Family Environment and Intellectual Functioning

A Life-span Perspective

Elena L. Grigorenko, Robert J. Sternberg, Elena L. Grigorenko, Robert J. Sternberg

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2001
• eBook ISBN: 9781135671105
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Cognitive Psychology & Cognition
• Index: Psychology

What is the impact of the family environment on us, particularly with regard to our intellectual functioning? Does the role of early family environment wear off, as some researchers have suggested, or does it maintain or possibly even become more important as we grow older? This book examines the interrelationship between family environment and intellectual functioning in a lifespan perspective. Covering a wide range of topics, it provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date examination of life-span family influences on various aspects of intellectual function. For cognitive, development/lifespan, and educational psychologists, and scholars studying the family and its influences, this volume will help:
*students learn about family effects;
*researchers update themselves in this active area of investigation;
*therapists understand problems in intellectual functioning in their clients and in treating these clients successfully; and
*educators gain a better grasp on how the students they teach are products not only of their genes and environments, in general, but of their family environments, in particular.

1
The Family as a Context of Psychological Functioning

Alice S.Carter

Karla Klein Murdock
University of Massachusetts, Boston

Men are like plants: the goodness and flavour of the fruit proceeds from the peculiar soil and exposition in which they grow.

—Michel Guillaume Jean de Crevecoeur (1782/1968, p. 50)

Few would question the notion that the family endows some qualities of the composition, cultivates the growth, and bears witness to the ripening of an individual’s potential. Philosophical and poetic musings about the importance of the family are difficult to challenge. At the same time, exploring the role of the family in psychological development is a complex puzzle. This volume illuminates pieces of this puzzle that have received empirical attention. In this chapter, we address some of the complexities encountered when evaluating influences of “the family context” and describe a systemic foundation, or frame, for figuratively fitting the puzzle pieces together. We begin by offering working definitions of the family context and then consider theoretical frameworks for understanding the complex forces operating in family and social contexts, Using these theories as a guide, we discuss the multitude of constellations and practices that characterize families in our time. We explain general family processes that may affect development directly and in combination with other factors. We conclude with a discussion of the interplay between nature and nurture, emphasizing notions of reciprocity and responsivity within family relationships. We also emphasize goodness of fit with respect to the fit between an individual family member and systemic features of the family context.

The first step in exploring the family context is to define it. From a scientist’s perspective, some aspects of families must be held constant in order to examine how variations in family contexts are associated with variations in child, adolescent, and adult development. However, families in our time are comprised of a multitude of constellations. The blessing and curse of this diversity in family forms and practices is that both between and within families, little is constant. Furthermore, “the family” is a moving target. It is a dynamic unit of social organization that changes across history, setting, circumstance, and stage of the life cycle. Thus, the family context can be defined and redefined according to multiple dimensions. Even the task of identifying the members who should be counted within a given family can be complicated, Family membership may be defined on the basis of biological relationships or perceptions of psychological relationship (i.e., a household of unrelated individuals who view themselves as “family”).

Systems theories emphasize the interdependence of, and interactions between, the components of social systems. By focusing on this dynamic interplay between factors that influence individuals’ development, systems theories promote an appreciation for multiple processes that foster and/or inhibit optimal development. One such issue is the goodness of fit between the individual and the environments in which development occurs. Goodness of fit refers to the concordance between an individual’s capacities and the environmental demands, expectations, and supports (Chess & Thomas, 1991; Thomas, Chess, & Birch, 1968). Systems theories also allow a competence-focused, rather than deficit-focused, perspective of individuals and families. In other words, these perspectives emphasize factors that may promote as well as inhibit healthy intellectual development.

ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS THEORY: FAMILIES IN CONTEXT

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1986, 1995) provides a model for understanding the interactions between multiple levels of the environment that affect development. This theory was recently expanded to include biological influences on development (Bronfenbrenner, 1995; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1997). However, its main emphasis remains on five environmental systems that range from unique, direct interactions between individuals to the global cultural and historical settings in which development takes place. The developing person is viewed as embedded in a series of environmental systems that directly and indirectly interact with one another and with the person to influence development.

The innermost layer of this set of nested systems is the microsystem, which consists of the immediate contexts that individuals actually experience. Throughout development, individuals typically operate within more and more microsystems. For instance, although an infant may exist primarily or solely in a microsystem that includes his parents and siblings, his microsystems are likely to expand to include relationships within day-care, preschool, and neighborhood play-group settings. An individual is not only influenced by others in his micro systems, but is viewed as an active agent within the system, influencing the systems and the individuals within those systems as well.

The next environmental layer in the ecological theory of development is the mesosystem, which refers to the links or interconnections among microsystems. Bronfenbrenner proposed that development is likely to be optimized when strong, supportive links exist between an individual’s multiple microsystems. For example, a child’s mastery of academic skills may stem from the academic support that she receives from her teachers as well as her parents. Parents who support teachers’ efforts and teachers who build on preacademic skills learned in the family may introduce additive as well as nonlinear effects in children’s acquisition of academic competence. Similarly, an adult’s satisfaction with assuming dual roles of parent and employee may be largely dependent on the availability of high quality child care and other “family-friendly” policies in the workplace. The mesosystem reflects connections between multiple microsystems that interact with one another, as well as with the individual, to influence the course of development.

