Can Money Buy Happiness for a Family? Family Income,Parenting Style,and Life Satisfaction in Parents and Adolescents

Abstract

This study investigated the associations among family income and life satisfaction in parents, and parenting styles, income, and overall happiness and depression in their adolescents. A total of 1,913 participants comprising adolescents (aged 14–16) and their parents were recruited for this study. Participants were assessed using self-report questionnaires. Monthly household income was recorded by an open-ended question item. The life satisfaction of parents and overall happiness of adolescents were assessed by one item each, rated on a 4-point Likert scale. Three subtypes of parenting style (affectionate, monitoring, over-control) were evaluated by adolescents using an inventory consisting of 21 items on a 4-point Likert scale. Adolescents’ depression was assessed with a checklist rated by the adolescents, consisting of 10 items on a 4-point Likert scale. The odds ratio (OR) for life dissatisfaction in adults was significantly higher in the lower (1st and 2nd) quintile groups of household income, by 9.94 (p < .001) and 3.50 (p < .001) folds, respectively, compared to the highest (5th) group. In contrast, household income had no significant association with life unhappiness in adolescents. Further, total household income had no significant association with the adolescent’s depression score in linear regression analysis, but parenting style did. While affectionate (β = −0.260; p < .001) and monitoring (β = −0.100; p < .001) parenting styles showed negative associations with adolescents’ depression scores, over-control style (β = 0.120; p < .001) showed a positive association. The results indicate the differences in factors impacting the life satisfaction of adults and happiness of adolescents, and the importance of effective parenting for adolescents’ mental health.

Keywords

Family income life satisfaction parenting style adolescent depression

Introduction

Can money buy happiness for a family? A number of studies exploring the association between income and adults’ happiness have reported consistent findings that income is positively associated with subject well-being (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002; Howell & Howell, 2008; Lucas & Schimmack, 2009; Sacks et al., 2012). Subjective well-being has been particularly reported to have stronger associations with income in low-income developing economies than the high-income developed economies (Howell & Howell, 2008).

However, in spite of the consistent evidence for positive associations between income and subjective well-being, the exact nature of this relationship has been debated (Jebb et al., 2018). First, while some researchers have reported the evidence for a satiation point, beyond which the relationship between income and subjective well-being diminishes (Hout, 2003; Kahneman & Deaton, 2010; McLaughlin, 2007), other studies report that there is no satiation point of income for the assessment of subjective well-being (Stacks et al., 2012; Stevenson and Wolfers, 2013). Second, despite clear evidence for the positive associations between income and happiness, a happiness-income paradox phenomenon, called Easterlin paradox, has also been reported (Easterlin, 1995; Easterlin et al., 2010). According to this phenomenon, although happiness is associated with increase in income for a short-term period, the trajectory of happiness over the long-term period of 10 years or more does not increase as a country’s income rises, in both developed and developing countries. Another dispute for the association between income and happiness is the relative nature of income-happiness correlation. This implies that, once the basic needs are fulfilled, social comparison steps in and relative income becomes more important than the absolute income (Caporale et al., 2009; Clark et al., 2008; McBride, 2001; Oshio et al., 2011). In other words, people compare their income with others around them and their happiness is determined by the comparison rather than the actual income. In such a situation, income inequality becomes an important factor for peoples’ happiness or unhappiness. For instance, Oishi et al. (2011) reported that income inequality in the US rose substantially from 1972 to 2008 and this increased inequality had a negative association with happiness, especially in lower-income groups.

Furthermore, is the positive relationship between income and happiness also valid in the relationship between a child’s happiness and their parent’s income? Poverty has been repeatedly reported as a factor that negatively influences adolescent mental health (Dashiff et al., 2009; Lemstra et al., 2008; Reiss, 2013; Santiago et al., 2013). However, findings in previous studies have shown inconsistent results for a direct association between family income and adolescents’ mental health. Some studies have reported that adolescents are aware of financial difficulties in their family and these perceptions of poverty have negative effects on adolescent mental health, suggesting a strong direct impact of poverty on adolescents’ mood (Dashiff et al., 2009; Fröjd et al., 2006). In contrast, McLaughlin (2007) reported that the associations between adolescents’ happiness and family income was not quite so strong as it is for adults, and those associations are slightly positive. Gershoff et al. (2007) also reported that the effect size for the association between family income and children’s emotional competence was much larger in the mediational pathways model than the direct pathways model from the family income to the child’s emotional competence, and this finding is consistent with the family stress model. The family stress model emphasizes that economic hardships directly impact parenting competency which in turn impacts children’s adjustment. According to the family stress model, emotional distress experienced by parents due to economic pressures diminishes the potential for positive parenting behavior, which in turn predicts lower positive adjustment in children and higher internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors (Conger et al., 2000, 2002; Conger & Elder, 1995).

