Child Ind Res (2008) 1:65–85 DOI 10.1007/s12187-007-9002-2

Young Children’s Subjective Well-Being and Family Discontents in a Changing Cultural Context Anja Riitta Lahikainen & Kari Tolonen & Inger Kraav

Accepted: 30 October 2007 / Published online: 25 December 2007 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract This study proceeds from the hypothesis that children’s subjective well-being is too complex a phenomenon to be reduced to the family’s social and economic resources. Randomized population-based surveys were carried out in two comparable towns in Finland and Estonia in 1993–1994 and 2002–2003. The sampling criteria were children’s age (5–6 years) and parental citizenship. The four net samples together comprised 421 children and their parents. Parents completed questionnaires on family background and family life, children’s psychosomatic symptoms, worries and behaviour characteristics, and the children were interviewed about their fears and social networks. Family well-being was assessed on the basis of (1) satisfaction with family’s financial situation, (2) parental strains, (3) parental health and (4) drinking problems. Childreported subjective well-being was analysed by reference to fears and social network characteristics as well as parent-reported psychosomatic symptoms, behaviour orientations and worries. The results indicate, firstly, that both family-level and subjective indicators and both positive and negative indicators differentiate consistently between Finnish and Estonian children. Secondly, material and some aspects of subjective well-being have increased in both countries, although media-related fears in particular have undermined subjective well-being as well. There are indications of qualitative changes in subjective well-being in both countries. Thirdly, financial and social problems as well as parental health problems correlate with children’s psychosomatic symptoms, worries and fears. However children respond in different ways to different family stresses. The results underscore the importance of developing theory-based indicators and effective follow-up tools. Keywords Children . Subjective well-being . Comparative . Context . Insecurity . Family A. R. Lahikainen (*) : K. Tolonen Department of Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland e-mail: [email protected] I. Kraav University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

NO9002; No of Pages

66

A.R. Lahikainen, et al.

1 Introduction Despite a growing interest over the past decade in children’s subjectivity and wellbeing, there is still a scarcity of empirical research into small children’s subjective well-being. It has been argued that well-being is an elusive concept that is used by different users in different ways to “convey and express various religious, philosophical, political, economic and scientific abracadabra” (Keski-Petäjä 1994, p. 10). Studies on children’s well-being are fragmented by the diverse interests of different disciplines and research institutions: there is still only little discussion and coordination between social policy, social work, psychology and child psychiatry. Therefore the theoretical concepts and models that are needed to integrate the empirical findings remain lacking. The need for a grounding theory of subjective well-being is reinforced by the current interest in improving policy-making concerning families and children and in stepping up the empirical research effort. In the absence of such a theoretical foundation, the selection and employment of indicators is bound to remain more or less haphazard (Hernandez 1993; Ben-Arieh 2000; Ben-Arieh and Goerge 2001; Fattore et al. 2007; Fabiansson 2007; Moore 1999). This study proceeds from the hypothesis that children’s subjective well-being is too complex a phenomenon to be reduced to any set of indicators of well-being, such as the family’s social and economic resources. In order to demonstrate this complexity and the importance of the subjective dimension, we will here be comparing the well-being of small children and their families in two different contexts, i.e. in two different countries and at two different time periods. This comparison makes it possible to identify both the context-dependent and the general factors that underlie well-being. At the same time, we are interested to study the interconnections between different indicators of well-being at different levels. Our article focuses on three overlapping main issues: the concepts underlying subjective well-being, the assessment of subjective well-being and context-dependent variation in subjective well-being. In this study we integrate and employ the toolboxes of social policy, sociology, social psychology, psychology and child psychiatry for purposes of defining and measuring well-being. This will help us to build a more general model that integrates different levels of well-being, including the family’s material conditions and social interaction, the level of child behavior and the level of the child’s experience, and thus to study the connections and interactions between indicators at different levels (Ben -Arieh and Goerge 2001; Hernandez 1993). 1.1 Insecurity We approach subjective well-being through the concept of insecurity. This has become one of the key concepts in describing the post-modern human condition (Bauman 1990; Giddens 1984, 1990, 1991). The use of this concept by Bauman and Giddens is more or less inherently and implicitly connected with the new risks of well-being and the future of the welfare state. Subjective well-being, as a condition of being, means having a belief in life and the future; a belief in a continued positive state of affairs and in development and in

Young children’s subjective well-being and family discontents

67

being able to cope with the inherent uncertainties of life. Feelings of helplessness and insecurity, then, appear in situations where one is unable to cope with any of the difficulties and obstacles encountered. These feelings are essentially linked to the individual’s relationship with the outer world and the discontents experienced in this relationship. Phenomenologically, a sense of insecurity is a residual or supplementary experience that most people try to avoid at all costs, but without the possibility of permanent success. (Lahikainen and Kraav 1996.) We define subjective well-being as a relative absence of feelings of insecurity. The superior power of the surrounding world is reflected in feelings of insecurity (Freud 1974; Heidegger 1979). The residuality of the experience of insecurity also makes its articulations unpredictable and obscure. It is no doubt for this reason that the concept of insecurity has received only peripheral attention in the psychological literature, even though it is frequently used in everyday language. The same reason explains why it is difficult to gain an exhaustive understanding of insecurity. Despite these difficulties, we believe it is a useful conceptual tool in the investigation of subjective well-being. It also helps us evaluate how developments in psychological research can be put to practical use in the social policy field. (Lahikainen and Kraav 1996.) It is noteworthy that the sense of insecurity is not determined exclusively by the outer world. Contextual characteristics, such as external threats, are mediated by cultural and personal interpretations of the world, i.e. through language. In principle, every individual is capable of interpreting and reinterpreting his/her relationship with the world in countless different ways. This subjective freedom of interpretation and varying cultural conventions are other sources of difficulty in constructing indicators of subjective well-being. Objective contextual characteristics and the way these are experienced by the child coincide in different and determinate ways (Lippman et al. 2007). Further, it is noteworthy that the concept of insecurity allows for expressions of both security and insecurity, for positive expressions of subjective well-being and the lack of subjective well-being (Moore 1999; Ben-Arieh 2007). Insecurity is used here as an umbrella term for such phenomena as distress, anxiety, fear and psychosomatic disorders. All these articulations of insecurity are related to the individual’s physiology, feelings, thoughts and behavior (cf. Tyson and Tyson 1990). Insecurity can find expression in worries and fears at the level of mental experience and in somatic symptoms at the level of bodily experience. On the behavioural level, we assume that insecurity manifests itself in difficulties in orienting to other people and objects, whereas security and well-being are associated with an interest in novelty and exploration. Security makes it possible to explore the environment and to have communication and contacts with other people. Additionally, self-reported social networks provide a means for describing the child’s positive experiences of others and positive aspects of his/her well-being. 1.2 Defining Subjective Well-Being In this study the following characteristics of subjective well-being are presupposed: Firstly, subjective well-being is variable, it must be actively maintained. Well-being is produced, reproduced and maintained in action by (a) seeking protection and the proximity of protective people, (b) learning to know the environment and (c)