The third environmental level, the exosystem, consists of settings that are not directly experienced but that may still affect development. For example, a parent’s workplace may exert an indirect influence on a child’s development through a variety of forces. Demands for working late hours might reduce the time or resources the parent can devote to parenting, which could impact the child’s functioning. In this example, the child does not have an active role in the workplace (i.e., an aspect of the exosystem), but is indirectly influenced.

Finally, Bronfenbrenner proposed two broad, overarching environmental systems that influence development. The macrosystem is the cultural context in which microsystems, mesosystems, and exosystems are embedded. It refers to the ideology that dictates (among other things) how children, adolescents, and adults, should be treated, what they should be taught, and what goals are important. Finally, the chronosystem involves the patterning of environmental events and transitions over the life course and sociohistorical circumstances. The chronosystem captures the concept of time at multiple levels, ranging from individual processes of adaptation to life events to sociohistorical trends.

The impact of poverty on children’s intellectual functioning may be understood as having an impact at each of the levels of the ecosystem described thus far. Poverty is consistently associated with poorer intellectual outcomes and is viewed as a cumulative rather than an unitary risk factor in children’s development (e.g., Huston, McLoyd, & Garcia-Coll, 1994; Roberts, Burchinal, & Durham, 1999; Sameroff, Seifer, Barocas, Zax, & Greenspan, 1987). Despite the known deleterious impact of poverty on children’s healthy development, the number of children living in poverty in the United States has increased in recent years (Carnegie Task Force, 1994; National Center for Children in Poverty, 1996). This increase is due to a variety of factors, including an increase in single parent families and changes in welfare legislation (Duncan, 1991; Zaslow, Tout, Smith, & Moore, 1998).

Within the microsystem, families who live in poverty are less likely to be able to afford age-appropriate toys and books that can stimulate development (Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn, McCarton, & McCormick, 1998). Families may also be less emotionally available due to the psychological stress of economic hardship. Assessments of the early home environment using the Home Observation Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Inventory have yielded stronger predictions of children’s academic and cognitive outcomes than maternal education (Bradley et al., 1989; Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov, & Liaw, 1995). Moreover, children who live in poverty are more likely to be born as small for gestational age or low birth weight due to limited access to prenatal care and inadequate nutrition (Starfield, 1991). At the level of the mesosystem, community resources within poor neighborhoods are often less adequate than those in wealthier neighborhoods and community problems such as exposure to violence may further compromise development (Garbarino, 1990; Gelles, 1992). Although many programs such as Head Start specifically target children who live in poverty, these programs have not met the needs of poor children in our country in terms of the number of children served and have varied in quality and duration of services provided (Zigler & Gilman, 1997). Finally, at the level of the exosystem, programs aimed at reducing poverty in our country have often failed to consider the impact on children. A good example of this is the recent Welfare to Work policy in which mothers of young children are encouraged to return to work and/or enter job training programs without adequate provision for appropriate child care (cf. Zaslow et al., 1998).

SOCIOHISTORICAL CHANGES IN CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE FAMILY IN THE UNITED STATES

When exploring the family as a context for development, it is crucial to consider the chronosystem, as it reflects sociohistorical changes in constructions of the family. In this nation, typical images and ideas about the family still appear to revolve around a somewhat mythical, “traditional” family model in which married heterosexual parents raise children until they are launched into an independent lifestyle during late adolescence. However, the data about real families in the Unites States scarcely fits this model. Since the 1970s, family forms and practices have changed considerably in response to social changes such as increasing rates of divorce and remarriage, gender-based shifts in the labor force, and instabilities in the nation’s economic well-being.

Perhaps the most significant departure from the traditional family concept is reflected in emergent patterns of caregiving for children. One of the most notable of these caregiving trends is the substantial decline in families w...

Table of contents

• Contents
• Preface
• 1 The Family as a Context of Psychological Functioning
• 2 Arguing for the Concept of Developmental Niche
• 3 Family Capital and Cognitive Performance
• 4 The Confluence Model: An Academic “Tragedy of the Commons?”
• 5 Divorce and Children’s Cognitive Ability
• 6 Maternal Employment, Child Care, and Cognitive Outcomes
• 7 Parental Belief Parenting Style, and Children’s Intellectual Development
• 8 Sources of Environmental Influence on Cognitive Abilities in Adulthood
• 9 Family Functioning and Intellectual Functioning in Later Life
• 10 Grandchildren as Moderator Variables in the Family, Social, Physiological, and Intellectual Development of Grandparents Who Are Raising Them
• 11 Degree of Embeddedness of Ecological Systems as a Measure of Ease of Adaptation to the Environment
• Author Index
• Subject Index