Parenting behavior is one of the most important factors for adolescents’ mental health as well as an important mediating factor for the association between family income and adolescent mental health. Baumrind (1971) identified three parenting styles based on two dimensions of parental demandingness (parental control on children’s behavior) and parental responsiveness (parental attentiveness to children’s needs). These three styles, authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive, were further expanded by Maccoby and Martin (1983) who divided the permissive parenting style into permissive parenting and neglectful parenting. These styles have been widely used in previous studies (Simons & Conger, 2007). The authoritative parenting style which demonstrates a high degree of both responsiveness and demandingness, has been consistently associated with positive outcome on children’s mental health (Simons & Conger, 2007). A linear relationship between parental support and adolescents’ problem behaviors has also been reported, such that the greater the parental support, the better is the adolescent outcome (Barnes & Farrell, 1992). However, the relationship between parental control and adolescent outcome is better understood with the curvilinear model, which implies that moderate parental control is more effective for adolescents’ functioning than too much or too little control (Barnes & Farrell, 1992).

Nonetheless, even with multiple studies conducted on the relationships between family income and adults’ happiness, parenting, and adolescents’ happiness, there is a lack of studies to comprehensively compare the association of family income with happiness between parents and adolescents. In addition, the relationships among family income, parenting, and adolescents’ happiness vary across cultural contexts, and there is a lack of such studies for exploring these associations in the Asian culture, particularly in South Korea. Thus, our study aims to investigate the association among family income and happiness of parents, and parenting style, income, and the mental health of the adolescents in terms of overall happiness and depressive symptoms.

Methods

Participants

The present study analyzed the data derived from the Korean Children and Youth Panel Survey (KCYPS). KCYPS is a longitudinal study conducted annually by the National Youth Policy Institute (NYPI) for 7 years since 2010 to investigate Korean adolescents’ life circumstances and psychological problems. At the beginning of the study, KCYPS enrolled 2,378 elementary school students in the 4th grade, aged 9 to 10 years. Our study utilized the 6th year’s assessment data collected in 2015, which explored all the major variables analyzed in this study including household income, parents’ life satisfaction, adolescents’ overall happiness, adolescents’ depression, and perceived parenting style. In the 6th year assessment, the evaluations of 389 participants revealed missing data either in the responses of adolescents or guardians among the total participants. Hence, we analyzed the data of 1,913 participants whose responses did not contain any missing data and whose parents were listed as the guardians. All the adolescents and their parents were provided with a complete explanation of the purpose and process of the study, and written informed consent was obtained prior to the beginning of the study. The data and KCYPS are open to the public. The analysis protocol of the present study was approved by the institutional review board of the Dankook university hospital (DHUK-2020-03-022).

Assessment

The assessment during the KCYPS was performed using a self-report questionnaire administered to the parents and adolescents. The questionnaire included items assessing the responding parent’s (either father or mother) relationship to the adolescent, parental age, and educational level. Household income was assessed by an open-ended item which requested details about the monthly household income. The life satisfaction of the parent was assessed by the item “How much are you satisfied with your life?” rated on a 4-point Likert scale with the response options of “Much satisfied,” “Satisfied,” “Dissatisfied,” and “Much dissatisfied.” The overall happiness of the adolescent was also assessed by one item “I think that my life is happy.” rated on a 4-point Likert scale with the response options of “Strongly agree,” “Agree,” “Disagree,” “Strongly disagree.” Parenting style was assessed by the parenting behavior inventory, which was developed by NYPI (Kim et al., 2010). This inventory consists of 21 items in six subscales of parenting behavior: Affectionate (four items), monitoring (three items), over-control (four items), rational explanation (three items), excessive expectation (four items), and inconsistent discipline (three items). Each item was rated on a 4-point Likert scale as “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “agree,” and “strongly agree”; a higher score on any subscale represented a higher degree of that particular parenting style. Our study included the affectionate, monitoring, and over-control subscales in the analysis. Adolescents’ depression was assessed with a checklist marked by the adolescent, consisting of 10 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale.

