Developmental trends

As a group, affluent youth seem no more troubled than others prior to adolescence: the first signs of emerging problems are at around the seventh grade, when they are almost 13. Luthar and Becker (Reference Luthar and Becker2002) found that is the seventh grade, 7% of boys were (a) using marijuana and (b) getting drunk at least once a month; this was also when we saw elevations in significant depressive and anxiety symptoms among both boys and girls.

Why do problems emerge in the seventh grade? It is unlikely to be just because of the stresses of being in the large, impersonal setting of middle school (see Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, Reference Eccles, Midgley, Adler and Nicholls1984), because few problems have been seen among sixth graders (Lund & Dearing, Reference Lund and Dearing2012; Luthar & Becker, Reference Luthar and Becker2002; Luthar & Latendresse, Reference Luthar and Latendresse2005a). Likely implicated are the normative developmental processes of adolescence, negotiated in the “atypical” context of affluence. Early adolescents increasingly seek independence from parents, and high-SES parents are prone to leaving them unsupervised, with the believed security of “good neighborhoods and schools” (Luthar, Reference Luthar2003). More than ever before, these teens seek to be popular with peers, and the affluent peer group actively endorses counterconventional behaviors (discussed more later). With the capacity for abstract thinking, adolescents begin identity exploration, facing the critical questions of “Who am I?” and, more importantly, “What will I amount to?” Finally, it is at about age 13 that hormonal changes of puberty make their advent. The increasing salience of all these developmental issues across adolescence probably accounts for escalating signs of trouble thus far documented among affluent youth beginning with the teen years.

Reasons for substance use

We begin our consideration of risk mechanisms by discussing causes specific to high substance use, consistently identified as a problem among upper-middle class youth, and we then appraise factors that might lead also to other disturbances, or risk factors demonstrating multifinality (cf. Cicchetti & Rogosch, Reference Cicchetti and Rogosch1996). Some experimentation with alcohol and drugs is developmentally normative for all teens, but logistically, affluent youth are able to use more frequently and heavily. They have easy access to substances and have ample money (Hanson & Chen, Reference Hanson and Chen2007), efficient systems involving instant messaging, fake IDs (of the best quality), knowledge of local providers (often peers), and cars that allow quick acquisition (Chase, Reference Chase2008; Luthar & Barkin, Reference Luthar and Barkin2012; Marano, Reference Marano2008).

In addition, there is collusion from some parents. There is a nontrivial group of teens who affirm not only that they will face few repercussions if parents discover excessive substance use (i.e., low expected “containment”) but even that parents will actively bail them out if discovered by authorities (Luthar & Barkin, Reference Luthar and Barkin2012). CASA's (2006) survey of teens showed that about 50% of youth indicated that drugs, alcohol, or both were available at their parties, whereas 80% of parents believed that parties were entirely substance free.

Also implicated are peer mores and norms: “getting wasted” is often what is entirely expected at social gatherings. Marano (Reference Marano2005) provides an excellent description of commonplace rituals organized around substance use, including “beer pong” (Ping-Pong, but with a lost point implying a swigged drink), “beer bongs” (large containers with pipes for efficient consumption), and “pregaming” (drinking before a party, to feel relaxed on arrival). Inebriation is not just normative; it is often socially desirable (Mason & Spoth, Reference Mason and Spoth2011). Among college students, Califano (Reference Califano2007) describes what has become a “Roman bacchanalia featuring excessive drinking and promiscuous sex” (p. 48) during annual spring break trips to expensive resort locales, too often resulting in rape, sexually transmitted diseases, and increasingly and tragically, death.

Why are these affluent youth, as a group, driven to do this in excess? The single biggest factor is pressure: a common credo is “Work hard, play hard!” These youngsters expect to excel at school and extracurriculars and also in their social lives. High-octane achievement performance is translated into leisure time, with the attendant alcohol and drug use. CASA's (2012) survey established that “[t]he number one source of stress for teens is academic pressure, including pressure to do well in school and to get into college,” and among college students, reducing stress was the most common reason offered for drinking, drug use, and smoking (47%, 46%, and 38%, respectively; CASA, 2007).

Logically, the next central question that warrants consideration is why affluent youth might experience so much stress and pressure. In discussions that follow, therefore, we appraise in turn, the web of factors that collectively eventuate in youth being “privileged but pressured,” that is, those demonstrating equifinality (cf. Cicchetti & Rogosch, Reference Cicchetti and Rogosch1996).

Pressures to excel: Multiply determined

In upwardly mobile communities, the cultural ethos inordinately emphasizes stellar all-round achievements at school. For children and parents alike, it is nearly impossible to ignore the ubiquitous, pervasive message emblazoned from their early years onward: there is one path to ultimate happiness—having money—that in turn comes from attending prestigious colleges. By junior high and high school, developing impressive school resumes becomes a driving force.

In our early efforts to disentangle sources of pressure, we and others (Rosenfeld & Wise, Reference Rosenfeld and Wise2000) assumed that “overinvolvement” in extracurricular activities was a critical factor, but we found that among eighth graders, time in extracurriculars was not a major risk factor in itself (Luthar, Shoum, & Brown, Reference Luthar, Shoum and Brown2006). What mattered more was the sense of pressure, criticism, and overly high expectations from adults. Thus, the sheer number of hours in activities may in fact be correlated with distress or loneliness (e.g., Randall & Bohnert, Reference Randall and Bohnert2012), but its effects are explained away when also considering, in multivariate analyses, high experienced pressure from parents and low connectedness with them. This is apparently true even among extremely overextended high school juniors and seniors (Luthar & Barkin, Reference Luthar and Barkin2012).

It is critical to note that pressures to succeed come not just from parents but as much, if not more so, from outside the family. Coaches and arts teachers, for example, can be highly invested in the performer's star status, setting exacting and sometimes extreme standards in quests for their teams' distinction at the district, county, and state levels. Peer group comparisons also contribute, because teens rank themselves against each other in extracurriculars as in academics. As one all-round achiever explained in our focus groups, “We as students tend to compare ourselves. After almost every test I've taken, someone has asked me how I did, and to be honest I've asked the same myself… . I don't particularly like the notion of competing but I do want to get into certain schools and to win certain awards.”

