Human Development in Societal Context

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/26336304
Human Development in Societal Context
Article in Annual Review of Psychology · August 2009

DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100442 · Source: PubMed
CITATIONS READS
210 5,351
2 authors:
Aletha C. Huston Alison C. Bentley

University of Texas at Austin University of Texas at Austin
149 PUBLICATIONS 18,811 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 290 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Aletha C. Huston on 25 February 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Human Development
in Societal Context
Aletha C. Huston and Alison C. Bentley
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2010.61:411-437. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
Department of Human Ecology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712;

email: achuston@mail.utexas.edu, alison.bentley@mail.utexas.edu
by VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY on 07/29/10. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2010. 61:411–37 Key Words

First published online as a Review in Advance on poverty, ecological theory, children, policy, social inequality
July 2, 2009
The Annual Review of Psychology is online at Abstract

psych.annualreviews.org
Low family socioeconomic position is a net of related conditions—
This article’s doi: low income, material deprivation, single-parent family structure, low
10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100442
educational level, minority ethnic group membership, and immigrant
Copyright c 2010 by Annual Reviews. status. According to ecological theory, proximal contexts experienced
All rights reserved
by children, including family, material resources, out-of-school expe-
0066-4308/10/0110-0411$20.00 riences, schools, neighborhoods, and peers, are mediators of poverty
effects. Developmental timing of exposure to poverty conditions and
the processes by which effects occur differ for cognitive and social do-
mains of development. Understanding how contexts combine and in-
teract is as important as understanding their independent influences.
Effects may be cumulative, but advantages in one context can also ame-
liorate disadvantages in others. Although research is typically based on
unidirectional causal models, the relations between the developing child
and the contexts he or she experiences are reciprocal and transactional.
Finally, although income inequality has increased greatly, little is known
about the influences of relative poverty and social inequality on human
development.
411
own success or failure. Of course, this national
Contents myth has never been entirely correct. Family
education, position, wealth, and having white
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
Anglo-Saxon ancestry have always conferred
DEFINITIONS AND
advantages, but their importance has become
CONCEPTUAL
more salient over the past generation or two in
FRAMEWORKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
part because social inequality based on income,
SOCIAL ADDRESS VARIATIONS
ethnic group, and education has increased in
IN THE UNITED STATES . . . . . . . 414
the United States and to a lesser extent in
Income and Wealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
other western democracies since the 1970s
Conditions Correlated
(Neckerman 2004).
with Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
In this review, we take family socioeconomic
Contexts of Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
position as a point of departure to understand
INCOME/POVERTY AND
how some societal contexts set the conditions

CHILDREN’S
for children’s development. Poverty and social
DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
disadvantage are not literally contexts, but are

Income Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
“social addresses” (Bronfenbrenner 1989) that
Developmental Timing and
signal or summarize a set of correlated con-
Developmental Domain . . . . . . . . . 419
texts and experiences. Poverty is not simply
Disaggregating Income from Other
low income or absence of material goods; it
Aspects of Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
is part of an interrelated net of circumstances
Cumulative Effects of Poverty
that can include single-parent families, low lev-
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
els of education, and belonging to a minority or
Relative Versus Absolute Poverty . . . 422
immigrant group.
PROXIMAL CONTEXTS THAT
We begin with a conceptual framework
MEDIATE EFFECTS
based on an ecological theory of human de-
OF POVERTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
velopment, then proceed to three major sec-
Family Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
tions of the review examining (a) the societal
Material Deprivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
contexts associated with poverty for children
Out-of-Home Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
in the twenty-first century; (b) the relations of
CONCLUSIONS AND
these contexts to children’s development, using
IMPLICATIONS FOR
both naturalistic research and studies of public
FUTURE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
policies; and (c) the proximal processes that me-
diate the relations of these contexts to develop-
ment. Most of the research discussed is based
Social inequality:
inequality in a variety on United States populations, but some inter-
INTRODUCTION national comparisons are included.
of domains including
economics, family life, Our national ideology portrays the United
education, States as a land of opportunity where anyone
neighborhoods, and
can achieve success, wealth, and power regard- DEFINITIONS AND
housing CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS
less of family heritage or early circumstances.
Human
We deny strong influences of social context and An ecological model incorporating the relations
development: change
in behavior or structure, touting instead personal qualities as among personal characteristics, proximal pro-
perception resulting the major determinants of success or failure. cesses, context, and time is used to frame our
from the interplay of These views are reflected in our economic and understanding of the relations of poverty to
the person’s biological social policies, which rest on the assumption children’s development. Human development
characteristics and the
that individuals bear the primary responsibil- is defined as “change during the life course in
environment
ity for their own poverty or wealth and their enduring patterns of behavior or perception
412 Huston · Bentley

resulting from the interplay of biological characteristics of individuals may contribute to
characteristics of the person and the envi- the variations in development associated with
ronment” (Bronfenbrenner & Crouter 1983, the social addresses we are studying, but a thor-
Environmental
p. 359). The child is embedded in an expand- ough consideration of these topics is beyond context: any external
ing set of contexts as illustrated in Figure 1. the scope of this review (see Lerner 2003 for event or condition that
An environmental context is “any event or discussion of these issues). affects or is affected by
condition outside the organism that affects Some researchers have tried to parse the a person’s development
or is affected by a person’s development” conditions correlated with poverty in order to SES: socioeconomic
(Bronfenbrenner & Crouter 1983, p. 359). identify the effects of one component (e.g., in- status
The model is dynamic, including contexts come or family structure) independently of the Social capital: results
with which children have direct contact (mi- others. We argue here that understanding how from children’s
interactions and
crosystems) and those that affect develop- contexts combine and interact is equally im-
relationships with
ment indirectly (exosystems and macrosystems) portant. Two hypotheses describe how the ef- parents and other
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris 1998, 2006). Using fects of contexts may combine. One approach is people
this ecological perspective, we make context the akin to cumulative disadvantage theories (e.g.,
anchor point of our analysis, organizing the dis- Sameroff & Seifer 1995), considering the com-
cussion around person variables, processes, and bined effects of contexts as greater than the sum
time as they relate to the contexts of interest of their individual components. According to
(see Eamon 2001a for similar analysis). this hypothesis, the advantages or disadvantages
As noted above, poverty is often part of conferred by the multiple settings and contexts
a net of correlated social address characteris- of poverty are cumulative and often multiplica-
tics, including single-mother family structure, tive, leading to larger effects than would be
low parent education, minority ethnic group predicted from a simple additive model. Alter-
membership, and immigrant status. These in natively, their relations may be compensatory
turn affect the contexts surrounding the child or interactive. Advantages in one context may
within and outside the home. A large literature compensate for disadvantages in another, or
showing that family environment and parenting combinations of components may lead to differ-
mediate some of the effects of socioeconomic ent contextual environments for children. For
status (SES) on children has been well reviewed example, poverty in immigrant families may co-
in this publication (Bradley & Corwyn 2002, occur with different family processes and have
Conger & Donnellan 2007). As Eamon (2001a) different effects on children than poverty in
pointed out, “Theories of the effects of poverty native-born families partly because such fami-
on proximal processes in the microsystem of lies have different types of social capital (Fuligni
the family have the most research support, but & Yoshikawa 2003). Moreover, immigrants dif-
processes in other microsystems such as the fer considerably in patterns of achievement and
peer group and school and in other levels of assimilation into their adopted countries, sug-
the ecological environment may also explain gesting the importance of a range of cultural
the relation between economic deprivation and values, social supports, and prior experiences.
children’s socioemotional functioning” (p. 256). Much of the research on poverty and SES
Following this suggestion, we give particular at- is based on unidirectional causal models, in
tention to proximal contexts beyond parenting, part because their goal is to identify contexts
including material hardship, child care, school- that can be changed through intervention, but
ing, neighborhoods, and peer groups. models incorporating reciprocal interaction of
Lack of space precludes extensive review persons and environments are more consistent
of person-by-context interactions, but we do with ecological theory. “Development takes
examine age differences and the developmen- place through increasingly complex processes
tal timing of exposure to contexts of poverty. in which an active organism interacts with per-
We acknowledge that biological and genetic sons, objects, and symbols in its immediate
www.annualreviews.org • Human Development in Societal Context 413

environment” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris of material goods; (b) developmental change
1998, p. 797). That is, the relations of indi- and developmental timing of exposure to con-
viduals to contexts are transactional. Patterns texts are of particular importance; (c) the effects
Social exclusion:
inequalities in basic of children’s behavior that result from the con- of social address characteristics are mediated
living, family texts of poverty may in turn affect those contexts by proximal contexts and processes; (d ) under-
economic through eliciting responses from others; for ex- standing how contexts combine is as important
participation, housing, ample, a small advantage in language develop- as understanding their individual effects; (e) the
health, education,
ment may lead adults to verbalize to the child, relations between the developing child and the
public space, social
participation, and further expanding the child’s language reper- contexts he or she experiences are reciprocal
subjective experience toire. As children get older, they actively select and transactional; and ( f ) relative as well as ab-
of social exclusion environments (e.g., play activities, peers) that solute levels of resources may define important
in turn cultivate particular patterns of skills and features of poverty.
behavior (Scarr & McCartney 1983). Almost all
of the literature investigating poverty effects is

based on a unidirectional model, but we note SOCIAL ADDRESS VARIATIONS
IN THE UNITED STATES
transactional processes where possible.

