Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Society for Research in Child Development and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Child Development
STEINBERG, LAURENCE D.; CATALANO, RALPH; and DOOLEY, DAVID. Economic Antecedents of
Child Abuse and Neglect. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1981, 52, 975-985. Previous cross-sectional
studies of economic influences on child maltreatment reveal that higher rates of child abuse are
associated with undesirable economic conditions. The cross-sectional approach, however, is
inherently unable to reveal causal direction and leaves open the possibility that the relationship
between the economy and child maltreatment is due to some third variable. The present study
employs an aggregate longitudinal approach to test the hypothesis that undesirable economic
change leads to increased child maltreatment. Cross-correlational analyses of data over a 30-
month period reveal that increases in child abuse are preceded by periods of high job loss. This
finding is replicated in 2 distinct metropolitan communities under very conservative criteria
which rule out most "third-variable" explanations. The loss of jobs in a community may en-
danger the well-being of children.
There is a growing consensus among re- maltreatment is more likely to occur among
searchers and practitioners that the maltreat-families experiencing unemployment (Galston
ment of children results, in part, from stress.1964; Gil 1971; Light 1973). Aggregate-level
Consequently, rates of abuse and neglect can analyses use geographic or temporal units. For
be thought of as indicators of the quality of example, overall rates of abuse are higher in
life for families, and maltreatment can be regions characterized by a high proportion of
viewed as a symptom, rather than a cause, of low-income families (Garbarino 1976; Garba-
difficulties in family and individual function- rino & Crouter 1978b) and in areas charac-
ing. Although considerable controversy has cen-terized by unusually high rates of unemploy-
tered around the relative predictive powers of ment (see Cochran & Bronfenbrenner 1979, p.
intrapsychic or personality trait, intrafamilial 144). A potential problem with such studies
conflict, and extrafamilial stress models of theis that biases inherent in the reporting of mal-
etiology of child maltreatment, all three view-treatment may underrepresent its incidence
points have received some empirical support. among affluent families (thus exaggerating the
A sophisticated understanding of the problemassociation of poverty or unemployment with
must regard maltreatment as multiply deter-child maltreatment). The most recent research
mined (Belsky 1980; Starr 1979). on the validity of reporting procedures, how-
This study explores the association, over ever, suggests that the observed relation be-
tween economic strain and maltreatment is a
time, of reported child maltreatment with one
genuine one (Garbarino & Crouter 1978a).
contextual or extrafamilial factor--community
economic change. Of the several extrafamilial While the results of the above-mentioned
factors implicated in the etiology of child abusecross-sectional studies are consistent with the
and neglect, none has received greater researcheconomic stress/child abuse hypothesis, the
attention than economic stress. The hypothesiscross-sectional approach is inherently unable to
that maltreatment may be related to economicreveal causal direction. Cross-sectional studies
factors has received support from cross-sec- typically contrast the unemployment or poverty
tional studies at both the aggregate and indi- of abusing and nonabusing households or the
vidual levels. Individual-level studies take the abuse rates of high- and low-status communi-
family as the unit of analysis. For example,ties. Observed differences are consistent with
Order of first two authors was determined by coin flip. Authors' address: Public Policy
Research Organization and Program in Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, Cali-
fornia 92717. This research was supported in part by NIMH grants MH28934 and MH31499.
We thank an anonymous reviewer from this journal who made helpful comments on an earlier
draft of this paper.
[Child Development, 1981, 52, 975-985. @ 1981 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
0009-3920/81/5203-0002$01.001
TABLE 1