The role of parents

Before proceeding, we must reiterate what we emphasize repeatedly: that affluent parents as a group are neither neglectful nor disparaging (Luthar & Barkin, Reference Luthar and Barkin2012; Luthar & Latendresse, Reference Luthar and Latendresse2005b). It is not family wealth per se, but rather, is living in the cultural context of affluence, that connotes risks (see Lund & Dearing, Reference Lund and Dearing2012).

This said, it bears noting that affluent youth on average do not feel closer to their parents than very low-income youth (Luthar & Latendresse, Reference Luthar and Latendresse2005b). Across various dimensions, suburban sixth graders from affluent, mostly two-parent Caucasian families rated parent–child relationships no more positively than did their low-SES counterparts generally from single-parent, ethnic minority households, and living in harsh conditions of poverty. In the affluent community just as in the low-income one, some children felt quite distant from their parents.

Beyond closeness to parents, as noted earlier, we have tried to capture “contextually salient” family processes in our programmatic work with affluent youth; that is, forces that are (a) potent in and (b) largely unique to the subculture of affluence. Findings have shown that laissez-faire monitoring is a particularly powerful predictor. In middle school, youth who routinely had no adult supervision after school (true of almost half of seventh-grade boys, and 25% of girls) were among the most vulnerable, reporting high substance use, delinquency, and depressive/anxiety symptoms (Luthar & Becker, Reference Luthar and Becker2002). Of parallel importance in high school was parents' knowledge of their children's whereabouts outside school. With regard to substance use in particular, the single most robust predictor has been low parent containment; high schoolers who anticipate meager consequences from their parents are clearly among the heaviest users (Luthar & Barkin, Reference Luthar and Barkin2012).

We have also measured two constructs that capture the predicament of these families (and youth) with highly demanding work lives. The first is perceived parent “commitment,” or the belief that the child is her parents' central priority, over and above their careers and other pursuits (Luthar & Goldstein, Reference Luthar and Goldstein2008). The second is perceived parent values. When children believe that their parents disproportionately value their successes (e.g., in grades and future careers) over their integrity (kindness and respect), they show elevated symptoms (Luthar & Becker, Reference Luthar and Becker2002). For these children, perceived parents' pride in them, and thus their own self-worth, rests largely and perilously on achieving and maintaining “star status” (Miller, Reference Miller1995).

In terms of discrete parenting behaviors that are powerful, we find, as resilience research has recurrently shown (Luthar, Crossman, & Small, in press), that “bad is stronger than good” (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Findenauer, & Vohs, Reference Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer and Vohs2001). Social psychologists have established that disparaging words can have much stronger effects than words of praise or affection, by as much as a factor of three (Frederickson & Losada, Reference Fredrickson and Losada2005). In parallel, we have found that perceived parent criticism shows stronger links with diverse adjustment indices as compared to family indices of a positive valence, such as strong attachment (Luthar & Barkin, Reference Luthar and Barkin2012).

Peers' values: Some dubious validations

Suburban boys with high substance use enjoy high peer status, being frequently nominated as “liked most” by classmates. We have documented these associations in middle and high school samples, and links have remained significant despite statistical controls for several possible confounds (Becker & Luthar, Reference Becker and Luthar2007; Luthar & D'Avanzo, Reference Luthar and D'Avanzo1999). Similar links are seen among girls, but in this case, substance use is also associated with many “liked least” nominations, indicating gender-based double standards in affluent peers' perceptions of substance use (see Chase, Reference Chase2008).

Aggression is also tied to high peer status among these youth. Becker and Luthar (Reference Becker and Luthar2007) found significant peer admiration for girls also rated by peers as aggressive toward others, confirming the social dominance of “mean girls” (LaFontana & Cillessen, Reference LaFontana and Cillessen2002; Simmons, Reference Simmons2002). Parallel associations among boys were found but they were not as pronounced; in addition, among males, it was physical rather than relational aggression that was linked with peers' admiration.

Attractiveness is generally linked with popularity, but this is startlingly so for affluent girls (Becker & Luthar, Reference Becker and Luthar2007). The average peer admiration score of suburban girls rated as attractive was almost two and a half standard deviations higher than the group mean, and attractiveness alone explained 18% of variance in their peers' admiration scores. Consistent are reports by Chase (Reference Chase2008) showing that girls often demean other girls' appearance, while boys speak in both favorable and unfavorable terms, “wanting to have sex with them if they are ‘hot’ or making fun of them if they are ‘ugly’ or ‘fat’” (Chase, Reference Chase2008, p. 63). It is not surprising, therefore, that these girls can be inordinately preoccupied with their physical attractiveness.

In college, the role of peers in excessive substance use is profound (Marano, Reference Marano2005). Surveys by CASA (2007) showed that male students at beach destinations on spring break consumed an average of 18 drinks the previous day, while female students consumed an average of 10 drinks. Seventy-five percent of the men reported being intoxicated at least once a day, as did 40% of the women. More than half of the college men and 40% of the college women drank until they were sick or passed out.

Gender-specific risks

Clearly, girls face enormous pressure from the peer group, including the gender-based differential judgments, previously noted, around substance use and physical attractiveness. In yet another set of double standards, “hooking up” with different sexual partners engenders peer admiration and respect for boys, but for girls, it frequently elicits disdain (Chase, Reference Chase2008; Khan, Reference Khan2011).

Girls also face high, and often competing, demands from adults, expected to succeed every bit as much as boys in domains that are traditionally male such as academics and sports, and in the “feminine” domains of caring and kindness (Hinshaw & Kranz, Reference Hinshaw and Kranz2009). They report higher parent containment—stringent repercussions—than boys for misdemeanors ranging from rudeness to delinquency (Luthar & Goldstein, Reference Luthar and Goldstein2008). Furthermore, these girls must master each of these competing demands with ease, achieving “effortless perfectionism,” that is, being “smart, accomplished, fit, beautiful, and popular” all without visible effort (Wyler, Reference Wyler2003, para. 13; see also Ruane, Reference Ruane2012).

It is not surprising, therefore, that our daughters are more troubled than our sons, reflecting elevated problems across multiple maladjustment domains. Compared to national norms, these young women show higher rates of serious symptoms not only in the “traditionally female problems” of depression and anxiety, but also in the more typically male problems of rule breaking, delinquency, and alcohol and drug misuse (see Luthar & Barkin, Reference Luthar and Barkin2012). This is disturbing because comorbid disorders generally have poor long-term prognosis (Crawford et al., Reference Crawford, Cohen, First, Skodol, Johnson and Kasen2008).

Insufficiently explored, thus far, are some areas in which affluent boys could be particularly at risk: intense preoccupation with power, which is in turn tied to money and sex. Through high school, social dominance is related to good looks and athletics, followed by the “cool” factor of substance use (Becker & Luthar, Reference Becker and Luthar2007; Chase, Reference Chase2008). In college, more than even attractiveness, social status is linked to wealth. Moneyed young men are most likely to achieve the ultimate alpha male status of being desired as sexual partners by many girls. Thus, these young men may struggle to create a sense of sexuality separate from their financial prowess (Khan, Reference Khan2011).

What remains to be determined are long-term costs as these boys strive ever harder to be at the top, or in their vernacular, to be “the big man on campus” (Chase, Reference Chase2008, p. 55) or a “baller”: one whose status in society has been earned by one's possession of “game” (typically connoting sexual conquests). Plausible fallouts include low capacity for authentic caring at the least and at the worst, chauvinistic, callous attitudes toward women. Affluent adolescents agree that in relating to the opposite sex, boys generally want sex while the girls want relationships: “One boy says he will tell a girl, ‘I'll still care about you. Nothing will change.’ These are the bullshit lines we use. And they work!” (Chase Reference Chase2008, p. 55).

Mothers and fathers: Role models and caregivers

A longstanding and inarguable tenet in child development is that children model what they observe in their same-sex parents. Accordingly, we consider parallels between young women in affluent contexts and their mothers, and similarly, between boys and their fathers.

One of the first parallels between upper-middle class young women and their mothers is perfectionism. The idealization of motherhood in America has promulgated standards of perfection that are beyond unrealistic (Slaughter, Reference Slaughter2012). Douglas and Michaels (Reference Douglass and Michaels2004, p. 325) comment on expectations of well-educated mothers: “to be, simultaneously, independent, achievement-oriented, successful, the equal to any man and yet appealing to men, selfless, accommodating, nurturing, the connective tissue that holds all families together, and of course, slim and beautiful. We really were supposed to become some hybrid between Mother Teresa, Donna Shalala, Martha Stewart, and Cindy Crawford.” Achieving effortless perfectionism, therefore, is likely at least as much of an issue for mothers as it is for their daughters, and it is as challenging, or “soul-draining” (Warner, Reference Warner2005, p. 13) for their well-being.

What are the tasks that these mothers must master, effortlessly or otherwise? First, whether or not they work outside the house, upper-middle class mothers disproportionately shoulder the myriad tasks of child-rearing and household management. Fathers are typically the primary breadwinners (Weissbourd, Reference Weissbourd2009) and often work very long hours, so that mothers operate as the primary (and essentially, on an everyday basis, as a “single”) parent. At this point, it is worth remembering what Hochschild's (Reference Hochschild1997) seminal research showed: that mothers and fathers, across socioeconomic strata, prefer to be in the workplace than at home taking care of children, because the latter tends to be far more stressful and emotionally draining.

If mothers are in fact disproportionately the primary parent, then the quality of relationship with them should have greater ramifications for the children, and this is what we have found. In multivariate analyses of overall attachment (i.e., high trust, good communication, and low alienation), felt attachment to mothers as opposed to fathers explained much more variance across teen adjustment dimensions, by at least a factor of three (comparisons of overall R ²s; see Luthar & Barkin, Reference Luthar and Barkin2012; Luthar & Becker, Reference Luthar and Becker2002). These findings echo what has been recurrently established across decades (Collins & Russell, Reference Collins and Russell1991); preteens and adolescents alike feel that their mothers know them better than their fathers; and relationships with mothers are characterized by more frequent interaction and greater intimacy than those with fathers.

Considering what our “pressured” children bring home to their mothers, the parenting tasks confronting upper-middle class mothers are prodigious. Within a hyperachieving, competitive, and materialistic subculture, it requires enormous fortitude to be a “good enough mother,” serving as a steadfast ethical and moral compass (in a winner-takes-all milieu); deflecting each child's high stress levels; maintaining consistent affection and nurturance for all, and providing firm but reasonable limit setting (amid rampant substance use and rule breaking among community peers). All this must be accomplished while proficiently coordinating multiple busy schedules. Whereas efficient multitasking may enrich mothers' brains (Ellison, Reference Ellison2005), there is a threshold beyond which it is pernicious.

There is also high potential for “contagion of stress” from children to mothers, as seen in biological evidence of mothers deeply affected by distress in their offspring (see Kim et al., Reference Kim, Leckman, Mayes, Newman, Feldman and Swain2010; Swain, Lorberbaum, Kose, & Strathearn, Reference Swain, Lorberbaum, Kose and Strathearn2007; Taylor, Reference Taylor2002). Felt emotional distance from teens affects both fathers and mothers, but there are greater ramifications for mothers because their identities are strongly associated with the maternal role, and their own psychological well-being is more strongly dependent on how well their children are doing (Collins & Russell, Reference Collins and Russell1991; Ellison, Reference Ellison2005). Warner (Reference Warner2005, p. 116) accurately describes “good motherhood,” in contemporary upper-middle class America, as a state of being “almost always on duty,” and almost always beset with anxiety. Today's young women, therefore, may well be sensing or fearing their mothers' emotional role overload, given all that the latter contend with.

