The relationship between socioeconomic environment in childhood and personality traits

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Running Head: SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT IN CHILDHOOD AND PERSONALITY TRAITS

Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution Of Tertiary Education

National Research University Higher School of Economics

Faculty of Social Sciences

Department of Psychology

Master's Program «Applied Social Psychology»

The Relationship between Socioeconomic Environment in Childhood and Personality Traits

Ekaterina D. K.

2018



Introduction

Childhood poverty is a quite actual societal problem. According to the World Bank (2016), 20 percent of children under 18 years in low and middle income countries are poor. The situation in the developed world is not any better, because 21 percent of all children in the United States live in economically disadvantaged families and child poverty level in 2016 was above 20 percent in more than 20 states (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2016). According to the Russian Federal Service of Governmental Statistics (2016), 60 percent of families with children in Russia were below the minimum level of living wage. The incidence rates of childhood poverty are, however, only part of the problem.

Past research provides the evidence for social environment, especially with poor socioeconomic conditions, to play significant role for personal and behavioral patterns starting already from early childhood (Belsky et. al., 1991; Cohen et. al., 2004; Conger et. al., 2010; Ellis, 2004; Griskevicius et. al., 2013; Lewis, 1996; White et. al., 2013). This idea is built on the basis of different approaches to the problem of poverty. According to the evolutionary approach of Griskevicius and colleagues (2013), socioeconomic conditions of life in childhood play important role for personality in future. Scientists applied to the concept of socioeconomic status (SES) and found that people grown up in poor conditions were more impulsive, took more risks, and approached temptations more quickly (Griskevicius et. al., 2013). Supporting findings of the significant role of childhood conditions for personality were found by other scientists, who found, that poor early life period was associated with cognitive abilities problems (e. g. limited and long-term developmental deficits, learning disability (Brooks Gunn & Duncan, 1997), structural difference in some areas of brain (Hair et. al., 2015), ineffective self-regulation (e. g., Brooks-Gunn et. al., 1997; Duncan et. al., 1994; Evans, 2004), and more chances of having developmental delays and learning disabilities (Dawson, 1991) in adulthood. Additionally, poor children have worse health, their emotional and behavioral spheres suffer, because they have externalizing behavior problems (e.g., difficulties getting along with others, impulsivity, aggression, anxiety, social withdrawal and depression (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Slopen et. al., 2010). According to the approach of Lewis (1966), called «Culture of poverty», poverty is a special environment for people, which becomes autonomous, as behavior patterns, attitudes and beliefs developed within a culture of poverty, are inherited to the next generations through socialization process. These patterns differ from patterns in socialization process of middle- and high-income people. It appears, that poverty is a powerful concept, which may strongly define beliefs, attitudes and behavior of people, ever born in poor families.

At the same time past findings support influential role of personality for different aspects of life, such as minimization of interpersonal conflicts (Asendorpf, 1998; Graziano et. al., 1996), choice of optimal stress coping strategies, flexibility to unexpected changes in life (Lecic-Tosevski, et. al., 2011), subjective well-being (Diener et al., 1984), and what is especially important - increasing income (Cashen, 2014; Proto & Rustichini, 2012). We come to the point, where influential power of socioeconomic conditions in childhood on different aspects of personality same as influential power of personality on income level are mentioned in past studies. On this basis we want to obtain understanding of how childhood conditions of life impact personality in overall, especially when these conditions are characterized as poor. We view personality as the set of habitual behaviors, cognitions and emotional patterns that evolve from biological and environmental factors (Corr, 2009), and accentuate socioeconomic environment as conducive to personality traits.

Great amount of existing works studied relation between environmental conditions and different aspects of personality, such as self-regulation (e. g., Brooks-Gunn et. al., 1997; Duncan et. al., 1994; Evans, 2004), development of brain structures (Hair et. al., 2015), learning and cognitive abilities (Brooks Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Nevertheless, findings are quite scattered and do not emphasize the role of exactly socioeconomic environment for personality in childhood period. Only few researchers attempted to investigate the role of environmental conditions for specific personality aspects in in early-life period on the basis of SES (Griskevicius et. al., 2013), while impact on whole personality has not been investigated yet. Thus, problem current research faces, is a lack of studies, devoted to interrelation between poor socioeconomic conditions in childhood and personality.

We come to the point, that socioeconomic environment has not been extensively explored yet. So, current study attempts to understand, how poor socioeconomic environment in childhood impacts personality. For this reason we consider past findings, which emphasize such factors of childhood as home environment (Brooks-Gunn et. al., 1997), presence of educational books and toys (Duncan et. al., 1994; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997), opportunity to attend educational services (McLoyd, 1998) and others to be important for personality. Based on these findings, we view socioeconomic environment not only as financial basis, but also a lack of physical security, increased levels of stress, deprivation of resources, bad education and specific family relationships. Together, these factors constitute socioeconomic environment, crucial for development of personality.

Following past findings and existing variance on the problem of childhood poverty and personality traits, our study offers a questionnaire to measure socioeconomic environment in childhood. This questionnaire helps to assess the extent to which people feel they had adequate or inadequate resources in childhood, taking into account such factors as relationships in family, learning resources (Duncan et. al., 1994; Brooks-Gunn et. al. 1997), living conditions (Robert & Betson, 1997), clothing, spending money, food (Coleman, 1988; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997) and etc. The innovative idea of our study will have immediate practical implications to educational institutions, sphere of developmental psychology, family psychology, and social psychology. Our findings expand and concretize the theoretical background on the problem of socioeconomic conditions in childhood and personality traits. Results of the study can be useful for social institutions for development of remedial and social support programs for children. Additionally, it serves the ground for expanding the sphere of control of family relationships in low-income families.