68

A.R. Lahikainen, et al.

learning to cope with threats and to solve problems. All of these actions serve as strategies for regulating states of subjective well-being. Secondly, subjective well-being is socially interactive and communicative; it is produced and maintained in ongoing relationships and in daily contacts with others. Continuing social relationships provide the ground for social interaction that in turn provides opportunities for different kinds of satisfaction, care, protection and appreciation of others. Social interaction is not, however, only a source of positive experiences, because others can also withdraw their interest and neglect to provide care and satisfaction. In short, social interactions are grounded in mutual interdependencies among people. This is especially true of young children, who are very dependent on others for protection. Satisfactory experiences with others are internalized and inscribed in the memory and become an inner source of satisfaction. Thus they not only produce positive states of current well-being, but also contribute to well-becoming in the future, as an adult. In other words positive experiences in social interaction are transformed into inner capacities and resources. These can later be activated and utilized in other contexts, in situations that are individually challenging or that may threaten the individual’s self-esteem. Social capital is turned into mental capacities for selfactivation and self-rewarding (Kernberg 1980). Thirdly, subjective well-being is contextual. Depending on its structure, the context offers different opportunities for actions (Denzin 1982). In different contexts, different strategies or combinations of strategies are optimal for the production of well-being. In other words, different elements are needed in different contexts to maintain the state of well-being. In this theoretical frame of reference, well-being can be understood as an equilibrium between the child and his/her surroundings as subjectively preferred and defined by the child him/herself. Broadly speaking, a secure base is formed by an adequate human presence and response to children in all contexts of their everyday life. In principle, well-being means that children feel capable of adequately regulating the surroundings according to their changing needs. Children as regulators of their surroundings construe their own standards and criteria of their well-being, because they have to deal with their bodily conditions and surroundings (Waters and Deane 1985). In social policy terms the adequate response of caretakers is constituted and determined by the quality and quantity of the care provided, including feeding, cleaning, shelter, speech, and presence. The equilibrium preferred involves trust in one’s ability to cope with daily insecurities and challenges as well as in having opportunities to anticipate the future in reliable ways. The optimal psycho-physiological condition that the child strives to achieve and maintain, however, is vague and unstable, constantly threatened by factors that are beyond the child’s control. The common denominator of factors threatening the child’s subjective well-being is the immediate or potential loss of a significant other or a disturbance in a bonding relationship, which endangers the very continuation of the child’s life (Rutter and Rutter 1993; Bowlby 1978b). We do not, however, have a very clear understanding of all the threats experienced by the child in his/her surroundings. A variety of theoretical frameworks have been applied in constructing models of well-being (Bowlby 1978a; Bronfenbrenner 1979; Valsiner 1983). According to

Young children’s subjective well-being and family discontents

69

John Bowlby, the construction of a secure base during the first three years of life is essential for the child’s well-being and well-becoming. Bonding is a learning process where children organize their experiences in social interaction with others. (Bowlby 1978a; Waters and Deane 1985). Bowlby integrates well-being and learning by means of the concept of exploration. In practice this means that children are curious, ready to learn new things in their everyday settings, provided they can trust that help and protection will be available if they need it. Exploration emerges when the minimal level of security is attained (Bowlby 1978a; Waters and Deane 1985). Exploration is a fundamental prerequisite in the acquisition of competencies. Both the lack of a safe enough environment and environments that offer no opportunities for action disturb the development of competencies and therefore have adverse short-term and long-term effects. Valsiner goes even further in emphasizing the context dependence of individual development: “In terms of the boundaries that define the range of possibilities of behaviour, any organism is fully dependent on its own structure and that of the environment” (Valsiner 1983, p 83). Similarly, according to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological psychology, the well-being of a child is regulated primarily at the micro level of social interaction. His model, however, widens the circle of those who are responsible for the well-being of the child from the intimate network of significant persons to society as a whole. The model has a high relevance in policy-making and presents a considerable challenge to political decision-makers (Bronfenbrenner 1979). When Bronfenbrenner’s model is applied, the well-being of children must be seen as outcomes of international and national welfare systems and institutions, including prevailing value systems that regulate children’s everyday life. In assuming responsibility for children, society can support those institutions that guarantee the continuity of care for the child, whether it be the nuclear family, combined family or extended family, together with other care institutions. The support and recognition afforded to the child’s significant others, especially parents, is particularly important. 1.3 Family as a Provider of Children’s Subjective Well-Being and as a Threat The family institution has a central role in providing care and protection for children, for two interdependent reasons. Firstly, family members form the basic everyday network that children share from the first years of life through to adolescence (Denzin 1982). Secondly, all societies assign the main responsibility for rearing children to parents. Parents are the primary source and resource for the child’s subjective well-being. Parents and the child’s everyday network are in the position to protect and help the child against the threats and insecurities inherent in their daily surroundings. However the parents’ capacity to provide for and take care of and respond to the child varies depending on the family’s position and situation in society. Other parental duties and involvement in various activities and projects, particularly the growing demands of working life today, have a significant impact as well (Hochschild 1997; Sennett 1998; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 1995). The amount of time that parents can give to their child, the amount of interest and attention they can devote to the child also depend on the support they receive from family welfare systems.