Another potential source of concern for upper-middle class young women lies in their mothers' struggles with balancing family and work. Many well-educated women leave the work force once they have children, because—notwithstanding their labeling this as a “choice” (see Stone, Reference Stone2007)—they cannot get part-time work or flexible work hours and husbands cannot or will not reduce their own hours (Coontz, Reference Coontz2013; Luthar & Latendresse, Reference Luthar and Latendresse2005a; Slaughter, Reference Slaughter2012). The losses of “opting out” are profound, psychologically and financially. In leaving paid employment, these women lose the rewards of intellectual challenges, feelings of efficaciousness, and access to networks of supportive relationships (Csikszentmhalyi, Reference Csikszentmihalyi1997; Myers & Diener, Reference Myers and Diener1995). Crittenden (Reference Crittenden2001) estimated that the typical college-educated woman who opts out will lose more than $1,000,000 in lifetime earnings and relinquished retirement benefits.

Women who stay with careers are equally challenged. Employed professional women experience dual pressures of high performance in careers and also as mothers (Luthar, Reference Luthar2003). They put in the same long hours at work as their male colleagues. At the same time, they are less likely than men to hold jobs that offer flexibility or family friendly benefits, face more scrutiny and prejudice on the job as mothers than fathers do, and are paid less than their male counterparts (Coontz, Reference Coontz2013; Slaughter, Reference Slaughter2012). Most importantly, high demands at work do not imply diminished expectations as a mother. The wage gap between men and women is paralleled by a “leisure gap,” with most women working one shift in the office and a “second shift” at home (Hochschild, Reference Hochschild1989; see also Slaughter, Reference Slaughter2012).

Turning next to affluent boys and fathers, many more young men today, than in the past, are concerned about how they might balance active parenthood with their future careers (Slaughter, Reference Slaughter2012). Their white-collar professional fathers can experience significant work-related pressures and insecurity about job retention (Karp, Holmstrom, & Gray, Reference Karp, Holmstrom and Gray2004), given technological advances, global outsourcing, and economic volatility. High-paying jobs imply high stakes, and thus high stress. Missteps are costly, and the fall from the top can be long and exceedingly painful. As Marano (Reference Marano2008, p. 28) notes, “Working harder than ever just to maintain their socioeconomic status, the affluent, despite all the accouterments of the good life, live in a state of near-chronic stress.”

Cutting back to lower paying jobs is not an option, for many reasons. Men's sense of self-worth is often tied to their success at work, and downward socioeconomic mobility is enormously stressful for men at all income levels (cf. Newman, Reference Newman1999). In addition, some upper-middle class women oppose the idea of their husbands' reduced work hours and earning potential (Warner, Reference Warner2005), because in these families, it is taken for granted that the children will all attend 4-year colleges, preferably elite (and expensive) ones (Holmstrom, Karp, & Gray, Reference Holmstrom, Karp and Gray2011).

Finally, highly paid jobs often require a great deal of time away from families. Taking “flex-time” is simply not an option for fathers in high-profile careers, and in the rare cases where paternity leave is an option, takers are perceived negatively (Harrington, Van Deusen, & Ladge, Reference Harrington, Van Deusen and Ladge2010). Furthermore, fathers in high-earning jobs often have long absences away from home, and this can entail significant difficulties in reintegrating into family life. Among fishermen's families, Mederer (Reference Mederer, McCubbin and Thompson1999) describes how wives (and children) report difficulties readjusting their everyday routines to accommodate the man's reentry after long absences. The same is true for many fathers in affluence. Being shut out from the family circle can exacerbate fathers' feelings of alienation, and the stresses of shifting routines constantly affects them, their spouses, the quality of their marriages, and inevitably, the children.

Research has demonstrated the nontrivial effects of fathers on upper-middle class children. Even after considering relationships with mothers, attachment to fathers, and perceptions of them as distant or harsh, are linked with girls' academic grades (Luthar & Becker, Reference Luthar and Becker2002), and in college, one in three young women desires more contact with her father (Hofer & Moore, Reference Hofer and Moore2010). More strikingly, among late-adolescent boys, perceived paternal depression seems to be a significant risk factor. Across three high school samples (Luthar & Barkin, Reference Luthar and Barkin2012), we found that boys' perceptions of fathers as being depressed were linked with multiple indices of their own externalizing and internalizing symptoms. Plausibly, these patterns are a by-product of identification with the same-sex parent. On the brink of leaving home to enter the “real world,” these young men may be particularly sensitive to fathers' visible emotional vulnerability.

Trade-offs of wealth versus intrinsic rewards

Life patterns associated with high wealth can thwart the attainment of many critical socioemotional rewards. Tenacious commitment to high productivity leaves little time to pursue rewards such as friendships, art, and spirituality (Csikszentmihalyi, Reference Csikszentmihalyi1999; Deiner, Reference Diener2000; Schor, Reference Schor1999), and mental health is compromised among people strongly invested in extrinsic goals involving high status, relative to intrinsic goals such as relationships and personal growth (Kasser, Reference Kasser2002; Ryan et al., Reference Ryan, Chirkov, Little, Sheldon, Timoshina and Deci1999; Sheldon & Kasser, Reference Sheldon and Kasser1995). In experimental research, Quoidba, Dunn, Petrides, and Mikolajczak (Reference Quoidbach, Dunn, Petrides and Mikolajczak2010) demonstrated that the possession of (and even the reminder of) high income was linked with reduced abilities to savor the small pleasures in everyday life; low savoring abilities in turn were linked to lower happiness.

There is a parallel among children, with little time for leisure pursuits simply for fun. Upper-middle class children no longer play impromptu games of soccer or basketball; as early as the second grade, they are (a) watched by fervent parent audiences as they play in “recreational” games, and (b) already vying for spots in travel teams. Successes are very public, as are mistakes. Reviewing the many benefits of play for psychological and cognitive development (including beneficial neural effects in the brain's frontal lobe; see Panskepp & Biven, Reference Panksepp and Biven2012), Marano (Reference Marano2008, p. 29) cautions that “What play there is has been corrupted. … Kids' play is professionalized; team sports are fixed on building skills and on winning and losing, not on having a good time.”