Poverty is typically defined by absolute lev- Family economic status, family structure, par-
els of resources, but individuals may also be ents’ educational levels, and ethnic group are
affected by relative poverty—that is, by how not only correlated in the population; they are
their circumstances compare to others around also causally interrelated in the sense that they
them. For example, absolute levels of mate- affect one another. For example, low education
rial deprivation in many developing countries limits earning potential; single-mother fam-
are vastly worse than those in economically de- ily structure limits family income; discrimina-
veloped countries, but relative poverty in any tion limits economic opportunities for minority
country matters because individuals compare ethnic groups; poverty limits educational op-
themselves to the expectations in their own so- portunity. The broad concept of socioeconomic
ciety. Relative poverty may have more influence status reflects the interrelations of education
in the United States than in European countries and income, but minority ethnic group status
because there are fewer cash supports and so- and single-mother family structure are now well
cial services to reduce inequality of resources established as important correlates for under-
between rich and poor. Although psychological standing SES influences on children.
theories of relative deprivation have been in ex-
istence for many years, little or no research on
poverty has used them as a framework. There Income and Wealth
has been considerable attention, however, to Poverty. The U.S. government publishes
economic inequality, largely because it gives poverty thresholds, adjusted for family size and
rise to social inequality in many domains in- for annual changes in the Consumer Price In-
cluding family life, education, neighborhoods, dex, that are intended to define the minimum
and housing (Neckerman 2004). Social exclu- income necessary for basic essentials. Because
sion, a related concept used widely in European this index has been widely criticized, several al-
policy discussions, includes inequalities in basic ternatives have been proposed. The Baseline
living, family economic participation, housing, Basic Budget poverty definition (Hernandez
health, education, public space, and social par- et al. 2008) was created using recommendations
ticipation, as well as the subjective experience from a National Research Council review of
of social exclusion (Kahn & Kamerman 2002). the poverty threshold (Citro & Michael 1995).
In summary, several themes guide our anal- Another index used for most international com-
ysis: (a) poverty is defined by an interrelated set parisons sets poverty at 50% of the national me-
of characteristics beyond low income and lack dian income. A number of scholars use 200%

of the poverty threshold, describing families Conditions Correlated with Poverty
between 100% and 200% of the threshold as
Single-mother families, people with low ed-
low-income (e.g., Sawhill 2003). In 2008, the
ucation, members of certain minority ethnic
poverty threshold was $21,834 for a family of
groups (e.g., African Americans, Latinos, and
four; twice that level would be $43,668.
American Indians), and immigrants are more
Although poverty rates vary annually, they
likely to be poor than their counterparts, and
have remained stubbornly high in the United
all of these statuses are correlated with one an-
States. The official poverty rate for children
other, though not perfectly.
has fluctuated since the early 1980s; it reached
a high of 22% in 1993 and decreased to 16% in
2000. In 2007, 18% of children in the United Family structure. About 38% of U.S. chil-
States lived in families with incomes below dren are born to unmarried mothers; the rate
the poverty threshold, but rates were higher for African Americans is 60%. Single-mother
for children under age 6 (20%). Similarly, the families are much more likely to be poor than
percentage of children living below 200% of two-parent married families. In 2006, children
living in families headed by a female with no
poverty has remained relatively steady, ranging

from 38% to 42% (National Center for Chil- husband present experienced a poverty rate
dren in Poverty 2009). Although one might ex- of 42% compared to 8% for children living
pect the percentages to increase with economic in married-couple families. About half of the
downturns, there is not a one-to-one corre- children in African American and His-
spondence because wages and employment at panic single-mother families lived in poverty
the bottom of the income scale do not always (Federal Interagency on Child and Family
follow improvements in the economy overall. Statistics 2008).
Income inequality. Increasing income Low levels of education and educational in-
inequality—the gap between the highest and equality. Education has become increasingly
lowest incomes within a society—may be as important for earnings, with wages stagnat-
important as absolute levels of income or ing or dropping at the low-skill end of the
poverty (Blank et al. 2006). Income inequality continuum. From 1979 to 2004, real wages
has been increasing worldwide, but the dis- and employment rates of men with less than
crepancy between rich and poor is greater in a high school education declined; wages re-
the United States than in most other countries mained steady for high school graduates, and
(Rainwater & Smeeding 2003). From 1980 they increased for those with more than a high
through 2005, the number of U.S. children liv- school education. Wage declines were espe-
ing in middle-income (200%–399% of poverty cially severe for African American men. Al-
threshold) families declined from 41% to 32%. though employment rates for women increased
At the same time, the percentage of children among all educational groups, wages dropped
living in families with high income (more than slightly for high school drop-outs; wages for
400% of poverty) was higher in 2005, at 30%, women with higher education increased more
than in 1980, at 17%, and the percentage in than for those with lower levels of education
very-high-income (600%+) families went from (Blank et al. 2006). All of these trends have mag-
4% to 14% (Federal Interagency Forum on nified the advantages of higher education and
Child and Family Statistics 2008). Inequality the disadvantage associated with low education.
in wealth is greater than that in income. As of Given this context, inequality of educational
the early 2000s, the top 10% of the income opportunity is especially disturbing. From the
distribution had 68% of the wealth, and the earliest years through higher education, chil-
top 1% had 34% of the wealth (Scholtz & dren from low-income families have less access
Levine 2004). to high-quality educational experiences than do

those from high-income families. Inequality is broadly defined as a family with at least one
greatest at the beginning and end of the typical parent who was not born in the United States
educational career—in preschool and post high (Hernandez et al. 2008). Immigrant children
Financial capital:
material and economic school, when private means are especially im- are somewhat more likely to live in low-income,
resources portant (Kane 2004). For example, the wealthi- two-parent homes than are children born to
est 20% of American families spend almost five natives. In 2007, 21% of children in immi-
times as much for preschool as the poorest 20%, grant families lived below the poverty thresh-
and wealthy families are more likely to use reg- old compared to 17% of native-born children,
ulated child care (Meyers et al. 2004). On the and 49% lived in low-income families com-
other hand, inequality in public expenditures on pared to 36% of native-born children (Annie
K–12 schooling has declined, largely because of E. Casey Foundation 2009). Immigrant chil-
court cases requiring states to distribute funds dren are more likely than native-born children
equitably across geographic areas. Neverthe- to live with two parents (84% versus 76%)
less, public expenditures in the richest 5% of (Hernandez et al. 2008), but are also more
schools are still double those in the poorest 5% likely to face barriers resulting from parents’
(Neckerman 2004). linguistic isolation and low levels of educa-

tion. In 2007, 26% of their parents did not
African American and Hispanic children. have a high school education, and 27% lived
Over one-third of U.S. children are African in households experiencing high linguistic iso-
American (15%) or Hispanic (21%). Despite lation, which is one form of social exclusion
some increases in opportunity for underrepre- (Annie E. Casey Foundation 2009). Twenty per-
sented minorities, the rates of poverty among cent of school-age children spoke a language
families of African American and Hispanic chil- other than English at home, and five percent
dren are much higher than those for non- had difficulty speaking English (Federal Inter-
Hispanic White children. In 2006, 10% of agency on Child and Family Statistics 2008).
White, non-Hispanic children lived in poverty, Some socioeconomic indicators of poverty
compared with 33% of Black children and may operate differently for immigrant families
27% of Hispanic children (Federal Interagency than for native-born families. For instance, im-
Forum on Child and Family Statistics 2008). migrants with low education levels may have
African American children are especially likely high levels compared to the average person in
to live in chronic rather than transitory poverty their country of origin, and high levels of ed-
because their families have fewer resources on ucation in their native countries may not qual-
which to fall back in difficult times (McLoyd ify them for equivalent income or social status
1998). The rates of poverty vary for differ- in the United States. Immigrant parents’ in-
ent Latino groups partly because of varia- come may not be a good indicator of family
tions in educational attainment, language flu- resources because household income is gener-
ency, and cultural background. People from ated by other family members, including chil-
Mexico are more likely to be poor than those dren and grandparents, and because many fam-
from Guatemala and El Salvador; people from ilies send substantial amounts of money back
South America have relatively low poverty to their home countries. Although immigrant
rates, probably because of better parent ed- families may have lower levels of human and
ucation. Poverty is high among Puerto Ri- financial capital than do native-born families,
cans despite the fact that they are U.S. citizens the greater prevalence of two-parent families
(Sullivan et al. 2008). and supportive communities may offer social
capital that ameliorates the effects of poverty
Immigrant children. Almost one-fourth of on children’s skills and trajectories (Fuligni &
U.S. children live in an immigrant family, Yoshikawa 2003).

