CHILD DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES
Understanding Socioeconomic Differences in Parents’
Speech to Children
Meredith L. Rowe
Harvard University
ABSTRACT—In this article, I address our understanding of
the word gap, or why parents’ talk to children differs by
socioeconomic status. The differences in quantity and
quality of parents’ input across early childhood predict
children’s language development and their readiness for
school. As a result, a growing number of interventions tar-
get parent–child interactions to enhance children’s early
experiences and promote learning. Understanding the fac-
tors that shape parents’ communication with their children
is essential and has implications for empirical research as
well as interventions to reduce early disparities in chil-
dren’s language development.
KEYWORDS—language development; socioeconomic status;
parenting; word gap
In the 1970s and 1980s, researchers studied differences in par-
ents’ communication style with children across socioeconomic
status (SES), primarily from a sociolinguistic and ethnographic
perspective (1, 2). However, in the 1990s, two seminal longitudi-
nal studies quantified extensive variation in parents’ talk to chil-
dren (within and across SES) that predicted rate of vocabulary
development during early childhood (3, 4). The link between
parents’ input and children’s language learning spurred research
by developmental and educational psychologists into the nature
Meredith L. Rowe, Graduate School of Education, Harvard
University.
The work described in this article was supported by grant R21
HD078771 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development. I thank Paul Harris for help-
ful feedback on an earlier draft of the article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Meredith L. Rowe, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 504 Lar-
sen Hall, Appian Way, Cambridge, MA 02138; e-mail: meredith
_rowe@gse.harvard.edu.
© 2017 The Authors
Child Development Perspectives © 2017 The Society for Research in Child Development
DOI: 10.1111/cdep.12271
Volume 12, Number 2, 2018, Pages 122–127
and extent of that relationship, the mechanisms underlying it,
and the efficacy of interventions targeting parents’ input to
improve children’s language development. We now know that
socioeconomic differences in children’s vocabulary development
are due, in part, to differences in parents’ input (5). However, a
question that has not received much attention in the literature
(although see 6 for a review) remains: Why do average differ-
ences in parents’ input across SES groups exist? Understanding
why parents differ in the communicative environments they offer
their children will help improve efforts to develop interventions
that promote children’s language learning.
In this article, I summarize what we know about the relation-
ship between the quantity and quality of parents’ language input
and children’s language development. Then I describe the
variability in measures of parents’ input in relation to specific
indicators of SES, discuss related factors that can help us under-
stand the effects of SES on input, and highlight implications for
interventions and the need for further research.
PARENTS’ INPUT AND CHILDREN’S LANGUAGE
DEVELOPMENT
Several reviews focus on the role of parents’ input in children’s
language learning (7–9). This work is rooted in sociocultural
and social-interactionist theoretical perspectives (10, 11), which
stress the importance of children’s early social and communica-
tive experiences for language development. Next, I briefly sum-
marize the main findings as a starting point for discussing why
parents vary in the input they offer their children.
First, the quantity of the input matters. In many studies, the
quantity of parents’ talk is associated positively with the rate of
children’s vocabulary growth (4). How much parents0 talk is also
associated with the efficiency of children’s language processing
in tasks measuring reaction time to verbal prompts. Thus, hear-
ing more input may accelerate vocabulary growth because it
builds children’s abilities to process spoken language (12).
Second, certain qualitative features of parents’ input predict
language learning, often more so than the quantity of the input.

These features can be divided into two categories, linguistic fea-
tures and interactional features (see 7 for a review). Some lin-
guistic features of input that are positively associated with
language development include the diversity and sophistication
of parents’ vocabulary (13), the syntactic complexity of their
utterances (14), and the use of questions rather than directives
(3). Interactional features that play a role include responding
verbally and contingently to infants’ actions (15), and engaging
toddlers in more fluid and connected back-and-forth conversa-
tions (16). Furthermore, infants and young toddlers benefit from
conversations about objects they are attending to (17), whereas
older toddlers and preschoolers benefit from input that is more
abstract and less grounded in the here and now, such as talk
about the past or the future (18). Thus, we know much about the
relations between specific types of input and language develop-
ment, but we know less about why parents vary in how they
communicate with their children. Next, I address possible
sources of this variability.
