The Jyväskylä Longitudinal Study of Personality and Social Development (JYLS)Suomi

face.jpg

People

Research Group

University of Jyväskylä

Dr. Katja Kokko, Research Director, Principal Investigator, Gerontology Research Center

tel. +358 40 805 3500

Professor Emerita Lea Pulkkinen, Department of Psychology

Dr. Johanna Rantanen, University Researcher, Department of Teacher Education

Ms. Noora Jalonen, Doctoral Student, Department of Psychology

Ms. Merja Hietalahti, Doctoral Student, Department of Psychology

Ms. Anna-Liisa Lyyra, Phil. Lic Sci, Researcher, Department of Psychology

Collaboration

University of Jyväskylä, Department of Psychology

Dr. Taru Feldt, University Researcher, Department of Psychology

Dr. Anne Mäkikangas, Academy Research Fellow, Department of Psychology

Dr. Asko Tolvanen, Professor, Department of Psychology and Methodology Centre for Human Sciences

Collaboration
University of Jyväskylä, Other Departments

Päivi Fadjukoff, Head of Development and Planning, Agora Center

Dr. Eija Räikkönen, Post-Doctoral Researcher, Faculty of Education

Dr. Riitta-Leena Metsäpelto, University Researcher, Department of Teacher Education

Professor Jaakko Pehkonen, Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics

Dr. Jutta Viinikainen, University Teacher, Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics

Ms. Satu Helske, Doctoral Student, Methodology Centre for Human Sciences

Professor Taina Rantanen, Gerontology Research Centre, Department of Health Sciences

Dr. Monika von Bonsdorff, Post-Doctoral Researcher, Gerontology Research Centre, Department of Health Sciences

Collaboration
Other National

Dr. Marja-Liisa Kinnunen, M.D., Ph.D., Physician, Central Finland Health Care District

Professor Ulla Kinnunen, Institute for Advanced Social Research

Professor Mervi Eerola, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, University of Turku

Mr. Esa Leppänen, M.D., Ph.D., Head of the Clinical Laboratory of Central Finland Health Care District

Dr. Tuuli Pitkänen, Senior Researcher, Järvenpää Addiction Hospital Finnish Social Science Data Archive, University of Tampere

Collaboration
International

Center for the Analysis of Pathways from Childhood to Adulthood (CAPCA), led by Professor Pamela Davis-Kean,University of Michigan,USA (2003-2013)

–Several researchers

Research Network for Human Capital across Childhood and Adolescence, led by Professor Greg Duncan, University of California, Irvine, USA (2011-2016)

–Several researchers

Professor Ursula Staudinger, Vice President of Jacobs University Bremen and Founding Dean of the Jacobs Center on Lifelong Learning and Institutional Development, Germany

Associate Professor Jukka Savolainen, School of Criminology, University of Nebraska, USA

Introduction

The Jyväskylä Longitudinal Study of Personality and Social Development (JYLS) is one of the most long-term longitudinal studies of human development. The same participants (N = 369; born 1959) have been followed from age 8 to age 50. The main aim of the JYLS has been to examine continuity and interaction in different areas of life: (1) socioemotional behaviour and personality, (2) education and work career, (3) family of origin and one’s own family, (4) health behaviour and health, and (5) social adjustment and delinquency.

From 1968 to 2013, the JYLS was led by Professor Lea Pulkkinen. In 2013, Research Director Dr. Katja Kokko became its principal investigator (PI). From its inception until 2013, the JYLS was located at the Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä. Starting in 2014, it has been located at the Gerontology Research Center and the Department of Health Sciences.

The study’s data have been archived anonymously in the Finnish Social Science Data Archive (FSD). The data can be used for well-established research purposes with permission from the study PI.

 

An overview of the study

The participants, born mostly in 1959, were 8-year-old second-grade pupils when the study began. The sample was drawn from 12 complete school classes (196 boys, 173 girls) chosen randomly from the schools of a medium-sized town in Central Finland. The same individuals have been followed up until the age of 50. Table 1 presents the data collection waves and the major methods of data collection.