Contexts of Poverty children living in chronic poverty than for those
whose family poverty is transitory (Duncan &
In summary, child poverty in the United States
Brooks-Gunn 2000). Because so many charac-
often, but not always, occurs in families with
teristics are associated with poverty, much of
single mothers, among parents with low levels
the research in the past several years has been
of education, in families of color, and among
devoted to disaggregating the effects of differ-
some immigrant groups. Across many groups,
ent components of poverty. Specifically, inves-
poverty and low educational attainment appear
tigators have asked: Are the effects of poverty
to be integrally associated (Blank et al. 2006).
due to income per se, or are they primarily a re-
For example, increased poverty rates in im-
sult of the correlated conditions involved in low
migrant families from 1970 to the late 1990s
SES—single-parent family structure, low par-
occurred disproportionately among children of
ent education, or ethnic minority status? Family
parents with lower levels of education, but were
structure and income have received the most at-
not greater among racial/ethnic minorities
tention, probably because they can be modified

(Van Hook et al. 2004). On the other hand,
by policy more readily than education or ethnic
language barriers are more common among
group. It is possible, and even likely, however,

Hispanic and immigrant families than among
that the contributions of these correlated con-
other poor families. Single-mother family
ditions cannot be completely disaggregated be-
structures are especially prevalent for African
cause their effects are cumulative or interactive.
American, and to a lesser extent, for Hispanic
For example, the effects of low income among
poor families, but are relatively infrequent
African Americans may be exacerbated by so-
among immigrant families.
cietal discrimination, isolation in high-poverty
In a recent review of family structure and
neighborhoods, and high rates of single-mother
income inequality, McLanahan & Percheski
families.
(2008) argue for a complex interaction such
A related set of issues revolves around so-
that “increases in income inequality may lead
cial causation versus social selection. According
to increases in single motherhood, particu-
to social causation theories, social and struc-
larly among less educated women. Single moth-
tural conditions cause poverty and its sequellae,
erhood in turn decreases intergenerational
including children’s physical, intellectual, and
economic mobility by affecting children’s ma-
social development. Social selection theorists
terial resources and the parenting they ex-
propose that individual characteristics based in
perience. Because of the unequal distribution
genetics, personality, motivation, or other un-
of family structure by race and the negative
known factors select people into poverty and
effects of single motherhood, family struc-
also affect their children’s development. Conger
ture changes exacerbate racial inequalities”
& Donnellan (2007) recently argued for an in-
(p. 257). This view implies that the net of
teractionist perspective incorporating both so-
correlates surrounding poverty may become
cial causation and social selection—a point of
tighter over time, especially as the inequali-
view akin to a transactional model—but most
ties associated with education become more
empirical research has been designed to test a
pronounced.
unidirectional social causation model, using a
range of methods to identify the causal effects
of poverty net of selection bias. This research,
INCOME/POVERTY AND described in the following section, provides
CHILDREN’S DEVELOPMENT modest support for a causal effect of poverty on
Children growing up in poverty are at a dis- children’s development. Obviously, these data
advantage in almost every domain of devel- do not exclude the possibility that selection also
opment; the disadvantage is more severe for occurs.

Income Effects test the effects of a guaranteed minimum
income offered through a “negative income
Economists have been especially interested in
tax” that provided refunds to poor families.
determining the causal effects of income that
Thousands of adults with children in several
are independent of correlated social conditions
parts of the country were randomly assigned
as well any individual personality characteris-
to receive refunds or to a control group
tics, abilities, and motivations that may select
(Rossi & Lyall 1978). Unfortunately, minimal
people into poverty or low SES. Using a range
information was collected about children in
of methods to control for selection effects and
the participating families because the major
omitted variables bias, Mayer (1997) and Blau
purpose was to learn whether adults would
(1999) both concluded that income had a small
reduce their work effort. There were, however,
effect on a range of outcomes for children. Be-
some positive effects on school attendance
cause almost all investigations agree that in-
and achievement for elementary-school-age
come has greater effects at the lower ranges,
children as well as scattered effects on nutrition

linear models may underestimate its effects.
and the percent of children born with low birth
For example, in analyses of a large longitudi-
weight (Salkind & Haskins 1982).

nal dataset using sibling comparisons to con-
A second wave of policy experiments tested
trol for family characteristics, the effects of in-
variations in welfare policy designed to move
come variation on educational attainment were
low-income single mothers into employment.
much greater at the lower end of the income
Some policies offered earnings supplements
distribution than at other points on the distri-
that raised total income for employed partic-
bution (Duncan et al. 1998). The association
ipants. In the absence of earnings supplements,
of income with psychological adjustment may
income did not increase when people moved
be curvilinear, with children in the middle far-
from receiving welfare to earning a paycheck.
ing best. One investigator has found some evi-
Young children’s school achievement improved
dence that children living in very-high-income
when their families participated in policies of-
families have more problems of psychological
fering earnings supplements (i.e., when family
adjustment than do those in middle-income
income increased), but did not improve when
families (Luthar 2003).
no earnings supplements were provided (i.e.,
Most of the research by economists and
when family income remained unchanged).
sociologists investigates such distal adolescent
Because each policy had multiple components,
events as educational attainment, early preg-
a two-stage regression technique was used to
nancy, and dropping out of school. In two anal-
isolate the effects of income from other pol-
yses of young children’s development over the
icy features; income accounted for a signifi-
first six years of life, income changes within
cant portion of the improvement in children’s
families predicted concurrent changes in chil-
achievement (Morris et al. 2009). Nonexperi-
dren’s cognitive performance and social be-
mental longitudinal studies of transitions from
havior, primarily for families living in or near
welfare to work are consistent with these find-
poverty (Dearing et al. 2001, 2006). Within-
ings, showing little effect on children or on
family changes are less subject to selection bias
income (Chase-Lansdale et al. 2003, Kalil &
than between-family comparisons, though it is
Dunifon 2007). In sum, when single moth-
still possible that unobserved characteristics of
ers move from welfare to work, their children
parents affect both income changes and chil-
benefit only if income increases along with
dren’s behavior.
employment.
Experiments are usually considered the best
The effects of income changes that did not
method for establishing causal relations. In
result from parent employment were evalu-
the late 1960s and early 1970s, four “income
ated in a natural experiment in a rural com-
maintenance” experiments were designed to
munity when a casino opened on an Indian

reservation, providing every American Indian and middle childhood predicted children’s
with an income supplement that increased an- behavior problems in a longitudinal analysis
nually. Indian children whose families were of a nationally representative sample (Votruba-
lifted out of poverty after the casino opened Drzal 2006). In another comparison of children
showed reductions in conduct and oppositional experiencing poverty from birth to age three
defiant disorders, but there were no effects with those whose families were poor from ages
on anxiety and depression. Similar decreases four to nine, behavior problems were slightly
in symptoms occurred for non-Indian children more common among those in the later poverty
whose families moved out of poverty, suggest- group; children in poverty in both age peri-
ing that income changes resulting from factors ods had higher rates of problems still (NICHD
other than the casino could account for the re- Early Child Care Research Network 2005).
sults (Costello et al. 2003). Similarly, examining poverty across the elemen-
In sum, both naturalistic and experimental tary years, Ackerman et al. (2004) found a slight
research supports the hypothesis that family tendency for more recent poverty to predict
income positively influences children’s school behavior problems in fifth grade. Concurrent
achievement and social emotional develop- income during adolescence was related to non-
ment, at least at the lower ranges of in- marital childbearing, even with controls for in-
come. Small increments that move families out come in earlier time periods (Duncan et al.
of poverty produce modest improvements for 1998).
children. In short, early poverty appears to be espe-
cially damaging to children’s achievement tra-
jectories and school careers, but both early
Developmental Timing and and later poverty appear to affect such behav-
Developmental Domain iors as externalizing problems and nonmari-
Poverty during early and middle childhood ap- tal child bearing. These developmental pat-
pears to have greater effects on achievement terns suggest that different pathways may link
and educational trajectories than does poverty family income to different developmental do-
in adolescence. In analyses of two nationally mains. There is some preliminary evidence, for
representative longitudinal studies, family in- example, that the conditions of poverty affect
come during the period from birth through neuropsychological processes involved in self-
age five predicted educational attainment and regulation that may be especially vulnerable in
achievement better than income after age five the early years (Noble et al. 2007). We consider
(Duncan et al. 1998, Votruba-Drzal 2006). Sim- the proximal mediators of these differences by
ilarly, in the welfare policy experiments, positive developmental level and developmental domain
effects on children’s achievement were great- in a later section.
est for those who were three to five years old
when their parents entered the program; in fact,
there were some negative effects for those in Disaggregating Income from Other
early adolescence (ages 11–13) when their par- Aspects of Poverty
ents entered the programs (Morris et al. 2005). Family structure and stability. Efforts to dis-
Similarly, the positive effects on school per- aggregate the effects of income from those of
formance in the income maintenance exper- family structure indicate that each is important,
iments occurred for elementary-age children but that income may be somewhat more im-
but not for adolescents (Salkind & Haskins portant for educational attainment, and fam-
1982). ily structure may have more influence on be-
For social and deviant behavior, however, havior problems. One review of several early
the developmental timing of poverty appears studies suggests that about half of the income
to be less important. Poverty in both early gap in school completion between children with