FACTORS RELATED TO CHILDREN
Communication is by nature a transaction. Before turning to fac-
tors related to parents, we need to consider the potential role of
children’s characteristics in shaping parents’ input. Indeed, in
longitudinal studies within and across SES groups, parents
adjust their input over time based on the age of the child (19),
and the diversity and complexity of the child’s language use in
an interaction (14). Other factors related to children, such as
motivation or curiosity, also interact with parents’ input. For
example, the quality of parents’ input as they read books with
their toddlers (e.g., use of metalingual talk) and children’s
expressed interest during these interactions combine to predict
children’s vocabulary several years later (20, 21). Thus, making
input engaging while reading books may keep children inter-
ested in the activity, and children who are interested may be
more likely to learn from the input.
We see similar interactional cycles in analyses of children’s
questions and parents’ explanations. Specifically, children whose
parents provide causal explanations in response to their ques-
tions are more likely to ask follow-up questions and to continue
seeking information. In contrast, when children receive nonex-
planations, they either provide their own explanation or try to
ask their question again (22). These examples highlight how par-
ents’ input can shape, and be shaped by, children’s contribu-
tions to the interaction. Additional research into this area is
needed because we have more to learn about children’s contri-
butions to parent–child interactions within and across SES.
PARENTS’ INPUT AND SES
Studies that identify SES differences in parents’ input report av-
erage differences. On average, parents from more educated and
advantaged backgrounds tend to talk more with their children
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 12, Number 2, 2018, Pages 122–127
Socioeconomic Status and Parent Input 123
than parents from less educated and advantaged backgrounds.
But in every sample, some parents from low-SES backgrounds
talk more than parents from high-SES backgrounds. For exam-
ple, in their seminal study, Hart and Risley ranked 42 families
on a socioeconomic occupational index (3, appendix A).
Although they found large average SES differences in measures
of parents’ talk that favored higher-SES families, parents in fam-
ilies 31 and 36 (relatively low on the index) produced more talk
and more different vocabulary words, and asked as many, if not
more, questions than families ranked 1 and 3 (high on the
index). In addition, even within groups that are homogeneous in
SES, the quantity and quality of parents’ input that predicts
children’s language development vary considerably (4, 16, 23).
Furthermore, some features of input that positively predict chil-
dren’s language development vary based on SES, yet some do
not. For example, the lower-SES families in the Hart and Risley
study asked fewer questions on average than the higher-SES
families. However, other studies have reported little difference
across SES in the extent to which parents talk with their chil-
dren about past events (2, 18).
Some researchers have suggested that SES differences in par-
ents’ input stem from general class differences in communica-
tion style (1, 24). However, we found that the quantity, lexical
diversity, and syntactic complexity of talk parents used with
their children were not associated with these characteristics of
their talk when they conversed with a researcher. Moreover,
although SES was associated significantly with measures of par-
ents’ talk to children, it was not associated with parents’ talk to
the researcher (25). This suggests that the effects of SES on par-
ents’ child-directed speech might be due not to general differ-
ences in communication style but to differences in parents’
approach toward their children or other factors.
SES itself is a construct, typically measured as family income,
parents’ education, parents’ occupation, or a combination of the
three. These components of SES may affect parents’ input differ-
ently and independently. Thus, even in studies of low-income
families, other measures of SES vary. For example, in a study
my colleagues and I conducted of families participating in the
national evaluation of Early Head Start (19), parents’ education
varied widely from 8 to 18 years, which predicted the amount
and diversity of parents’ input. Therefore, when interpreting
findings based on SES, we need to understand that differences
are average differences and that the different components of
SES may relate to parents’ input in different ways. Furthermore,
understanding the myriad factors that contribute to variation in
how parents communicate with their children can help us under-
stand the mechanisms underlying these average SES effects.