1. Theoretical background on the relationship between socioeconomic environment in childhood and personality traits

1.1 The important role of socioeconomic environment in childhood

The effects of poverty on children

Nowadays poverty is one of the sharpest social problems in the world. People living in poverty have troubles to find adequate employment and financial hardship, they are lacking essentials such as housing, food, and education. For example, 805 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat (FAO, IFAD & WFP, 2014), and more than 750 million people lack adequate access to clean drinking water (World Health Organization & UNICEF, 2014). Being poor serves the ground for inability to take a part in society on equal terms with others, being excluded by fellow citizens or withdrawn from social life because of a lack of economic resources (e.g., Sen, 1983). The incidence of poverty is high among some types of families. According to the Russian Federal Service of Governmental Statistics (2016), 60 percent of families with children in Russia are below the minimum level of living wage. About two-third of incomplete families in Russia are poor (61,9 percent), 60 percent of student families are poor and even more than half of married couples with children are poor (World Bank, 1997). Confirmatory findings on incomplete families being among the poorest families were obtained in later findings (DeNavas-Walt et. al., 2010). Children from separated families have higher probability of living in poverty and poor housing, having behavioral problems, and general chances of being poor in adulthood (Rodgers & Pryor, 1998). Thus, when families are incomplete, not only parents, but also their children have higher chances to become poor as well.

The problem of poverty has always been of a scientific interest. People living under the conditions of poverty suffer from lack of material resources even more dramatically than those from middle- or high-income families. Interesting, that according to the «culture of poverty» of Lewis (1996), people living under conditions of poverty have almost no chance to emerge from it. Culture of poverty provides the environment for specific conditions of socialization development and leaves almost no chance for children born in poor families ever to get out from poverty. These families possess such values and convictions, which are very different from values, norms and attitudes of middle- and high-income families. «Culture of poverty» characterizes poverty as a subculture with a specific pattern of beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors common to all people living in the conditions of material disadvantage.

Following earlier findings in developmental psychology (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 2000; Evans et. al., 2004) and behavioral economics (Griskevicius et. al., 2013), poverty and situation of lacking financials or material goods have an impact not only on adults, but also on children (e.g. personality development, general behavior in adulthood). In comparison to adulthood poverty, early childhood poverty has more adverse impacts on personality relative to discontinuous poverty exposure (Bolger et. al., 1995; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Duncan et al., 1994). Almlund (2011) supports the idea that personality firstly emerges already in childhood, and generally quite stable afterward. Thus, social scientists have spent a considerable amount of effort uncovering the theoretical and empirical linkages between family resources and human capital formation in children (Almond & Currie, 2011; Cunha et. al., 2006; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Blau, 1999).

Factors of poor living environment under certain conditions stand as triggers for specific development of different personality aspects, such as self-regulation (e. g., Duncan, et. al., 1994; Evans, 2004), development of brain structures (Hair et. al., 2015), learning and cognitive abilities (Brooks Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Combined all these aspects result in personality, which directly depends on socioeconomic conditions in childhood. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Bradley and colleagues (1994) demonstrated, that families above the poverty line were more likely to engage in cognitively enhancing activities with their children than families below the poverty line. Children living under poor conditions demonstrate high indices of cognitive outcomes (e. g. limited and long-term developmental deficits, learning disability) (Brooks Gunn & Duncan, 1997), slower learning ability (Morgan et. al., 2009) and difference in brain area associated with school readiness skills (Hair et. al., 2015). It was found that physical stressor factors and psychosocial stressor factors accompany childhood period and affect brain development and cognitive functions (Blair, 2010; Blair et. al., 2011; Evans & Fuller-Rowell, 2013), responsible for self-regulation (Baumeister, et. al., 1994; Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996; Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013). It is scientifically proven that in childhood brain is more flexible and stress reactive system changes under increased level of stress hormone cortisol. Stress reactive system becomes more susceptible to stress and starts to react even on low levels of stressor factors in future (Blair et. al., 2011). Stress makes parents regulate their children's behavior and speak in order to initiate and sustain conversation (Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoff et. al., 2002). It provides the ground for social isolation and stigmatization of children among peers and even teachers (Murray, 1996), affects socioemotional and cognitive development (Emery & Laumann-Billings, 1998; Repetti et. al., 2002) as well as physical health (McLoyd, 1998).

This way, reader finds out, how crucial poor living conditions of life may be not only for parents, but also for development of different personality aspects of children, who are exposed to harmful influence of overall atmosphere in family with lack of financials.

1.2 The features of life in poor childhood

Past studies elicited spheres, which are influenced by poor conditions of life. For example, Brooks-Gunn & Duncan studied child health and development in the context of financial conditions. Their study (1997) provided the idea that family income may have an impact on child development and thus formulated five influential incentives, such as home environment, health, nutrition, parental mental health and parental interactions with children. Similar division of influential incentives provided Adler and colleagues (1993), emphasizing parental mental health and effective interactions, child health and nutrition, provision of a stimulating home environment, school and child care quality, and neighborhood conditions. According to this division, there is a great spectrum of negative factors, which children from poor families are exposed to.