The highly scheduled, single-minded pursuit of achieving more thwarts identity exploration. Although aware of many college and career options, these youth deem very few appropriate for themselves (Lapour & Heppner, Reference Lapour and Heppner2009). Accordingly, they become preoccupied with becoming highly marketable “commodities” (Peterson, Reference Peterson2000, p. 52), pursuing activities chiefly if they will enhance their resumes. There is scant time or space to pursue the Eriksonian (Reference Erikson1993) exploration of who they are as individuals, nurturing their unique interests, passions, and life goals.

The driven pursuit of reaching “the top” can also bring temptation to cheat, particularly for people who have the resources to get away with it. This is seen in increasing reports of already very rich and financially adroit professionals resorting to white-collar crimes for still more wealth (Stewart, Reference Stewart2012). Resonant are previously noted reports of cheating at top-notch schools and colleges (Anderson & Applebome, Reference Anderson and Applebome2011; Pérez-Peña & Bidgood, Reference Pérez-Peña and Bidgood2012). These students can pay well to have others do their assignments or take their examinations; if caught, they have the hefty backup parental armamentarium of power, money, and attorneys to bail them out.

Most seriously threatened within the culture of ever-upward mobility are relationships: what Schwartz (Reference Schwartz2000) aptly calls a critical “vaccine against depression.” In highly competitive, capitalistic settings, wealthy people rely on market-based services rather than voluntary help from their communities (Frank & Cook, Reference Frank and Cook1995; Putnam, Reference Putnam2000), and thus they miss out on “proof” of authentic friendships (Hochschild, Reference Hochschild, Garey and Hansen2011; Tooby & Cosmides, Reference Tooby, Cosmides, Runciman, Smith and Dunbar1996). The rich, therefore, are the least likely to experience the security of deep social connectedness that is available to people whose circumstances force them into mutual dependence (Myers, Reference Myers2000).

In addition, a fierce investment in upward mobility can run counter to concern for others' welfare, and vice versa (Myers, Reference Myers2000). Meaningful involvements in groups always call for some subordination of one's own interests to those of the group. Conversely, when people focus intensively on maximizing their own goals, they feel increasingly disconnected from the group around them (Myers & Diener, Reference Myers and Diener1995). The very attributes that make for success in the world's marketplace, such as self-protectiveness and opportunism, can inhibit the development of intimacy because they represent a generalized lack of trust of others (Warner, Reference Warner1991). This detachment makes for unhappiness, as seen in cross-cultural findings of lower happiness in individualistic societies, on average, than in collectivistic ones (Diener, Ng, Harter, & Arora, Reference Diener, Ng, Harter and Arora2010; see also Jen, Reference Jen2013).

Findings on American youth are consistent, as seen in our previously described findings on poorer adjustment among children whose own families emphasized personal success far more strongly than personal decency and kindness. In addition, among college students, the least happy, and most depressed, were those with weak ties to family and friends, and low commitment to spending time with them (Diener, Reference Diener2000).

High-status positions can also inhibit the development of intimate friendships because of secrecy about one's own weaknesses. Affluent adults commonly struggle with shame and guilt about their distress, because “Those at the top are supposed to be better able to handle their problems than those further down the scale; and a very important part of ‘looking good’ is never letting any chinks in your (or your family's) emotional armor become visible” (Wolfe & Fodor, Reference Wolfe and Fodor1996, p. 80; see also Weissbourd, Reference Weissbourd2009). In parallel, troubled youth in these communities fear negative judgments and widespread gossip about any disclosed adjustment problems (Hofer & Moore, Reference Hofer and Moore2010), with many existing in a “culture of suffering in silence” (Marano, Reference Marano2008, p. 169).

Vulnerability and protective mechanisms in resilient adaptation

Aside from examining mean adjustment levels across diverse elite settings, we urgently need in-depth attention to the subgroups of youth manifesting unusually high distress, examining antecedents and sequelae of their maladjustment via prospective, longitudinal research. Sophisticated contemporary statistical techniques (e.g., latent growth curve analyses) will be useful in (a) pinpointing the mechanisms that lead to their problems, and (b) illuminating the degree to which, and the circumstances under which, particular adjustment difficulties might endure or intensify over time. In addition, we must explore the potential long-term costs of high disturbance across different adjustment domains, and across different developmental periods. To illustrate, we currently know little about the degree to which “socially normative” binge drinking through high school and college might be linked with lowered coping abilities, or compromised capacities to relate authentically with others (sans substances) during the adult years.

Conversely, we must understand what allows some youth to thrive in the high-pressure world of affluence, with “thriving” defined via contextually relevant criteria. In resilience research, positive adaptation (or risk evasion) is conceptually guided and defined relative to the specific risk condition experienced (Luthar et al., Reference Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker2000), with evasion of delinquency, for example, critical among youth in high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods. Among teens assailed by “do more, acquire more” subcultural messages, therefore, we believe that a first indicator of thriving would be a balanced set of values, with behaviorally manifested commitment to intrinsic goals, integrity, and low rule breaking. Refraining from excessive alcohol and drug use would be a second critical criterion (acknowledging that some experimentation before departure for college is developmentally normative). A third would be levels of distress and of personal well-being that are in the normal range for teenagers in general, and a fourth would be at least average grades and extracurricular achievements.

Differentiating definitions of affluence

We will also need more differentiated, precise definitions of “affluence,” just as we have worked for decades at refining dimensions of poverty (e.g., chronic, extreme, earned income vs. benefits, and maternal education; see Hutto, Waldfogel, Kaushal, & Garfinkel, Reference Hutto, Waldfogel, Kaushal and Garfinkel2011). There can be differences between income and wealth, and between earned as opposed to “old money” (Oliver & Shapiro, Reference Oliver and Shapiro2006). Within affluent communities, the parents' job status can matter, with children of parents of relatively low occupational status at heightened risk (Richter, Leppin, & Gabhainn, Reference Richter, Leppin and Gabhainn2006). Finally, we do not know whether there are substantive differences between youth from the upper-middle class as opposed to the most elite.

