Stress Response Profiles and Behavioral Functioning Among Low-Income Parents

Introduction: Parenting in the context of poverty produces heightened stress and stakes (Blair & Raver, 2012; Conger & Donnellan, 2007). How parents respond to poverty-related stress has important implications for family functioning, but few studies have investigated individual differences in low-income parents’ responses to stress and their association with parents’ concurrent behavioral adaptation. A better understanding of differences in stress responses among low-income parents is needed to develop and tailor prevention programs that meet these families’ needs. This study applies latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify and describe profiles of stress responses among low-income parents and explore differences in behavioral functioning across profiles.

Methods: Low-income parents (N=588; 50% female; 35% White, 26% Black, 23% Hispanic), completed the Responses to Stress Questionnaire and measures of stress and behavioral functioning including the Economic Hardship Questionnaire, Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, and Brief Symptom Inventory. Data analysis proceeded in two steps: 1) identifying and describing latent profiles of stress responses using LPA, and 2) examining whether profile membership was related to measures of behavioral functioning.

Results: A 5-profile model best summarized parents’ stress responses. Profiles were distinguishable across both voluntary and involuntary stress responses: Active Responders (32% of sample) reported high levels of engagement coping strategies (e.g., problem-solving, positive thinking) and low levels of disengagement coping (e.g., avoidance) and involuntary responses (e.g., rumination, emotional numbing); Low Responders (11%) reported low levels of all stress responses; High Responders (11%) reported high levels of all stress responses; At-Risk Responders (17%) reported low levels of engagement coping strategies and high levels of disengagement strategies and involuntary responses; Average Responders (29%) reflected the overall sample means across stress response strategies. There were abundant differences between profiles across measures of behavioral functioning, even with a stringent alpha of p=.001 to control Type I error. Most notably, members of the Active and At-Risk profiles differed on all outcome measures, with membership in the At-Risk profile predicting significantly poorer functioning. Additional findings will be discussed.

Conclusion: This study applied LPA to identify multidimensional coping profiles and to explore how profiles were related to measures of behavioral functioning among low-income parents. The present findings support the use of person-centered approaches for providing a more nuanced understanding of how parents respond to poverty-related stress and have implications for developing and disseminating prevention programs intended to promote adaptive coping and behavioral functioning in low-income families.