Statistical Analysis

The demographic characteristics of the participants were presented with descriptive statistics. For the comparison of household income based on the responses for life satisfaction and happiness of parents and adolescents, respectively, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. ANOVA was also adopted for the comparison of scores on the perceived parenting style and adolescents’ depression based on the quintile groups of household income. The range of monthly household income in each quintile group of household income is presented in Table 1. To analyze the risk (odds ratio; OR) for life dissatisfaction of parents and adolescents, the logistic regression model was used. For the logistic regression analysis, the responses of parents to life satisfaction of the parents, which is a dependent variable, were converted to a binary form (i.e., “Much satisfied” and “Satisfied” were coded together “Life satisfaction,” and “Dissatisfied” and “Much dissatisfied” were coded together “Life dissatisfaction.” The variable of adolescents’ happiness was also converted to a binary form with “Strongly agree” and “Agree” to “Happiness” and “Disagree” and Strongly disagree” to “Unhappiness.” To compare the OR for adolescents’ unhappiness based on household income and parenting style, the three subscales of parenting style were also converted to categorical variables of quintile groups consistent with the household income group. Logistic regression treated the household income and three subscales of parenting as categorical variables of quintile groups. Finally, the associations between scores of adolescents’ depression and the associated variables were analyzed by the linear regression model, which included the household income and scores on parenting styles as continuous variables. Logistic regression and linear regression for the adolescents’ unhappiness and depression were analyzed with one crude model and two adjusted models (1 and 2). Adjusted model 1 included the household income and three parenting subscales as covariates, and adjusted model 2 included the adolescent’s sex, parental age, and parental educational level as covariates in addition to adjusted model 1. Statistical analyses were conducted using the software package SPSS 25.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the participants.

		Unweighted n (%)
Parent	Responding parent
	Mother	1774 (92.7)
	Father	139 (7.3)
	Paternal age; years, mean (SD)	46.8 (4.1)
	Maternal age; years, mean (SD)	44.0 (3.8)
	Paternal education (years in education)
	⩽12 years	742 (38.8)
	>12 years	1080 (56.5)
	unknown	91 (4.8)
	Maternal education (years in education)
	⩽12 years	871 (45.5)
	>12 years	983 (51.4)
	unknown	59 (3.1)
	Household income*
	1st ⩽ 3,000	441 (23.1)
	3,000 < 2nd ⩽ 4,000	396 (20.7)
	4,000 < 3rd ⩽ 5,000	428 (22.4)
	5,000 < 4th ⩽ 6,000	277 (14.5)
	5th > 6,000	371 (19.4)
	Life satisfaction
	Much satisfied	182 (8.5)
	Satisfied	1446 (75.6)
	dissatisfied	265 (13.9)
	Much dissatisfied	20 (1.0)
Adolescent	Sex
	Male	998 (52.2)
	Female	915 (47.8)
	Age; years, mean (SD)	15.2 (0.3)
	Perceived happiness
	Strongly agree	623 (32.6)
	Agree	1087 (56.8)
	Disagree	179 (9.4)
	Strongly disagree	24 (1.3)

Thousand Korean Won (KRW) per month. 1 USD = about 1,100 to 1,200 KRW.

Results

Demographic Characteristics

Among the total participants, 988 (52.2%) adolescents were male, and for 1,774 (92.7%) participants, the responding parent was the adolescent’s mother. The most common response for the paternal (56.5%) and maternal (51.4%) educational level (years in education) was “above 12 years.” Most of the parents (75.6%) responded with “satisfied” to the life satisfaction item, followed by “dissatisfied” (13.9%). Among the adolescents, the majority (56.8%) responded with “agree” for the perceived happiness item, followed by “strongly agree” (32.6%). Table 1 shows the details of the demographic characteristics and the abovementioned responses of the parents and adolescents.

Household Income and Life Satisfaction in Parents and Adolescents

As shown in Table 2, total household income was significantly different among the four groups of parents classified according to their responses to the item assessing life satisfaction (F = 62.34; p < .001). However, household income was not found to be significantly different among the four groups of adolescents based on their responses to the item assessing happiness (F = 2.41; p = .065). In the dichotomous model of life satisfaction, the proportion of “satisfied and much satisfied” responses among adults increased with the increase in family income until about 50,000 KRW per month, and thereafter showed a flattened curve (Figure 1). However, the curve of adolescents’ happiness was flat for all ranges of family income.

Table 2.

Household income among the response groups of life satisfaction of parents and happiness of adolescents.

Parent’s life satisfaction	Much satisfied	Satisfied	dissatisfied	Much dissatisfied	F	p	Partial η²
Mean household income (SD)	5,955 (2,764)	4,961 (2,058)	3,481 (1,897)	2,575 (2,388)	62.34	<.001**	0.089
Adolescent’s happiness	Very happy	Happy	Unhappy	Very unhappy
Mean household income (SD)	4,997 (2,308)	4,776 (2,164)	4,578 (2,175)	4,438 (2,296)	2.41	.065	0.004

Household income: 1,000 Korean Won (KRW) per month; 1 USD = about 1,100 to 1,200 KRW.

p < .01.

Figure 1.

The proportion of life satisfaction in parents and happiness in adolescents as dichotomous outcomes.

