Laura D. Pittman Psychology Department Northern Illinois University

1. Quality of Grandmother-Mother Relationships: Links to Children’s Behaviors, Mothers’ Parenting and Psychological Functioning Laura D. Pittman Psychology Department Northern Illinois University

2. Grandparents’ role in the family • Growing number of studies considering influence of grandparents • Custodial parents • Multigenerational households • Grandparents providing childcare • Often the focus is on the burden placed on the grandparents, and not the impact of mother or child

3. Aspects to consider • Direct vs. indirect influences • Direct interactions with children – either informally or if providing childcare • Indirect influences through interactions with mother • Contextual factors • Minority vs. European American families • Married vs. divorced families

4. Questions for this study • How does the quality of the grandmother-mother (GM-M) relationship influence mothers’ mental health, her parenting, and her children’s functioning? • Do these associations vary by context? • Single versus two-parent households • African American vs. Hispanic American families

5. Welfare, Children, and Families: A Three-City Study • 2402 families completed Time 1 interview (1999) • Over 40,000 household screened for eligible families • Children age 0-4 years or 10-14 years • 74% overall response rate • Boston, Chicago, San Antonio • 88% of families completed Time 2 interview (2001) • For each time point a 2-hour interview of the maternal caregiver in family’s home using a computerized interview format was completed • Obtained information on family background, mental health, economic condition, and parenting

6. Embedded Developmental Study (EDS) • At each time point, mothers of 2-4 year old children asked to completed a second interview focused on grandmother & father relationships and childcare • Time 1: 85% response rate • Time 2: 88% response rate • This analysis focuses on the 370 families with EDS interviews at both time points who identified a biological grandmother in their lives

7. Quality of Grandmother-Mother relationship • Global relationship quality • 12 items from Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) • Two factors: Trust & Communication and Anger & Alienation • Specific scale about parenting • 6 items asking about how much GM helps or interferes with parenting • Two scales: Parenting Cooperation & Parenting Conflict

8. Mothers’ Mental Health • 10-item Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1986) • Brief Symptom Inventory–18 (Derogatis, 2000) • Includes symptoms of anxiety, depression, & somatization • Parenting Stress & Satisfaction • 12 items derived from similar measures in the New Hope Study & Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID)

9. Mothers’ Parenting • Parenting Practices - Raising Children Checklist (Shumow, et al., 1998) • 20 items which collapsed to 4 Subscales: Authoritative, Harsh, Permissive & Disengaged Parenting • Cognitive Stimulation subscale from the HOME (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984) • Family Routines • 6-items from Family Routines Inventory (Jensen et al., 1983)

10. Child outcomes • Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1992; 1992) • Externalizing & Internalizing Problem Behaviors • Because two versions used age-standardized scores and collapsed across version • Positive Behavior Scale (Quint, Bos, & Polit, 1997) • 6 items about children’s social competence

11. Background Characteristics at Time 1(N = 370) • Mothers’ Age: 26.97 years (SD = 5.57) • Children’s Age: 3.32 years (SD = 0.92) • 42% African American; 51% Hispanic American; 7% Caucasian or Other • 46% earned High School degree • 55% Single; 37% Married; 8% Cohabiting • Household Income-to-Needs Ratio: 0.84 (SD = .48)

12. Longitudinal regressions • Longitudinal regressions run predicting Time 2 variables by the four GM-M relations variables • GM-M Trust & Communication • GM-M Anger & Alienation • GM-M Parenting Cooperation • GM-M Parenting Conflict • Controlling for: • Corresponding Time 1 variables • Other key demographic variables • child’s age & gender • mother’s age, education, marital status & race/ethnicity • household income-to-needs ratio