PARENTS’ INPUT AND OTHER FACTORS
Adopting the theoretical framework presented by the bioecologi-
cal model of human development (26), we can think of SES and
its underlying components as more distal factors relating to
124 Meredith L. Rowe
parents’ input, with the goal being to uncover the more proximal
factors that explain the mechanisms of the effects of SES. I cate-
gorize these factors broadly into those that might stem from dif-
ferences in parents’ education versus those that might be due
more to the effects of income. The factors related to education
include skills parents learned in school, such as vocabulary or
literacy skills, as well as beliefs, goals, mindsets, and knowledge
about children’s development, all of which relate to education in
one way or another. The factors related to income may be more
situational and include parents’ stress and depression, material
hardships, and household chaos and disorder, each of which can
result from economic pressures. Admittedly, education and
income are not completely separable—they tend to be corre-
lated positively—albeit moderately—across studies. Neverthe-
less, they may predict variation in parents’ input through
distinct processes and mechanisms; the more we understand
about what is driving SES differences in input, the more pre-
pared we will be to design interventions that enhance language
environments for children from low-SES homes.
Factors Related to Education
Across cultures, parents who have more formal schooling rely
more on verbal interaction with their young children than par-
ents with less schooling. The language and discourse used in
formal school environments socialize individuals to communi-
cate in more verbal and abstract ways that they draw on when
they become parents (27). As a distal factor, schooling is likely
to be connected to key features of parents’ verbal input. For
example, parents who have acquired larger vocabularies and
advanced literacy skills use more diverse vocabulary and more
complex utterances when interacting with their young children,
even after controlling for their years of education (19, 28). This
suggests that the language, literacy, and discourse patterns par-
ents learned in school are proximal factors that help explain
why education relates to parents’ input.
Parenting knowledge also plays a role. Parents’ knowledge of
children’s development explains the significant effect of SES on
parents’ use of language-promoting features of input with tod-
dlers, including talking more, using more varied vocabulary,
and using longer utterances and fewer directives (25). In one
study, parenting knowledge was related to both parents’ educa-
tion and parents’ income, but the relation was stronger to educa-
tion. Why do parents who are more educated have more
knowledge of parenting? Parents with more education may be
more likely than parents with less education to turn to health
professionals or written materials for information about parent-
ing. Indeed, in one study (29), some of the relation between par-
ents’ education and parenting knowledge was because of
parents’ access to written materials. In another study, parents’
years of education were related significantly to whether they
reported turning to professionals (e.g., doctors, nurses, child care
providers) rather than family members for help with parenting
and information about parenting (30).
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 12, Number 2, 2018, Pages 122–127
Parents’ views on learning may also influence their input.
Less-educated parents tend to view teaching and learning as
didactic or teacher-directed. And parents with didactic views
interact with their preschool children differently (e.g., using
flash cards) than parents who view teaching as more child-cen-
tered (e.g., reading more with their children; 31). The extent to
which parents see their children’s skills as malleable is also
associated with their input. Parents who see intelligence as more
malleable than fixed (i.e., those who have a growth mindset)
praise efforts more than ability in their 1- to 3-year olds, which
predicts the children’s likelihood of having growth mindsets
later and a belief that success comes with hard work (32). Con-
versely, the more parents believe abilities are fixed, the less they
engage in math and literacy activities with their young children
(33). While relations between SES and parents’ intelligence
mindsets are inconsistent, helping parents understand that what
they do influences their children’s language development might
be useful. Indeed, in studies that promote growth mindsets in
parents, researchers saw positive changes in parent–child inter-
actions, with parents providing more constructive comments and
asking more guiding questions during a problem-solving task
(34).
Factors Related to Income
Families living in poverty have more household chaos, defined
as a combination of greater household density, family instability,
lack of structure, and higher noise levels (35). In some studies,
these proximal factors help explain the effects of income on par-
ents’ input. In a secondary analysis of Hart and Risley’s (3) data
that controlled for income, parents who lived in more crowded
homes were less responsive and used less varied language with
their children between 6 and 36 months than parents who lived
in less crowded homes (36). Similarly, in a more recent study
that controlled for family income and parents’ education, house-
hold disorganization predicted children’s language abilities at
age 3, and the effect was mediated by parents’ positive stimula-
tion and engagement with their children (37). Thus, household
organization seems to matter, in part because it affects how par-
ents interact with their children.
