1. ❖ Data from 731 college students (18-37 years, M = 19.3, SD = 1.84; 54% female). Students received credit for their introductory to psychology class for participating. ❖ The sample consisted of 58% Caucasian, 19% African American, 8% Hispanic/Latino, 6% Asian American, 8% other (e.g., biracial, Native American) ❖ Participants who had no living grandparents were excluded. ❖ The grandparents reported on consisted of 499 maternal grandmothers (MGM), 332 maternal grandfathers (MGF), 353 paternal grandmothers (PGM), and 216 paternal grandfathers (PGF). ❖ Participants reported gender, age, year in college, and ethnicity on a demographic questionnaire. ❖ For each living grandparent, participants reported on RQ and frequency of contact. ❖ RQ for each living grandparent was measured using a modified version of the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1989). ❖ Contact was reported by combining eight questions regarding the frequency of in-person contact and communication across four different age periods. ❖ Over the last few decades the research literature has become more concerned with grandparents. ❖ Grandparents are playing an increasing role in grandchildren’s lives such as providing childcare, financial, and emotional support (Kemp, 2004). ❖ Human life expectancy has increased due to improvements in modern medicine allowing grandparents to have continued contact through the child’s adulthood (Kemp, 2004). Thus, the grandparent-grandchild relationship may be meaningful. ❖ Past research has primarily focused on within group differences and grandparenting roles. ❖ Influential and supportive Caucasian grandparents have more contact and stronger relationships with their grandchildren than passive and detached Caucasian grandparents (Mueller, Wilhelm, & Elder, 2002) ❖ Asian American grandchildren are more assimilated to American culture than their grandparents creating a larger generational gap and the grandparent’s primary role is that of a family historian (Kamo, 1998) ❖ Other research has looked at specific ethnic groups in comparison to the dominant ethnic group (i.e., Caucasians) ❖ Caucasian grandparents are less integrated and more likely to help out financially than Mexicans and Puerto Ricans (e.g., Garcia, 1993; Sarkisian, Gerena, & Gerstel, 2006). ❖ African American grandmothers are more likely to live with and be the primary caretaker of grandchildren than Caucasians (Caputo, 1999; Szinovacz, 1998). ❖ Little is still known about variations in grandparent-grandchild relationship quality (RQ) and frequency of contact across multiple ethnic groups. Therefore, the current study focuses on investigating whether or not differences exist. ❖ It was expected that participants from minority ethnic groups such as African American and Hispanic/Latino, would have higher levels of RQ and contact than Caucasians and others. Ethnic Group Differences in Grandparent-Grandchild Relationship Quality Jonathan J. Lopez, Emily E. Stewart, Surina Cardinas, Micah Ioffe & Laura D. Pittman Northern Illinois University Methods Background Results ❖ Please contact Jonathan J. Lopez with comments, questions, or feedback about this poster at z1607645@students.niu.edu or via the Psychology Department, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115.z1607645@students.niu.edu ❖ Asian Americans had lower levels of trust with MGMs compare to all groups besides Hispanics/Latinos. ❖ African Americans reported more communication than Caucasians, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asian Americans. Level of contact was also reported to be higher than all ethnic groups. ❖ Caucasians had higher levels of trust with PGMs and PGFs than all groups besides “Other” ❖ Results of the current study revealed that significant differences do exist for grandparent-grandchild RQ and level of contact across certain ethnic groups. ❖ As hypothesized, African Americans did have better communication and greater contact with their maternal grandmothers, but not other grandparents. These differences might be due to the fact that African American MGMs are more likely to be the primary caretaker of the grandchild. ❖ Our hypothesis about Hispanics/Latinos was not supported. This could result from a smaller sample size. Furthermore, Hispanics/Latino covers a broad range of ethnic backgrounds (e.g., Mexican, Puerto Rican) that differ in culture, which may have been linked to higher within group variance than other ethnic groups. Our results on Hispanics/Latino may not generalize to all groups that fall under this category. Thus, further research looking at specific Hispanic cultural groups may be important. ❖ Caucasians had higher levels of trust with PGMs and PGFs. Though level of contact with