13. Main effects of GM-M relationship • Maternal mental health • More GM-M Parenting Cooperation • Increasing self-esteem (β = .19*) • More GM-M Anger & Alienation • Increasing Internalizing Symptoms (β = .20**) • Increasing Parenting Stress (β = .26**) • Decreasing Parenting Satisfaction (β = -.29**) • Parenting • More GM-M Trust & Communication • Increasing Family Routines (β = .30**) • Child outcomes • Higher GM-M Trust & Communication • Increasing Positive Behaviors (β = .21*)

14. Considering context • Added interaction terms with the four GM-M relationship variables and • 1 vs. 2-parent household • Ethnicity of the family • Limited analysis to 330 families who were either African American or Hispanic American

15. Interactions with Household Type • 5 interactions were significant • GM-M Parenting Cooperation interaction on Parenting Stress • GM-M Trust & Communication on Mothers’ Self–esteem • GM-M Anger & Alienation on Parenting Satisfaction • GM-M Trust & Communication on Cognitive Stimulation • Gm-M Parenting Conflict on Children’s Internalizing Symptoms

16. Interaction between Household Status and GM-M Parenting Cooperation predicting Parenting Stress

17. Interaction between Mother-Grandmother Trust and Communication and Single Parent Household predicting Mothers' Self Esteem

18. Interactions with Ethnicity • 11 interactions were significant • Predicting Mothers’ Mental Health • GM-M Parenting Conflict interaction on Mothers’ Self-Esteem • GM-M Parenting Conflict on Parenting Satisfaction • GM-M Parenting Cooperation on Parenting Satisfaction • Gm-M Anger & Alienation on Parenting Satisfaction • Mothers’ Parenting • GM-M Parenting Conflict on Cognitive Stimulation • GM-M Parenting Cooperation on Authoritative Parenting • GM-M Parenting Cooperation on Disengaged Parenting • GM-M Trust & Communication on Disengaged Parenting • GM-M Trust & Communication on Permissive Parenting • Children’s Outcomes • GM-M Parenting Conflict on Child’s Positive Behaviors • GM-M Parenting Cooperation on Child’s Positive Behaviors

19. Interaction between Mother-Grandmother Parenting Conflict and Ethnicity predicting Mothers' Self-esteem

20. Interaction between Mother-Grandmother Parenting Cooperation and Ethnicity predicting Parenting Satisfaction

21. Interaction between Mother-Grandmother Parenting Cooperation and Ethnicity predicting Mothers' Authoritative Parenting

22. Interaction between Mother-Grandmother Parenting Conflict and Ethnicity predicting Child's Positive Behaviors

23. Summary-Main Effects • GM-M relationship was important • Several main effects related to linked to maternal mental health & parenting stress • Fewer related to parenting and children’s mental health • Aspects of the global GM-M relationship seemed more relevant

24. Summary: Contextual influences Family context seemed to influence how important the GM-M relationship was Less clear for single vs. two-parent household These relationships seem more influential among African American, as compared to Hispanic American, families The specific aspects of the GM-M relationship related to parenting seem most likely to find differences It may be that these aspects are more variable or more important among African American families

25. Limitations & Future Directions • Analyses are exploratory in nature • More studies designed to look at these questions are needed • However, the analyses used are conservative in nature and, thus, suggest that grandmothers can be important in family life • Future studies need to consider • Other populations • Grandfathers as well as grandmothers, and • Other contexts

26. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Office of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation Administration on Developmental Disabilities, Administration for Children and Families Social Security Administration National Institute of Mental Health The Boston Foundation The Annie E. Casey Foundation The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation The Lloyd A. Fry Foundation The Hogg Foundation for Mental Health The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation The Joyce Foundation The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation The W.K. Kellogg Foundation The Kronkosky Charitable Foundation The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation The David and Lucile Packard Foundation The Searle Fund for Policy Research The Woods Fund of Chicago THANKS…. • To the families who participated in this study; • To the PI’s of this study: Andrew Cherlin, P. Lindsay-Chase-Lansdale, Robert Moffitt, Ronald Angel, Linda Burton, and William Julius Wilson; and • To the funders of this project: