  27. Harkness A, R. Tellegen, A., Waller N. Differential convergence of self-report and informant data for Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire traits: Implications for the construct of negative emotionality. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1995;64:185–204. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_13. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff for fit indexed in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6:1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118. [Google Scholar]
  29. Humbad MN, Donnellan MB, Iacono WG, McGue M, Burt SA. Is spousal similarity for personality a matter of convergence or selection? Personality and Individual Differences. 2010;49:827–830. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.010. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lehnart J, Neyer FJ, Eccles J. Long-term effects of social investment: The case of partnering in young adulthood. Journal of Personality. 2010;78:639–670. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00629.x. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00629.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Linver MR, Brooks-Gunn J, Kohen D. Family processes as pathways from income to young children’s development. Developmental Psychology. 2002;38:719–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.5.719. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mazumder B. Fortunate sons: New estimates of intergenerational mobility in the United States using social security earnings data. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 2005;87:235–255. doi:10.1162/0034653053970249. [Google Scholar]
  33. Melby JN, Conger RD. The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales: Instrument summary. In: Kerig P, Lindahl K, editors. Family observational coding systems: Resources for systematic research. Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ: 2001. pp. 33–58. [Google Scholar]
  34. Melby J, Conger R, Book R, Rueter M, Lucy L, Repinski D, Scaramella L. The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales. Fifth Iowa State University, Institute for Social and Behavioral Research; Ames: 1998. [Google Scholar]
  35. Melby JN, Conger RD, Fang SA, Wickrama KAS, Conger KJ. Adolescent family experiences and educational attainment during early adulthood. Developmental Psychology. 2008;44:1519–1536. doi: 10.1037/a0013352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Nelson JA, O’Brien M, Blankson AN, Calkins SD, Keane SP. Family stress and parental responses to children’s negative emotions: Tests of the spillover, crossover, and compensatory hypotheses. Journal of Family Psychology. 2009;23:671–679. doi: 10.1037/a0015977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Neppl TK, Conger RD, Scaramella LV, Ontai LL. Intergenerational continuity in parenting behavior: Mediating pathways and child effects. Developmental Psychology. 2009;45:1241–1256. doi: 10.1037/a0014850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014850. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Neyer FJ, Asendorpf JB. Personality-relationship transaction in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001;81:1190–1204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1190. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Neyer FJ, Lehnart J. Relationships matter in personality development: Evidence from an 8-year longitudinal study across young adulthood. Journal of Personality. 2007;75:535–568. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00448.x. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00448.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Roberts BW, Caspi A, Moffitt TE. Work experiences and personality development in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;84:582–593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.582. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Scaramella LV, Neppl TK, Ontai LL, Conger RD. Consequences of socioeconomic disadvantage across three generations: Parenting behavior and child externalizing problems. Journal of Family Psychology. 2008;22:725–733. doi: 10.1037/a0013190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Schofield TJ, Martin M, Conger RD, Neppl TK, Donnellan MB, Conger KJ. Intergenerational transmission of adaptive functioning: A test of the interactionist model of SES and human development. Child Development. 2011;82:33–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01539.x. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01539.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Sobolewski JM, Amato PR. Economic hardship in the family of origin and children’s psychological well-being in adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005;67:141–156. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00011.x. [Google Scholar]
  44. South SJ. The variable effects of family background on the timing of first marriage: United States, 1969 – 1993. Social Science Research. 2001;30:606–626. doi:10.1006/ssre.2001.0714. [Google Scholar]
  45. Teti DM, Lamb ME, Elster AB. Long-range socioeconomic and marital consequences of adolescent marriage in three cohorts of adult males. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1987;49:499–506. doi:10.2307/352195. [Google Scholar]
  46. Trentacosta CJ, Neppl TK, Donnellan MB, Scaramella LV, Shaw DS, Conger RD. Adolescent personality as a prospective predictor of parenting: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Family Psychology. 2010;24:721–730. doi: 10.1037/a0021732. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. US Census Bureau Estimated median age at first marriage: 1890 to present. 2015 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/files/ms2.csv.

RESOURCES