these grandparents was insignificant these findings might suggest that Caucasian families are more likely to have stronger relationship ties with their paternal grandparents. ❖ Grandchildren’s trust with their Asian American maternal grandmothers is significantly lower. No differences however were found with communication and level of contact. These findings perhaps represents the generation gap between grandparent and grandchild and the role Asian American grandmothers presume, family historian. ❖ Sample sizes varied greatly based on the type of grandparent and the ethnic group. Thus, the power to detect differences varied for the different analyses. If the sample had more Asian-Americans or Hispanic Americans, additional differences may have been significant. ❖ These findings are limited to young adults who attend college and may not represent all young adults for each ethnic group. For example African Americans who attend college might differ from those who do not. Future research should explore ethnic differences of these grandparent-grandchild RQ outside of a college sample. Discussion References ❖ Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427-454. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02202939 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02202939 ❖ Caputo, R. K. (1999). Grandmothers and coresident grandchildren. Families in Society, 80(2), 120-126. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.654http://dx.doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.654 ❖ Garcia, C. (1993). What do we mean by extended family? A closer look at Hispanic multigenerational families. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 8(2), 137-146. doi : http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00971565 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00971565 ❖ Kamo, Yoshinori (1998). Asian Grandparents. In M. E. Szinovacz (Ed.), Handbook on Grandparenthood (pp. 97-112). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ❖ Kemp, C. (2004 ). Dimensions of grandparent-adult grandchild relationships: From family ties to intergenerational friendships. Canadian Journal on Aging, 24, 161-178. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/cja.2005.0066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/cja.2005.0066 ❖ Mueller, M. M., Wilhelm, B., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2002). Variations in grandparenting. Research on Aging, 24(3), 360-388. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0164027502243004http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0164027502243004 ❖ Sarkisian, N., Gerena, M., & Gerstel, N. (2006). Extended Family Ties Among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Whites: Superintegration or Disintegration? Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies Vol 55(3) Jul 2006, 331-344. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00408.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00408.x ❖ Szinovacz, M. E. (1998). Grandparents today: A demographic profile. Gerontologist, 38(1), 37-52. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/38.1.37http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/38.1.37 ❖ MANOVAs were run to compare RQ and level of contact with each grandparent by ethnic group. ❖ To determine significant difference the Least Significant Difference (LSD) procedure was conducted. Relationship QualityCaucasian African American Hispanic Latino Asian American OtherF-ratio Maternal Grandmother (n = 288) (n = 94)(n = 43)(n = 34)(n = 40) Trust4.23 a 4.11 a 4.02 ab 3.66 b 4.05 a 4.16** Communication3.05 a 3.46 b 2.90 a 2.73 a 3.10 ab 4.81*** Alienation2.12 a 2.05 a 2.22 a 2.41 a 2.21 a 1.22 Level of contact5.43 a 6.32 b 5.77 a 5.50 a 5.70 a 7.73*** Maternal Grandfather (n = 216) (n = 46)(n = 25)(n = 21)(n = 24) Trust4.06 a 3.83 a 3.98 a 3.93 a 4.04 a 0.71 Communication2.74 a 3.03 a 2.94 a 2.78 a 3.14 a 1.43 Alienation2.21 a 2.22 a 1.99 a 2.35 a 1.95 a 1.11 Level of contact4.95 a 5.62 a 5.09 a 5.39 a 4.69 a 2.11 Paternal Grandmother (n = 217) (n = 54)(n = 38)(n = 21)(n = 23) Trust4.01 b 3.67 a 3.54 a 3.40 a 3.81 ab 4.18** Communication2.84 a 2.36 a 2.72 a 2.68 a 1.94 Alienation2.26 a 2.462.59 a 2.39 a 2.32 a 1.34 Level of contact4.88 a 4.82 a 4.74 a 5.04 a 5.24 a 0.52 Paternal Grandfather (n = 146) (n = 25)(n =19)(n = 12)(n = 14) Trust4.05 b 3.60 a 3.42 a 3.94 ab 2.85* Communication2.68 a 2.63 a 2.57 a 2.67 a 2.58 a 0.09 Alienation2.23 a 2.52 a 2.48 a 2.60 a 1.90 a 1.83 Level of contact4.83 a 4.87 a 4.60 a 5.52 a 4.76 a 0.69 Note: Means in the same row that do not share subscripts differ at p ≤.05. * p ≤.05, ** p ≤.01, *** p ≤.001 Table 1 Grandparent Relationship Quality and Level of Contact by Ethnicity Analysis