Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Family Functioning and Socioeconomic Status in South African Families: A Test of the Social Causation Hypothesis

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Optimal family relationships are central to individual well-being. The focus of this paper is on family functioning and how socioeconomic status (SES) explains family functioning. Ecological theory states that a family’s socioeconomic context is determined by macro-systemic factors, thereby influencing individuals’ perceptions of family functioning. Within this context, the social causation hypothesis asserts that social conditions influence family functioning. This paper uses the Family Attachment and Changeability Index as measure of family functioning. SES is viewed as multidimensional and individual-, household-, and subjective SES indices are developed using multiple correspondence analysis. Multivariate regression models suggest that household- and subjective SES are associated with higher levels of perceived flexibility in the family. There is no association between SES and family members’ attachment to each other. In general, the findings support the social causation hypothesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Related but contrasting to the social causation perspective is the social selection perspective, which states that individual personality traits and characteristics influence the family’s SES (Conger and Donnellan 2007; Conger et al. 2010; Schofield et al. 2011). It is highly likely that both social causation and social selection may apply to any specific family context. The possibility of this interplay led to the development of the interactionist perspective (Conger et al. 2010; Schofield et al. 2011), which takes both the social causation and social selection perspectives into account when considering the relationship between family functioning and SES. As the data used in this paper do not contain sufficient data to examine the social selection perspective and hence also the interactionist approach, which also requires longitudinal data over a long time period, this paper focuses solely on the social causation perspective.

  2. Another framework consistent with the social causation perspective is the Family Investment Model (FIM), which posits that since higher-SES families have more resources than lower-SES families, higher-SES families will invest more in the development of their children than lower-SES families (Wadsworth and Achenbach 2005; Conger et al. 2010; Schofield et al. 2011). These investments will ultimately benefit the emotional and cognitive well-being of the children of higher-SES families more than lower-SES families. For the purposes and context of this paper, the FSM is clearly the more relevant theory related to the social causation perspective.

  3. For each respondent, the item responses are summed for each sub-scale. To derive the Attachment score in the African American scale, for instance, summed Attachment scores are recoded as follows: 0–10 = 1, 11–16 = 2, 17–22 = 3, 23–27 = 4, 28–33 = 5, and 34–40 = 6. Following summation of the Changeability scores, they are recoded as follows: 0–9 = 1, 10–12 = 2, 13–16 = 3, 17–20 = 4, 21–24 = 5, and 25–40 = 6. As an example, if the sum of a respondent’s answers to the Attachment scale equals 13, a value of 2 is assigned to that respondent. Assuming that the sum of that respondent’s answers on the Changeability scale equals 13, a value of 3 is assigned. For that specific respondent, the Attachment score is 2, the Changeability score is 3, and the overall FACI8 score is (2 + 3)/2 = 2.5. The overall FACI8 score is used mainly to classify families into four family functioning types (balanced, midrange, moderate, extreme), but for the purposes of this paper these family types are not applicable.

  4. The CFA from which the Attachment and Changeability factor scores are derived displayed very good overall fit indices (S-B χ 2(103) = 460.1, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.042; CFI = 0.938; SRMR = 0.043). See Botha et al. (2016) for more information.