Referring to the impact of poverty on parental interactions with children, there are findings, that socialization of children from low-income families is generally distorted because of constant high level of stress, fatigue and depression (Farah et. al., 2006; Magnuson & Duncan, 2002). Incomplete socialization has bad impact on psychosocial development of children (Evans, 2002; Evans, 2004; Evans & Kim, 2007; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Slack et. al., 2004). In poor families prevail low level of sensitivity and involvement in upbringing processes (Slack et. al., 2004), decreased level of contact between child and parents (Evans, 2004) and absence of cognitive stimulation (Duncan et. al., 1994). Children from low-income families more often live in aggressive environment and face violence (Evans, 2004). Under the stress parents become more unresponsive (Magnuson & Duncan, 2002; McLoyd, 1998) and apply unconstructed upbringing practice (authoritarian parenting style) (Maddahi, et. al., 2012; Magnuson & Duncan, 2002; Slack et al., 2004).

Low-income households face a significantly greater array of material hardships (housing, food, medical costs) than middle- and upper- income households (Mayer & Jencks, 1989), what directly affects child health and nutrition. For example, for the reason of parental inability to purchase goods, children have problems with health and nutrition. They face deficits in nutrition's status and abstentious food (Brown & Pollitt, 1996; Duncan et. al., 1994; Mackerras, 1997). Moreover, according to Pollitt and colleagues (1996), poor nutritional status may affect brain growth both pre- and postnatally. Children from low-income families often suffer illnesses and limited resources (Duncan et. al., 1994).

Speaking of learning resources in low-income families, one of the large national studies in the USA found, that the longer child had to live below the poverty line, the less likely they had computer or the Internet (Becker, 2000) and the more indigent toys and books they had (Duncan et. al., 1994; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). McCulloch & Joshi (2001) found, that income effects are partly mediated by factors of physical environment, such as parent child learning, including reading and visiting library. Lower income is associated with rare parent child learning and reading (Coley, 2002; McCulloch & Joshi, 2001). Lack of financials may be the reason for poor parental education, what results into poor decision-making skills and difficulties in protecting their children from the outcomes of poverty (Shipler, 2005). Poor environmental conditions usually lead to lower level of learning and educational opportunities for children, including lower quality school and child care settings compared to their non-poor counterparts (Phillips et al., 1994). Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and the National Household Education Survey (Bradley et al. 2001a; Corwyn & Bradley 2000) indicated that children from poor families had less access to a wide variety of different recreational and learning materials from infancy through adolescence. They were less likely to go on trips, visit a library or museum, attend a theatrical performance, or be given lessons directed at enhancing their skills.

Taking up the subject of home atmosphere, such factors as insecure home environment (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000), constant noise (Evans, 2004; Evans & Kim, 2007), pain and discomfort (Narayan & Petesch, 2002) were mentioned in low-income families in past studies. Children from poor families usually do not have enough privacy and may live in the atmosphere of crowding (Duncan, et. al. 1994; Lewis, 1966). Additionally, financial problems limit the housing and neighborhood choices of families, compelling them to live in neighborhoods characterized by high levels of crime and unemployment, low levels of resources (Robert & Betson, 1997).

Each of the pathways discussed above present the great variety of parent-child aspects, which are influenced by poor conditions of life. These aspects can be charted into two groups of factors, concerned with childhood poverty: factors of physical environment and factors of social (family) environment. The confluence of multiple psychosocial and physical risk factors may be a key, unique feature of childhood poverty (Mayer & Jencks, 1989). Looking from a social and physical environment perspective, it is evident that children living in poor living conditions accumulate a wide range of adverse risk exposures, which in a sum explain, why childhood poverty is so pathogenic  (Seguin et. al., 1995).

Thus, we view poverty in childhood in our study not only as a state of lacking financials, but as a specific combination of socioeconomic conditions, which provide the ground for personality with particular characteristics. Also, we follow the idea, that parents are primary socializing agents for children, and they provide specific socioeconomic environment for children. On the basis of these assumptions and past findings, we provide the theoretical argumentation for the hypotheses, which we formulate in further chapters, and develop the evaluation method of childhood conditions of life.

1.3 Socioeconomic environment in childhood and personality traits

The impact of socioeconomic status in childhood on personality

Existing findings on the problem of interrelation between socioeconomic conditions and personality are primarily base on studies of different level of socioeconomic status (SES). The SES concept is said to be a modern indicator of resource availability (Belsky et. al., 2012; Griskevicius et. al., 2011). According to another existing definition, SES is the position of a person or group on the socioeconomic scale that is determined by a combination of economic and social factors (Nugent, 2013).

Among contemporary views on the SES three quantitative indicators are said to provide reasonably good coverage of the domains of interest: income, education, and occupational status (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Ensminger et. al., 2003; Jokela & Keltikangas-Jдrvinen, 2011). Annual household income (Gottfried, 1985; Coleman, 1988; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Galobardes, et. al., 2006), parental education (Stevens, 1985; Hauser & Warren, 1997; Galobardes, et. al., 2006), parental occupation (Gottfried, 1985) and Duncan's socioeconomic index (Diemer et. al., 2013; Galobardes, et. al., 2006) usually prevail in existing studies. While studying the role of SES for personality, authors also apply to another factor, such as various home resources (Coleman, 1988; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). These resources include household possessions such as books, computers, and a study room, as well as the availability of educational services after school and in the summer (McLoyd, 1998).

The concept of SES was mentioned in many scientific works (e. g. Bosma et. al., 1999; Deckers, et. al., 2015; Evans & Cassells, 2014; Harper & Lynch, 2002), where association between SES and personal traits was studied mostly with an account to the SES of adults and their personal traits. For example, poor socioeconomic environment was found to have negative outcomes for psychological atmosphere in whole family (Angell, 1936; Manning & Smock, 2011). Some scientists studied mental health risks connected with different SES level, and it was found that high income, occupational status, and education predict higher level of happiness and lower level of depression (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002; Frey & Stutzer, 2002; Lorant et. al., 2003). Other works found, that such patterns, as neuroticism (Bosma et. al., 1999), depression (Harper & Lynch, 2002) and inclination to anxiety disorders (Evans & Cassells, 2014) were reported commonly among low SES people.