70

A.R. Lahikainen, et al.

Societies differ in their family and parenting values, in the way they deal with problems of inequality between children and their families and in how they go about resolving related problems. The amount of time that parents are available for their children is perhaps the most fundamental resource of good care and provision. In our study we approach family welfare from both the parents’ and the child’s perspective. We asked parents about the conditions of family life that we assumed either supported or hampered parents in providing for and in protecting their children. We use four parent-reported family level indicators of well-being. They are 1. Parents’ subjective satisfaction with the family’s financial situation (past, present, future) 2. Parental health 3. Parental strain 4. Drinking problems in the family. All these factors are also directly or indirectly influenced by government policies. They contribute to the possibilities of parents to provide protection against the daily insecurities faced by the child.

2 Methodology 2.1 Samples Four population-based random samples of children aged 5–6 years and their parents were collected in Finland and Estonia in 1993/1994 and 2002/2003. The parents were randomly drawn from the population register in two middle-sized university towns, one in Finland and one in Estonia, using identical selection criteria. The target population consisted of parents living in the towns concerned with at least one child aged 5 to 6 in the same household. Non-participation was very low in all the samples, 12% overall and ranging from 3 to 18% (see Lahikainen et al. 2007). The net total sample comprises 421 children and their parents. The Estonian samples consisted of 115 children in 1993 and 91 children in 2002 and the Finnish samples of 105 children in 1993 and 110 children in 2003. Questionnaires were also administered to the parents (mother or father or both) of each child, and the children were interviewed (see Lahikainen et al. 2003; Lahikainen et al. 2006). No significant differences were observed in the age or sex of the children in the different samples. Theoretical considerations were central to the selection of the countries in this research. These two countries share many cultural features in common, but they have very different social structures at the macro level. The research design is reminiscent of a “natural experiment” where the main difference between the countries is political, with Estonia representing a post-socialist transition society and Finland a Nordic welfare state. This study design allows us to shed light simultaneously on the significance of both macro level systems and social, economic and cultural factors to children’s well-being. Finland (population, 5.5 million) and Estonia (population, 1.2 million) are North European countries that lie on opposite shores of the Gulf of Finland. Both are full members of the European Union. Their languages derive from the same source and both countries share land borders with Russia. Both countries

1.2 1.2 3.9

1.0 2.5 8.6

Mean

Mean

1.8 2.9 4.1

2002

1994

Std.dev.

Estonia

Estonia

F(A) Country, F(B) year, F(A × B) country × year

The number of siblings Duration of home care in years Duration of breast-feeding in months

Scales (factors)

0.8 1.1 8.1

Std.dev. 2.1 2.2 7.4

Mean

1993

Finland

1.1 1.6 4.4

Std.dev. 1.4 2.2 6.6

Mean

2003

Finland

1.0 1.5 4.2

Std.dev.

Table 1 Background data of 5 to 6 year old children in Finland and in Estonia in 1993/1994 and 2002/2003

10.8 12.1 1.7

F(A)

0.00 0.00 0.20

p Value

54.5 2.1 12.5

F(B)

0.00 0.15 0.00

p Value

0.5 2.0 26.2

F(A B)

0.47 0.16 0.00

p Value

Young children’s subjective well-being and family discontents 71

72

A.R. Lahikainen, et al.

gained independence in 1917, but in 1940 Estonia was occupied by and annexed to the Soviet Union. Estonia regained its independence in 1991. Since then, after 50 years of socialist rule, the country has been developing a new social organization based on market economy. Finland enjoys a higher standard of living than Estonia, and it also provides more public support for families and education. The Estonian children in the first samples were born in the Soviet Union and were about two years old when their country regained independence. All social changes in both countries have taken place in the context of a rapidly globalizing world and the rise of information society at the turn of the millennium. There were some significant changes over time in the children’s background in both countries. The proportions of cohabiting and divorced parents have increased1 while the numbers of siblings have decreased in both countries. Furthermore, the duration of home care in Estonia has shortened: children stay at home for a shorter period of time before they enter day care (Table 1). The proportion of children attending full-time public day care has increased in both countries2. Surprisingly, the duration of breastfeeding has increased considerably in Estonia (Table 1). 2.2 Procedures and Assessment of Child’s Subjective Well-Being In developing our tools for the assessment of children’s subjective well-being, we took into account both the theoretical and methodological aspects of subjective wellbeing. The social network describes the availability of persons who are in the position to help the child when he or she has try and cope with daily insecurities. The fears experienced by the child are a key indicator of insecurity. They are a way of articulating the relationship between the self and the external world. Fear is a psychosomatic and socio-emotional reaction to a sense of alarm or dread invoked by some specific object or situation, and as such are a way of articulating the relationship between the self and the external world (Rutter and Rutter 1993; Lahikainen et al. 2007). Worries and psychosomatic symptoms are taken as coindicators of insecurity for fears reported by the child him/herself. In keeping with our emphasis on the subjectivity of well-being, the children themselves were taken as the primary informants of their state, despite their young age. For this purpose we developed a special child interview (Lahikainen et al. 2003).The first step in establishing contact with the child was to send out an information letter to their parents. One week later, the interviewer phoned the parents to obtain their consent and to make an appointment for the interview with the child. The child was interviewed either at home or at a day care centre according to the parents’ preference. If the interview was conducted at home, the parents usually completed the questionnaire while the child was being interviewed. The child interview covered two areas: social networks and fears. In order to posit the child as an informant, the interviewer started out by saying: “I have come here to interview you because we adults do not know what it is like to be a child nowadays”. The children were encouraged to talk about their social networks via two key

1

(χ2 =10.0, p<0.05 in Finnish samples and χ2 =8.9, p<0.05 in Estonian samples)

2

(χ2 =15.4, p<0.05 in Estonian samples, χ2 =61.5, p<0.001 in Finnish samples)