Disentangling issues of race and ethnicity must be a priority. So far, developmental research on affluence has, in essence, been the study of “Whiteness,” because upper-middle class schools and communities are predominantly White. As an alternative to school- or community-based sampling in future research, we might tap into organizations targeting high-achieving ethnic minorities, such as Jack and Jill of America, with African American membership (Turnley-Robinson, Reference Turnley-Robinson2013), to identify similarities and differences in challenges experienced.

Specific research questions warranting attention

Aside from research directions already outlined, we delineate three sets of issues that warrant concerted empirical attention, based on what we have learned thus far about upper-middle class youth. The first concerns the well-being of their primary caregivers. That a “good enough” mother is critical for children's well-being has been established for decades (Winnnicott, Reference Winnicott1953, p. 94); yet it is astonishing that there is still almost no developmental research on what makes for a good enough mother (Luthar et al., in press), especially those known to be facing myriad challenges. This needs to be corrected: we must have systematic research on primary caregivers' well-being as a dependent variable, illuminating predictors of sustained positive parenting across a period of two decades or more.

In parallel, we need more research on fathers (usually primary wage earners), documenting how the determined pursuit of highly paid positions, to sustain families' lifestyles and opportunities, can cause significant stress. Such assessments should occur not only at their peak earning years but also closer to retirement. There is apparently high potential for “sleeper effects” with affluent fathers, at the end of their distinguished careers, regretting that they missed out on their children's youth and their partner's companionship, having focused for decades on what was expected from them rather than on what they wished to be or do (Coontz, Reference Coontz2013).

The second issue is we need more information on the quality of marriages, from the perspective of children as well as parents in affluence. At this point, we have no idea where this metric might stand compared to national norms, but there are suggestions of trouble. Both parents' disproportionate investment of emotions, time, and money in children's activities and needs must inevitably cut into couples' time together, and thus, threaten marital bonds (Marano, Reference Marano2008; Warner, Reference Warner2005). Furthermore, tensions can be exacerbated as parents slide into the traditional division of labor in these families, with wives resenting their disproportionate responsibility for child care and envying husbands' social networks through jobs, and husbands, in turn, feeling unappreciated for long hours at work to support the family's lifestyle (Coontz, Reference Coontz2013).

The third issue is we need more attention to the socializing contexts of the school and peers. In our data collection experiences across over two decades, the climate in school buildings has varied greatly, with inner-city students being much more spontaneously friendly than the affluent youth (the more exclusive the private schools, the least ebullient were the students). In future research, therefore, it would be helpful to compare affluent youth on the values they believe are truly prized within their schools, that is, the relative value on extrinsic versus intrinsic goals (see Anderson & Applebome, Reference Anderson and Applebome2011). It is important that even as some schools strongly espouse “character development,” it will be critical to ascertain if they are committed not only to fostering grit and perseverance (see Tough, Reference Tough2011) but also equally, to other critical aspects of character such as kindness, fairness, and integrity.

With regard to peers, there are two issues on which we currently have little quantitative data. The first is sexuality; we need to understand the psychological ramifications of commonplace “hooking up” and casual oral sex (see Chase, Reference Chase2008; Marano, Reference Marano2008), especially for girls in relation to their feelings of self-worth. The second is rampant and constant competition among peers, and how this might impair intimacy between friends (which is developmentally vital during adolescence), and thus threaten youths' psychological well-being.

Methodological concerns

Even as we suggest these various directions for researchers, we recognize that access into exclusive schools and communities can be very difficult, because of intense and often legitimate concerns about privacy (Chase, Reference Chase2008; Luthar, Reference Luthar2003). For those with a foot in the proverbial door, it is critical to gain the trust of the community, and that often takes time (as in low-SES settings; Knitzer, Reference Knitzer, Zigler, Kagan and Hall1996). Furthermore, once research assessments are completed, the knowledge must be brought back to the community, with collaborative efforts to develop preventive interventions. In our experience, affluent parent groups, students, and teachers have all been invariably not just receptive but eager to work with data that are (a) scientifically rigorous, (b) presented with no judgments (our message has been that this is about us and our children), and (c) with specific messages about areas that merit attention.

Because we still understand little about the risks of affluence, researchers cannot rush to traditional “gold standards” of complex, multivariate statistical models. Quantitative hypothesis testing presupposes that we know what to test (Luthar et al., in press), and we are only beginning to learn about what is potent in the culture of affluence. In developing theories about any new population, the building blocks must be identified systematically, measuring as many relevant constructs as possible and then paring down to the essentials, both within and across levels (Sheldon, Kashdan, & Steger, Reference Sheldon, Kashdan and Steger2011). At this nascent stage of quantitative research on youth in affluence, therefore, we will need to systematically determine if “new” and potentially important constructs (a) uniquely explain significant variance in adjustment, (b) with at least moderate effect sizes, and then (c) seek replication of effects across different samples.

As we formulate and refine developmental theories, we must remain attentive to insights from ethnographic, qualitative data (Rutter, Reference Rutter2012; Ungar, Reference Ungar2012; Yoshikawa, Weisner, Kalil, & Way, Reference Yoshikawa, Weisner, Kalil and Way2008). With over a decade of work with this population, our own research group is still learning about what might be especially important (fierce competition between “best friends”) and what might be a red herring (hours in extracurriculars). Much can be learned if developmental scientists borrowed methods from anthropology, being “participant observers” of patterns in our own families and communities. There is enormous power when academics describe, empathically and in real-world terms, problems about which they have firsthand knowledge (see Weissbourd, Reference Weissbourd2009; see also Carey, Reference Carey2011; Jamison, Reference Jamison1996; Slaughter, Reference Slaughter2012).

In a related vein, developmental research on this population must entail rigorous exploration of within-gender processes (cf. Luthar et al., in press). While equally committed to their children's welfare, upper-middle class mothers and fathers can face vastly different challenges in the demands of everyday parenting. Accordingly, it will be critical to analyze separately by parents' gender, and in parallel, among girls versus boys. Until we accumulate more data on within-gender processes, we would be ill advised to control for gender in statistical analyses, examining multiple interaction effects involving gender. Interaction terms are notoriously unstable in statistical analyses, often obscuring important differences that exist in reality (Luthar et al., Reference Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker2000; Rutter, Reference Rutter2012).

In terms of research design, another tenet of developmental science to be reckoned with is that self-report data are biased and thus nonoptimal. We believe, in fact, that adolescents' own reports must be at the center of this work; there must be concentrated focus on youths' phenomenological, subjective interpretations of their own realities (Spencer, Reference Spencer2011; see also Latendresse et al., Reference Latendresse, Rose, Viken, Pulkkinen, Kaprio and Dick2009; Luthar et al., in press). The “problem of shared variance” can easily be corrected for, by simply covarying out a third, robust self-report indicator (e.g., including peer victimization in testing links between parenting and personal adjustment; see Luthar & Becker, Reference Luthar and Becker2002).

In addition to self-reports, peer ratings are invaluable, but in our experience, these are not easily approved by adults in affluent communities. Ratings by teachers are easier to obtain but can grossly underestimate adolescent problems; we have found consistent elevations on rule breaking by self-reports, and almost none by teacher reports (Luthar & Goldstein, Reference Luthar and Goldstein2008). Invaluable, in the future, would be reports from upper-middle class parents if possible, not only on their children's adjustment (particularly prosocial behaviors at home and elsewhere), but also on their own perceptions of their parenting behaviors.

Parents

Primary in our prevention efforts must be work with parents, who have a redoubtable influence on the youths' values and well-being. In any efforts to foster resilient adaptation, it is most expedient to prioritize, at the outset, forces that are (a) amenable to change; (b) powerful, with large effect sizes; and (c) “broadly deterministic,” that is, assets that in turn, catalyze other assets (Luthar et al., in press). These criteria apply foremost to families, even through late adolescence.

In terms of messages disseminated, parents need to ensure that there is not an overpowering emphasis on extrinsic values in the home. Recognizing the subcultural risks of violence and crime, many inner-city mothers are particularly strict about whom their children can consort with and when (Kling, Liebman, & Katz, Reference Kling, Liebman, Katz and Weisner2005). In much the same way, parents in affluence need to recognize that they, more than their middle-class counterparts, need to be especially vigilant about keeping their children firmly grounded in intrinsic values. Families have to counterbalance the enormous reverberating cultural messages that children must accomplish, at all costs, ever more in pursuit of top-ranked colleges and the most lucrative jobs.

To do this, we as parents must be grounded ourselves, because our children internalize and emulate what they see in us (Weissbourd, Reference Weissbourd2009). A high school graduate (who met all the criteria for “thriving” we outlined earlier) spoke thus about his parents in a focus group: “Most important to them is humility. For my mom? Helping others, and family has always come first, even when she went back to work. … Both my parents are not competitive. They work very hard because they want to succeed, not because they want to be better than others.”

In addition, parents will need to reflect carefully on what is critical, and what is desirable but lower on the list, in our priorities as families. For example, there is undoubtedly much to be gained by attending each child's athletic events and performances, for children and parents alike. However, there can also be a danger of eroding downtime with unhurried conversations and shared activities: interactions that form the core of children's feelings of security with their parents.

Firm and consistent limit setting is vital, particularly with regard to substance use, and we fully acknowledge that this is a complicated issue. As noted earlier, some experimentation with substances is developmentally normative for teens. Thus, “zero tolerance” parental attitudes with draconian punishments can backfire, with youngsters simply hiding use while still in high school, using substances more easily hidden but also much more dangerous than alcohol (e.g., Ecstasy and cocaine; see Chase, Reference Chase2008), and once at college, engaging in binge drinking (Califano, Reference Califano2007; Chase, Reference Chase2008). This said, parents cannot be laissez-faire. Unsupervised parties involving unlimited alcohol are simply unacceptable; the dangers are far too grave for adults to allow their occurrence (Luthar & Barkin, Reference Luthar and Barkin2012). Egregious violations of rules must be met with firm and real consequences.

Mothers and fathers both must be vigilant for distress among youth, expediently seeking professional help if indicated (Koplewicz, Gurian, & Williams, Reference Koplewicz, Gurian and Williams2009). In general, parents seek attention only when children get poor academic grades or are egregiously disruptive.Footnote ²

Appearances, however, can be deceiving. Resilience is not a unidimensional construct (Luthar et al., in press), and stellar all-around achievements can coexist with high levels of depression or anxiety.

Equally if not more important, parents must proactively seek help if their marriages are strained. Upper-middle class adults must recognize that resolutely “maintaining privacy” when distressed can be extremely costly for the couple and for the children. Thus, there is much value in disseminating the benefits of couples-based interventions, such as those designed to reduce conflicts around traditional gender role assignments (see Cowan & Cowan, Reference Cowan and Cowan2000).

For practitioners working with children or with families, it is critical to guard against minimizing problems of the affluent. With the same absolute level of symptoms, the poor are more likely to be labeled as mentally ill than others (Bradley & Corwyn, Reference Bradley and Corwyn2002), whereas people in the upper-middle class are more often dismissed as not needing help. Service providers tend to believe that the wealthy cannot really be victimized by child maltreatment and domestic violence, because their resources can stanch these (Weitzman, Reference Weitzman2000). Furthermore, affluent victims of domestic violence are often too ashamed or afraid, given the power of perpetrators, to seek help. In the words of a coordinator of a suburban community shelter, “Women come to us only when they've really, truly reached their limits. They are not just terrified, but deeply embarrassed. And they can't see a private therapist because they have no spending money” (Lederman, personal communication, December 10, 2012).

Disseminating for the public: Critical considerations

Finally, scientists must proactively and responsibly disseminate what we have learned to nonacademic authors, who have a far wider readership than we do in science. In our own programmatic work over the years, we have prioritized sharing findings with trade book authors and media representatives as well as with contributors to high school newspapers. Interactions with the latter have been especially gratifying, as students have eagerly offered their own resonant experiences, and have initiated active dialogues about the nature of stresses in their high-achieving communities.