Nevertheless, SES gained popularity in studies of Griskevicius (2011), where construct was studied in the context childhood poverty. In the study of life-history strategies it was found, that individuals raised in lower-SES environments were more impulsive and risk seeking in adulthood (consistent with a faster life-history strategy) (Griskevicius et. al., 2011). Supporting findings were obtained in the study of Deckers (2015), where children living in poor families, demonstrated less patience and more risk-seeking, not like in higher SES families, where children were more patient and less risk-seeking. It appears, that despite great amount of studies devoted to SES in adulthood and personality traits, studies of SES in childhood and personality traits in adults are in scarcity (Duncan et. al., 1998). Thus, our study emphasizes the negative impact of conditions in childhood on personality.

Definition of SES is closely connected with the concept of the socioeconomic environment, what makes it possible to put the parallel between those two concepts. Thus, for the reason of close relations between two concepts and absence of studies devoted to the relation between the socioeconomic environment in childhood and personality characteristics, we resort to the use of the available data, which includes amount of scientific works of SES in childhood and personality traits (Deckers, et. al., 2015; Ellis, 2004; Griskevicius et. al., 2013; Lewis, 1966). It means, that our theoretical and methodological implications about the socioeconomic environment in childhood and personality traits base on the results, obtained through the SES and SES in childhood in relation to personality traits studies.

To summarize, we find it quite useful and actual to follow findings on SES in childhood, because SES is closely connected with socioeconomic environment. It helps to widen understanding of how socioeconomic conditions in childhood relate to personality traits.

1.4 Big 5 traits as environmentally conditioned for personality

Among the large number of personality definitions, we rely on one, which defines personality as the set of habitual behaviors, cognitions and emotional patterns that evolve from biological and environmental factors (Corr, 2009), because results of the influential role of both biological and socioeconomic environment in childhood can be observed in future life of these people.

The impact of biological factors on personality begins already in early-life environment, where exposure to poverty and negative environments can negatively affect children's future developmental trajectories (e.g., cognitive and physical development), which may have lasting negative effects on educational attainment and adult earnings (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn 1997). The results of prenatal poverty may lead to low birth weight of a baby, what in turn predict a range of negative outcomes across the life course, including poor childhood health and lower educational attainment (Bennett 1997; Behrman & Rosenzweig, 2004).

Nevertheless, environmental factors with emphasis on socioeconomic conditions are of the main interest to our study. Indeed, scientists specified spheres, which socioeconomic environment can be influential for. Those are cognitive sphere (LugoGil & Tamis-LeMonda, 2008) and personal (emotional) sphere (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Murray, 1996). Their development goes through childhood period, where poor childhood, in turn, affects brain development and executive function (Blair, 2010; Blair et al., 2011; Evans & Fuller-Rowell, 2013), leads to inability of affective regulation in adulthood (Griskevicius & Mittal, 2014; Kim et. al., 2013). Grown up in poor families, children are more inclined for depression in adulthood (Miller et. al., 2011). They do not get optimal emotional contact, cognitive stimulation (Sulik et. al., 2015), and correct regulation of stress in childhood (Gunnar & Quevedo, 2007). Provision of a stimulating home environment accounts for the effect of income on the cognitive development and may be the most important pathway through which poverty operates (Robert & Betson, 1997). These factors provide the ground for low level of general cognitive abilities (LugoGil & Tamis-LeMonda, 2008) and explain the outcomes of poverty on psychological functioning, including cognitive and emotional functioning (Evans & Schamberg, 2009).

Despite the existing studies explaining which aspects of personality are influenced by socioeconomic conditions of life, all of them are quite general and can not explain how exactly personality is influenced by environmental factors. For this reason, we turn to descriptions of personality, represented by five-factor model.

Without any regard for the fact, that different measures and theoretical models in the personality literature have already been used to create description of personality, most of constructs conceptually and psychometrically have been similar to those represented in the Big 5 model (Bosma et. al., 1999; Harper & Lynch, 2002). Scientists attempted to make a list of universal amount of personality features, and mentioned the Big 5 traits to be remarkable universal (McCrae, et. al., 1997) and being the representatives of the most significant characteristics that shape our social landscape (Buss, 1995), so Big 5 theory emerged with it's apprehensible and integral view on personality. The Big 5 concept is one of the most commonly used taxonomies to represent the personality domain (Deck et. al., 2008) and is widely accepted model of personality description in terms of traits (McCrae & Costa, 2003; Matthews et. al., 2009). According to Buss (1995), Big 5 personality traits represent the most important qualities that shape our social landscape. Besides, the number of researches offered evidence that most of the variables used to assess personality traits in scholarly work can be charted into one or more of the dimensions of the Big 5 (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1993; John, 1990).