Young children’s subjective well-being and family discontents

73

questions: “Who belongs to your family?” and “Who are other important persons in your life?” A target diagram with three concentric circles around the nucleus (designating the child him/herself) and drawn pictures of different kinds of people were used as an aid. The child was asked to place pictures representing important persons on the circles around the nucleus, the closest circle designating the greatest closeness. Scale grades of important persons ranged from 1 to 3. The interviewer introduced the subject of fears by saying: “All people are afraid of something, even adults. But I don’t know what you are afraid of. I would be very interested to know”. Each fear expressed by the child was discussed and rated in intensity from 1 to 3 using Carpenter’s method (Carpenter 1990; Lahikainen et al. 2003; Lahikainen et al. 2007). The data collected in parents’ questionnaires were used to complement the information obtained directly from children as well as for comparative purposes. In this analysis we use the parents’ assessments of their child’s worries, psychosomatic symptoms and behaviour orientations as indicators of the child’s security or insecurity. The measure of behavioural orientations is based on the theory of control systems by John Bowlby. The items concerning behavioural orientations were drawn from the observation schedule for studying small children’s attachment and security in their natural surroundings by Waters and Deane. In the selection and completion of these items, the criterion used was age adequacy (Bowlby 1978a; Waters and Deane 1985). 2.3 Indicators of Subjective Well-Being Children’s psychosomatic symptoms, fears and worries were taken as the indicators of lack of security. Each group of indicators contains several factor-score measures (see Tables 2, 3). The factor analyses of child-reported fears have been published previously (Lahikainen et al. 2007). On the behavioural level, subjective well-being (security) is indicated, firstly, in the forms of exploration and resilience, interest in new things and people, autonomy, concentration, and tolerance of frustration. Secondly, subjective well-being (security) Table 2 Rotated factor loadings for seven items describing psychosomatic indicators of subjective well-being (N=392)

Extraction method Maximum likelihood, rotation method varimax with Kaiser normalization

Factor 1 Factor 1 “apathy” Tiredness Apathy Factor 2 “psychosomatic symptoms” Stomach ache Nightmares Headache Sleeping difficulties Eating difficulties Factor Eigenvalue € Variance explained (%) Cumulative variance explained (%)

2

0.90 0.44 0.34

1 2.2 31.8 31.8

0.42 0.40 0.35 0.34 0.31 2 1.0 15.0 46.8

74 Table 3 Rotated factor loadings for 11 items of children’s worries (N=347)

Extraction method Maximum likelihood, rotation method oblimin with Kaiser normalization

A.R. Lahikainen, et al. Factor 1 Factor 1 worries related to family relationships Parental strains 0.790 Parental divorce 0.761 Violence by a loved one 0.705 Quarrels with parents 0.677 Drinking problems of loved one 0.317 Factor 2 peer-related worries Bullied by other children Other children are bullied Quarrels with peers Factor 3 worries related to parent’s health Serious illness of a loved one Death of a loved one Breakdown of important relationship Factor 1 Eigenvalue € 4.7 Variance explained (%) 42.7 Cumulative variance explained (%) 42.7

2

3

0.760 0.684 0.603

2 1.5 13.8 56.5

−0.840 −0.708 −0.445 3.000 1.0 9.3 65.8

is manifested in well-functioning social relationships, emotional expressiveness in parent relationships, peer orientation, and empathy toward peers. The child’s behaviour in relation to exploration and social relationships was rated by parents using a 23-item schedule (see Table 4). Six characteristics of the child-reported network were chosen as expressions of positive social experiences of other people: importance of mother, father, sibling, grandparents, peer and an adult outside the family. Factor score variables were used as final indicators, with the exception of social network indicators, which range from 0 to 3, 0 designating the omission of the person concerned from the network. Table 5 lists the indicators of child’s subjective well-being for three different levels, i.e. the psychosomatic level, the level of experiences and the level of behaviour/actions. Family well-being is assessed on the basis of parents’ responses to questions concerning their financial situation, characteristics of family social interaction and parental health and drinking problems. In all 13 items were factor analysed and a factor pattern consisting of four factors was selected after comparing different solutions both in the total data and in the sub-samples (see Table 6). The four family indicators are subjective satisfaction with financial situation, parental strain, parents’ health and alcohol problems.

3 Results The statistical analysis of children’s subjective well-being in different contexts was conducted on each indicator by two-way ANOVA. Table 7 summarizes the group differences between respondents in different countries and at different times.

Young children’s subjective well-being and family discontents

75

Table 4 Rotated factor loadings for 23 items describing behavioural indicators of subjective well-being (N=377) Factor 1 Factor 1 “autonomy” Is independent with adult even in strange places 0.746 Approaches unknown adult to interact 0.550 Is used to being independent- self-reliant 0.505 Likes to stay with an unknown adult 0.498 when parents leave in the evening Lost in his/her own thoughts for long periods 0.279 Factor 2 “TV dependence and lack of concentration” Prefers watching television and video to playing Difficulties in concentration Prefers tasks and activities that are not difficult Factor 3 “emotional expressiveness” Expresses his/her feelings freely Likes to sit in mother’s and father’s lap daily Approaches parents and talks when sad Is attracted to novelty rather than familiarity Factor 4 “intolerance of frustration” Gets angry and loses temper if fails to succeed or loses in games Becomes depressed and gives up when fails Is upset by negative evaluations or disapproval from adult Factor 5 “peer avoidance” Avoids company of other children Withdraws from the company of other children Enjoys playing with other children Factor 6 “fear of novelty” Feels shy with unknown adults Is afraid of new things Factor 7 “empathy” Takes other children into account Is demanding and impatient Initiative in action Factor 1 Eigenvalue € 4.2 Variance explained (%) 18.3 Cumulative variance (%) 18.3

2

3

4

5

6

7

0.309

0.598 0.551 0.463 0.650 0.544 0.483 0.339 0.772 0.612 0.314

0.634 0.631 −0.460 0.661 0.635

0.308 −0.304 2 2.1 9.2 27.5

3 1.8 7.9 35.4

4 1.6 6.9 42.4

5 1.2 5.3 47.7

6 1.2 5.1 52.8

0.496 −0.355 0.326 7 1.0 4.4 57.2

Extraction method Maximum likelihood, rotation method varimax with Kaiser normalization

3.1 Differences Between Finnish and Estonian Children’s Subjective Well-Being The differences in the subjective well-being of children in Estonia and Finland are evident: both children and their parents in Estonia report a lower average level of subjective well-being than in Finland on all aspects of well-being; physical wellbeing, experiences and behaviour. According to the parents’ responses, Estonian children experience more somatic symptoms and apathy. They also have more worries related to family relationships and parental health. As regards their

76

A.R. Lahikainen, et al.