single and married parents can be attributed Parent educational attainment. Parents’ low
to income, but that family structure accounts levels of educational attainment are another
for more of the variation in adolescent preg- strand in the web of poverty. Although parent
Human capital:
persons’ skills and nancy (McLanahan 1997), a conclusion that is education is one of the best predictors of chil-
abilities. Typically supported by the finding that “father absence” dren’s intellectual functioning, it is hopelessly
defined as parents’ puts girls at special risk for early pregnancy and confounded with other parent and child char-
educational level as sexual behavior (Ellis et al. 2003). In another acteristics and with other features of poverty.
well as the time
analysis, children’s educational attainment was Nevertheless, a few recent studies provide
parents spend with
children higher when they lived in the same nuclear fam- evidence that increases in education, at least
ily from birth to 18 than in single-mother or for mothers with low initial educational attain-
blended families; the difference was largely ac- ment, may lead to slight improvements in chil-
counted for by differences in income (Ginther dren’s intellectual performance. In one policy
& Pollack 2004). experiment, the National Evaluation of Welfare
Family structure is confounded with fam- to Work Study, single mothers were assigned
ily instability. Single-mother families are more to a Human Capital condition offering oppor-
likely than married couples to have unstable tunities for limited amounts of education or to
family structures as a result of changes in res- a Labor Force Attachment condition requiring
ident and marital partners. Changes in family participants to search for work immediately.
structure during the preschool years predicted The control group remained eligible for cash
children’s behavior problems at both first and welfare. Using a two-stage regression proce-
fifth grades, even with controls for income and dure, the investigators demonstrated a modest
family structure at birth in one longitudinal effect of parents’ educational gains on children’s
study (Cavanagh & Huston 2008). In another performance on achievement tests (Gennetian
analysis, increases in income during the pe- et al. 2008). Similarly, in a longitudinal study
riod from age two through first grade pre- of young children, increases in maternal
dicted reduced behavior problems, but only education between the time children were two
at times when mothers lived with a partner. and three years old predicted improvements in
When mothers were single, changes in income children’s language performance at age three,
had no relation to children’s behavior problems but only for mothers with no initial post–high
(Dearing et al. 2006). Temporal changes and school training (Magnuson et al. 2009).
instability in family processes partly accounted
for the effects of income on cognitive-linguistic Variations by race/ethnic group. By the
development and fully accounted for income time children enter school, African American
effects on social behavior (Mistry et al. 2004). and Hispanic children receive lower average
Finally, the rates of educational and social prob- scores on measures of cognitive development,
lems for children in stepfamilies are similar to school readiness, and achievement than do non-
those for children in single-mother families, Hispanic White children. In a recent review
even though the stepfamilies have consider- of approaches to closing these racial and eth-
ably higher incomes (Ginther & Pollack 2004, nic gaps, the editors concluded that increas-
McLanahan 1997). In short, there is evidence ing income and parental education would have
that not only family structure but also family only modest effects; direct intervention in the
stability is important for children’s cognitive de- form of early childhood education appears to
velopment and especially for their social devel- be a more promising approach (Rouse et al.
opment. One implication of this pattern is that 2005). There is some evidence that chronic
a stable single-mother family may support de- poverty has more negative effects on behav-
velopment better than one in which partners ior and emotional problems of White chil-
come and go. dren than of African American children, partly

because there is a strong association among in achievement. In a nationally representative
Whites between poverty and mother’s prior his- study of school-age children, an SES index
tory of delinquency and current marital status. combining income, single-family structure,
MFIP: Minnesota
For Hispanic children, mothers’ psychological parent education, and a number of contextual Family Investment
resources were the strongest mediator between and personal characteristics accounted for Program
persistent poverty and child problems (McLeod about half a standard deviation of the gap
& Nonnemaker 2000). in the reading and math scores of African
American and Hispanic children compared
Immigrant children. Despite the fact that
to non-Hispanic White children (Duncan &
recent immigrants have relatively high rates
Magnuson 2005). In another analysis of very
of poverty, first generation children—children
young children (ages two to three), an SES
born in the United States whose parents im-
index composed of maternal education, in-
migrated into the country—have better ed-
come, and welfare receipt predicted cognitive
ucational performance and attainment than
performance and children’s behavior prob-

do children from later generations—a phe-
lems; maternal education was the strongest
nomenon described as the “immigrant para-
component of SES (Mistry et al. 2008a).

dox.” Selection and acculturation may partially
Two studies tested the hypothesis that the
account for this anomaly as mothers of first-
positive effects of two social policy experiments
generation children have higher levels of edu-
offering earnings supplements to low-income
cation than do mothers of the later-generation
parents who were employed—the Minnesota
children. Longer exposure to experiences of
Family Investment Program (MFIP) and New
discrimination, poor-quality schools, few edu-
Hope—were mediated by changes in cumula-
cational and employment opportunities, as well
tive risk or advantage conferred by the policies
as changes in beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors
tested. In one study comparing the two social
may also be reasons for the paradox (Palacios
policy experiments, the cumulative poverty-
et al. 2008).
related risk index had nine components: income
poverty, material deprivation, unemployment,
Cumulative Effects of Poverty welfare receipt, food insufficiency, parental de-
Components pression, parenting stress, and parental warmth.
Theories of cumulative advantage or disad- Both policy approaches reduced cumulative
vantage are based on the assumption that the poverty-related risk, and there were significant
influences of various components of poverty de- linear relations of cumulative poverty-related
pend more on the number of sources of dis- risk to parent-reported child behavior prob-
advantage than on any one factor (Sameroff lems and school achievement. Evidence for me-
& Seifer 1995). Sources may be additive, but diation was less strong, however. Cumulative
most of these theories consider them multi- poverty-related risk partially mediated the im-
plicative, such that combinations of factors have pacts of MFIP on children’s behavior prob-
greater effects than the sum of their compo- lems and of New Hope on school achievement,
nents. Cumulative theories are based on the as- but in the latter case, only among children of
sumption that combinations of income, family long-term welfare recipients (Gassman-Pines
structure, parent education, and ethnic minor- & Yoshikawa 2006).
ity status, for example, have greater impact than Walker (2008) created an index of cumu-
the sum of their individual contributions, and lative advantage conferred by the New Hope
that the number of disadvantages is more im- program that included nonparental care
portant than the particular type of disadvantage. (center-based child care, out-of-school struc-
This approach is implicit in an analysis tured activities), home quality (physical
attempting to explain racial and ethnic gaps conditions of home, family stability, parenting

quality, parent psychological well-being), characteristics to children’s development. We
parental employment (hours, amount, quality), turn now to proximal contexts that mediate
and family earnings (parent earnings). The the relations of poverty and SES to devel-
cumulative environmental advantage produced opment, following the hints in the literature
by the New Hope program partially accounted that the processes may differ for cognitive and
for improvements in children’s academic socioemotional development, for children of
achievement, but did not account for the different ages, and for children in different
program impacts on children’s academically cultural groups. We group proximal contexts
relevant noncognitive skills (e.g., expectancies into (a) parents and family, (b) physical condi-
of success and classroom study skills). tions (e.g., food, shelter, pollutants), (c) out-of-
home settings (e.g., preschool), (d ) schools, and
(e) neighborhoods and peers. Because all of
Relative Versus Absolute Poverty these contexts differ as a function of poverty
Virtually all of the available research examining and SES, we are particularly interested in un-
relations of poverty to children’s development derstanding their combined and interactive
uses indicators of absolute levels of poverty. effects.