Table 1. Participants and Methods of the JYLS.
Year Age Participants Methods
1968 8 196 males
173 females
Peer nomination
Teacher rating
Personality inventories
60 males
Aggression inventories
School achievement tests
1969 9 60 males Aggression machine (PAM) 
174 males Teacher rating
1974 14 189 males
167 females
Peer nomination
Teacher rating
77 males
77 females
Subject interview
Parental interview
1980 20 68 males
67 females
Subject interview
Self-control inventories
1986 27
166 males
155 females
Mailed questionnaire
Interview + PRQ, SSS
1992 33
123 males
126 females
NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae)
TV watching 
1995 36 161 males
152 females
Mailed questionnaire
Interview + inventories
1997-1999 38-40
55 males + spouses
54 females + spouses
Interview + inventories
Family observations
7-13 149 children of the participants Laboratory tests
Inventories
Teacher and parental rating
2001 42 151 males
134 females
Mailed questionnaire
Interview + inventories
Medical examination
2009
50 
141 men
127 women
Mailed questionnaire
Interview + inventories 
Medical examination

The most recent data collection was conducted in 2009 when the participants reached the age of 50 years. Besides psychological and social development health-related behaviour and the health of the participants was monitored, and a medical checkup and laboratory tests were conducted.

The participation rate in the study has been high (Pulkkinen, 2006; Pulkkinen, Feldt & Kokko, 2005; Pulkkinen & Kokko, 2010); data from age 8 to at least one of the adult ages – 27, 36, 42, or 50 – are available for 95% of the original sample. Two-thirds of the participants have taken part in all major data collection waves. No systematic attrition has occurred. The sample studied at ages 42 and 50 represented its age cohort very well (b. in 1959), in terms of marriage status, number of children, education, and unemployment, when data from Statistics Finland were used as criteria. The sample was ethnically homogeneous, only including Finns, and most participants belonged to the Lutheran church, as was generally so in the age cohort group as a whole.

16.4.2010


Goals and data waves

Model of emotional and behavioural regulation

The theoretical framework of the study has been from its beginning an impulse control model developed by Lea Pulkkinen (n. Pitkänen) (Pitkänen, 1969; Pulkkinen, 1982), later referred to as the model of emotional and behavioural regulation (Pulkkinen, 1995, 2006, 2009). The model has guided data collection throughout the study, especially in relation to childhood and adolescence, as well as the data analysis (e.g., Pulkkinen, Feldt, & Kokko, 2005). Other theoretical frameworks have also been applied depending on the specific goals of the study.

The model of emotional and behavioural regulation involves dimensions, namely self-control of emotions and behavioural expression and their respective processes: intensification vs. neutralization of emotions and activation vs. suppression of behaviour (see Figure 1). If the emotion (such as anger; see Pulkkinen, 2004) is intensified and its expression is activated, the likelihood of aggression increases. This pattern is labeled Type A behaviour (not referring to the Type A personality that is related to the risk of cardiovascular disease). On the other hand, a simultaneous activation of behaviour and the neutralization of the emotional state enable an individual to keep the expression of the emotion under cognitive control, and to display socially responsible, constructive behaviour. This pattern is labeled Type B behaviour. Type A and Type B behaviours have social activity in common, but they differ in the regulation of emotional behaviour.

 

Emotional model

Figure 1. The model of emotional and behavioural regulation (Pulkkinen, 1995)

 

Suppression of behaviour associated with the neutralization of emotions may manifest as thoughtful and compliant behaviour (labeled Type C behaviour), whereas a simultaneous suppression of behaviour and an intensification of emotions means that an individual perceives the situation as emotionally exciting, yet overt behavior is blocked. This blocked behaviour may manifest as anxious behaviour (labeled Type D behaviour). Type A is comparable to externalizing problem behaviours and Type D to internalizing problem behaviours. Type A and D have low emotional self-control in common. Types B and C indicate adaptive behaviours. They have high emotional self-control in common.

The beginning of the study at age 8

The participants, born mostly in 1959, were 8-year-old second grade pupils when the study was begun. The sample was consituted by 12 complete school classes (196 boys, 173 girls) drawn randomly from the schools of a medium-sized town in Central Finland. At age 8 (in 1968), children’s social behaviour was assessed using peer nomination and teacher ratings in 33 items and 5 additional items for teacher rating (Pitkänen, 1969, pp. 205-207; items also listed in Pulkkinen, 1987).

Additionally, the investigator presented the participants with two personality inventories in classroom settings: the Junior Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck, 1965) and the Personality Inventory for the Lower Forms of the Primary School (modified from Cattell and Coan’s, 1959, personality questionnaire). Responses to these personality inventories (Pitkänen, 1969, p. 208) have had no predictive validity for adolescent or adult behaviour, and therefore, they have not been included in any later publications.