References

  • Alesina, A., & Giuliano, P. (2010). The power of the family. Journal of Economic Growth, 15, 93–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & Giuliano, P. (2013). Family ties. NBER Working Paper No. 18966. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Amoateng, A. Y., Heaton, T. B., & Kalule-Sabiti, I. (2007). Living arrangements in South Africa. In A. Y. Amoateng & T. B. Heaton (Eds.), Families and households in post-apartheid South Africa: Socio-demographic perspectives (pp. 43–59). Cape Town: HSRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aytaç, I. A., & Rankin, B. H. (2009). Economic crisis and marital problems in Turkey: Testing the family stress model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 756–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbarin, O. A., & Khomo, N. (1997). Indicators of economic status and social capital in South African townships: What do they reveal about the material and social conditions in families of poor children? Childhood, 4(2), 193–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. A. (2008). Economic disadvantage in complex family systems: Expansion of family stress models. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 11(3), 145–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore, T., Strazdins, L. & Gibbings, J. (2009). Measuring family socioeconomic position. Australian Social Policy, 8, 121–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogenschneider, K., Little, O. M., Ooms, T., Benning, S., Cadigan, K., & Corbett, T. (2012). The family impact lens: A family-focused, evidence-informed approach to policy and practice. Family Relations, 61, 514–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botha, F., & Booysen, F. (2014). Family functioning and life satisfaction and happiness in South African households. Social Indicators Research, 119(1), 163–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botha, F., Wouters, E., & Booysen, F. (2016). Validity and reliability of the Family Attachment and Changeability Index (FACI8) in South Africa. Mimeo: University of Antwerp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, O., & Robinson, J. (2012). Resilience in remarried families. South African Journal of Psychology, 42(1), 114–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budlender, D., & Lund, F. (2011). South Africa: A history of family disruption. Development and Change, 42(4), 925–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byles, J., Byrne, C., Boyle, M. H., & Offord, D. R. (1988). Ontario child health study: Reliability and validity of the general functioning subscale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device. Family Process, 27(1), 97–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. F., Barrett, L., & Kolvin, I. (2000). Inner city disadvantage and family functioning. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 9, 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 361–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2008). Understanding the processes through which economic hardship influences families and children. In D. R. Crane & T. B. Heaton (Eds.), Handbook of families and poverty (pp. 64–81). London: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 175–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65(2), 541–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conger, R. D., Wallace, L. E., Sun, Y., Simons, R. L., McLoyd, V. C., & Brody, G. H. (2002). Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental Psychology, 38(2), 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socio-economic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 685–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dauphin, A., El Lahga, A.-R., Fortin, B., & Lacroix, G. (2011). Are children decision-makers within the household? Economic Journal, 121, 871–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denny, D., Gavidia-Payne, S., Davis, K., Francis, A., & Jackson, M. (2014). Strengthening Australian families: Socioeconomic status, social connectedness, and family functioning. Australian Social Work, 67(3), 438–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diemer, M. A., Mistry, R. S., Wadsworth, M. E., López, I., & Reimers, F. (2013). Best practices in conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 77–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnellan, M. B., Conger, K. J., McAdams, K. K., & Neppl, T. K. (2009). Personal characteristics and resilience to economic hardship and its consequences: Conceptual issues and empirical illustrations. Journal of Personality, 77(6), 1645–1676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fotso, J.-C., & Kuate-Defo, B. (2005). Measuring socioeconomic status in health research in developing countries: Should we be focusing on households, communities or both? Social Indicators Research, 72, 189–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgiades, K., Boyle, M. H., Jenkins, J. M., Sanford, M., & Lipman, E. (2008). A multilevel analysis of whole family functioning using the McMaster Family Assessment Device. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(3), 344–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman-Smith, D., Florsheim, P., Tolan, P. H., & Henry, D. B. (2000). Patterns of family functioning and adolescent outcomes among urban African American and Mexican American families. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(3), 436–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeff, A. P. (2000). Characteristics of families that function well. Journal of Family Issues, 21(8), 948–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeff, A. P., & de Villiers, M. (2008). Optimism in family resilience. Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, 20(1), 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeff, A. P., & Holtzkamp, J. (2007). The prevalence of resilience in migrant families. Family and Community Health, 30(3), 189–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenacre, M. J. (2006). Multiple correspondence analysis and related methods. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Han, C.-K., & Rothwell, D. W. (2014). Savings and family functioning since the 2008 recession: An exploratory study of Singapore. International Social Work, 57(6), 630–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harbaugh, W. T., Krause, K., & Berry, T. R. (2001). GARP for kids: On the development of rational choice behavior. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1539–1545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, L. D., Hargreaves, J. R., & Huttly, S. R. A. (2008). Issues in the construction of wealth indices for the measurement of socio-economic position in low-income countries. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 5(3), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC). (2012). 2012 South African Social Attitudes Survey. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonker, L., & Greeff, A. P. (2009). Resilience factors in families living with people with mental illnesses. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(7), 859–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabudula, C. W., Houle, B., Collinson, M. A., Kahn, K., Tollman, S., & Clark, S. (2016). Assessing changes in household socioeconomic status in rural South Africa, 2001–2013: A distributional analysis using household asset indicators. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s11205-016-1397-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham, B. C., Sowell, R. L., Phillips, K. D., & Murdaugh, C. (2001). Family functioning and motivation for childbearing among HIV-infected women at increased risk for pregnancy. Journal of Family Nursing, 7(4), 345–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebow, J., & Stroud, C. B. (2012). Assessment of effective couple and family functioning. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (4th ed., pp. 501–528). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., Lin, C., Ji, G., Sun, S., & Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (2009). Parents living with HIV in China: Family functioning and quality of life. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., Zou, H., Liu, Y., & Zhou, Q. (2014). The relationships of family socioeconomic status, parent-adolescent conflict, and filial piety to adolescents’ family functioning in Mainland China. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, S., Romich, J. L., & Tsang, K. P. (2009). Decision-making by children. Review of Economics of the Household, 7, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, J. L. C., Wong, T. K. Y., Lau, Y. K., & Pun, S. H. (2009a). Perceived family functioning and family resources of Hong Kong families: Implications for social work practice. Journal of Family Social Work, 12, 244–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, J. L. C., Wong, T. K. Y., & Lau, Y. K. (2009b). Sex differences in perceived family functioning and family resources in Hong Kong families: Implications for social work practice. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 3, 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, J. L. C., Wong, T. K. Y., Lau, Y. K., & Lai, L. L. Y. (2011). Parenting stress and perceived family functioning of Chinese parents in Hong Kong: Implications for social work practice. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 5, 160–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, A. K., Dealy, J. A., & Keitner, G. I. (2013). Family functioning and income: Does low-income status impact family functioning? The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 21(3), 297–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masquillier, C., Wouters, E., Mortelmans, D., & Booysen, F. (2014). Families as catalysts for peer adherence support in enhancing hope for people living with HIV/AIDS in South Africa. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 17, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masquillier, C., Wouters, E., Mortelmans, D., & Booysen, F. (2015). The impact of community support initiatives on the stigma experienced by people living with HIV/AIDS in South Africa. AIDS and Behavior, 19(2), 214–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCreary, L. L., & Dancy, B. L. (2004). Dimensions of family functioning: Perspectives of low-income African American single-parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 690–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCubbin, H. I., Thompson, A. I., & Elver, K. M. (1996). Family Attachment and Changeability Index 8 (FACI8). In H. I. McCubbin, A. I. Thompson, & M. A. McCubbin (Eds.), Family assessment: Resiliency, coping and adaptation: Inventories for research and practice (pp. 725–751). Madison: University of Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, S. A., Varkey, S., & Aguirre, A. M. (2002). Ecological correlates of family functioning. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(3), 257–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Møller, V. (2013). South African quality of life trends over three decades, 1980–2010. Social Indicators Research, 113, 915–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nkosi, B., & Daniels, P. (2007). Family strengths: South Africa. Marriage and Family Review, 41(1–2), 11–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. H., & Gorall, D. M. (2003). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (3rd ed., pp. 514–547). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orthner, D. K., Jones-Sanpei, H., & Williamson, S. (2004). The resilience and strengths of low-income families. Family Relations, 53, 159–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, J. M. (2002a). Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 349–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, J. M. (2002b). Understanding family resilience. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(3), 233–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philbrick, C. A., & Fitzgerald, M. A. (2007). Women in business-owning families: A comparison of roles, responsibilities and predictors of family functionality. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28, 618–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phongsavan, P., Chey, T., Bauman, A., Brooks, R., & Silove, D. (2006). Social capital, socioeconomic status and psychological distress among Australian adults. Social Science and Medicine, 63, 2546–2561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawatlal, N., Pillay, B. J., & Kliewer, W. (2015). Socioeconomic status, family-related variables, and caregiver–adolescent attachment. South African Journal of Psychology, 45(4), 551–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reising, M. M., Watson, K. H., Hardcastle, E. J., Merchant, M. J., Roberts, L., Forehand, R., et al. (2013). Parental depression and economic disadvantage: The role of parenting in associations with internalizing and externalizing symptoms in children and adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 335–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelofse, R., & Middleton, M. R. (1985). The family functioning in adolescence questionnaire: A measure of psychosocial family health during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 8(1), 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, D. W., & Han, C.-K. (2010). Exploring the relationship between assets and family stress among low-income families. Family Relations, 59(4), 396–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schofield, T. J., Martin, M. J., Conger, K. J., Donnellan, M. B., Neppl, T., & Conger, R. D. (2011). Intergenerational transmission of adaptive functioning: A test of the interactionist model of SES and human development. Child Development, 82(1), 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seccombe, K. (2002). “Beating the odds” versus “changing the odds”: Poverty, resilience, and family policy. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 384–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shek, D. T. L., Leung, H., & Lu, S. (2014). Perceived family life quality in junior secondary school students in Hong Kong. Social Indicators Research, 117, 757–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, Z. A., Norris, S. A., Pettifor, J. M., Cameron, N., & Griffiths, P. L. (2009). Approaches for assessing the role of household socioeconomic status on child anthropometric measures in urban South Africa. American Journal of Human Biology, 21, 48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sourial, N., Wolfson, C., Zhu, B., Quail, J., Fletcher, J., Karunananthan, S., et al. (2010). Correspondence analysis is a useful tool to uncover the relationships among categorical variables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 638–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stepleman, L. M., Wright, D. E., & Bottonari, K. A. (2009). Socioeconomic status: Risks and resilience. In S. Loue & M. Sajatovic (Eds.), Determinants of minority mental health and wellness (pp. 1–30). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taliep, N., Ismail, G., Seedat, M., & Suffla, S. (2014). Development of a family functioning scale for the South African context: The substantive validity phase. Child Abuse Research: A South African Journal, 15(1), 73–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiffin, P. A., Pearce, M., Kaplan, C., Fundudis, T., & Parker, L. (2007). The impact of socio-economic status and mobility on perceived family functioning. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28, 653–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wadsworth, M. E., & Achenbach, T. M. (2005). Explaining the link between low socioeconomic status and psychopathology: Testing two mechanisms of the social causation hypothesis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1146–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waite, L. J. (2000). The family as a social organization: Key ideas for the twenty-first century. Contemporary Sociology, 29(3), 463–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, F. (2016). The new normal: Diversity and complexity in 21st-century families. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (4th ed., pp. 3–27). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, J. R. (2009). Socioeconomic status and health across the life course: A test of the social causation and health selection hypotheses. Social Forces, 87(4), 2125–2154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, K., Brownhill, S., & Boyce, P. (2000). Marital and family functioning: Different measures and viewpoints. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 35, 358–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. T., Cheadle, J. E., & Goosby, B. J. (2015). Hard times and heartbreak: Linking economic hardship and relationship distress. Journal of Family Issues, 36(7), 924–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, E., Masquillier, C., Ponnet, K., & Booysen, F. (2014). A peer adherence support intervention to improve the antiretroviral treatment outcomes of HIV patients in South Africa: The moderating role of family dynamics. Social Science and Medicine, 113, 145–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y., & Gustafsson, J.-E. (2004). Measuring socioeconomic status at individual and collective levels. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(3), 259–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank an anonymous referee for comments and suggestions. Financial support for this research was provided by Rhodes University (PGSD05/2015 and PGSD07/2015).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Economic History, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa

    Ferdi Botha

  2. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Ferdi Botha

  3. Population Health, Health Systems and Innovation Research Unit, Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), Pretoria, South Africa

    Frikkie Booysen

  4. Department of Economics, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa

    Frikkie Booysen

  5. Department of Sociology, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Edwin Wouters

Authors
  1. Ferdi Botha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frikkie Booysen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edwin Wouters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ferdi Botha.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 12.

Table 12 MCA index weights
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Botha, F., Booysen, F. & Wouters, E. Family Functioning and Socioeconomic Status in South African Families: A Test of the Social Causation Hypothesis. Soc Indic Res 137, 789–811 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1600-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1600-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation