The Iowa Youth and Families Project
Description of the Study and Data Collection
The project was launched in 1987 to investigate the human consequences
of the Farm Crisis that began in the late 1970s and continued to affect
rural America up to 1997, a decline more drastic than any downswing since the
1930s. The core project is directed by Rand Conger of Iowa State
University while Elder serves as a co-principal investigator and
director of the "Rural Social Change" component of the project.
Data
collection began in 1989 with a sample of 451 two-parent families from
eight north central counties of Iowa. The counties were selected for
their rural farm economies and proximity to the project's home at the
Family Research Center in Ames, Iowa. In order to facilitate the
recruitment of farm families and minimize variations in family
structure, the study design called for two-parent families with a
7th-grader and a near sib (within four years of age). The initial pool
of families was defined in terms of 7th grade students who were
enrolled in public and private schools suring the fall term of 1989.
The 7th grade criterion provided a match to the sample used in the
study
Children of the Great
Depression (Elder, 1974).
The sample has been followed up annually from 1989 to 1992, then again
in 1994 (senior year of high school), 1995, 1997, and 2000. Parents and
children were surveyed in each of these years, and in most of the years
family interactions were videotaped. The videotapes provide the basis
for behavioral ratings of husband-wife interaction, sib interaction,
and family interaction. Shortly after the project began two additional
samples were added to the project sample; a sample of 107 single-parent
families in 1991 and approximately 900 grandparents in 1994. The
grandparents were contacted again in 1998 with a subsample
participating in an in-depth, face-to-face interview. As of 1999,
approximately 500 families are still active participants in the
project.
The Iowa project is widely regarded as having the richest archive of
life record data on rural families and children in the United States,
and it is likely to continue for some time to come. Most of the target
children are approximately 26 years at present, and periodic data
collection is planned over the next five years with support from the
National Institute of Mental Health.
The Iowa State and UNC teams have
worked out a division of labor which reflects the unique strengths and
interests of each group. The members of the Ames group share a primary
interest in family interactive processes and personal adaptation
whereas the Chapel Hill team has developed a program of research
concerned with social change in families and lives, with emphasis on
the life course and health outcomes.
UNC Research Program
A general picture of many of the UNC program's interests with the Iowa
data can be captured with the following schematic:
This analytic model views ties to the land and
the traditions of family farming as a source of strength,
determination, values, and social connectedness that increase the
resilience of young people to the economic and population decline of
the rural midwest. Research is investigating the hypothesis that farm
families provide their children with an advantage in terms of academic
achievement, psychological well-being, social success, and the
avoidance of problem behavior relative to their nonfarm peers.
In theory and research, this advantage is expressed in terms of five
"resource" mechanisms that are most evident among farm families,
especially with German ancestry:
- family relationships, sibling and parent-child, with emphasis on the
father-son bond and joint activity between parent and child;
- productive roles for children and values stressing collective endeavors
and non- materialistic goals for children;
- close ties with and support
from grandparents, particularly on the paternal side;
- strong family
connections to community institutions through the involvement of
parents; and
- the activity involvement of children in school, church,
and community.
Some Major Findings
1.
Resilience and resourcefulness. In the
unpromising world of rural Iowa, with rising poverty and limited
opportunity, when compared with nearby urban centers, the study finds
that a large number of young people are on paths to successful
development and life achievement. In the 7th grade, children who had
been displaced from their farms by economic circumstances ranked above
all other groups of Iowa children on feelings of economic hardship,
emotional distress, the felt indifference of parents, and lack of
parental warmth. The boys in particular were doing more poorly in
school than any other group. By the 12th grade, some six years later,
the emotional well-being of this group had improved immeasurably.
Another example: the farm families entered the 1980s with some economic
advantages over nonfarm households, but they were severely hit by the
farm crisis over a prolonged period of time and most are still
struggling to survive in an unfavorable market place. Despite this
adversity, farm youth are doing as well as and even generally better
than nonfarm youth on measures of high school success. How is this
possible?
Using theory, based on social capital and life course models, the study
explains this result in terms of the distinctive social resources of
farm family. These include the collective nature of farm family life,
social support and ties to relatives, the family's connections via
parents to community institutions such as the school, church, and civic
organization, as well as the social ties of children in the school.
The empirical results of analyses for the book,
Children of the Land
(University of Chicago Press, 2000: recipient of the 2000/2002 William
J. Goode Award, presented by the American Sociological Association's
Section on Family), generally provide strong support
for this interpretation. The findings are listed in the order of the
"linking processes," as listed in the model diagram.
2.
Family relations. Farm children are more involved in joint activity
with parents which foster a sense of personal significance and
responsibility. Especially when they aspire to life in the country and
on a farm, they are more highly identified with father and mother.
Despite evidence of strong parent attachment, farm adolescents
experience more autonomy over the teen years than nonfarm youth. Out of
these experiences, we find that farm youth are more likely to excel in
school and in social activities at school. They are unlikely to be
involved in problem behavior.
3.
Productive roles and values. Farm children are more involved in paid
earning activities and in unpaid chores, when compared to nonfarm
youth; and they tend to contribute more of their earnings to the
family, regardless of family economic standing. Farm boys and girls who
earn money tend to be highly regarded by their parents, and are looked
to for advice and good judgment. Productive roles in farm families
engender feelings of personal significance, more than in any other
setting, and out of this comes a sense of mastery. Materialistic values
are not correlated with the productive roles of farm youth, whereas
these values are more highly correlated with the consumer orientation
of nonfarm adolescents.
4.
Ties to grandparents. Over forty percent of grandparents are
important in the lives of their grandchildren, and we find that
actively involved grandparents do many different activities with these
children -- mentoring, confidante, guidance, companion, emotional
support, etc. Children who have close grandparents are more likely to
achieve success in the high school years than children who lack such
ties, but the role of grandparents is particularly noteworthy in a
group of children who have been labelled "vulnerable." They have done
worse than expected by the 12th grade -- these children are not likely
to have access to significant grandparents. Some are single-parent
children who have lost connections to their grandparents, others are
grandchildren whose parents do not get along with their own parents.
This is one example of "cumulative disadvantage."
5.
Parent connections to community life and institutions, church,
school, and civic groups. Nonfarm families score highest on social
isolation, and farm families rank highest on social integration in all
respects. Isolation is virtually nil among full-time farm families,
increases slightly among part-time farm families and the displaced
families, increases even more among parents who were only born on
farms, and typifies a majority of the nonfarm households, regardless of
education, income, and duration of residence. Connected families have
parents in leadership positions, and their children are likely to
prosper in the academic, social, and athletic dimensions of school
life.
For example, farm children are most likely to aspire to community
leadership, a rare goal among adolescents. This process evolves from
their own community involvement and the example of civic-minded parents
who have leadership roles. Farm youth are more likely to aspire to
community leadership because they are involved in community roles and
have parental examples of this role. The incipient stage of this
process involves the civic leadership of parents. Active parents
engender active children, especially when the generational bond is
emotionally strong.
6.
Children's roles in school, community, and church. This involvement
is highly predictive of academic and social success among youth, and it
is strongly related to the social involvement of parents. Active
children are among those who are doing better than one would expect on
the basis of family background. They are not likely to be involved in
problem behavior or deviant groups.
Selected Citations
* in 2003 Rand D. Conger and Glen H.
Elder, Jr. were honored by the Rural Sociological Society with the
Award for Distinguished Service to Rural Life.*
Robertson, Elizabeth B., Glen H. Elder, Jr., Martie L. Skinner, and
Rand D. Conger. 1991. “The Costs and Benefits of Social Support
in Families.”
Journal of Marriage and the Family 53: 403-416
(Finalist, Reuben Hill Award, 1992).
Elder, Glen H., Jr., Rand D. Conger, E. Michael Foster, and Monika
Ardelt. 1992. “Families Under Economic Pressure.”
Journal
of Family Issues 13(1): 5-37.
Conger, Rand D., Glen H. Elder, Jr., in collaboration with Lorenz,
Frederick O., Ronald L. Simons, & Les B. Whitbeck. 1994.
Families
in Troubled Times: Adapting to Change in Rural America. Hawthorne, NY:
Aldine DeGruyter.
Conger, Rand D., Xiaojia Ge, Glen H. Elder, Jr., Frederick O. Lorenz,
and Ronald L. Simons. 1994. “Economic Stress, Coercive Family
Process, and Developmental Problems of Adolescents.”
Child
Development 65(2): 541-561.
Elder, Glen H., Jr., Laura Rudkin, and Rand D. Conger. 1994.
“Intergenerational Continuity and Change in Rural America.”
Pp. 30-78 in
Adult Intergenerational Relations: Effects of Societal
Change, edited by Vern L. Bengtson, K. Warner Schaie, and Linda M.
Burton. New York: Springer.
Ge, Xiaojia, Frederick O. Lorenz, Rand D. Conger, Glen H. Elder, Jr.,
and Ronald L. Simons. 1994. “Trajectories of Stressful Life
Events and Depressive Symptoms During Adolescence.”
Developmental
Psychology 30(4): 467-483.
King, Valarie, and Glen H. Elder, Jr. 1995. “American Children
View Their Grandparents: Linked Lives Across Three Rural
Generations.”
Journal of Marriage and the Family 57(1): 165-178.
Elder, Glen H., Jr., Valarie King, and Rand D. Conger. 1996.
“Attachment to Place and Migration Prospects: A Developmental
Perspective.”
Journal of Research on Adolescence 6(4): 397-425.
Elder, Glen H., Jr., Elizabeth B. Robertson, and Rand D. Conger. 1996.
“Fathers and Sons in Rural America: Occupational Choice and
Intergenerational Ties Across the Life Course.” Pp. 294-325 in
Aging and Generational Relations Over the Life Course: A Historical and
Cross-Cultural Perspective, edited by Tamara K. Hareven. Berlin: Walter
De Gruyter.
Ge, Xiaojia, Rand D. Conger, and Glen H. Elder, Jr. 1996. “Coming
of Age Too Early: Pubertal Influences on Girls’ Vulnerability to
Psychological Distress.”
Child Development 67(6): 3386-3400.
King, Valarie, and Glen H. Elder, Jr. 1997. “The Legacy of
Grandparenting: Childhood Experiences with Grandparents and Current
Involvement with Grandchildren.”
Journal of Marriage and the
Family 59(4): 848-859.
King, Valarie, and Glen H. Elder, Jr. 1998. “Perceived
Self-Efficacy and Grandparenting.”
Journal of Gerontology 53B(5):
S249-S257.
King, Valarie, and Glen H. Elder, Jr. 1999. “Are Religious
Grandparents More Involved Grandparents?”
Journal of Gerontology
54B(6): S317-S328.
Lorenz, Frederick O., Glen H. Elder, Jr., Wan-Ning Bao, K.A.S.
Wickrama, and Rand D. Conger. 2000. “After Farming: Emotional
Health of Farm, Non-Farm, and Displaced Farm Couples.”
Rural
Sociology 65(1): 50-71.
Ge, Xiaojia, Rand D. Conger, and Glen H. Elder, Jr. 2001.
“The Relation Between Puberty and Psychological Distress in
Adolescent Boys.”
Journal of Research on Adolescence 11(1): 49-70.
Kim, Kee J., Rand D. Conger, Fred O. Lorenz and Glen H. Elder, Jr.
2001. “Parent-Adolescent Reciprocity in Negative Affect and
its Relation to Early Adult Social Development.”
Developmental Psychology 37(6): 775.
McGrath, Daniel J., Raymond R. Swisher, Glen H. Elder, Jr., and Rand D.
Conger. 2001. “Breaking New Ground: Diverse Routes to College in
Rural America.”
Rural Sociology 66(2): 244-267.
Wickrama, K.A.S., Frederick O. Lorenz, Lora Ebert Wallace, Laknath
Pieris, Rand D. Conger, and Glen H. Elder, Jr. 2001. “Family
Influence on Physical Health During the Middle Years: The Case of Onset
of Hypertension.”
Journal of Marriage and the Family 63(2:May):
527-539.
Crosnoe, Robert, and Glen H. Elder, Jr. 2002. “Adolescent
Twins and Emotional Distress: The Inter-Related Influence of Non-Shared
Environment and Social Structure.”
Child Development 73(6):
1761-1774.
Crosnoe, Robert and Glen H. Elder, Jr. 2002. “Life Course
Transitions, the Generational Stake, and Grandparent-Grandchild
Relationships.”
Journal of Marriage and the Family 64(November):
1089-1096.
Kim, Kee Jeong, Rand D. Conger, Glen H. Elder, Jr., and Frederick O.
Lorenz. 2003. “Reciprocal Influences between Stressful Life
Events and Adolescent Internalizing and Externalizing Problems.”
Child Development 74(1): 127-143.
Elder, Glen H., Jr., & Rand D. Conger. 2002.
Children of the land:
Adversity and success in Rural America. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press (recipient of the 2000/2002 William J. Goode Award, American
Sociological Association [Section on Family]).