Lower-income families are also more likely than higher-
income families to experience material hardships, including food
insecurity, lack of medical insurance, and other financial trou-
bles (38). In one study, positive relations between family income
and positive parenting behaviors (including verbal cognitive
stimulation) were the result of increased income that reduced
material hardship and parents’ stress; in turn, those positive par-
enting behaviors predicted more optimal cognitive outcomes in
children (38).
Lower-income parents are more likely than higher-income
parents to be depressed (39), and the effects of depression may
carry over into interactions with children. For example, among
low-SES families, mothers with more symptoms of depression
talked less to their children than mothers with fewer symptoms

of depression, even if they did not differ in the diversity of their
vocabulary use (19). In other studies, more depressed parents
were less responsive to infants’ vocalizations and less likely to
use child-directed speech in verbal interactions with their
infants (40). Not all studies find effects of depression on parents’
input, but a meta-analysis identified significant effects, with
depression mediating income and positive parenting (41).
IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTION AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCH
The factors related to education and income that I have dis-
cussed suggest that we should go further than collecting infor-
mation about parents’ SES: At the start of parent-focused
interventions, we should aim to understand parents’ knowledge
of children’s development, beliefs about learning, and mindsets
about intelligence. It would also be helpful to understand as
much as possible about the cultural and educational experiences
that contribute to variation among parents. In evaluation
research, we should pay close attention to which kinds of inter-
ventions work for whom and why. As an example, a recent par-
ent-focused literacy intervention embedded a growth mindset
component highlighting helpful ways parents could praise their
second graders’ effort rather than their ability. The intervention
had a large effect on parents’ and children’s participation in the
program and on children’s skills, but the effect was even more
pronounced for parents who initially endorsed more fixed mind-
sets about their children’s abilities (42). Thus, having a fixed
mindset does not preclude parents from interacting with their
children in ways that promote learning, but these parents might
benefit most from information highlighting the role they can play
in promoting their children’s language and literacy develo-
pment.
As another example, the Thirty Million Words intervention,
which is designed to increase the quantity and quality of par-
ents’ input in low-SES families, focuses on providing parents
with knowledge of children’s language development and helping
parents understand that they can play a role in their children’s
learning. Indeed, the significant effect of the intervention on par-
ents’ input is a result of increases in parenting knowledge (43).
Thus, we have evidence that providing parents with information
tailored to their beliefs and knowledge is an effective strategy.
The other important proximal factors—such as material hard-
ship, household chaos, stress, and depression—can be
addressed less directly through interventions. Yet this does not
mean they should be ignored. Researchers should continue to
measure these factors to develop a greater understanding of their
role in moderating the effects of interventions. And these factors
should not preclude including parents in intervention studies.
For example, although depressed parents are more likely to drop
out of intervention studies, those who remain participate actively
and benefit as much as nondepressed parents (44).
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 12, Number 2, 2018, Pages 122–127
Socioeconomic Status and Parent Input 125
The SES-based achievement gap in language and literacy
skills in the United States grows the most during early childhood
and is large at the start of kindergarten (45). Most parent-
focused interventions to improve the development of children’s
language and literacy have targeted middle-SES families or fam-
ilies with children who have language delays, but a growing
number of promising parenting interventions that focus on the
word gap aim to prevent it from emerging (e.g., Providence Talks,
Thirty Million Words). However, researchers should align inter-
ventions with the processes by which these SES-related compo-
nents affect parent–child interactions. More research with low-
SES families can help us gain a greater understanding of the
myriad factors that contribute to how parents communicate with
their children. With greater knowledge, we can tailor interven-
tions to provide all families with the information they need to
help their children succeed.
REFERENCES
1. Bernstein, B. (2003). Class, codes and control: Applied studies
towards a sociology of language (Vol. 2). London, UK: Routledge.
2. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in
communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
3. Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday
experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
4. Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T.