On the basis of factor analyses of peer nominations and teacher ratings and corresponding factor scores, six groups of boys (10 boys in each) were formed to be characteristic of high factor scores as follows: 1) aggressive, 2) anxious, 3) constructive, 4) compliant, 5) aggressive and anxious, and 6) stable (both constructive and compliant). They were presented with three aggression question series for defensive and offensive (reactive and proactive aggression) (Pitkänen, 1969, pp. 144-147; Pitkänen-Pulkkinen, 1981):

At age 9 (in 1969), the subsample of 60 boys was tested again using an Aggression Machine (PAM) developed by Pulkkinen (Pitkänen, 1973; Juujärvi, Kooistra, Kaartinen, & Pulkkinen, 2001). Teacher ratings of the boys who attended the same classes as the subsample boys were also collected at this time.

Follow-ups at ages 14 and 20

When the participants were 14 years old (in 1974), a follow-up was conducted with 189 boys and 167 girls (97% of the original sample). The main interest was in the continuity of socioemotional behaviour from childhood to adolescence. At this time, the participants were located in 78 school classes. Data were gathered using peer nomination and teacher rating on eight items formulated on the basis of factor analyses made with the 33 items used at age 8. The items describe the behavioural patterns depicted in Figure 1 (Pitkänen, 1969, p. 182-183; items listed in Pulkkinen, 1987) in every school class containing a participant from the original sample. The teachers were also interviewed.

In addition, 40% of the sample and one of the parents were interviewed. The interviews were limited to the participants who had belonged to any of the six groups (aggressive, anxious, weak self-control, constructive, compliant, high self-control) formed at age 8 or at age 14 to represent the types of behaviour depicted in the model of emotional and behavioural regulation (Figure 1). Agreement for the child and either of the parents to be interviewed was obtained from 154 parents.

In 1980, when the participants were 20 years of age, 135 of them were interviewed again. The interview included questions about family, relationships (parents, friends, marital, dating), leisure time activities, education, work, and future orientation. They participants were also presented with a self-control inventory, a checklist, and a self-rating form (Pulkkinen, 1982).

A follow-up at age 27

All of the participants from the original sample were traced for a follow-up study at age 27 (in 1986). Data were gathered by a mailed Life Situation Questionnaire (LSQ1) and a semi-structured interview, which yielded information about the topics such as family, family relationships, housing, financial situation, education, occupation, work, employment, leisure time activities, satisfaction with life, use of alcohol, smoking, self-rating of health, life values, life events, and future orientation.

The LSQ1 contained a Personal Control Inventory developed by Pulkkinen (Pulkkinen & Rönkä, 1994; Pulkkinen, Kokkonen, & Mäkiaho, 1998) based on Brandtstädter’s  theory. The interview included an Identity Status Interview (Marcia, 1966), a series of questions about delinquency and aggression, self-rating scales for socioemotional behaviour, a life satisfaction scale, a quantity and frequency measure of alcohol consumption, and the CAGE questionnaire for alcoholism (Ewing, 1984).

In the context of the interview the participants were also presented with two personality inventories: the standardized Finnish versions (Haapasalo, 1990) of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) and the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS; Zuckermann, 1979).

The mailed questionnaire was completed by 166 men (85% of the total men) and 155 women (90% of the total women); and 150 men (77%) and 142 women (82%) were interviewed.

A follow-up at age 33

At age 33 (in 1992), a Big Five Personality Inventory – an authorized adaptation of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985) in which about one-quarter of the items were substitutes for the original American items – was mailed to the original sample. The study was part of the standardization of the NEO-PI in Non-Indo-European languages, Estonian and Finnish (Pulver, Allik, Pulkkinen, & Hämäläinen, 1995). The questionnaire was returned by 123 men (63% of the total men) and 126 women (73% of the total women).

Television viewing motives were also measured by means of an inventory adapted from Rubin (1983, 1984), and television programme choices were measured on the basis of volume questions.

A follow-up at age 36

At age 36 (in 1995), a mailed Life Situation Questionnaire (LSQ2) was completed by 161 men (82% of the total men) and 150 women (87% of the total women), and 146 men (76%) and 137 women (79%) participated in a semi-structured interview (two men had died). The LSQ2 consisted of 217 items, mainly the same as in 1986, concerning family, family relationships, housing, financial situation, education, occupation, work, employment, leisure activities, life satisfaction, use of alcohol, smoking, delinquency, health, life values, life events, and future orientation.