Table 5 List of indicators of subjective well-being Negative sides of subjective well-being Somatic level (parent information) Apathy Somatic symptoms Level of experience Fears (child information): Imagination-related fears Fear of danger and death Fear of separation and darkness Fear of minor injuries and animals Fear of behaviour of significant adults and peers Fearfulness

Positive sides of subjective well-being being

Social network characteristics (child information): importance of mother, importance of father, importance of brother or sister, importance of most significant peer, importance of extra-family adult, importance of grandparents

Worries: (parent information) Family-related Peer-related Related to parental health Behavioural level (parent information) Lack of exploration: Lack of interest in new things Intolerance of frustration TV dependence and lack of concentration Lack of autonomy

Exploration Interest in new things Tolerance of frustration Concentration Autonomy

Social relations: Lack of emotional expressiveness Peer avoidance Lack of peer empathy

Social relations Emotional expressiveness with parents Peer orientation Peer empathy

behaviour, they are less autonomous and emotionally less expressive, they are more dependent on TV and show greater lack of concentration and intolerance of frustration than children in Finland. On the other hand Estonian children showed less fear of novelty than Finnish children (Table 7). The child interviews revealed significant differences between Estonian and Finnish children at both phases of the study. Estonian children reported more fears in general, more fear of danger and death, more fears of minor injuries and animals as well as more fears of the behaviour of adults and peers. In 2002/2003 they also had more imagination-related fears than children in Finland. (Lahikainen et al. 2007). In both countries the children attached more importance to mother, father than to siblings, peers and adults outside the family. At both points of measurement the Estonian children rated mother as more important than the children in Finland. Among Estonian children father has assumed increasing importance, despite the increase in the proportion of divorced children and the decrease in the number of siblings in both Estonian and Finnish samples. This finding contradicts the common view that the value of the family and particularly the role of father as family caretaker is being eroded (Table 7). The Estonian and Finnish children also differed significantly with respect to all four types of family stress. Estonian families had significantly more financial

Young children’s subjective well-being and family discontents

77

Table 6 Rotated factor loadings for 13 items of family stress factors (N=354) Factor 1 Factor 1 “subjective satisfaction with financial situation” Family has had financial problems 0.741 Satisfaction with current incomes −0.739 Current financial problems 0.735 Insecurity concerning incomes in the future 0.711 Factor 2 “parental strains” Parents have had parental strains Serious strains between family members Insecurity concerning marital relationship Current parental/marital strains Factor 3 “parents’ health” Mother’s health Insecurity concerning parents’ health Father’s health Factor 4 “alcohol problems” Previous drinking problems in family Current drinking problems Factor 1 Eigenvalue (E) 4.4 Variance explained (%) 34.0 Cumulative variance explained (%) 34.0

2

3

4

0.890 0.815 0.654 0.457 0.842 0.585 0.562

2 1.9 14.6 48.6

3 1.5 11.7 60.3

0.969 0.531 4 1.2 9.2 69.5

Extraction method Maximum likelihood, rotation method varimax with Kaiser normalization

problems, parental strains, parental health problems and more drinking problems at both points of measurement (Table 7). 3.2 Changes in Subjective Well-Being During the period of one decade between the two points of measurement, children’s subjective well-being showed both improvement and deterioration, depending on the specific indicator examined. According to the parents’ responses in both countries, children’s well-being improved consistently in two respects: children in the later samples showed more tolerance of frustration and less apathy. In both countries fears of novelty and somatic symptoms increased (Table 7). The child interviews provided evidence of a general increase in the amount of fears, general fearfulness and fears of imagination-related things, but a decrease in everyday fears (animals, new things; Lahikainen et al. 2007). Furthermore, children experienced greater security as measured by some social network characteristics; attached greater importance to grandparents and peers and placed more emphasis on the number of other children in their social network in Estonia; but on the other hand the number of significant adults outside the family decreased in both countries. No changes were seen in the significance of family relationships or in the size of the extra-family network (Table 7). Qualitative changes were observed in children’s subjective well-being on the dimensions of symptoms, including psychosomatic symptoms and fears, behavioural

2002

0.5 0.5 1.1 2.9 0.8 1.3

0.7 0.5

0.8 0.8

0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7

2.8 2.8 2.4 6.9 2.5 1.9

−0.4 −0.2

−0.2 0.2

0.5 −0.3 −0.1 0.0 0.0

−0.2 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1

−0.6 −0.1 −0.3 −0.2

0.4 −0.3 −0.2 0.2 0.3

−0.3 0.3

−0.6 −0.1

2.7 2.7 2.1 6.2 2.3 1.6

0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7

0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8

0.7 0.8

0.5 0.6

0.7 0.8 1.2 3.6 0.8 1.1

0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1

0.7 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.8

−0.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 −0.3 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.0

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.6

0.4 0.8 1.1 3.4 0.8 1.0

0.1 0.0

0.6 0.1

2.9 2.7 2.3 5.7 2.1 1.8

0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3

−0.5 0.3 0.0 −0.2 0.1

0.2 −0.2

0.5 0.2

2.9 2.9 2.3 8.0 2.5 1.5

0.7 1.0 0.9 1.3

0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9

1.0 0.9

0.8 0.8

0.2 0.5 1.2 3.3 0.6 1.3

57.9 17.0 32.6 7.2

160.1 76.1 9.0 7.7 9.4

18.9 12.1

208.5 29.4

9.5 0.9 0.1 1.3 2.8 0.6

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.33 0.76 0.26 0.10 0.43

33.9 1.6 1.6 1.7

0.1 0.0 4.2 0.1 16.0

0.1 0.1

3.6 4.5

0.2 0.4 1.9 6.2 1.5 6.4

0.000 0.211 0.202 0.187

0.77 0.87 0.04 0.75 0.00

0.80 0.73

0.06 0.03

0.63 0.53 0.17 0.01 0.21 0.01

1.8 0.3 0.4 4.6

0.0 0.1 0.8 2.8 0.1

1.7 1.5

3.3 0.0

1.0 5.0 1.0 21.0 13.3 0.0

0.176 0.558 0.545 0.033

0.97 0.77 0.36 0.09 0.71

0.19 0.22

0.07 0.87

0.32 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.97

Mean Std.dev. Mean Std.dev. Mean Std.dev. Mean Std.dev. F (A)* p Value F (B) p Value F (A × B) p Value

