There were three main purposes of this study: 1) to construct a quantitative measure of parental pressure, 2) to evaluate whether self-esteem was a potential buffer of the negative impacts of parental pressure and academic stress, and 3) to understand better the factors impacting suicidality among adolescents in India by testing a path model of possible predictors suggested by the literature. Prevalence data of suicidal ideation and attempt history were also collected. Reporting on their experience over the past six months, 14.5% (n = 82) of the participants endorsed suicidal ideation and 12.3% (n = 69) of the participants admitted to having deliberately attempted to hurt or kill themselves.
Five constructs were explored in this study: parental pressure, academic stress, depression, suicidality, and self-esteem. The Parental Pressure for Success Scale, designed for this study, was used to measure parental pressure. The Educational Stress Scale-Adolescents was used to measure academic stress. The Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale was used to measure depressive symptomology. Two items from the Youth Self-Report Checklist were used as a measure of suicidality in the past six months. The Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale was used to measure global self-esteem.
Preliminary support for the reliability and validity of the Parental Pressure for Success Scale was found. While self-esteem was not a significant moderator in this study, it was a predictor of both stress and depression. Results of the path analysis indicated that parental pressure predicted academic stress, stress predicted depression, and depression predicted suicidality. Parental pressure indirectly predicted suicidality through academic stress and depression. Results were discussed in the context of cultural influences on study findings such as the central role of parents in the family unit, the impact of cultural valuing of education, collectivistic society, and the Hindu concept of dharma, or duty.
Analyses were performed in a path analysis framework. To test these research questions, the current study employed two polygenic risk scores. The first, a theory-based score, was formed using single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from receptor systems implicated in the amplification of positive effects in the presence of new/exciting stimuli and/or pleasure derived from using substances. The second, an empirically-based score, was formed using a data-driven approach that explained a large amount of variance in SUDs. Together, these scores allowed the present study to test explanations for the relations among parent AUD, parental knowledge, peer substance use, and SUDs.
Results of the current study found that having parents with less knowledge or an AUD conferred greater risk for SUDs, but only for those at higher genetic risk for behavioral undercontrol. The current study replicated research findings suggesting that peer substance use mediated the effect of parental AUD on SUD. However, it adds to this literature by suggesting that some mechanism other than increased behavioral undercontrol explains relations among parental AUD, peer substance use, and emerging adult SUD. Taken together, these findings indicate that children of parents with AUDs comprise a particularly risky group, although likelihood of SUD within this group is not uniform. These findings also suggest that some of the most important environmental risk factors for SUDs exert effects that vary across level of genetic propensity.
Child temperamental anger and frustration was found to moderate reciprocal relations across all three parent-to-child cross-lagged paths. Children scoring high on a dispositional proclivity to react with anger and frustration were more likely to avoid maternal hostility, via a significant decrease in negativity, across time. Moderation was also supported in two of three child-to-parent lagged paths. Finally, maternal neuroticism moderated the reciprocal effects during early childhood, such that more neurotic mothers were more likely to demonstrate a decrease in the probability of hostility relative to mothers scoring lower on neuroticism. This affect was attenuated in middle childhood, with patterns becoming similar between mothers scoring high and low on neuroticism. Moreover, children of less neurotic mothers were more likely to demonstrate a decrease in the probability of exhibiting negativity from 36 to 54 months compared to children of more neurotic mothers. This effect also attenuated with patterns becoming negative at the grade 1 to grade 3 lag. Overall, the results from this study supported a transactional model of parent-child relationships, were consistent with the motivation literature, did not support a coercive process of interaction when the sample and measurement paradigm were low-risk, and generally suggested parents and children have an equal influence on the relational processes investigated from early to middle childhood.
The majority of trust research has focused on the benefits trust can have for individual actors, institutions, and organizations. This “optimistic bias” is particularly evident in work focused on institutional trust, where concepts such as procedural justice, shared values, and moral responsibility have gained prominence. But trust in institutions may not be exclusively good. We reveal implications for the “dark side” of institutional trust by reviewing relevant theories and empirical research that can contribute to a more holistic understanding. We frame our discussion by suggesting there may be a “Goldilocks principle” of institutional trust, where trust that is too low (typically the focus) or too high (not usually considered by trust researchers) may be problematic. The chapter focuses on the issue of too-high trust and processes through which such too-high trust might emerge. Specifically, excessive trust might result from external, internal, and intersecting external-internal processes. External processes refer to the actions institutions take that affect public trust, while internal processes refer to intrapersonal factors affecting a trustor’s level of trust. We describe how the beneficial psychological and behavioral outcomes of trust can be mitigated or circumvented through these processes and highlight the implications of a “darkest” side of trust when they intersect. We draw upon research on organizations and legal, governmental, and political systems to demonstrate the dark side of trust in different contexts. The conclusion outlines directions for future research and encourages researchers to consider the ethical nuances of studying how to increase institutional trust.
Participants (N = 236 in models that included multiple G2 siblings; N = 110 in models without siblings) were drawn from a larger sample of at-risk (i.e., alcoholic) and comparison families followed longitudinally for over 30 years and across three generations. Four mediation models were estimated to examine effects of two separate G1-G2 family disruption components (deviance-related and health-related disruption) on parenting of G3, mediated by family conflict, family disorganization, and G2 dysregulation. Results indicated that health-related disruption impairs consistency of parenting provided to G3 offspring through conflict in the G1-G2 family. A direct effect of health-related disruption was also seen on parental monitoring. There were no direct or mediated effects of deviance-related disruption on parenting. Implications and future directions will be discussed.