The Big 5 concept describes such traits as extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, conscientiousness and neuroticism. Extraversion comprises such related qualities as gregariousness, assertiveness, excitement seeking, warmth, activity, and positive emotions (Matthews, et. al., 2003). Extraverts tend to seek for energy from external means and to be very active (Olsen, 2002). Another trait is openness to experience, which is said to have six dimensions, such as active imagination (fantasy), aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity (Costa, & McCrae, 1992). The ways people apply to control, regulate and direct their impulses is inferred of third The Big 5 trait - conscientiousness (Costa, & McCrae, 1992). It includes tendency to be organized and dependable, be self-disciplined and act dutifully, and prefer planned rather than spontaneous behavior (Toegel & Barsous, 2012). Agreeableness is viewed as an inclination to be compassionate and cooperative, it is a measure of one's trusting and helpful nature (Toegel, & Barsous, 2012). The last trait is neuroticism, which includes is a tendency to experience unpleasant emotions (e. g. anger, anxiety, depression) easily; the degree of emotional stability (Jeronimus, et. al., 2013; Jeronimus, et. al. 2014).

All of the Big 5 traits are being formed under the influence of the environmental factors. Thus, current study finds The Big 5 features relevant for the current study, and investigates how socioeconomic conditions of life in childhood are associated with Big 5 traits in adulthood.

Relationship between socioeconomic environment in childhood and Big 5 traits

Our study seeks to understand how poverty affects personality, because earlier findings provide the evidence for personality to be important predictor of motivation and behavior in situations, where cognitive processes are not even involved. For instance, economic success depends on personality traits, not on non-cognitive traits (Almlund et. al., 2011). Thus, we follow existing findings on interrelation between Big 5 personality traits and different environmental factors, which in turn help to make predictions about the associations between childhood socioeconomic environment and personality traits in adult age.

In earlier studies links between the Big Five personality traits and income level (Proto & Rustichini, 2012), occupational choice (Filer, 1986), job performance (e.g. Judge et al., 1999), academic achievement (Poropat, 2009), or healthy lifestyles (e.g. Hampson et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2007) in adulthood were mentioned. Nevertheless, studies of the opposite relations, such as relationships between socioeconomic conditions in childhood and The Big 5 traits are in scarcity. Following existing studies of the relation between SES and Big 5 personality traits (Belsky et. al. 1991; Conger et. al., 2010; Ellis, 2004; Lewis, 1966) we have an opportunity to make predictions about the interrelation between socioeconomic environment in childhood and Big 5 personality traits.

To begin with, such Big 5 traits, as extraversion, openness to experience and conscientiousness were positively associated with higher incomes and higher earning professions in adults (Proto & Rustichini, 2012); neuroticism was negatively related with income in adults (Viinikainen et al. 2010). Moreover, higher income, better occupational status, and higher education predicted higher level of happiness and lower level of depression (Clark et. al., 2008; Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002; Frey & Stutzer, 2002; Lorant et al., 2003), which is said to be one of characteristics of neuroticism.

Poor living conditions affect cognitive development and stress regulation system. For example, LugoGil & Tamis-LeMonda (2008) found, that poverty is associated with low level of cognitive abilities. Additionally, poor conditions of life provide incorrect regulation of stress (Gunnar & Quevedo, 2007). At the same time, self-regulation is an intricate part of several personality traits, such as neuroticism (emotional stability), extraversion (optimism), openness (intellect), agreeableness (cooperation), and conscientiousness (self-discipline) (Costa & McCrae, 1995). We may formulate specific predictions on the basis of this notion.

There are suggestions in previous researches, that variations in personality may have their origins in childhood experiences associated with exposure to specific parenting styles (Eisenberg et. al., 2014). Depending on parenting styles, some children are exposed to insecure attachment, which make them feel they are not easily comforted, supported and reassured by caregivers when threatened. Past findings revealed significant correlation between insecure attachment in childhood and traits, which constitute stability, such as agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism. This way, children suffering insecure attachment scored lower on agreeableness, conscientiousness and higher on neuroticism (Young et. al., 2017). Insecure attachment is a result of authoritarian parenting style, which prevails in low-income families (Maddahi, et. al., 2012). So, Maddahi and colleagues (2012) showed that authoritarian parenting style is positively associated with extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and authoritative parenting style is positively associated with developing openness trait components (including imagination, aesthetics, wisdom, enlightenment and humanism). Additionally, authoritative parenting style was found to be associated with extraversion and agreeableness (Savitha & Venkatachalam, 2016). Moreover, authoritative parenting style has been called "inductive discipline," and there is evidence that it helps kids become more empathic, conscientious, and kind to others (Krevans & Gibbs 1996; Knafo & Plomin 2006). At the same time, authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles have different valences.

We turn to findings of Griskevicius (2013), who found that people grown up in poor conditions had such characteristics of self-regulation as impulsivity and inclination to taking risks. At the same time self-regulation is an intricate part of several personality traits, such as extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1995). The scale of home environment in our study includes Griskevicius (2011) questions of SES measurement, which describe the environment in childhood. We suppose, that associations between home environment and personality traits, which are a part of self-regulation, are justified.

Association between poor nutrition and low agreeableness, low conscientiousness and high neuroticism was found in the study of relationship between personality, attitudes and dietary behavior (MacNicol et. al., 2003). Low extraversion, imagination (openness to experience) and high neuroticism were associated with poor nutrition in the study of children's personality traits and the consumption of potentially obesogenic foods (Vollrath, et. al., 2012).

Association between deprivation and openness to experience was mentioned in the study of the relationship between the dimensions of poverty and the individual psychological characteristics (Poluektova et. al., 2015), where people with experience of deprivation had lower level of openness to experience.

