Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T00:52:00.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Emerging psychopathology moderates upward social mobility: The intergenerational (dis)continuity of socioeconomic status

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2015

Marie-Hélène Véronneau
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal
Lisa A. Serbin*
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Dale M. Stack
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Jane Ledingham
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Alex E. Schwartzman
Affiliation:
Concordia University
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Lisa A. Serbin, Centre for Research in Human Development and Department of Psychology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, PY-170, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada. E-mail: lisa.serbin@concordia.ca.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Socioeconomic status (SES) is relatively stable across generations, but social policies may create opportunities for upward social mobility among disadvantaged populations during periods of economic growth. With respect to expanded educational opportunities that occurred in Québec (Canada) during the 1960s, we hypothesized that children's social and academic competence would promote upward mobility, whereas aggression and social withdrawal would have the opposite effect. Out of 4,109 children attending low-SES schools in 1976–1978, a representative subsample of 503 participants were followed until midadulthood. Path analyses revealed that parents’ SES predicted offspring's SES through associations with offspring's likeability, academic competence, and educational attainment. Interaction effects revealed individual risk factors that moderated children's ability to take advantage of intrafamilial or extrafamilial opportunities that could enhance their educational attainment. Highly aggressive participants and those presenting low academic achievement were unable to gain advantage from having highly educated parents. They reached lower educational attainment than their less aggressive or higher achieving peers who came from a similarly advantaged family background. Growing up with parents occupying low-prestige jobs put withdrawn boys and outgoing girls at risk for low educational attainment. In conclusion, social policies can raise SES across generations, with great benefits for the most disadvantaged segments of the population. However, children presenting with emerging psychopathology or academic weaknesses do not benefit from these policies as much as others, and should receive additional, targeted services.

Information

Type
Special Section Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 
Figure 0

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations

Figure 1

Figure 1. Child educational attainment (bars) and parental educational attainment (dotted lines) for the overall sample and for families in which parents have low versus high occupational prestige.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Building the initial model: Step 1. Two models were compared: the full-mediation model, including only the paths that are depicted in black arrows, and the partial mediation model, including the paths that are depicted in black and gray arrows. In both models, autocorrelations among childhood characteristics are also included.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Building the initial model: Step 2. Two models were compared: the direct effect model, including only the paths that are depicted in black arrows, and the mediated effect model, including paths that are depicted in black and gray arrows. Autocorrelations among childhood characteristics and among parental characteristics are also included in both models.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Standardized path coefficients and explained variance for the structural equation model prior to trimming nonsignificant paths to achieve a more parsimonious, final model. Dotted lines represent nonsignificant (ns) path coefficients. Mean age of child participants at the child assessment (1976–1978) was 10.23 years (SD = 1.61, range = 6.52–15.18 years), and mean age at the adult assessment (2002–2005) was 37.06 years (SD = 2.62, range = 34–40 years).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Final model with standardized path coefficients and explained variance for (left) boys and (right, italicized) girls. Corresponding unstandardized coefficients are constrained to equality across genders, except for the coefficients marked by an asterisk; these coefficients are only significant for the designated gender.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Interaction between Generation 1 (G1) parent educational attainment and Generation 2 (G2) child aggression predicting G2 educational attainment. Dotted lines represent G1 educational attainment as a function of the various subgroups of G2 participants.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Interaction between Generation 1 (G1) parent educational attainment and Generation 2 (G2) child academic achievement predicting G2 educational attainment. Dotted lines represent G1 educational attainment as a function of the various subgroups of G2 participants.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Interaction between Generation 1 (G1) parent occupational prestige and Generation 2 (G2) child social withdrawal predicting G2 educational attainment for male G2 participants. Dotted lines represent G1 educational attainment as a function of the various subgroups of G2 participants.

Figure 9

Figure 9. Interaction between Generation 1 (G1) parent occupational prestige and Generation 2 (G2) child social withdrawal predicting G2 educational attainment for female G2 participants. Dotted lines represent G1 educational attainment as a function of the various subgroups of G2 participants.