Estonia 1994

1993

2003

Finland

F(A) Country, F(B) year, F(A × B) interaction term

Children as informants Social networks Importance of mother Importance of father Importance of sister or brother Importance of grandparents (sum) Importance of peer Importance of adult outside family Parents as informants Psychosomatic symptoms Apathy (n=392) Somatic symptoms Worries Worries related to parental strains (n=347) Lack of worries related to parental health problems Behavioral orientations Autonomy (n=377) TV-dependence and lack of concentration Intolerance of frustration Emotional expressiveness Fear of new Family stress Financial problems (n=354) Parental strains Health problems Drinking problems

Scales (factors)

Table 7 The subjective well-being of 5- to 6-year-old children in Finland and Estonia in 1993/1994 and in 2002/2003

78 A.R. Lahikainen, et al.

Young children’s subjective well-being and family discontents

79

characteristics, and in the constitution of social network resources. Children in both countries showed less apathy and more tolerance of frustration, but also more psychosomatic stress and fear of novelty. As regards resources, significant changes were seen in the quality and constitution, but not in the size of the social network (Table 7). The changes seen in children’s subjective well-being were dependent on the country context. An increase in self-reported fears of other people’s behaviour and worries related to peers, coupled with an increase in the importance of father, grandparents and peers, was seen only in Estonian children. (Table 7; Lahikainen et al. 2007) 3.3 Associations Between Family Welfare Factors and Child’s Subjective Well-Being All family welfare indicators showed significant associations with the child’s psychosomatic symptoms. All kinds of parental stresses seem to cross over to the child’s bodily functioning and worries. Furthermore, there is a clear connection between the child’s behavioural symptoms and parental stress. TV dependence and lack of concentration seem to be a general reaction to parental stress. Parental health problems are also associated with all behavioural symptoms. Financial stress is associated with less autonomy, less empathy with peers, more TV dependence and less concentration, but also with less fear of novelty. In other words, in parents’ assessment, children’s subjective well-being is dependent on a well-functioning family life, including the family’s financial position, parental health and parental harmony and lack of drinking problems (Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11). The associations between family welfare indicators and child-reported social network resources are highly complicated. Social relations show some connections with financial resources. Children of parents who are under financial strain have significantly less important peers. In situations of parental conflict, the child’s best friend assumes increasing importance, while the importance of siblings decreases. In families where parents have drinking problems, the extra-family network takes on increasing importance, while the importance of parents decreases among Finnish children. Children whose parents have health problems have significantly more Table 8 Connections between financial problems of family and subjective well-being of child (Pearson correlationa)

a

Correlation two-tailed *p<0.5 **p<0.01

Children

Psychosomatic symptoms Worries related to family relationships Lack of worries related to parental health Autonomy TV dependence Emotional expressiveness Fear of new Fear of imagination-related things Fear of behavior of significant others

All

Finland

0.20** 0.23**

0.16* 0.23**

Estonia

0.16** −0.23** 0.16** −0.14* −0.20** 0.12*

−0.20* −0.15*

−0.17*

80

A.R. Lahikainen, et al.

Table 9 Connections between parental strains and subjective well-being of child (Pearson correlationa)

a

Correlation two-tailed *p<0.5 **p<0.01

Children

Psychosomatic symptoms Worries related to family relationships TV dependence Fear of new Fear of behavior of significant others

All

Finland

Estonia

0.26** 0.30**

0.19** 0.38**

0.19* 0.18*

0.16** 0.12* 0.11*

0.17* 0.20*

extra-family contacts (Table 10). Children’s network can largely compensate for stressed family relations. The way in which this happens is also dependent on the source of the stress. The importance of grandparents, on the other hand, seems to be independent of family stresses. An unexpected negative correlation was found between parental financial stress and child-reported fears of imagination-related things, such as TV-induced fears and fears of nightmares and imaginary creatures. This association was found among both Finnish and Estonian children and at both points of measurement. This finding is consistent with the negative correlation observed between financial stress and fear of new, indicating that financial resources in the family may subject the child to new threats and stresses (Table 8). The level of household electronics in the home is dependent on the family’s financial situation. Furthermore, the number of television sets in the household is positively correlated with the amount of time that the television is switched on (Roine et al. 2005). Children in wealthier families may therefore be more exposed to the electronic flows of the screen, which in turn makes them more conscious of distant and imaginary dangers than children in poorer families. Additionally, earning an income takes up a lot of time, all of which detracts from the time that can be devoted to a common family life. Wealthier parents likely have less time to spend with their children. Our data do not, however, allow us to put these hypotheses to the empirical test. It is important to stress that increased material wealth cannot resolve all problems of care and health. Children in wealthier families may become over-stimulated and over-activated, suffering from the psychological absence of their parents. At the Table 10 Connections between parental health problems and subjective well-being of child (Pearson correlationa)

a

Correlation two-tailed *p<0.5 **p<0.01

Children All Psychosomatic symptoms Worries related to family relationships Lack of worries related to parents health Autonomy TV dependence Intolerance of frustration Emotional expressiveness Fear of new Fear of behavior of significant others Importance of peer

0.29** 0.26** −0.18** −0.16** 0.16** 0.11* 0.11* 0.18** 0.12* 0.17**

Finland 0.24** 0.19*

0.22**

0.15* 0.16*

Estonia 0.22** −0.17*

Young children’s subjective well-being and family discontents Table 11 Connection between drinking problems and subjective well-being of child (Pearson correlationa)

a

Correlation two-tailed *p<0.5 **p<0.01

81 Children All

Psychosomatic symptoms Worries related to family relationships Lack of worries related to parents’ health TV dependence Fear of imagination-related things Importance of mother and father

Finland

Estonia

0.15** 0.22**

0.18* 0.22**

−0.21**

−0.23**

0.15**

0.18* −0.15* −0.17*

same time, though, the evidence clearly indicates that parental financial problems are connected with symptoms of ill-being in children. 4 Discussion The conceptual approach outlined and adopted in this paper has helped us gain a clearer insight into children’s subjective well-being in different contexts. The contextual differences in children’s subjective well-being, which were measured by several indicators and which represented different levels of well-being, seem consistent and understandable. Our findings pointed at clear differences between countries and over time. Regardless of the source of information, the differences in children’s subjective well-being were in the same direction. Our comparison of children’s subjective well-being in societies at different stages of their development revealed interesting features of the dynamics of subjective well-being. Depending on the specific indicator, there are indications of both improvement and deterioration in well-being. An overall increase in the number of fears, general fearfulness, imagination-related fears and worries pointed at a cumulation of insecurities, but at the same time reduced fears of everyday life and the growing importance of grandparents suggested an improvement in security. In the process of social change, the threats faced by children also change. Therefore, in order to support adequate policy-making, children’s well-being must be constantly researched and followed up. It seems that the most sensitive indicators of social change are parent-reported psychosomatic symptoms and worries as well as child-reported fears. These areas showed signs of qualitative change in subjective well-being. Behavioural characteristics seem to be the least context-dependent. We suggest that these characteristics are produced and enforced by more basic and enduring cultural and social factors than the indicators just mentioned. The same seems to be true for child-reported social networks as resources and as protectors against dangers. We found many structural or qualitative changes in children’s subjective well-being, but the role of family members as a resource for children has remained the same despite the stresses the parents meets from the outside world. Our findings also have important political implications. Although family finances improved in both countries, there was no clear evidence of an improvement in the overall level of subjective well-being. In other words, family economic welfare is

82

A.R. Lahikainen, et al.

not in itself sufficient to ensure children’s subjective well-being, although financial insecurity is a major contributor to the child’s bodily and behavioural ill-being and negative experiences, such as worries. In sum, the results are helpful in evaluating the child and family policies implemented. Children are very sensitive to parental stresses and the lack of parental wellbeing. Supporting the family is crucial to improving the child’s subjective wellbeing. Finland has in place an extensive and effective public parental health care and support system, which provides for better parental health and by the same token for better subjective well-being among Finnish children than is the case in Estonia. The purpose of our study has not been to identify and explain the similarities and differences in well-being between Estonian and Finnish children. Rather, our aim has been to demonstrate the sensitivity of theory-based indicators and the contextdependence of subjective well-being. Most importantly, as has been emphasized by a number of other authors (Hood 2007; Land et al. 2007), we want to draw attention to the need for further and more in-depth research into the grey area of children’s subjective well-being. 4.1 Methodological Considerations In our analysis of children’s subjective well-being and family discontents, we have chosen to use indicators that cover all aspects of well-being, including bodily functioning, symptoms, behaviour and social relationships. All the indicators used in the contextual analyses are supposed to be examples of valid ways of measuring subjective well-being. In our future analyses we will be employing more descriptive indicators to explore social relationships, especially child-reported social networks. The inventory of worries could also be more extensive. The main limitations of our empirical study lie in the rather small sample sizes as well as in the high costs of the assessment method, i.e. the child interview. We have been careful to avoid offering any “overall” assessments of children’s subjective well-being. Our findings suggest a healthy scepticism toward such attempts. In order to decide whether or not children’s overall subjective well-being has improved in a certain context, we have to be sure, firstly, that the measures used in that evaluation cover the whole area of subjective well-being. Children are capable of contributing to their subjective well-being in a multiplicity of ways. They also express their ill-being in multiple ways. Methodologically, the flexibility of both bodily functioning and social relationships present a formidable challenge for both research and policy-making. Secondly, quantitative research is inclined to work on the assumption that every indicator contributes to well-being equally and in the same way. At the level of individual functioning, however, this is not necessarily true. The first problem concerns the validity of the measures of well-being, the second has to do with the general and inescapable difficulty of quantifying psychological and social phenomena. The methods used here were specifically developed for studying small children. What conclusions can we draw from this study with respect to the assessment of older children’s subjective well-being? Theoretically, insecurity is a generic ground for well-being (Bauman 1990; Giddens 1991). The importance of the experience of

Young children’s subjective well-being and family discontents

83

feeling safe is highlighted by recent empirical studies on subjective well-being (Fabiansson 2007; Hood 2007; Fattore et al. 2007). For the assessment of subjective well-being, however, it is necessary to take account of the age-adequacy of the indicators used. Symptoms may change depending on the age of the child. For example, some fears typically weaken or disappear, others develop as the child grows up and becomes more capable of dealing with reality. The same applies to worries (Cantor 2002, Muris et al. 2001; Muris and Merckelbach 2000; Lahikainen et al. 1995; Rutter and Rutter 1993). Our semi-structured child interview has proved to be a reliable method that can shed much light on the child’s own views (Lahikainen et al. 2003, Lahikainen et al. 2006). Expressions of the positive states of subjective well-being, such as exploration, learning and social networking, also change with the child’s advancing age. Among older children, exploration evolves into different kinds of achievements and affiliations at school and in leisure. Our study would have benefited from larger samples, which would have allowed for more complex analyses of the factors contributing to children’s subjective well-being. The use of two informants, and particularly the child interviews and the assessment of several indicators drove up the costs of research and thus limited the sample sizes. However, all the analyses conducted are statistically valid. We have chosen to use one major town to represent one country and repeated the study in an identical way in both towns and at both times. We have no reason to believe that the changes happening in other parts of the countries would have been materially different from those observed in the study areas. Our main argument in this paper is that children’s subjective well-being is a highly complex phenomenon that presents a major interdisciplinary challenge. The data presented here certainly back up this argument. The problems involved can be overcome by applying a broad array of measures. Most importantly, in order to make real progress in the assessment of children’s subjective well-being, we need to 1. develop a theory that has real behavioural referents in children’s everyday reality; and, 2. carefully elaborate theory-based indicators. Future research must proceed to develop a theory that integrates effective family functioning and the child’s subjective well-being. Acknowledgements Tampere.