1.5 The current study

Influential power of personality in different spheres of life, such as work, economic success, family, relationships, health, etc. was mentioned in past studies (Almlund et. al., 2011; Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006; Roberts, et. al., 2007). At the same time, scientists have always argued about the nature of personality. As 50 percent or more of the variance in personality characteristics were mentioned to result from environmental influences (Loehlin, 1992), our study accentuates social environmental factors as influential for personality. Moreover, consistent with previous research (e. g. et. al., 1991; Ellis, 2004) there is an evidence, that childhood environment is particularly important in shaping adult life history strategies.

Following the actual problem of poverty, we accentuate socioeconomic conditions in childhood to be influential for personality, because negative outcomes of poverty were earlier mentioned to relate to behavior problems, such as aggression and noncompliance (Erickson, et. al. 1985; Lewis et. al, 1984; Renken et. al., 1989). Additionally, relation between environmental conditions and personality traits, such as level of aggression, cooperativeness, empathy, and trust (Herrenkohl & Herrenkohl, 1981; Howes & Eldredge, 1985) were mentioned in earlier studies. All these aspects vary across the state of socioeconomic conditions of life. Thus, social environment plays crucial role in different aspects of life, and it is closely connected with socioeconomic environment. Level of this environment vary across families and strongly relates to financial state of life of both parents and children.

Despite the findings in sphere of studying socioeconomic conditions and personality (e. g. Harper & Lynch, 2002; Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002; Frey & Stutzer, 2002; Lorant et. al., 2003), studies of the association between childhood conditions of life through the concept of SES and personality traits (Griskevicius et. al., 2013; Lewis, 1966; White et. al., 2013) do not consider great context of conditions, claimed to be influential for personality and such relation was not widely investigated. Nevertheless, SES obtained the status of child's psychological development predictor in many scientific works (Hoffman et. al., 2006; Miller, 2005; Saegert et. al., 2006), what propels scientists to widen the branch of studies of SES and socioeconomic environment in childhood. Moreover, existing data on impact of childhood poverty on personality are quite ambiguous, because some studies view physical environment (Attar et. al., 1994; Brooks-Gunn et. al., 1995; Brown et. al., 1986) as an influential for personality, others - economical conditions (Bornstein & Bradley, 2003; Brody et al., 1994; Evans, 2004; Luthar, 1999; McLoyd, 1998). Following existing problems and inconsistencies, current study undertakes to study interrelation between socioeconomic environment in childhood and personality traits in adult age.

Childhood environment is closely connected with socioeconomic environment, which is said to be influential for future adulthood, both positive and negative ways. We characterize socioeconomic environment in the current study as a cumulative exposure of a child to a confluence of certain conditions, such as physical environment, financial and family social factors, which predict general personality development and certain personality traits. In order to formulate the spheres of socioeconomic environment, influential for personality, we followed past researches, such as:

- study of mechanisms, through which SES affects health (Adler et. al., 1993), where influential pathways of poverty impact are provided: child health and nutrition, parent mental health and affective interactions, provision of a stimulating home environment, school and child care quality, and neighborhood conditions;

- study of the poverty effects on children, where ways, through which income might affect child health and development are formulated: health and nutrition, the home environment, parental interactions with children, parental mental health, neighborhood conditions (Duncan, 1997).

Findings of these two studies allowed us to create a combined list of the socioeconomic environment spheres named as: home environment, learning resources, positive family relationship, nutrition status and deprivation status.

In order to define the aspects, which comprise each of spheres, and to formulate the hypotheses, we turn to brief revision of the important researches devoted to poor conditions of life in childhood and personality traits. Among them are findings of such relations as:

- association between low level of income and high impulsivity, inclination to taking risks, which is opposite to association between high level of income and low impulsivity, absence of inclination to taking risks (Griskevicius, 2013);

- association between consumption of potentially obesogenic foods and low extraversion, openness to experience and high neuroticism (Vollrath, et. al., 2012);

- association between poor nutrition and low conscientiousness, agreeableness and high neuroticism (MacNicol et. al., 2003);

- association between deprivation of resources in childhood and personality traits, such as that people with experience of deprivation had lower openness to experience (Poluektova et. al, 2015);

- relation between income of family and prevailing of specific parenting style, where authoritarian parenting style was prevailed in low-income family (Maddahi, et. al., 2012);

- relation between authoritative parenting style («inductive discipline») and high empathy, helpfulness and conscientiousness in kids (Krevans & Gibbs 1996; Knafo & Plomin 2006); and relation between authoritative parenting style and high openness to experience (Maddahi, et. al., 2012);

- relation between insecure home attachment and low agreeableness, conscientiousness and high neuroticism (Young et. al., 2017).

Thus, we expected that socioeconomic conditions in childhood are associated with personality traits from five-factor model (H1). Additionally, we supposed unique predictions by each component of socioeconomic conditions in childhood: (1) authoritarian parenting style is positively associated with neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion (H2); (2) authoritative parenting style is positively associated with extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness and negatively associated with neuroticism (H3); (3) home environment is positively associated with extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience (H4); (4) nutrition status is positively associated with extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and negatively associated with neuroticism (H5); (5) deprivation of resources is negatively associated with openness to experience (H6).

At the same time, we can not base the hypothesis concerned with Learning resources and personality traits on any existing findings. Nevertheless, it's impossible to underestimate existing data, demonstrating low level of educational and learning resources available for children in low-income families (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Coley, 2002; Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Duncan, et. al., 1994). Study of the relations between personality dimensions and cognitive functioning revealed strong association between cognitive abilities and openness to experience. High level of cognitive abilities was associated with high level of openness to experience (Soubelet & Salthouse, 2011). Following this finding and the idea of the relationship between learning resources and cognitive development (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997), we formulated additional research question in our study, such as that learning resources will be positively associated with openness to experience (H7).