Missing in nonacademic dissemination efforts thus far, and critical from a prevention standpoint, is outreach to affluent parents of young children. Publications such as Parenting or Working Mother are avidly read by many well-educated women. These mothers must be made aware of (a) the long-term risks to their children, of embarking on a path overly focused on achievements (which often begins in preschool), and (b) the critical importance, for families, of shared leisure time, good communication and monitoring, and firm limit setting, all starting from the earliest years. By middle and high school (when problems apparently become manifest), it will be extremely difficult to change family patterns that have become well entrenched.

Finally, as we in science communicate our findings, we must diligently guard against negative judgments and instead disentangle and address the powerful ecosystemic (Bronfenbrenner, Reference Bronfenbrenner1986) forces that ensconce affluent parents and youth. Oscar Lewis's (Reference Lewis1961) notion of the “Culture of Poverty,” eschewed for decades because it implied “blaming the victim,” has recently seen renewed scientific attention, with thoughtful efforts to unpack the various components of culture including values, symbolic boundaries, and cultural capital (see Small, Harding, & Lamont, Reference Small, Harding and Lamont2010). In the years ahead, we could benefit greatly from parallel sociological efforts in deconstructing the culture of affluence (e.g., Chase, Reference Chase2008; Lareau, Reference Lareau2003). In the meantime, we, in psychology, would be well advised to diligently avoid labels suggesting character deficits, such as intrusive, entitled, or “helicopters” for parents, and entitled, immature, or narcissistic for youth (Luthar, Reference Luthar2003). Such labels are not just unhelpful but also can potentially alienate the group about whom we write, as well as policymakers (Hemingway, Reference Hemingway2012). It is vital, therefore, that we always remain cognizant, in our reports, of the powerful human tendency toward conformity in the face of mores that are potent and widely accepted by members of one's social group (Hanlon, Carlisle, Hannah, Reilly, & Lyon, Reference Hanlon, Carlisle, Hannah, Reilly and Lyon2011; Hogg & Vaughan, Reference Hogg and Vaughan2005).

Closing comments: Why more research on affluent youth?

In closing our discussions on future directions, we address the question of why we, in developmental science, should devote resources and attention to the problems of upper middle-class youth (i.e., children of doctors, lawyers, and university professors). To put it plainly, first and in self-referential terms, we reiterate that these are our children about whom we are speaking. Second, and more important, it is unconscionable for us in science to deliberately disregard any group of children known to be statistically at risk. Given what we know thus far, it is essential to understand what makes for this risk, to whom it generalizes and who is relatively untouched, and what tends to both exacerbate and alleviate this risk.

From a pragmatic perspective, furthermore, these youth will disproportionately hold positions of power in the next generation, and their values will therefore be highly influential in shaping norms and mores in education, politics, and business. Members of the upper-middle class are disproportionately the shapers and standard-bearers of American culture (Khan, Reference Khan2011; Warner, Reference Warner2005). Early trajectories of “gaming the system” often end up in serious crime later in life, with white-collar crimes such as Ponzi schemes having enormous negative repercussions for society as a whole. High envy among these youth can lead to ego depletion (or eroded personal resources and self-control), in turn undermining mental energy for everyday tasks (Hill, DelPriore, & Vaughan, Reference Hill, DelPriore and Vaughan2011) and also decreasing altruism toward others (DeWall, Baumeister, Gailliot, & Maner, Reference DeWall, Baumeister, Gailliot and Maner2008).

Aside from dishonesty, distress can have considerable long-term costs. At a societal level, unhappiness and loneliness can accentuate personal acquisitiveness as opposed to philanthropy (Chang & Arkin, Reference Chang and Arkin2002; Diener & Biswas-Diener, Reference Diener and Biswas-Diener2002). At an individual level, serious depressive episodes during adolescence connote elevated risk for recurrent episodes later in life (Fava, Park, & Sonino, Reference Fava, Park and Sonino2006). Prolonged feelings of stress can affect not just psychological well-being but also physical health via heightened allostatic load, and productivity at work (Monroe, Reference Monroe2008).

Of special concern is the clearly high level of substance use, which can affect the developing brain (Medina et al., Reference Medina, Hanson, Schweinsburg, Cohen-Zion, Nagel and Tapert2007), and can seriously impair effective coping over time (Blomeyer et al., Reference Blomeyer, Buchmann, Schmid, Jennen-Steinmetz, Schmidt and Banaschewski2011; Brown, Reference Brown, Beauchaine and Hinshaw2008). To be sure, some affluent youth will eventually grow out of substance use, particularly as they come to marry and have children (Bachman et al., Reference Bachman, O'Malley, Schulenberg, Johnston, Bryant and Merline2002). However, many will show continued high use over time, given the potent “risk factors” of chronically high use from adolescence onward (cf. Brown, Reference Brown, Beauchaine and Hinshaw2008), and social norms of frequent use. This can presage problems in future relationships, interfering with abilities to express affection and experience intimacy in adult relationships (Huselid & Cooper, Reference Huselid and Cooper1992; Vargas-Carmona, Newcomb, & Galaif, Reference Vargas-Carmona, Newcomb and Galaif2002). Consistent early use of substances can also compromise future work, associated with relatively low earnings in adulthood and poor job performance (Ellickson, Tucker, & Klein, Reference Ellickson, Tucker and Klein2003). With students commonly using Adderall to maintain high grades through school and college (e.g., Diller, Reference Diller2012; Schwarz, Reference Schwarz2012), it is unclear how they will manage when they come to hold high-pressure jobs in their adult years.

Finally, the leadership of these youth will spread internationally given technology and globalization. The United States is influential throughout the world and there is growing pursuit of what is prized in America (Marano, Reference Marano2008), even in traditionally “collectivistic” nations. Frenetic SAT preparation classes are commonplace in India and China, as are investments in technology rather than human capital (Raina, Austen, & Timmons, Reference Raina, Austen and Timmons2012). The future leaders of America, and of the East, each need to understand the profound costs of blind allegiance to a “work more, and acquire more” ethic, especially as it erodes the powerful “protective factor” of human bonds in families and in communities (see Luyten & Blatt, Reference Luyten and Blatt2013).