(1991). Early vocabulary growth: Relation to language input and
gender. Developmental Psychology, 27, 236–248. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0012-1649.27.2.236
5. Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioe-
conomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal
speech. Child Development, 74, 1368–1378. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1467-8624.00612
6. Hoff, E. (2003). Causes and consequences of SES-related differ-
ences in parent-to-child speech. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley
(Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp.
145–160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Cartmill, E. A. (2016). Mind the gap: Assessing and addressing the
word gap in early education. Policy Insights From the Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 3, 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2372732216657565
8. Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language
development. Developmental Review, 26, 55–88. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.dr.2005.11.002
9. Schwab, J. F., & Lew-Williams, C. (2016). Language learning,
socioeconomic status, and child-directed speech. Wiley Interdisci-
plinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 7, 264–275. https://doi.org/10.
1002/wcs.1393
10. Bruner, J. (1981). The social context of language acquisition. Lan-
guage and Communication, 1, 155–178.
11. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Weisleder, A., & Fernald, A. (2013). Talking to children matters:
Early language experience strengthens processing and builds vocab-
ulary. Psychological Science, 24, 2143–2152. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0956797613488145
126 Meredith L. Rowe
13. Weizman, Z. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Lexical output as related to
children’s vocabulary acquisition: Effects of sophisticated exposure
and support for meaning. Developmental Psychology, 37, 265–279.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.265
14. Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J., & Hedges,
L. V. (2010). Sources of variability in children’s language growth.
Cognitive Psychology, 61, 343–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cog
psych.2010.08.002
15. Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Kuchirko, Y., & Song, L. (2014). Why is
infant language learning facilitated by parental responsiveness?
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 121–126. https://d
oi.org/10.1177/0963721414522813
16. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Adamson, L. B., Bakeman, R., Owen, M. T.,
Golinkoff, R. M., Pace, A., . . . Suma, K. (2015). The contribution of
early communication quality to low-income children’s language suc-
cess. Psychological Science, 26, 1071–1083. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0956797615581493
17. Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2012). Embodied attention and word learn-
ing by toddlers. Cognition, 125, 244–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.c
ognition.2012.06.016
18. Rowe, M. L. (2012). A longitudinal investigation of the role of quan-
tity and quality of child-directed speech in vocabulary development.
Child Development, 83, 1762–1774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2012.01805.x
19. Rowe, M. L., Pan, B. A., & Ayoub, C. (2005). Predictors of variation
in maternal talk to children: A longitudinal study of low-income
families. Parenting: Science and Practice, 5, 285–310. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15327922par0503_3
20. Deckner, D. F., Adamson, L. B., & Bakeman, R. (2006). Child
and maternal contributions to shared reading: Effects on lan-
guage and literacy development. Journal of Applied Developmen-
tal Psychology, 27, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2005.
12.001
21. Malin, J. L., Cabrera, N. J., & Rowe, M. L. (2014). Low-income
minority mothers’ and fathers’ reading and children’s interest: Lon-
gitudinal contributions to children’s receptive vocabulary skills.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 425–432. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.04.010
22. Frazier, B. N., Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (2009). Preschool-
ers’ search for explanatory information within adult–child conversa-
tion. Child Development, 80, 1592–1611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-8624.2009.01356.x
23. Pan, B. A., Rowe, M. L., Singer, J. D., & Snow, C. E. (2005). Mater-
nal correlates of growth in toddler vocabulary production in low-
income families. Child Development, 76, 763–782. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1467-8624.00498-i1
24. Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1991). Mother–child conversation in different
social classes and communicative settings. Child Development, 62,
782–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01569.x
25. Rowe, M. L. (2008). Child-directed speech: Relation to socioeco-
nomic status, knowledge of child development, and child vocabulary
skill. Journal of Child Language, 35, 185–205. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S0305000907008343
26. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological
model of human development. In W. Damon, R. Lerner (Series
Eds.), & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol.
1: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828).
New York, NY: Wiley.