With increasing attention to income inequal- Although contexts are often conceptualized
ity and social exclusion, it is disappointing to as separate entities, we take seriously the ba-
find almost no attempts to examine inequality sic transactional premise of ecological theory
or relative poverty as predictors of children’s that contexts and individuals not only interact
development. Psychological theories of rela- but also influence one another. Families are af-
tive deprivation would lead to the hypothesis fected not only by schools and neighborhoods,
that relative poverty would affect developmen- but parents and children also influence the envi-
tal trajectories, but the literature testing such ronments in which children live. Many scholars
ideas is scant. Few investigations include mea- treat this transactional process as a source of se-
sures of children’s perceptions of their family’s lection bias that clouds the ability to detect the
social and economic status, but ethnographic causal effects of child care or neighborhoods,
research offers numerous examples of children for example, on families and on children’s de-
and adults feeling shame or embarrassment velopment. Much of the research on family
about their housing, clothes, or other conspic- process, for example, is explicitly or implicitly
uous signs of poverty (Weisner et al. 2006). In based on a unidirectional causal model in which
the New Hope experiment, a test of a poverty- poverty affects some aspects of parenting, which
reduction intervention, parents talked about in turn mediate effects on children. But parents
using additional funds not only to meet mate- are actors as well as recipients of social influ-
rial needs (e.g., utility bills, food, and rent), but ences, making decisions about residence, jobs,
also for less tangible but important needs (e.g., schooling, and care settings for their children.
birthday and Christmas presents for their chil- These instrumental activities are sometimes de-
dren or an occasional family meal at a fast-food scribed as family management. Parents living in
restaurant). Meeting the less tangible needs was poverty may have fewer options than other par-
a more important predictor of children’s low- ents do, but they make choices among those op-
ered behavior problems than was the ability to tions, often giving priority to the needs of their
meet material needs (Mistry et al. 2008b). children (e.g., Scott et al. 2002). Children’s ca-
pabilities and behavior affect parents’ patterns
of interaction with them as well as parents’ deci-
PROXIMAL CONTEXTS THAT sions about such environments as child care and
MEDIATE EFFECTS OF POVERTY school. Transactional models are more difficult
Thus far, we have discussed the relations to test empirically than unidirectional models,
of poverty and its associated social address but they are also probably more accurate.

Family Processes by contrast emphasize parental warmth and
harsh punishment as likely mediators. Although
Family processes and parenting are the primary
cognitive stimulation and positive parenting
foci of much of the theory and research investi-
practices tend to co-occur, there is some evi-
gating how the conditions of poverty are trans-
dence that cognitive stimulation in the home
mitted to children. Two major theories guide
mediates the effects of family income on chil-
this research. In economic or family invest-
dren’s intellectual development more strongly
ment theory, resources available to children are
and consistently than do parental warmth
classified as financial, human, and social cap-
and punishment. The latter typically mediate
ital. Financial capital comprises material and
poverty effects on behavior problems and psy-
economic resources; human capital consists of
chological adjustment better than do indicators
skills and abilities and is typically defined as
of human and social capital.
parents’ educational level as well as the time par-
Using a nationally representative sample of
ents spend with children; social capital results
children ages three to five, Yeung et al. (2002)

from children’s interactions and relationships
demonstrated that much of the association be-
with parents and other people (Foster 2002a).
tween income and children’s reading and math

Family stress theories posit economic stress as
scores was mediated by a stimulating fam-
an influence on parents’ psychological stress,
ily learning environment. In contrast, family
resulting in lowered warmth and increased
income was associated with children’s behav-
harshness with children, which in turn leads
ior problem scores primarily through mater-
to poor child adjustment (e.g., McLoyd 1998).
nal emotional distress and parenting practices.
An elaboration on the family stress hypothe-
In another longitudinal study, the relation be-
sis incorporating reciprocal relations of fam-
tween modest improvements in maternal ed-
ily processes and SES appears in Conger and
ucation and children’s language development
Donnellan (2007).
from ages two to three years was partially medi-
Both family investment and family stress
ated by improvements in cognitive stimulation
theories have extensive empirical support that is
in the home (Magnuson et al. 2009). In tests of a
not reviewed here because of space constraints
large number of potential mediators of poverty
(for reviews, see Bornstein & Bradley 2003,
effects on children’s reading and math scores
Bradley & Corwyn 2002, Conger & Donnellan
in another nationally representative longitudi-
2007, McLoyd et al. 2006). We limit our dis-
nal study, cognitive stimulation in the home
cussion to two points. First, different processes
was the strongest mediator of poverty effects;
appear to be important for different develop-
parenting style (warmth) was weaker (Guo &
mental domains. Second, although some pro-
Harris 2000). The effects of neighborhood SES
cesses appear to operate similarly across racial
were mediated by the family literacy environ-
and ethnic groups, there are a few important
ment, consistent parenting, and punitive par-
differences as well.
enting in an analysis of a Canadian longitudinal
study. The literacy environment and consistent
Cognitive and social development. Based on parenting were the pathways to children’s ver-
family investment theory, both human and so- bal ability; punitive parenting predicted behav-
cial capital in the home have been investi- ior problems and, more weakly, verbal ability
gated as mediators of material poverty effects (Kohen et al. 2008).
on children’s development. In most investi-
gations, these constructs are operationalized Racial and ethnic variations. For the most
as cognitive stimulation, including such activ- part, similar patterns apply across different
ities as reading and educational toys, visits to racial and ethnic groups as well as for im-
places in the community, and language inter- migrant children. In an analysis of two- and
actions with the child. Family stress models three-year-old children’s development, there

was greater similarity than difference in the parenting or children’s home environments
processes by which SES was related to immi- over an 18-month period (Coley et al. 2007).
grant and native children’s preschool outcomes. Income increases over a four-year period did,
Both language/literacy stimulation and mater- however, predict improved cognitive stimu-
nal supportiveness mediated the relations of lation in children’s home environments in
SES to children’s cognitive performance; par- another investigation, particularly for low-
enting stress mediated the effects of SES on income households (Votruba-Drzal 2003). In a
children’s aggressive behavior for native-born, Michigan sample, mothers who moved from
but not immigrant, households (Mistry et al. welfare to combining welfare and work de-
2008a). Among older children, learning stimu- creased in harsh parenting and increased in
lation predicted vocabulary, reading, math, and positive parenting. Although there were con-
behavior problems similarly for White, African comitant decreases in children’s problem be-
American, and Hispanic samples, but learning haviors, they were not mediated by parenting
stimulation was less strong as a predictor for (Dunifon et al. 2003).

behavior problems than for cognitive develop- In experiments testing policies designed to
ment (Bradley et al. 2003). move single mothers into employment, there
In two analyses of a nationally representative were mixed effects on mothers’ psychologi-
sample of children from kindergarten through cal well-being and parenting practices. Even
fifth grade, poverty and family investment were when income and resources increased, partic-
measured more completely than in earlier stud- ipation in the experimental policies increased
ies. Income and material hardship were evalu- depressive symptoms for mothers of preschool
ated separately as indexes of poverty, and the children. There were no significant effects on
family investment measure included participa- parenting and children’s behavior. For moth-
tion in out-of-school structured activities and ers whose children were school-age, by con-
other activities outside the home as well as cog- trast, programs reduced depressive symptoms,
nitive stimulation within the home. Both mate- increased parental warmth and cognitive stimu-
rial hardship and low income predicted lowered lation, and reduced behavior problems (Morris
family investment and parenting stress. In the et al. 2009, Walker et al. 2008).
overall models, family investment was the major Both the family investment and family stress
path to children’s cognitive development; fam- models posit the direction of influence from
ily stress and lack of positive parenting formed parent to child, but there is some evidence
the major path to behavior problems. The mod- for transactional processes. Over the first three
els for White, African American, and Hispanic years of life, parenting quality mediated the ef-
families followed similar patterns, but varied fects of family resources on children’s cognitive
in the strength of the associations among con- development, but children’s early cognitive per-
structs (Gershoff et al. 2007, Raver et al. 2007). formance also contributed to higher parenting
quality (Lugo-Gil & Tamis-LeMonda 2008). It
Income change and parenting. Although appears that children created their parenting
longitudinal studies support the hypothesis that environment as well as being influenced by it.
family processes mediate the effects of poverty, This model has implications for early interven-
there is mixed evidence about whether im- tion and for the possible mechanisms by which
provements in income and material well-being contexts may have cumulative effects. In one
translate into changes in parenting practices. In analysis, the investigators demonstrated that in-
a large sample of single mothers receiving wel- fants from low-income families who received
fare, those who moved into employment, par- intensive high-quality child care demonstrated
ticularly stable employment, had substantial in- improved language development, which carried
creases in income and psychological well-being, over to the home where babies elicited language
but there were few changes in the quality of interactions from adults (Burchinal et al. 1997).

Among preschool and older children, the New The physical environments experienced by
Hope policy experiment led to reduced behav- children living in poverty pose relatively high
ior problems, which in turn led to improved risks of air, water, and noise pollution, which
parenting control three years later (Epps & can in turn affect children’s health as well as
Huston 2007). cognitive and social development (Evans 2006,
Federal Interagency on Child and Family
Statistics 2008). For example, children living
Material Deprivation in poverty are more likely than nonpoor chil-
Poverty implies material deprivation—food in- dren to have elevated blood lead levels, par-
security, unsafe and inadequate housing (or, at ticularly if they are African American, and
the extreme, eviction and homelessness), inabil- poor children in rural areas have higher expo-
ity to pay rent and utility bills, and doing with- sure to pesticides than do more affluent chil-
out needed health care, all of which have direct dren. One set of authors estimates that elevated
impacts on health, cognitive, and social devel- exposure to lead and other pollutants could ac-
opment. Many poor children experience food count for up to one-fourth of a standard devia-
insecurity in the form of reduced food choices, tion in achievement test scores (Dilworth-Bart
but a relatively small number (0.6% of the pop- & Moore 2006).
ulation) have spells of serious food insecurity Finally, the physical and social environments
in which they are hungry and skip meals alto- of poverty can produce high levels of stress
gether. Housing problems are frequent among that require children to expend both cognitive
the poor as they often live in physically inade- and emotional resources in vigilance and self-
quate and crowded spaces, and high costs lead protection. The large literatures on cumulative
to frequent moves that can result in changes effects of the physical and social environments
of neighborhood and schools for children as of poverty and on the relations of physical en-
well as in homelessness (Federal Interagency on vironmental variables to development are well
Child and Family Statistics 2008). reviewed by Evans (2006).
Indices of material deprivation are corre-
lated with income poverty, particularly near the
low end of the income distribution, but the two Out-of-Home Settings
are not identical (Mayer 1997). Among a sam- Although families are generally acknowledged
ple of low-income single mothers studied over to be the most important single contextual in-
six years, hardships decreased monotonically fluence on children, most children spend time
across quintiles of income, but mothers’ men- in child care and early education settings dur-
tal health was also related to perceived hard- ing the preschool years and in schools and
ship independently of income (Sullivan et al. other out-of-school settings throughout child-
2008). In another sample of single mothers, a hood and adolescence. The institutions and so-
shift from welfare to stable employment led to cial systems surrounding a family can have both
better income as well as to reduced financial direct and indirect effects on children as well as
strain and food insecurity (Coley et al. 2007). on parents.
Few investigations of poverty effects on chil-
dren include indicators of material deprivation Preschool and child care. The majority of
separately from family income. One exception preschool-aged children spend time in child
is a path analysis showing that both income care and early education settings outside their
and material deprivation contributed indepen- homes, being cared for by people other than
dently to predicting parents’ investments and their parents. Intervention programs such as
positive parenting, which in turn predicted chil- Head Start and high-quality preschools con-
dren’s cognitive and social-emotional compe- tribute to children’s academic skills and, in some
tence (Gershoff et al. 2007). cases, to competent social behavior (Karoly

et al. 2005). It is especially noteworthy, there- Pre-kindergarten programs designed to
fore, that children in poor families are likely prepare children for school entry are now
to receive lower-quality child care than those widespread, and there is good evidence that
in more affluent families do and that even pro- they contribute to entry-level academic skills
grams specifically designed to promote learn- (Gormley & Gayer 2005). Observations of
ing for socially disadvantaged children vary in 692 classrooms were used to detect patterns
quality by family income. of varying emotional and instructional sup-
On average, the child care received by chil- port along with varying teacher characteris-
dren from low-income families is of lower tics. The poorest-quality profile was associated
quality than that received by those from higher- with classroom poverty level, suggesting that
income families (Huston 2004). The one ex- the children who need the highest-quality edu-
ception is that, in some instances, children in cational experiences are least likely to receive it
very poor families receive higher-quality care (LoCasale-Crouch et al. 2007). Children who
than those in near-poor families, probably be- did receive sensitive and stimulating interac-
cause the very poor have access to child care tions with the teacher and high instructional
subsidies. In analyses of quality when chil- quality performed better on language, preaca-
dren were ages two, three, and four-and-a-half demic, and social skills at the end of the kinder-
in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care, garten year (Burchinal et al. 2008).
there were U-shaped relations of family in- In short, the most disadvantaged children
come to teacher education and training, but are least likely to attend center-based child care
on observational measures of the quality of or organized preschools early in their lives, and
cognitive and social interactions, quality was the programs they do attend are likely to be
lowest for poor children and highest for the af- of lower quality than the programs used by
fluent (Dowsett et al. 2008). Similar patterns higher-income families. This inequality of ex-
were found in an earlier study of child care cen- posure to high-quality early education and child
ters in several states (Phillips et al. 1994). The care can be juxtaposed against a large body of
U-shaped relation probably also applies at the evidence showing that children from disadvan-
college level, with youth from very poor fami- taged backgrounds can profit from such pro-
lies being eligible for more types of financial aid grams (e.g., Karoly et al. 2005, McLoyd et al.
than are those from families that have modest 2006). In one analysis, the authors estimate
incomes. that an intensive early education program could
Child care centers attended by preschool raise achievement by as much as 0.5 standard
children offer more opportunities for cognitive deviations (Duncan et al. 2007). Even “ordi-
stimulation and other aspects of quality than nary” center-based child care appears to provide
do the unregulated home settings used by low- a small advantage in cognitive functioning and
income families, but the variability within each achievement in comparison to typical home-
type of care is quite large (Li Grining & Coley based child care (NICHD Early Child Care
2006). Nevertheless, three- and four-year-olds Research Network & Duncan 2003).
from low-income families are less likely than Although high-quality programs contribute
children from higher-income families to be en- to intellectual development for children from
rolled in organized preschool programs. The low-income families, they also promote cogni-
disparity is reduced at age five, when many chil- tive development for children from more af-
dren attend publicly supported kindergartens fluent families. In an analysis of three studies
(Bainbridge et al. 2005). Even among children of child care quality, Burchinal et al. (2000)
who are eligible for Head Start, all of whom concluded that there was no evidence that
are economically disadvantaged, those who en- quality had larger effects for poor than for non-
roll are somewhat less disadvantaged than those poor children, although there was some evi-
who do not enroll (Foster 2002b). dence for greater effects on non-White than

on White children. By contrast, children from attending it. The overall social class composi-
low-income families benefited from an academ- tion of a school predicts the performance and
ically oriented prekindergarten program more behavior of its students; moreover, school char-
than did those from higher-income families acteristics can to some degree compensate for
(Gormley & Gayer 2005). Some have argued family SES differences. Two analyses show that
that high-quality early education programs family characteristics predict children’s enter-
may increase rather than decrease inequality ing skills in reading, but that the percent of
in achievement because more disadvantaged low-income children in the school predicts the
children are less likely to participate. These rate with which reading skills grow over the
discussions point out a conundrum in social elementary school years (Aikens & Barbarin
goals—reducing an income gap may conflict 2008, Hauser-Cram et al. 2006). Individual
with the goal of helping all children to develop growth in reading was also lower in schools with
optimally. high numbers of children with reading deficits
(Aikens & Barbarin 2008). Among Latino ado-