Scores on Parenting Style Perceived by Adolescents and Adolescents’ Depression Based on the Quintile Group of Household Income

Table 3 shows the differences between the scores on perceived parenting style and adolescents’ depression among the five quintile groups based on household income. Scores on the “over-control” parenting style subscale were not significantly different among the five groups (F = 1.05; p = .378). In contrast, the scores on “affectionate” (F = 5.34; p < .001) and “monitoring” (F = 4.008, p = .003) parenting subscales, and adolescents’ depression (F = 2.41; p = .048) were significantly different among the quintile groups of household income. However, the differences were minimal (partial η²s were 0.011, 0.008, and 0.005 for affectionate and monitoring subscales of parenting, and adolescents’ depression, respectively).

Table 3.

Parenting styles perceived by adolescents and adolescents’ depression according to the quintile group of household income.

Quintile group of income	1st (lowest)	2nd	3rd	4th	5th (highest)	F	p	Partial η2
Parenting: affectionate	12.16 (2.29)	12.4 (2.26)	12.62 (2.19)	12.82 (2.06)	12.71 (2.3)	5.34	<.001**	0.011
Parenting: monitoring	9.55 (1.74)	9.48 (1.67)	9.72 (1.7)	9.91 (1.72)	9.84 (1.71)	4.08	.003**	0.008
Parenting: overcontrol	8.41 (2.39)	8.66 (2.52)	8.46 (2.59)	8.35 (2.54)	8.34 (2.34)	1.05	.378	0.002
Adolescents’ depression	18.36 (5.94)	17.84 (5.46)	17.39 (5.28)	17.27 (5.22)	17.7 (5.35)	2.41	.048*	0.005

p < .05. **p < .01.

Odds Ratio for Life Dissatisfaction of Parents and Adolescents According to the Associated Factors Including the Household Income and Parenting Style

The odds ratios for life dissatisfaction of parents and adolescents based on the associated factors are shown in Table 4. The odds ratio for life dissatisfaction of parents was significantly higher in the first (lowest) and second quintile group of household income by, 9.94 (p < .001) and 3.50 (p < .001) folds, respectively, compared to the fifth quintile group (highest). In contrast, the quintile group of household income had no significant association with unhappiness in adolescents.

Table 4.

Odds ratio for life dissatisfaction of parents and unhappiness of adolescents according to the related factors.

Crude model	OR (95%CI)	p	OR (95%CI)	p
	Life dissatisfaction of parents		Unhappiness of adolescents
Quintile group of income
5th (highest)	Referent		Referent
4th	1.14 (0.57–2.25)	.715	1.16 (0.69–1.95)	.579
3rd	1.55 (0.86–2.77)	.142	0.97 (0.59–1.57)	.888
2nd	3.50 (2.05–5.98)	<.001**	1.24 (0.77–1.99)	.373
1st (lowest)	9.94 (6.02–16.41)	<.001**	1.50 (0.96–2.35)	.076
Adjusted model			Unhappiness of adolescents¹ (n = 1913)		Unhappiness of adolescents² (n = 1717)
Quintile group of income
5th (highest)			Referent		Referent
4th			1.27 (0.74–2.21)	.387	1.37 (0.78–2.4)	.275
3rd			0.96 (0.58–1.6)	.878	1.05 (0.61–1.78)	.871
2nd			1.09 (0.66–1.8)	.728	1.2 (0.7–2.05)	.514
1st (lowest)			1.35 (0.84–2.17)	.216	1.33 (0.74–2.37)	.337
Quintile group of parenting: affectionate
5th (highest)			Referent		Referent
4th			1.9 (0.96–3.79)	.067	2.17 (1.03–4.57)	.040*
3rd			2.17 (1.07–4.39)	.032*	2.23 (1.03–4.82)	.042*
2nd			2.88 (1.33–6.24)	.007**	3.05 (1.32–7.05)	.009**
1st (lowest)			7.56 (3.8–15.04)	<.001**	8.1 (3.8–17.26)	<.001**
Adjusted model			Unhappiness of adolescents¹ (n = 1913)		Unhappiness of adolescents² (n = 1717)
Quintile group of parenting: monitoring
5th (highest)			Referent		Referent
4th			0.6 (0.31–1.16)	0.127	0.47 (0.23–0.97)	.041*
3rd			0.62 (0.31–1.26)	0.189	0.58 (0.28–1.23)	.155
2nd			0.65 (0.37–1.15)	0.138	0.55 (0.3–1.01)	.056
1st (lowest)			1.47 (0.84–2.6)	0.180	1.5 (0.81–2.75)	.194
Quintile group of parenting: overcontrol
1st (lowest)			Referent		Referent
2nd			1.76 (0.83–3.73)	.142	1.44 (0.64–3.26)	.379
3rd			1.81 (0.96–3.43)	.066	1.78 (0.91–3.48)	.091
4th			2.2 (1.21–4.01)	.010*	2.36 (1.26–4.45)	.008**
5th (highest)			2.76 (1.49–5.11)	.001**	2.72 (1.4–5.26)	.003**
Paternal educational level
>12 years					Referent
≤12 years					0.79 (0.49–1.29)	.353
Maternal educational level
>12 years					Referent
≤12 years					0.94 (0.59–1.5)	.795
Sex
Boys					Referent
Girls					1.69 (1.19–2.39)	.003**
Paternal age					1.07 (1.01–1.14)	.025*
Maternal age					0.93 (0.87–1)	.049*