2. Method Participants

In total 316 participants from Moscow (213 women, 103 men, aged from 16 to 65 years, (M = 25.2, SD = 8.8). The sociodemographic characteristics of the sample are provided in details in Table 1.

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample (N=316)

	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Women	103	32.6
Men	213	67.4
Place of birth
Russia	302	77
Abroad	17	4
Nationality
Russian	281	88.9
Mixed	6	1.9
Others	20	6.3
Not mentioned	9	2.8
Education
Primary	2	.6
Incomplete secondary	47	14.9
Secondary	23	7.3
Post secondary	14	4.4
Incomplete higher	49	15.5
Higher	172	54.4
Academic degree	9	2.8
Income
<2500-15000	137	43.4
15001-60000	107	33.9
60001->100000	72	22.8
Work status
Employed	156	40
Obtaining education	130	33
Unemployed (Search)	18	5
Unemployed (Not)	4	1
Retired	2	1
Baby sitting	3	1
Housewife	5	1
Type of family in childhood
Complete	236	60
Incomplete (n/father)	67	17
Incomplete (n/mother)	13	3
Parents-immigrants
Father	11	3
Mother	5	1
Parental education
Father
Primary	2	1
Secondary incomplete	4	1
Secondary	15	4
Specialized secondary	74	19
Higher incomplete	23	6
Higher	182	4
Academic degree	14	4
Mother
Without education	2	1
Secondary incomplete	3	1
Secondary	10	3
Specialized secondary	66	17
Higher incomplete	15	4
Higher	206	53
Academic degree	13	3

Procedure

The data were collected in social network (Vkontakte) with snowball sampling technique. Questionnaire was presented to respondents in a link to online survey website 1ka. Participants were given a questionnaire and asked to read information about the main topic discussed in the study, confidentiality policy, opportunity to win monetary prize in amount of 2000 rubles, and contacts of the researchers supervising the project. Cognitive interview allowed to obtain version of questionnaire adapted for Russian respondents. Initially, all the questionnaires necessary for the study were in English, so for the purposes of our study, specialists in sphere of linguistics translated them into Russian language.

Measures

Sociodemographic variables. The questionnaire consisted of: (1) part with scales for measurement of Conditions in childhood, (2) part with items for measurement of personality traits, (3) and part with items for gender, age, education, country of birth, nationality, income, work status, type of family in childhood, parental education.

Predictor variables. We measured five aspects of conditions in childhood using the following scales in the questionnaire.

Home environment. Based on study of Griskevicius (2011), scale consisted of several types of questions: three items measured SES in childhood (e. g. “I felt relatively wealthy compared to the other kids in my school»); and eleven author's elaborated items measured home environment conditions, based on past studies (e. g. Evans, 2004; Evans & Kim, 2007; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000), (e. g. “I grown up in favorable living conditions”, “There was a noisy atmosphere in my home because radio was always on» (5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree to).

Learning resources. Referring to earlier findings (e. g. Duncan et. al., 1994; Brooks-Gunn et. al., 1997), scale included six author's elaborated items to measure opportunity to attend extra classes and courses (e.g. «I always had opportunity to attend extra classes/sections in childhood», experience of studying in remedial class («Mostly I studied in remedial class» and presence of learning resources at home (e. g. «Mostly I had enough of child books in my childhood») (5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree). Caring parenting style. Scale included five author's elaborated questions based on findings of Duncan and colleagues (1994), Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997 (e. g. «My parents could always find time to read books with me») and on inter-family social capital scale (Dubrov, 2016) (e. g. “My parent always closely followed my success and failures”).

Authoritative and Authoritarian parenting styles. Scales included questions based on The Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSQD) (Robinson, 2001) and modified by author (e. g. «I had warm and trusting relationship with my parents» (5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree).

Deprivation scale. Nine items measured refusal frequency of any of the following: buying food, buying clothes, buying medicine, buying necessary things for home, entertainment, inviting and/or visiting friends and relatives, going somewhere for vacations, education services, and healthcare services within the last twelve months (e. g. «Medicine») (5 = Very often, 1 = Never).

Nutrition status. Self-elaborated scale. Six items indicated frequency of presence of essential for normal human's development products (e. g. «Meat products») (5 = Very often, 1 = Never).

Outcome variables. Big 5 personality traits. Respondents were provided with twenty items to determine degree of manifestation any of the following traits: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. (5 = Absolutely yes, 1 = Absolutely not). We used IPIP-20-Item Mini-IPIP questionnaire (Donnellan et. al., 2006). Russian translation of the questionnaire is based on version of the 50-Item Lexical Big-Five Factor Markers provided by Olga Hypponen.

Data analysis

For the data analysis we used SPSS v.24 (IBM Corp. Released, 2016). Recoding of reverse questions was applied. Data screening including checking for normality, missing values, and outliers was conducted. Next step was to check initial consistency using coefficient of reliability Cronbach's Alfa (see Table 2). Bootstrapping (2000 bootstrap samples) was applied to estimate all standard errors are robust to deviation from normality.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and reliability of scales (N= 316).

	M	SD	Skew.	Kurt.	Alfa
Home Environment	3.68	0.56	-0.438	0.176	.76
Learning Resources	4.2772	.61359	-1.099 ...

Подобные документы

• Education System In Honduras

  State of the Honduran education system. Structure of the Honduran education system: Pre-school, Primary and Secondary education. Higher education - University and National School. Adult education and professional training. Current trends in education.
  
