The Intergenerational (Dis)Continuity of Socioeconomic Status over Two Generations: Moderating Effects of Child Academic and Social Competence

Introduction: Socioeconomic status (SES) predicts well-being throughout the lifespan. SES is relative stable across generations, but some socio-historical contexts may facilitate upward social mobility. For example, the Quiet Revolution occurring in the province of Québec in the 1960s made higher education more affordable and accessible. Who benefited from this opportunity? According to the interactionist perspective (Conger & Donnellan, 2007), upward mobility should be explained by interactions between parents’ (G1) and children’s (G2) characteristics. We hypothesize that socially and academically competent children will experience upward mobility even if they are from lower-SES background, and that children from relatively higher-SES background will experience upward mobility even if they are less socially or academically competent than their peers. 

Method: In 1976–1978, 4109 children attending Grades 1, 4, or 7 in French-speaking schools from low-SES neighborhoods in Montreal (Québec, Canada) were screened, and 1770 were recruited. Parents (G1) reported on their education and occupation. Children’s (G2) social behavior was measured with peer nominations of likeability, withdrawal, and aggression (PEI, Pekarik et al., 1976). School boards provided G2 standardized academic achievement scores. We retained a representative subsample of 503 G2 participants until adulthood (M age = 36.95 years), at which time they reported on their education and occupation. Average years education went up from 9.53 (G1) to 12.40 (G2). G1 and G2 neighborhood risk came from census tract data.

Results: Our path analysis fit the data well (CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00; χ² (22) = 18.06, p < .70). G1 SES (education, occupational prestige, neighborhood risk) predicted G2 SES through associations with G2 likeability and academic competence, and through G2 educational attainment. Regression analyses revealed significant interactions. Among children born to lower-SES parents, those who were more academically competent reached higher education than their less competent peers. Still, academically talented children from relatively higher-SES families surpassed equally competent peers from lower-SES backgrounds. Aggressive G2 participants failed to benefit from the opportunities provided by higher-SES parents to reach higher education. Withdrawal impeded on the ability of lower-SES boys to reach higher education, but it promoted lower-SES girls’ educational opportunities.

Conclusion: Social mobility is influenced by a combination of G1 and G2 factors. Governmental policies to fight poverty should support children’s academic competence, and target familial risk factors associated with lower SES in parents (e.g., lack of trust in benefits of higher education; difficulty to help children with schoolwork).