The LSQ2 contained the Personal Control Inventory, Sself-rating scales for socioemotional behaviour, and the 12-item version of General Health Questionnaire (GHQ; Goldberg, 1972), the quantity and frequency measure of alcohol consumption, and a life satisfaction scale.

The interview included an Identity Status Interview (Marcia, 1966); a self-report delinquency scale (modified from Junger-Tas, Terlouw, & Klein, 1994), and discussion about important things and turning points in people’s lives, marital relationships, unemployment, and the economic recession.

During the interview session, the participants were presented with 20 self-administered questionnaires. These questionnaires were partial modifications of the following tests: Affective Experience Scale (Feldman, 1995); Emotion Regulation Scale (Mayer & Stevens, 1994); Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965); Scales of Psychological Well-Being (Ryff, 1989); Depression scale from the General Behavior Inventory (Depue, 1987); the Self-Report Attachment Style Prototypes (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991); Marital Disagreement Scale (Strauss, 1992); Self-Control Schedule (Rosenbaum, 1980); the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992); Psychosomatic Symptom Check-List (Aro, 1988); Child Rearing Practices Questionnaire (Pulkkinen, 1996; Metsäpelto, & Pulkkinen, 2003); Strategic Attribution Questionnaire (Nurmi, Salmela-Aro, & Haavisto, 1995); Job Exhaustion Scale (Maslach & Jackson, 1986); Work-Family Conflict Scale (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992);  Karolinska Scales of Personality (cf. Klinteberg, Schalling, & Magnusson, 1990); Personality Styles Inventory (Pulkkinen) and the CAGE questionnaire for alcoholism (Ewing, 1984), ); and the Malmö modification of the brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (mmMAST, Selzer, 1971; Kristenson & Trell, 1982).

The participants were mailed the following questionnaires: Karolinska Scales of Personality (Klinteberg, Schalling, & Magnusson, 1990) and Personality Styles Inventory (Pulkkinen).

A follow-up at age 42

At age 42 (in 2001), 151 men (81% of the available sample) and 134 women (85%) participated in a follow-up study. A mailed Life Situation Questionnaire (LSQ3) was completed by 147 men and 132 women; 123 men and 120 women took part in the interview; 121 men and 120 women participated in the medical checkup; and 104 men and 112 women took part in its accompanying laboratory tests. The available sample was reduced to 186 men and 158 women: 6 participants had died and 5 men (3% of the original sample) and 14 women (8%) had completely refused to take part in the study.

The LSQ3 consisted of 189 items, mainly the same as had been used at ages 27 and 36, concerning family, family relationships, housing, financial situation, education, occupation, work, employment, leisure time activities, life satisfaction, use of alcohol, smoking, self-rating of health, life values, life events, and future orientation. The LSQ3 also contained the Personal Control Inventory, self-rating scales for socioemotional behaviour, the 12-item version of General Health Questionnaire (GHQ; Goldberg, 1972), the quantity and frequency measure of alcohol consumption, and a life satisfaction scale. A new set of items concerned computer and mobile phone usage.

The interview included, as was the case at ages 27 and 36, an Identity Status Interview (Marcia, 1966) and discussion of the important things in people’s lives, marital relationships, and unemployment, and employment. New areas of inquiry at age 42 included dreams as well as joy and recreation in life, middle-age crisis, and parental experiences. Additionally, the Life History Calendar (Caspi et al., 1996) – intended to produce information about the participants’ residence, family (marital relationships and children), educational and work history, and other life events –  was presented to the participants for the first time at this age.

During the interview session the participants were presented with the following self-administered, in some cases modified and abbreviated versions of,  questionnaires as at age 36: Affective Experience Scale (Feldman, 1995); Emotion Regulation Scale (Mayer & Stevens, 1994); Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965); Scales of Psychological Well-Being (Ryff, 1989); Depression scale from the General Behavior Inventory (Depue, 1987); the Self-Report Attachment Style Prototypes (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991); the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992); Child Rearing Practices Questionnaire (Pulkkinen, 1996; Metsäpelto & Pulkkinen, 2003); Strategic Attribution Questionnaire (Nurmi, Salmela-Aro, & Haavisto, 1995); Job Exhaustion Scale (Maslach & Jackson, 1986); Work-Family Conflict Scale (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996); Karolinska Scales of Personality (Klinteberg, Schalling, & Magnusson, 1990); the CAGE questionnaire for alcoholism (Ewing, 1984); and the Malmö modification of the brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (Kristenson & Trell, 1982; Selzer, 1971).