This study was supported by the Academy of Finland, Nokia and the University of

References Bauman, Z. (1990). Modernity and ambivalence. In Global culture, nationalism, globalization and modernity. London: Sage. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995). The normal chaos of love. Cambridge: Polity. Ben-Arieh, A. (2000). Beyond welfare: Measuring and monitoring the state of children-new trends and domains. Social Indicators Research, 52, 235–257. Ben-Arieh, A. (2007). The child indicators movement: Past, present, and future. International Society for Child Indicators Inaugural Conference June 26–28, 2007. Ben-Arieh, A., & Frønes, I. (2007). Indicators of children’s well being—Concepts, indices and usage. Social Indicators Research, 80, 1–4. Ben-Arieh, A., & Goerge, R. (2001). Beyond the numbers: How do we monitor the State of Our Children. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 603–631.

84

A.R. Lahikainen, et al.

Bowlby, J. (1978a). Attachment and loss. Attachment (vol. 1). London: Penguin Books. Bowlby, J. (1978b). Attachment and Loss. Separation, Anxiety and Anger (vol. 2). London: Penguin Books. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Ecology of human development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cantor, J. (2002). Fright reactions to mass media. In J. Bryant, & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects. Advances in theory and research, (2nd ed., pp. 287–306). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Carpenter, P. J. (1990). New method for measuring young children’s self-report fear and pain. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 4, 233–240. Denzin, N. K. (1982). The significant others of young children: Notes toward a phenomenology of childhood. In K. Borman (Ed.) The social life of children in a changing society (pp. 29–46). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Fabiansson, C. (2007). Young people’s perception of being safe—globally and locally. Social Indicators Research, 80, 31–49. Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2007). Children’s conceptualizations of their well-being. Social Indicators Research, 80, 5–29. Freud, S. (1974). The development of libido and sexual organizations. In J. Strachey, & A. Richards (Eds.) Introductory lectures on pyschoanalysis. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Oxford: Blackwell. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Padstow: Polity. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Padstow: Polity. Heidegger, M. (1979). (1927) Sein und Zeit. 15. an Hand der Gesamtausgabe duchgesehene Auflage. Tybingen: Max Niemeyer. Hernandez, D. J. (1993). The historical transformation of childhood, children’s statistics, and social policy. Childhood, 1, 187–201. Hochschild, A. (1997). The time bind. When work becomes home and home becomes work. New York: Metropolitan Books. Hood, S. (2007). Reporting on children’s well-being: The state of London’s children reports. Social Indicators Research, 80, 249–264. Kernberg, O. (1980). Internal world and external reality. New York: Jason Aronson. Keski-Petäjä, T. (1994). Dynamic theory of wellbeing. Tampere: Acta Universitatis Tamperensis Series A, 401. Lahikainen, A. R., & Kraav, I. (1996). Framing children’s insecurity in postmodern society. In J. Hämäläinen, R. Vornanen, & J. Laurinkari (Eds.) Social work and social security in a changing society. Festschrift for Prof. Pauli Niemelä (pp. 111–122). Nürnberg: Maro. Lahikainen, A. R., Kirmanen, T., Kraav, I., & Taimalu, M. (2003). Studying fears in young children: Two interview methods. Childhood, 10, 83–104. Lahikainen, A. R., Kraav, I., Kirmanen, T., & Taimalu, M. (2006). Child–parent agreement in the assessment of young children’s fears: A comparative perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 1–20. Lahikainen, A. R., Kraav, I., Maijala, L., & Kirmanen, T. (1995). Lasten turvattomuus Suomessa ja Virossa. 5–12-vuotiaiden lasten huolten ja pelkojen vertaileva tutkimus [Children’s insecurity in Finland and in Estonia. A comparative study of fears and worries of 5–12-year-old children]. Kuopio: Studies of Social Sciences of University of Kuopio. Lahikainen, A. R., Taimalu, M., Korhonen, P., & Kraav, I. (2007). Self-reported fears as indicators of young children’s well-being in societal change: A cross-cultural perspective. Social Indicators Research, 80, 51–78. Land, K. C., Lamb, V. L., Meadows, S. O., & Taylor, A. (2007). Measuring trends in child well-being: an evidence-based approach. Social Indicators Research, 80, 105–132. Lippman, L., Moore, K., Vandivere, S., & Theokas, C. (2007). An index of child well-being based on the National Survey of Children’s Health. Conference presentation, ISCI, Chicago, session 14. Moore, K. A. (1999). Indicators of child and family well-being: The good, the bad and the ugly. A presentation of the National Institutes of Health Office of Behavioural and Social Sciences Research, September 13, 1999. Muris, P., & Merckelbach, H. (2000). Fears, worries, and scary dreams in 4- to 12-year-old children: their content, developmental pattern, and origins. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 43–53. Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Ollendick, T. H., King, N. J., & Bogie, N. (2001). Children’s nighttime fears: Parent–child ratings of frequency, content, origins, coping behaviors and severity. Behavior Research and Theory, 39, 13–28.

Young children’s subjective well-being and family discontents

85

Roine, M., Valkonen, S., & Lahikainen, A. R. (2005). Television in young children’s social relationships. In Yearbook of Population Research in Finland XLI. Helsinki, Finland: The Population Research Institute, pp. 75–96. Rutter, M., & Rutter, M. (1993). Developing minds. Challenge and continuity across the life span. London: Penguin Books. Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the New Capitalism. New York: Norton. Tyson, P., & Tyson, R. (1990). Psychoanalytic theories of development. New Haven: Yale University Press. Valsiner, J. (1983). Culture and the development of children’s action. New York: Wiley. Waters, E., & Deane, K. E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relationships: Q-methodology and the organization of behaviour in infancy and early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1–2), 41–65.