27. LeVine, R. A., LeVine, S. E., Schnell-Anzola, B., Rowe, M. L., &
Dexter, E. (2012). Literacy and mothering: How women’s schooling
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 12, Number 2, 2018, Pages 122–127
changes the lives of the world’s children. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
28. Bornstein, M. H., Haynes, M. O., & Painter, K. M. (1998). Sources
of child vocabulary competence: A multivariate model. Journal of
Child Language, 25, 367–393.
29. Bornstein, M. H., Cote, L. R., Haynes, O. M., Hahn, C., & Park, Y.
(2010). Parent knowledge: Experiential and socioedemographic fac-
tors in European American mothers of young children. Developmen-
tal Psychology, 46, 1677–1693. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020677
30. Rowe, M. L., Denmark, N., Jones Harden, B., & Stapleton, L.
(2016). The role of parent education and parenting knowledge in
children’s language and literacy skills among White, Black, and
Latino American families. Infant and Child Development, 25, 198–
220. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1924
31. Stipek, D., Milburn, S., Clements, D., & Daniels, D. H. (1992). Par-
ents’ beliefs about appropriate education for young children. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, 293–310. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0193-3973(92)90034-F
32. Gunderson, E. A., Gripshover, S. J., Romero, C., Dweck, C. S.,
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C. (2013). Parent praise to 1- to 3-
year-olds predicts children’s motivational frameworks 5 years later.
Child Development, 84, 1526–1541. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.
12064
33. Meunks, K., Miele, D., Ramani, G. B., Stapleton, L., & Rowe, M. L.
(2015). Parent beliefs about the fixedness of ability. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 41, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.appdev.2015.08.002
34. Moorman, E. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2010). Ability mindsets influ-
ence the quality of mothers’ involvement in children’s learning: An
experimental investigation. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1354–
1362. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020376
35. Evans, G. W., & Wachs, T. D. (2010). Chaos and its influence on
children’s development. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
36. Evans, G. W., Maxwell, L. E., & Hart, B. (1999). Parental language
and verbal responsiveness to children in crowded homes. Develop-
mental Psychology, 35, 1020–1023. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.35.4.1020
37. Vernon-Feagons, L., Garrett-Peters, P., Willoughby, M., Mills-
Koonce, R.; The family life project key investigators. (2012). Chaos,
poverty and parenting: Predictors of early language development.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 339–351. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.11.001
38. Gershoff, E. T., Aber, J. L., Raver, C. C., & Lennon, M. C. (2007).
Income is not enough: Incorporating material hardship into models
of income associations with parenting and child development. Child
Development, 78, 70–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.
00986.x
39. Berger, L. M., Paxson, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2009). Income and child
development. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 978–989.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.04.013
40. Breznitz, Z., & Sherman, T. (1987). Speech patterning of natural dis-
course of well and depressed mothers and their young children.
Child Development, 58, 395–400. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130516
41. Lovejoy, M. C., Graczyk, P. A., O’Hare, E., & Neuman, G. (2000).
Maternal depression and parenting behavior: A meta-analytic
review. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 561–592. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0272-7358(98)00100-7
42. Andersen, S. C., & Nielsen, H. S. (2016). Intervention with a
growth mindset approach improves children’s skills. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 113, 12111–12113. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1607946113
43. Suskind, D. L., Leffel, K. R., Graf, E., Hernandez, M. W., Gunder-
son, E. A., Sapolich, S. G., . . . Levine, S. C. (2016). A parent-direc-
ted language intervention for children of low socioeconomic status:
A randomized controlled pilot study. Journal of Child Language,
43, 366–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000915000033
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 12, Number 2, 2018, Pages 122–127
Socioeconomic Status and Parent Input 127
44. Bigatti, S. M., Cronan, T. A., & Anaya, A. (2001). The effects of
maternal depression on the efficacy of a literacy intervention pro-
gram. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 32, 147–162.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012250824091
45. vonHippel, P. T., & Hamrock, C. (2016). Do test score gaps grow
before, during, or between the school years? Measurement artifacts
and what we can know in spite of them. SSRN. Retrieved from
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2745527
Copyright of Child Development Perspectives is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.