In addition, the following questionnaires, in some cases modified and abbreviated versions of, were presented: Emotion Control Questionnaire (Roger & Nesshoever, 1987); Emotional Intelligence Scale (Schütte et al., 1998); Generativity and Integrity (Ryff & Heincke, 1983); Social Well-Being (Keyes, 1998); the Sense of Coherence Scale (Antonovsky, 1984); Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Busby et al., 1995; Spanier, 1976); the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Strauss, 1996); Work-Family Interface: Negative Spillover (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996) and Positive Work-Home Interaction Scale (Wagena & Geurts, 2000); a Brief Measure of Social Support (Sarason et al., 1987); and Ambivalence (Lüscher et al., 2000).

The participants were mailed the following questionnaires: Karolinska Scales of Personality (Klinteberg, Schalling, & Magnusson, 1990); the 60-item version of the Big Five Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985; first presented at age 33); and Adult Temperament Questionnaire (Derryberry & Rothbart, 1988).

The medical examination was conducted by a nurse and a physician and laboratory tests were also carried out. The medical checkup included a health interview and the recording of variety of measurements such as height and weight, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and a dementia screening test. The dementia screening test included a category fluency task, a word list learning trial, and the delayed recall test of CERAD (Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease; Heyman, Fillenbaum, & Nash, 1997). Additionally, the participants filled out the Psychosomatic Symptoms Check list (Aro, 1988) during the interview. The laboratory tests yielded information about, for example, complete blood count, lipids, blood sugar, plasma levels of total glycosylated hemoglobin, liver function, thyroid gland function, serum dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate, 12-hour urinary norepinephrine and epinephrine, sensitive C-reactive protein, free testosterone of serum, and genes.

A follow-up at age 50

At age 50 (in 2009), 141 men (81% of the available sample) and 149 women (85%) participated follow-up study. A mailed Life Situation Questionnaire (LSQ4) was completed by 140 men and 127 women; 113 men and 111 women took part in the interview; 110 men and 114 women participated in the medical checkup; and 84 men and 101 women took part in its accompanying laboratory tests. The available sample was reduced to 174 men and 149 women: 8 men and 4 women had died and 14 men (7% of the original sample) and 20 women (12%) had completely refused to take part in the study.

The LSQ4 consisted of 209 items, mainly the same as had been used at ages 27, 36, and 42 concerning family, family relationships, housing, financial situation, education, occupation, work, employment, leisure time activities, life satisfaction, use of alcohol, smoking, self-rating of health, life values, life events, and future orientation.

The LSQ4 also contained the Personal Control Inventory, self-rating scales for socioemotional behaviour, the 12-item version of General Health Questionnaire (GHQ; Goldberg, 1972), the quantity and frequency measure of alcohol consumption, and a life satisfaction scale. A new set of items concerned web addiction. A scale related to Generativity (Ryff & Heincke, 1983) was presented in the LSQ4 (previously, it was part of the interview).

The interview included, as was the case at ages 27, 36, and 42, an Identity Status Interview (Marcia, 1966) and discussion of the important things in people’s lives, marital relationships and employment issues. Additionally, as at age 42, the Life History Calendar (Caspi et al., 1996) – intended to produce information about the participants’ residence, family (marital relationships and children), educational and work history, and other life events – was presented to the participants. New areas of inquiry at age 50 included meaning in life (Suutama, 2006), regrets, self-perceptions of aging (Levy, Slade, & Kasl, 2002), children’s educational choices and achievements, relationships with own adult children and grandchildren, solidarity (Bengtson, 1994), work-family issues, work community, economic decline, learning of a new job, and plans for retirement.

During the interview session, the participants were presented with the following self-administered, in some cases modified and abbreviated versions of, questionnaires as at age 36 and 42: Affective Experience Scale (Feldman, 1995); Emotion Regulation Scale (Mayer & Stevens, 1994); Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965); Scales of Psychological Well-Being (Ryff, 1989); Depression scale from the General Behavior Inventory (Depue, 1987); the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992); Child Rearing Practices Questionnaire (Pulkkinen, 1996; Metsäpelto & Pulkkinen, 2003); Job Exhaustion Scale (Maslach & Jackson, 1986); Work-Family Conflict Scale (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996; van Steenbergen, Ellemers, & Moijaart, 2007); the CAGE questionnaire for alcoholism (Ewing, 1984); and the Malmö modification of the brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (Kristenson & Trell, 1982; Selzer, 1971). 