  реферат [23,1 K], добавлен 15.05.2008
  

• Most striking traits of peoples character

  Character is the most important thing in a person which attracts or repulses other people. Each of us has his or hers good and bad features of character.
  
  реферат [17,7 K], добавлен 11.06.2007
  

• Personality and his socialization

  Understanding of personality and his structure. In sociology the focus is on social types. There are homo faber, homo consumer, homo universalis, homo soveticus. Classification includes types of personality defined due to value orientations people.
  
  реферат [18,9 K], добавлен 18.01.2009
  

• School education in the USA

  About basic education in the USA today. Public, private schools in the USA. Course content and teaching methods in educating students. Early childhood education, elementary school and high school. Criticism of American education, problems and solutions.
  
  реферат [22,5 K], добавлен 26.11.2010
  

• Topics about our life

  Traditions and customs of different nations. Story of The Beatles. Things of importance in our life: money, health, science. Personality of Abraham Lincoln, Peter the Great, A. Pushkin. Mass media in my life. The ways of spending time. Freedom of choice.
  
  топик [26,7 K], добавлен 17.01.2010
  

• Children's theatres

  The children's theatre, puppet shows and an important role in the ideological and aesthetic education of children, appreciation of literature's classical heritage. The thematic plan of the theatre. The Moscow Central Children's Theatre's repertoire.
  
  контрольная работа [12,1 K], добавлен 18.07.2009
  

• Живое значение слов "личность" и "personality" в языковом сознании русских и англичан

  Основы идеи личностно-ориентированного обучения в современных условиях. Глобальный характер перехода на новую образовательную парадигму. Описание ассоциативных полей и его этапы. Распределение ассоциатов на основе обобщающих семантических признаков.
  
  реферат [96,5 K], добавлен 06.09.2009
  

• Ecology

  Factors threatening the environment. Habitat destruction and species extinction. Depletion of the ozone layer. The living portion of an ecosystem. The environment in the new millennium: the way of the world. The crisis of ecology in the developing world.
  
  статья [47,8 K], добавлен 21.11.2009
  

• The formation of the foreign language teacher's general competence in the context of the Common European Framework

  Development of harmonious and competent personality - one of main tasks in the process of teaching of future teachers. Theoretical aspects of education and competence of teacher of foreign language are in the context of General European Structure.
  
  контрольная работа [12,2 K], добавлен 16.05.2009
  

• Influences that affect the business environment of Hydrolife Bottlers Company in Uzbekistan

  Estimation of influence of economic growth, level of incomes of the population, the interest rate, inflation and exchange rate on company Hydrolife activity. Hydrolife Company the company which makes potable water and water with useful minerals.
  
  реферат [15,8 K], добавлен 31.01.2012
  

• Education

  Education is important in our life. For educated people it is easier to stand up all difficulties and they have a purpose in life. If you know English, you can talk to people of any nationality, and can get necessary information anywhere in the world.
  
  топик [4,8 K], добавлен 04.02.2009
  

• Significance of translation in contemporary life

  Translation is mean of interlingual communication. Translations services industry. Importance of translation in culture life. Importance of translation in business life. Translation services in such areas as: economic, ecological, education, humanitarian.
  
  доклад [64,2 K], добавлен 02.12.2010
  

• Teaching English speaking at the beginning stage

  Principles of learning and language learning. Components of communicative competence. Differences between children and adults in language learning. The Direct Method as an important method of teaching speaking. Giving motivation to learn a language.
  
  курсовая работа [66,2 K], добавлен 22.12.2011
  

• Economic bases of innovative activity in public health services

  Theoretical bases of the economic and legal substantiation of realization of innovative activity. The technique of the estimation of the innovative project in public health services. Personnel management in scientific organizations, and life safety.
  
  дипломная работа [70,4 K], добавлен 21.06.2010
  

• The British education system

  The education in Great Britain. The three stages of schooling with children: primary school, secondary school and higher education, technical college of higher education and universities. The classification of the universities in England and Wales.
  
  презентация [422,5 K], добавлен 18.04.2011
  

• Peter the Great reforms

  Biography of life of Peter Great, his childhood and late years. The reasons and preconditions of reforms of Peter in different spheres of the state. The characteristic of reforms, their value for history of Russia. Estimation of efficiency of reforms.
  
  курсовая работа [40,4 K], добавлен 14.12.2011
  

• Base and Superstructure

  General characteristics of mechanical materialism and its consequences. Analysis of base and superstructure, under capitalism, their relationship to ideology. Features of the division operation and the exploited classes. The essence of class struggle.
  
  эссе [142,3 K], добавлен 22.06.2010
  

• John Davison Rockefeller

  Main stages of the biography of John Davison Rockefeller: parentage, childhood, early life and business career, marriage and family, beliefs. Standard oil company: the history of creation and development, structure monetary turnover. Death and legacy.
  
  презентация [358,8 K], добавлен 21.03.2014
  

• Education, its role in increase of economic potential

  Education encompasses teaching and learning specific skills, and also something less tangible but more profound: the imparting of knowledge, positive judgment and well-developed wisdom. Systems education. Process. Teaching. Technology. Economics.
  
  реферат [19,0 K], добавлен 14.05.2008
  

• Топики по английскому языку

  The United Nations. The NATO. The Court system of the USA. The court system of England. The British Education System. Political system of the USA. Political system of Great Britain. Mass media (newspapers). Education in the USA.
  
  топик [11,0 K], добавлен 26.03.2006
  

• главная
• рубрики
• по алфавиту
• вернуться в начало страницы
• вернуться к началу текста
• вернуться к подобным работам