Household income and three subscales of parenting style were included as covariates in the adjusted model 1.

Child’s sex, both parental educational level, and age were included as covariates in addition to adjusted model 1.

p < .05. **p < .01.

However, parenting styles were found to have significant associations with unhappiness in adolescents. The first (lowest) and second quintile group of affectionate parenting had a significantly higher odds ratio for unhappiness in adolescents by 7.56 (p < .001) and 2.88 (p = .007) folds, respectively, in adjusted model 1, compared to the 5th (highest) quintile group of affectionate parenting. The quintile group of the monitoring subscale of parenting style had no significant differences in the odds ratio of adolescents’ unhappiness. Conversely, the fifth (highest) and fourth quintile groups of over-controlling parenting style had significantly higher odds ratios for unhappiness in adolescents by 2.76 (p = .001) and 2.20 (p = .010) folds, respectively, compared to the first (lowest) quintile group.

Adolescent girls presented a higher odds ratio by 1.69 folds (p = .003) for unhappiness than the boys. Parental educational level had no significant association with the risk of adolescents’ unhappiness.

Linear Regression between the Scores on Adolescents’ Depression and the Related Factors

The total household income had no significant associations with the adolescent’s depression score in the linear regression analysis (Table 5). Contrary to this, three parenting styles were significantly associated with the adolescent’s depression score. While, affectionate (β = −0.260; p < .001) and monitoring (β = −0.100; p < .001) subscales had negative associations with adolescents’ depression scores, over-control (β = 0.120; p < .001) showed a positive association with adolescents’ depression.

Table 5.

Linear regression between the depression scores of adolescents and related factors.

	Crude model				Adjusted model¹				Adjusted model²
	B	s.e.	β	p	B	s.e.	β	p	B	s.e.	β	p
Household income	0.000	0.000	–0.041	0.073	0.000	0.000	–0.009	.687	0.000	0.000	0.026	.267
Parenting: affectionate					–0.636	0.065	–0.260	<.001**	–0.612	0.067	–0.253	<.001**
Parenting: monitoring					–0.322	0.081	–0.100	<.001**	–0.391	0.084	–0.124	<.001**
Parenting: overcontrol					0.266	0.050	0.120	<.001**	0.328	0.051	0.150	<.001**
Paternal education									0.000	0.340	0.000	1.000
Maternal education									–0.354	0.333	–0.033	0.288
Sex									1.826	0.242	0.168	<.001**
Paternal age									0.031	0.043	0.023	.475
Maternal age									–0.031	0.047	–0.021	.511

Household income and three subscales of parenting style were included as covariates in the adjusted model 1.

Child’s sex and both parental educational level and age were included as covariates in addition to adjusted model 1.

p < .01.

Discussion

Family Income and Life Satisfaction in Adults

Our first finding is the association between household income and life satisfaction in adults. In our study, the lower income group (1st and 2nd quintile group) presented a significantly higher odds ratio for dissatisfaction of life by 3.50 and 9.94 folds, respectively, compared to the highest income group. These findings provide the evidence for a positive association between income and life satisfaction, which has been reported consistently by previous studies (Howell & Howell, 2008; Sacks et al., 2012). However, it is interesting that the odds ratio for life dissatisfaction in the middle-income group (2nd and 3rd quintile group) did not significantly differ with the highest income group. This finding suggests that life satisfaction did not increase linearly with the increase in income after a certain level. This is referred as satiation point of income for determining happiness, as reported by previous studies (Jebb et al., 2018; Kahneman & Deaton, 2010). For instance, Kahneman and Deaton (2010) reported that the increase of emotional well-being accompanied by higher income doesn’t progress any further beyond $75,000. Jebb et al. (2018) also reported that the satiation point is $95,000 for life evaluation and $60,000 to $75,000 for emotional well-being, with substantial variations for different regions across the world. Although our study did not present the exact satiation point of income, the satiation point seems to be around 60,000 KRW per year (about $50,000–$60,000). Our findings for this curvilinear association between the family income and adults’ life satisfaction and a very high odds ratio for life dissatisfaction in the lowest income group emphasize the need for policy consideration for the financially deprived people.

Family Income and Happiness of the Adolescents

In contrast to their parents, adolescents presented no significant differences in the overall happiness and depression levels based on the household income. These findings are impressive considering that even adolescents in the lowest income group presented no significant differences in overall happiness, compared to the highest income group. In the linear regression model, family income also had no significant associations with the adolescents’ scores on depression. In addition, the curve representing the proportion of “happy” and “very happy” responses in adolescents was also much flatter than the parents’ curve (Figure 1). These are findings are consistent with a previous study, which reported a flatter curve of “happiness” proportion in adolescents than in adults based on the family income (McLaughlin, 2007).

Poverty is repeatedly reported as a factor that negatively influences adolescents’ mental health (Leve et al., 2005; Reiss, 2013; Tracy et al., 2008). It was reported that a child exposed to poverty had a greater risk of developing mental health problems by an odds ratio of 2.0 to 3.2 folds (Reiss, 2013). In these instances, our findings seem to contradict the previous studies. However, in our study, the family income of the “very unhappy” adolescent group was the lowest among all the participants. Moreover, adolescents in the lowest income quintile group scored the highest on the depression scale, although the statistical significance of these scores was minimal. This suggests that although the family income might affect the adolescent’s mental health, its impact would be minimal.

Some previous studies also have reported that the direct association between the low socioeconomic status and adolescent’s internalizing problems is small (Letourneau et al., 2013; McLaughlin, 2007). These associations are also mediated by other factors such as parenting behaviors or family support (Dallaire et al., 2008; Letourneau et al., 2013; Guerrero et al., 2006). For instance, Tracy et al. (2008) reported that the family environment (hostile or warm) and perceived parental support can explain most of the relationship between low income and childhood depression. Our findings for the minimal direct association between family income and adolescents’ happiness are consistent with the previous studies and suggest supportive evidence for the family stress model, aforementioned in the introduction section.

Parenting and Adolescent’s Happiness

In contrast to the family income, the parenting style has a significantly large effect on the general happiness and depressive symptoms of the adolescents. Specifically, the affectionate parenting style showed the largest positive associations with the overall happiness of adolescents as well as depression score. Further, the monitoring subscale of parenting also showed a positive association with the adolescents’ happiness. The previous studies based on the parenting typology with two dimensions of parental responsiveness and demandingness reported the benefits of authoritative parenting for the adolescent’s mental health. Authoritative parenting is characterized by a high degree of both demandingness and responsiveness. Our findings for the positive associations of affectionate and monitoring subscales with the adolescents’ happiness represent supportive evidence for the previous studies.

However, a high degree of over-control parenting (4th and 5th quintile group) had a significantly increased odds ratio for the unhappiness of the adolescents. This finding is consistent with a previous study which reported a curvilinear association between parental control and adolescent outcome, that is, too much or too little control for the child’s behavior has a negative impact on the adolescents’ mental health (Barnes & Farrell, 1992). Thus, our study suggests that high warmth and optimal demandingness characterized by the monitoring subscale was beneficial to the adolescent’s mental health. In addition, a much larger effect size for adolescents’ happiness in parenting style than in household income is an encouraging finding that emphasizes the need for providing training for effective parenting to improve the adolescents’ mental health.

Family Income and Parenting

In our study, it is interesting to observe that the differences in scores on each parenting style among the different quintile groups of household income was minimal. These findings imply that the parenting behaviors are independent of the family income. These findings are encouraging because they show that parents in low-income families also can also practice positive parenting. In fact, these findings seem to contradict the results of previous studies. Previous studies have reported that the family income is associated with negative parenting behaviors, mainly due to parental stress or intra-familial conflict, which leads to negative effects on the child’s emotional competence (Barrera et al. 2002; Lee et al., 2009; Ponnet et al., 2016). However, Gershoff et al. (2007) reported that income alone is not enough to explain the association among the income, parenting style, and child development. They included the component of material hardship in addition to the family income in the model and found that material hardship shows the parent-mediated pathway to social-emotional competence of children, whereas family income is connected mainly to the child’s cognitive skill. Since, we did not assess the parental stress or intra-familial conflict caused by material hardship, we cannot conclude the exact path from the family income to parenting behavior. However, our findings for the minimal differences in parenting styles in the different groups of family income suggest that other mediating factors such as parental stress are more likely to affect the parenting behavior rather than family income. These findings warrant future research to explore the exact mediating mechanism from the family income to parenting behavior. Such research could contribute significantly to finding solutions for improving adolescent mental health and happiness.