The following questionnaires, in some cases modified and abbreviated versions and presented also at age 42, were filled out during the interview session: Integrity (Ryff & Heincke, 1983); Social Well-Being (Keyes, 1998); Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Busby et al., 1995; Spanier, 1976); and Work-Family Facilitation Scale (van Steenbergen, Ellemers, & Moijaart, 2007).

Finally, the following questionnaires, in some cases modified and abbreviated versions, were presented for the first time at age 50: The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Thompson, 2007; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988); a scale for leisure time activities and hobbies; The Satisfaction with Life Scale ( Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985); Multidimensional Peer Nomination Inventory (Pulkkinen, Rose, & Kaprio, 1999; this questionnaire concerns the children of the participants and was also presented in the context of the offspring study; support given to parents; Recovery Strategies (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007); Work Engagement (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006); Workaholism (Schaufeli, Taris, & Bakker, 2008).

The participants were mailed the following questionnaires: Karolinska Scales of Personality (Klinteberg, Schalling, & Magnusson, 1990); the 60-item version of the Big Five Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985); and Value Study (Puohiniemi, 1995; Schwartz, 1992).

The medical examination was conducted by a nurse, and some laboratory tests were also carried out. The medical checkup included, as was the case at age 42, a health interview and measurements of height and weight, waist and hip circumferences, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate. Additionally, hand-grip force test as was performed for the first time. As at age 42, the dementia screening test was presented including a category fluency task, a word list learning trial, and, the delayed recall test of CERAD (Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease; Heyman, Fillenbaum, & Nash, 1997), and as a new item, a Digits backward test. During the health interview, the participants filled out four self-administered questionnaires: The Psychosomatic Symptoms Check list (available also at ages 36, and 42; Aro, 1988), Social Provisions Scale (Cutrona & Russell, 1987), Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Gross, & John, 2003)), and a set of questions related to their car driving. The laboratory tests yielded information about blood count, lipids, blood sugar, liver function, and sensitive C-reactive protein.


16.4.2010

Offspring study

In 1997-1999, data were collected on those families of the 109 participants (55 men, 54 women, and their spouses, 42 wifes and 34 husbands) in the JYLS study who had a school-aged (7 to 14–year-old) child matching the gender of the parent who belonged to the sample of the JYLS. For 39 families, another school-aged child also participated in the offspring study. For the study of intergenerational continuity in socioemotional behaviour, similar teacher ratings were available for the parents in 1968 and their children 30 years later.

Other data were collected under laboratory conditions (described in Finnish by Pulkkinen, Savioja, Juujärvi, Kokkonen, & Metsäpelto, 2000). The purpose of the study was to confirm the theoretical bases for the model of emotional and behavioural regulation by analyzing the role of cognitive, emotional, and behavioural components in the regulation process. Furthermore, associatations between self-regulation and parenting were studied.

Cognitive regulation was measured by the help-seeking method (Puustinen, Kokkonen, Tolvanen, & Pulkkinen, 2004; Puustinen, Lyyra, Metsäpelto, & Pulkkinen, in press), executive functioning by CANTAB (Lehto, Juujärvi, Kooistra, & Pulkkinen, 2003), emotional regulation with the Aggression Machine, PAM (Juujärvi, 2003; Juujärvi, Kaartinen, Laitinen, Vanninen, & Pulkkinen, 2006; Juujärvi, Kaartinen, Vanninen, Laitinen, & Pulkkinen, 2006; Juujärvi, Kooistra, Kaartinen, & Pulkkinen, 2001), and behavioural regulation with the Teacher Rating Form of the Multidimensional Peer Nomination Inventory, MPNI (Pulkkinen, Kaprio, & Rose, 1999; Kokkonen & M-L. Kinnunen, 2006). The results suggested the presence of common underlying processes for emotional and behavioural regulation. In addition, the offspring study provided information about parenting (Metsäpelto, 2003; Metsäpelto, & Pulkkinen, 2005; Metsäpelto, Pulkkinen, Poikkeus, 2001), and about the impact of parental work on children’s behaviour (U. Kinnunen & Rantanen, 2006).

Publications

Publications based on the data are grouped into the following categories: