Subjects: Psychology >> Developmental Psychology submitted time 2023-03-29
Abstract：
In China, left-behind children (LBC) refer to children (under the age of 16) who remain at rural regions while both of their parents migrate to urban area for work, or one of their parents migrates for work and the other has limited capacity to care for their children. Relative to non-left-behind children (NLBC), LBC are exposed to various risk factors related to family, such as lack of parental care and insufficient family support, which could increase their vulnerability to psychological and behavioral problems. Based on Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory and the cumulative risk (CR) model, this study used two-wave data (T1 and T2) and examined the association between cumulative risk related to family adversity (T1) and social adjustment outcomes (T1/T2), in which stress (T1/T2) is a mediator, and examined the moderating role of psychosocial resources (T1) in this association.
A two-wave longitudinal household surveys were conducted among six hundred fifty-one families of rural children. A total of 285 children whose both parents migrated for work throughout the study waves were categorized as the LBC group, while 366 children who reported living with their parents at least one of waves were categorized as the control group. All measures in the surveys showed good reliability, including family adversity, stress, psychosocial resources (i.e., psychological capital and social support) and social adjustment (i.e., subjective well-being, depression, positive behaviors and problem behaviors). Data analyses were performed using SPSS 24.0 and AMOS 22.0.
Results showed that: (1) LBC’s T1 Cumulative risk related to family adversity was linearly associated with their T1/T2 social adjustment; (2) After controlling for gender and age, LBC’s T1 cumulative risk related to family adversity was negatively associated with T1 social adjustment (β=–0.42, p<0.001), and T1 stress mediated this association. The association between stress and social adjustment was moderated by psychosocial resources, with a higher level of psychosocial resources associated with a smaller mediating effect of stress. (3) After controlling for gender and age, T1 stress and T1 social adjustment, T1 cumulative risk related to family adversity were negatively associated with T2 social adjustment (β=–0.23, p<0.001), and T2 stress mediated this relationship. T1 psychosocial resources moderated the association of T1 cumulative risk related to family adversity on both T2 social adjustment and T2 stress. This showed that with the level of T1 psychosocial resources increasing, the main effect of T1 cumulative risk related to family adversity on T2 social adjustment and the mediation effect of T2 stress decreased and became statistically non-significant.
The findings of this study demonstrate the detrimental impact of cumulative risk related to family adversity on social adjustment among LBC, as well as the mediating role of stress and the moderating role of psychosocial resources. Overall, these findings suggest that family risk factors are proximal factors for LBC’s social maladjustment, and future intervention should attend to psychosocial resource promotion.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Hits
Hits
Downloads
Comment