Limitations

The present study possesses certain limitations which should be noted. First, the assessment of subjective well-being was overly simplified, based on only one item of life satisfaction in parents and one item of happiness in adolescents, respectively. This simple assessment for subjective well-being has been accepted widely by multiple economic studies dealing with income and subjective well-being (Caporale et al., 2009; Easterlin, 2001; Oishi et al., 2011). However, such simple assessments that are self-reported could make doubtful the validity of the assessment. Thus, more comprehensive assessment tools need to be used to assess the subjective well-being of participants in psychological research. Likewise, the psychological constructs assessed in parents and adolescents in the present study were different; life satisfaction for the parents and happiness for the adolescents, respectively, which could limit the direct comparability of the associations of these variables with family income. Previous studies have used these terms of subjective well-being, life satisfaction, and happiness interchangeably (Easterlin, 2001; Veenhoven et al., 1993). However, other studies have pointed out that these measures are discriminable and reflects the different aspect of subjective well-being from each other (Howell & Howell, 2008; Lucas et al., 1996). Thus, a more specific and well-defined indicator to assess the separate facets of subjective well-being are needed (Diener, 2006).

Conclusion

Our study investigated the associations among family income, parenting style, life satisfaction in parents and happiness in their adolescent children. While the life satisfaction of parents showed a significantly positive association with the household income with a curvilinear curve, the overall happiness of the adolescents had no significant associations with household income. On the other hand, parenting style was found to be significantly associated with adolescents’ happiness and depression score. The present findings suggest that different factors impact the subjective well-being in parents and adolescents, and also demonstrate the importance of effective parenting for a positive impact on the adolescents’ mental health.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the National Youth Policy Institute, which provided the raw data of Korean Children and Youth Panel Survey.

Author contributions

Prof. Kim and Prof. Chung conceptualized and designed the study, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Compliance of ethical standard statement

All the adolescents and their parents were provided with a complete explanation of the purpose and process of the study, and written informed consent was obtained prior to the beginning of the study. The data and KCYPS is open to the public. The analysis protocol of the present study was approved by the institutional review board of the Dankook university hospital (DHUK-2020-03-022).

ORCID iD

Kyoung Min Kim

Availability of data and material

The raw data of the present study are available publicly in the website of National Youth Policy Institute ().

Author biographies

Kyoung Min Kim, MD, PhD is a child and adolescent Psychiatrist with a particular focus on children with neurodevelopmental disorder and children’s environment.

Un Sun Chung, MD, PhD is a Director of child and adolescent psychiatry training program in Kyungpook National University Children’s Hospital. She is an expert in the field of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, Child Abuse, School Psychiatry and Disaster psychiatry.

References

Barnes

G. M.

Farrell

M. P.

(1992). Parental support and control as predictors of adolescent drinking, delinquency, and related problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(4), 763–776.

Barrera

Jr Prelow

H. M.

Dumka

L. E.

Gonzales

N. A.

Knight

G. P.

Michaels

M. L.

Roosa

M. W.

Tein

(2002). Pathways from family economic conditions to adolescents’ distress: Supportive parenting, stressors outside the family, and deviant peers. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 135–152.

Baumrind

(1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4(1, Pt.2), 1–103.

Caporale

G. M.

Georgellis

Tsitsianis

Yin

Y. P.

(2009). Income and happiness across Europe: Do reference values matter? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(1), 42–51.

Clark

A. E.

Frijters

Shields

M. A.

(2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(1), 95–144.

Conger

K. J.

Rueter

M. A.

Conger

R. D.

(2000). The role of economic pressure in the lives of parents and their adolescents: The Family Stress Model. In Crockett

L. J.

Silbereisen

R. K.

(Eds.), Negotiating adolescence in times of social change (pp. 201–223). Cambridge University Press.

Conger

R. D.

Elder

G. H.

Jr. (1995). Familes in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America. HeinOnline. Routledge

Conger

R. D.

Wallace

L. E.

Sun

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.

Dallaire

D. H.

Cole

A. D.

Smith

T. M.

Ciesla

J. A.

LaGrange

Jacquez

F. M.

Pineda

A. Q.

Truss

A. E.

Folmer

A. S.

(2008). Predicting children’s depressive symptoms from community and individual risk factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(7), 830–846.

10.

Dashiff

DiMicco

Myers

Sheppard

(2009). Poverty and adolescent mental health. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 22(1), 23–32.

11.

Diener

(2006). Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(4), 397–404.

12.

Diener

Biswas-Diener

(2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 119–169.

13.

Easterlin

R.A.

(1995). Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 27(1), 35–47.

14.

Easterlin

R. A.

(2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. The Economic Journal, 111(473), 465–484.

15.

Easterlin

R. A.

McVey

L. A.

Switek

Sawangfa

Zweig

J. S.

(2010). The happiness–income paradox revisited. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(52), 22463–22468.

16.

Fröjd

Marttunen

Pelkonen

von der Pahlen

Kaltiala-Heino

(2006). Perceived financial difficulties and maladjustment outcomes in adolescence. The European Journal of Public Health, 16(5), 542–548.

17.

Gershoff

E. T.

Aber

J. L.

Raver

C. C.

Lennon

M. C.

(2007). Income is not enough: Incorporating material hardship into models of income associations with parenting and child development. Child Development, 78(1), 70–95.

18.

Guerrero

A. P. S.

Hishinuma

E. S.

Andrade

N. N.

Nishimura

S. T.

Cunanan

V. L.

(2006). Correlations among socioeconomic and family factors and academic, behavioral, and emotional difficulties in Filipino adolescents in Hawai’i. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 52(4), 343–359.

19.

Hout

(2003). Money and morale: What growing inequality is doing to Americans’ views of themselves and others (Survey Research Center Working Paper). University of California.

20.

Howell

R. T.

Howell

C. J.

(2008). The relation of economic status to subjective well-being in developing countries: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 536.

21.

Jebb

A. T.

Tay

Diener

Oishi

(2018). Happiness, income satiation and turning points around the world. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 33.

22.

Kahneman

Deaton

(2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16489–16493.

23.

Kim

J. K.

Baek

H. J.

Lim

H. J.

Lee

K. O.

(2010). The 2010 Korean children and youth panel survey I (Project Report 10-R01). National Youth Policy Institute.

24.

Lee

C. Y. S.

Anderson

J. R.

Horowitz

J. L.

August

. (2009) Family income and parenting: The role of parental depression and social support. Family Relations, 58(4), 417–430.

25.

Lemstra

Neudorf

D’Arcy

Kunst

Warren

L. M.

Bennett

N. R.

(2008). A systematic review of depressed mood and anxiety by SES in youth aged 10–15 years. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 99(2), 125–129.

26.

Letourneau

N. L.

Duffet-Leger

Levac

Watson

Young-Morris

(2013). Socioeconomic status and child development: A meta-analysis. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21(3), 211–224.

27.

Leve

L. D.

Kim

H. K.

Pears

K. C.

(2005). Childhood temperament and family environment as predictors of internalizing and externalizing trajectories from ages 5 to 17. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(5), 505–520.

28.

Lucas

R. E.

Diener

Suh

(1996) Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 616.

29.

Lucas

R. E.

Schimmack

(2009). Income and well-being: How big is the gap between the rich and the poor? Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), 75–78.

30.

Maccoby

E. E.

Martin

J. A.

(1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In Mussen

P. H.

Hetherington

E. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). Wiley.

31.

McBride

(2001). Relative-income effects on subjective well-being in the cross-section. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 45(3), 251–278.

32.

McLaughlin

C.C.

(2007). Buying happiness: Family income and adolescent subjective well-being. University of California.

33.

Oishi

Kesebir

Diener

(2011). Income inequality and happiness. Psychological Sscience, 22(9), 1095–1100.

34.

Oshio

Nozaki

Kobayashi

(2011). Relative income and happiness in Asia: Evidence from nationwide surveys in China, Japan, and Korea. Social Indicators Research, 104(3), 351–367.

35.

Ponnet

Wouters

Goedemé

Mortelmans

(2016) Family financial stress, parenting and problem behavior in adolescents: An actor-partner interdependence approach. Journal of Family Issues, 37(4), 574–597.

36.

Reiss

(2013). Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 90, 24–31.

37.

Sacks

D. W.

Stevenson

Wolfers

(2012) The new stylized facts about income and subjective well-being. Emotion, 12(6), 1181.

38.

Santiago

C. D.

Kaltman

Miranda

(2013). Poverty and mental health: How do low-income adults and children fare in psychotherapy? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(2), 115–126.

39.

Simons

L. G.

Conger

R. D.

(2007). Linking mother–father differences in parenting to a typology of family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 28(2), 212–241.

40.

Stevenson

Wolfers

(2013). Subjective well-being and income: Is there any evidence of satiation? American Economic Review, 103(3), 598–604.

41.

Tracy

Zimmerman

F. J.

Galea

McCauley

Stoep

A. V.

(2008). What explains the relation between family poverty and childhood depressive symptoms? Journal of Psychiatric Research, 42(14), 1163–1175.

42.

Veenhoven

Ehrhardt

M. S. D.

de Vries

(1993). Studies in socio-cultural transformation, No. 2. Happiness in nations: Subjective appreciation of life in 56 nations 1946–1992. Erasmus University Rotterdam.