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

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.

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.

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.

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.