Schools. Children from low-income families lescents, attending schools with relatively high
attend schools of lower quality, on average, than average SES was associated with better per-
do more affluent children. Although reduced, formance on English vocabulary, but predicted
funding disparities continue despite legal re- grade point average only for first-generation
quirements for equitable distribution of public students (Ryabov & Van Hook 2007). In an-
support (Books 2004, Neckerman 2004). Over- other adolescent sample, schools with higher
all, children from low-income families attend average SES levels had more positive social
schools with less-qualified teachers than do climates, which in turn mediated the posi-
more affluent children (Lankford et al. 2002). tive relations of school SES to self-reported
At a more proximal level, processes within the school engagement. These patterns were con-
classroom and the school differ by income. In sistent across different racial and ethnic groups
one longitudinal study, over 1600 first- and (Benner et al. 2008).
third-grade classrooms from diverse regions in School quality may also be an important
the United States were observed. In classrooms factor in the persistence or fade-out of benefits
attended by children from low-income fami- that children receive from Head Start and other
lies, as compared with those attended by chil- early intervention programs, but the data are
dren from more affluent families, classroom slim and inconsistent. In one nationally repre-
climate was less positive and supportive, teach- sentative sample, the benefits of center-based
ers engaged in less high-quality instruction, and preschools on children’s achievement lasted
teachers spent more time disciplining children. into first grade only in large classrooms with
Children in classrooms with a positive climate relatively low quality of reading instruction,
were more involved in classroom activities and suggesting that high quality in either preschool
were less disruptive; hence such classrooms of- or school might compensate for lower quality
fered better learning environments (NICHD in the other context (Magnuson et al. 2007).
Early Child Care Research Network 2006). In Using a longer time perspective, however,
a sample of rural African American students, Currie & Thomas (2000) demonstrated that
those in classrooms with high levels of organiza- the benefits of Head Start for African American
tion, rule clarity, and student involvement had children lasted when children had high-quality
relatively low levels of both externalizing and instruction, but not when they attended
internalizing behavior problems (Brody et al. lower-quality schools, suggesting a cumulative
2002). effect of preschool and school experiences.
School quality is determined not only by the
practices and policies of the adults running the Neighborhood. Although some children at-
school, but also by the population of students tend schools outside their neighborhood,

schools and neighborhoods are partially over- characterizes low-income neighborhoods, in-
lapping contexts for many children. People with creases the influence of peers (Hart et al. 2008).
low incomes tend to live in neighborhoods with Finally, the stresses of living in a low-income
others who are poor, and neighborhood disad- neighborhood can affect parenting warmth
vantage is typically indexed by poverty rates as and discipline (e.g., Pinderhughes et al. 2001).
well as by rates of crime and violence. Sepa- Although one might expect that neighborhood
rating the effects of individual characteristics qualities would become increasingly important
from those of the neighborhoods in which they with age as children become less dependent
live poses methodological challenges, but the on parents, the research is fairly consistent in
evidence supports the conclusion that neigh- showing effects of neighborhood poverty on
borhood characteristics contribute modestly to intellectual skills (O’Brien Caughy & O’Campo
children’s development independently of fami- 2006) and behavior problems (Hart et al. 2008)
lies. In their extensive review of the literature, from preschool-age through adolescence.
Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn (2000) conclude For our purposes, the important question is
that high neighborhood SES contributes to whether neighborhood characteristics mediate
school achievement and educational attain- the effects of family poverty. That is, are some
ment, and that low neighborhood SES increases of the correlates of poverty due to the neigh-
the likelihood of deviant and problem be- borhoods in which poor people live? There is
havior. One large-scale investigation indicates, some evidence that parenting practices medi-
however, that the association of neighborhood ate the effects of neighborhood disadvantage
SES with achievement test scores and behavior on children’s achievement (Eamon 2005) and
problems holds true only for White children behavior (Kohen et al. 2008), though not all
and for African American children who live studies agree (Caughy et al. 2008). Both social
in predominantly Black neighborhoods (Turley norms and social cohesion of relationships also
2003). mediate the effects of neighborhood poverty
Conceptual frameworks explaining the on young children’s verbal skills and behavior
effects of neighborhood disadvantage on chil- problems (Caughy et al. 2008, Eamon 2005,
dren’s development include several potential Kohen et al. 2008).
pathways. Institutional resources vary. For Disadvantaged neighborhoods magnify
example, poor neighborhoods differ from individual family poverty effects in part by
affluent neighborhoods in opportunities for increasing the likelihood of associating with
recreation, grocery stores with healthy food, deviant peers, which in turn increases the like-
public services, quality child care and schools, lihood of aggression and antisocial behavior.
out-of-school programs, jobs for adults, and Parents who are nurturant and involved, along
transportation. A second pathway is shared with community resources, can counteract de-
values and norms along with community viant peer pressure (Brody et al. 2001, Eamon
enforcement of those norms or collective ef- 2001b). As children reach the later elementary
ficacy. Sampson (2006) has demonstrated that grades and early adolescence, opportunities for
neighborhoods with high levels of collective supervised activities in the community may be
efficacy have lower crime rates than others protective (Mahoney et al. 2005). In one inves-
that are equally poor but have low efficacy. tigation, aggressive children who lived in unsafe
Because peer values and behavior contribute neighborhoods were especially likely to show
to individual children’s developmental path- increases in externalizing behavior problems in
ways, the presence of deviant peers in the seventh grade if they spent unsupervised time
neighborhood is an important mechanism for with peers (Pettit et al. 1999).
neighborhood effects. One group of investiga- Experiments investigating the effects of
tors argues that the high percentage of children changing neighborhoods constitute another
relative to adults (i.e., child saturation), which approach to identifying the causal role of

neighborhoods in transmitting the effects of and in neighborhoods and communities. Much
family poverty. In the 1970s, a lawsuit against of the literature is designed to identify the sep-
the Chicago Housing Authority led to the arate contributions of these contexts, but they
Gautreaux program, in which public hous- probably interact in a dynamic fashion rather
ing residents were offered an opportunity to than being additive. Although family processes
move. Some moved to White suburbs, and are more important than any single context out-
others moved within Chicago to largely Black side the home, families do not operate in a vac-
neighborhoods, creating a pseudoexperiment. uum. Parents are affected by the schools and
Follow-ups indicated that youth in the White neighborhoods that surround them, and par-
suburbs did significantly better than those who ents also select and affect the institutional con-
moved within the city on educational attain- texts experienced by their children.
ment, employment, and wages (Kaufman &
Rosenbaum 1992).
These encouraging findings led to the Mov- CONCLUSIONS AND

ing to Opportunity experiment, a large-scale IMPLICATIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH
investigation in which public housing residents

in five cities were randomly assigned to one of We began with the theme that children’s
three conditions: (a) vouchers to move to pri- experiences of poverty often occur as part of a
vate housing in a low-poverty neighborhood, correlated web of social conditions, including
(b) vouchers for private housing in any neigh- single-parent family structure, low parent
borhood of their choice, or (c) a control group education, minority ethnic group membership,
that was not offered vouchers for private hous- and immigrant status. These conditions, alone
ing. About half of the families in the treatment or in combination, contribute to patterns of
groups actually moved; the other half stayed developmental change. As ecological theory
in public housing. Both quantitative and qual- would predict, developmental timing of con-
itative assessments of the children and adoles- textual experiences matters, and the relations
cents in the affected families show no effects of of context to development vary for different
treatments on school achievement and educa- developmental domains. Specifically, early
tional attainment, possibly because the schools childhood appears to be a period of particular
attended by the children changed less than the vulnerability to the effects of poverty, family
neighborhoods did (Sanbonmatsu et al. 2006). structure, and related experiences on children’s
The effects on deviant behavior varied. Females cognitive and academic development. The
whose families had the opportunity to move to processes identified by family investment
low-poverty areas had lower frequencies of ar- theory—including material resources and cog-
rests for violent and property crimes, relative to nitive stimulation in the home, child care, early
the control group. Males also had reduced ar- education, and neighborhood settings—appear
rests for violent crime, but had increased prob- to be important mediators of socioeconomic
lem behaviors and arrests for property crime differences in academic achievement and
(Kling et al. 2005). One reason may have been ultimate educational attainment.
that the males tended to associate with the most Social behavior and emotional develop-
deviant peers in their new neighborhoods or to ment appear to be subject to the influences
return to their old neighborhoods. of poverty experienced throughout childhood
and adolescence. The processes described in
Summary. The effects of poverty on children’s family stress theory—parental stress, posi-
cognitive and social development are mediated tive parenting practices, and absence of harsh
through family processes, but also through ma- punishment—appear to be particularly impor-
terial deprivation as well as the accumulation of tant mediators of socioeconomic conditions
experiences in child care, in school, with peers, for children’s psychological well-being and

behavior problems. Single-parent family struc- greatest for Hispanic children with less ef-
ture, instability of family composition, and low fect on White non-Hispanic children (Gormley
neighborhood SES are also important aspects & Gayer 2005). Evidence that preschool
of poverty influencing behavior problems and programs partially close the achievement gap
deviant social behavior. One caveat is that in- between White non-Hispanic and both African
formation about negative and dysfunctional be- American and Hispanic children indirectly sup-
havior is much more extensive than evidence ports a compensatory model (Magnuson &
about positive social behavior and psychologi- Waldfogel 2005).
cal well-being, reflecting what appears to be a A relatively recent body of research on im-
disproportionate concentration on social prob- migrant populations has begun to elucidate
lems to the exclusion of positive aspects of the variations in how poverty and social dis-
development in much of the extant research. advantage affect development, with particular
Positive and problem behaviors are not the op- emphasis on social capital. Children of recent
posite ends of a continuum. In the New Hope immigrants achieve well and have relatively few
experiment, which increased a range of re- behavior problems despite the fact that their
sources for children and families, there were families often have low incomes and limited
long-lasting effects on an index of positive be- levels of education. Most theorists emphasize
havior that measured social competence, auton- the social capital and values characterizing their
omy, and compliance with adult rules, but not families and communities as factors that coun-
on behavior problems (Huston et al. 2008). teract the effects of poverty. Immigration and
Contexts combine and interact at the level migration are increasing throughout the world,
of social address variables and at the level of and the United States is becoming increasingly
proximal experiences. One cannot completely multiethnic. We are now beginning to see a
disentangle the social address variables, and a body of research examining contextual influ-
strictly additive model probably is not correct. ences and processes across ethnic and cultural
Instead, social address variables probably are groups that allows better understanding of the
cumulative and multiplicative, at least for similarities and differences in the processes in-
poor, single-mother, poorly educated, and fluencing development. Future research could
minority families. Income alone accounts for provide more nuanced and theoretically in-
significant but relatively small amounts of formed understanding of both social address is-
variation in development; adding material sues and the operation of proximal processes in
deprivation improves predictive accuracy to mediating and moderating the effects of fam-
some extent. There is support for a cumulative ily income and family poverty on children’s
model in studies showing that the number of development.
advantages or disadvantages rather than any Reciprocal or transactional causal models
one contextual change mediates the effects have considerable intellectual appeal and have
of improved earnings (Gassman-Pines & been used extensively in developmental re-
Yoshikawa 2006, Walker 2008), and advantages search, yet most empirical research on poverty
conferred in preschool continue when children and its related contexts is based on unidirec-
subsequently experience high-quality schools tional models in which poverty and other social
(Currie & Thomas 2000). address variables affect family or other contexts,
Poverty effects also vary by ethnic group which in turn influence child development.
and sometimes by family structure in ways Poverty and its correlates are in varying degrees
that suggest compensatory effects. For example, exogenous in the sense that they are unlikely
the universal prekindergarten program evalu- to be affected directly by children, but most of
ated in Oklahoma had stronger effects on chil- them can be affected by parents’ characteristics
dren from low-income families than on those and behavior. The fact that parents’ skills,
from more affluent families, and impacts were personalities, and motivations influence family

income, family structure, and educational level research designed to identify the effects of rel-
is often treated as a methodological problem ative economic position independently of ab-
of selection bias, but it can also be built into solute poverty level. Such research could lead
more sophisticated models that incorporate to considering individuals’ perceptions rather
interactions of persons with situations. At than actual material resources. Social compar-
the level of proximal contexts, the case for ison theories appear well suited to understand
reciprocal influences is even stronger because the effects of relative poverty but are not of-
both children and parents can affect family ten used explicitly for this purpose. The closest
environments, schools, and neighborhoods as body of literature is the investigation of income
well as responding to them. A small body of loss, showing that large losses in income pro-
evidence supports models in which contexts duce strains in families that can translate into
affect children who in turn affect the same or psychological distress and other problems for
a different context. Moreover, some of the im- children and youth (Conger & Donnellan 2007,
portant features of schools and neighborhoods McLoyd 1998). Income loss may have effects
are the characteristics of the other people on both parents and children not only through
who inhabit them (e.g., the percent living in material deprivation, but also through negative
poverty); each individual contributes in some social comparison.
sense to these group and community settings. This review has been restricted largely to
The concentration on unidirectional mod- poverty in the United States with occasional in-
els is based partly in the difficulty of demon- clusion of other developed countries, but other
strating reciprocal processes empirically, but it parts of the world, particularly sub-Saharan
also results from the policy goals inherent in Africa and south Asia, have levels of poverty
much of the research on socioeconomic con- that are orders of magnitude worse than those
texts. Policy research is oriented to actions that in developed countries. For example, the rates
can ameliorate social problems, and policy can of neonatal death in southern and central
affect income, material well-being, and some Africa and south Asia range from 36 to 45
of the other correlates of poverty more easily per 1000 births, compared to 3 for developed
than it can change individuals. We would argue countries (United Nations Children’s Fund
that transactional models do not imply that the 2008). Although ecological theory might be
processes involved cannot be altered by inter- useful in conceptualizing the research for these
vention. Suppose, for example, that exposure populations, the questions and issues are quite
to child care providers who provide a rich lan- different, focusing on survival, basic education,
guage environment improves a child’s language preventive health measures, and economic
development, which in turn leads the child to opportunity, among others. Research on social
interact with providers in ways that elicit even programs in developing countries offers one
richer language interactions, and so on. Inter- pathway for additional understanding of how
vention at any point in that process could alter social ecologies affect child development (for
the entire sequence just as altering one part of example, see Lomel’i 2008).
a dynamic system creates changes in the rest These conclusions point to a number of
of the system. We believe that the field is ready fruitful directions for future research, in-
for more research that takes transactional mod- cluding explicit examination of developmental
els seriously, and that such models will not only change (as opposed to developmental differ-
generate better scientific understanding of de- ences among groups); more careful delineation
velopment, but also will produce more nuanced of the processes affecting cognitive and so-
understanding of policy-relevant processes. cial development; further investigation of de-
Although income inequality, social inequal- velopmental timing of poverty; more theoreti-
ity, and relative poverty are widely discussed, cally guided treatments of the interplay among
there is almost no quantitative empirical contexts; methodologically sound tests of

transactional models; investigation of relative policy research in the United States with that
as well as absolute poverty; and integration of in other countries.
SUMMARY POINTS
1. Poverty is part of an interrelated web of correlated conditions—low income, material
deprivation, single-parent family structure, low educational level, minority ethnic group,
and immigrant status.
2. Developmental change and developmental timing of exposure to poverty contexts are of
particular importance.
3. The effects of poverty and its associated characteristics are likely to be mediated by
proximal contexts and processes with which the child has direct interaction.
4. Understanding how contexts combine and interact is as important as understanding their

individual effects.
5. The relations between the developing child and the contexts he or she experiences are
reciprocal and transactional.
6. Relative as well as absolute levels of resources may define important features of poverty.
FUTURE ISSUES
1. As the United States becomes increasingly multiethnic, it will be more important to
understand ethnic and cultural variations in how the societal contexts associated with
poverty influence children’s development.
2. Empirical tests of transactional models are possible, given the availability of large na-
tionally representative datasets and increasingly powerful statistical tools.
3. Research on contexts outside the family has begun to appear, but more investigation of
school and neighborhood settings as contexts could contribute useful information to the
field.
4. Economic, anthropological, and human developmental perspectives joined in interdisci-
plinary approaches have produced some valuable advances in the field and will continue
to be productive avenues, particularly for understanding the interplay between structural
conditions and individual processes.
5. Current policy research is concerned almost entirely with United States conditions and
policies. A broader range of knowledge would be generated by integration of approaches
across nations with different levels of affluence and different policy environments.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this
review.
LITERATURE CITED
Ackerman BP, Brown EP, Izard CE. 2004. The relations between persistent poverty and contextual risk and
children’s behavior in elementary school. Dev. Psychol. 40:367–77

Aikens NL, Barbarin O. 2008. Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories: the contribution of family,
neighborhood, and school contexts. J. Educ. Psychol. 100:235–51
Annie E Casey Foundation. 2009. Kids Count Data Center. http://www.kidscount.org/datacenter/profile
results.jsp?r=1&d=1&c=12&x=136&y=12
Bainbridge J, Meyers MK, Tanaka S, Waldfogel J. 2005. Who gets an early education? Family income and the
enrollment of three- to five-year-olds from 1968 to 2000. Soc. Sci. Q. 86:725–45
Benner AD, Graham S, Mistry RS. 2008. Discerning direct and mediated effects of ecological structures and
processes on adolescents’ educational outcomes. Dev. Psychol. 44:840–54
Blank RM, Danziger SH, Schoeni RF. 2006. Work and poverty during the past quarter-century. In Working
and Poor: How Economic and Policy Changes are Affecting Low-Wage Workers, ed. RM Blank, SH Danziger,
RF Schoeni, pp. 1–20. New York: Sage
Blau DM. 1999. The effect of income on child development. Rev. Econ. Stat. 81:261–76
Books S. 2004. Poverty and Schooling in the U.S.: Contexts and Consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Bornstein MH, Bradley RH, eds. 2003. Socioeconomic Status, Parenting, and Child Development. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum
Bradley RH, Corwyn RF. 2002. Socioeconomic status and child development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53:371–99
Bradley RH, Corwyn RF, Bornstein MH. 2003. Age and ethnic variations in family process mediators of SES.
See Bornstein & Bradley 2003, pp. 161–88

Brody GH, Dorsey S, Forehand R, Armistead L. 2002. Unique and protective contributions of parenting
and classroom processes to the adjustment of African American children living in single-parent families.
Child Dev. 73:274–86
Brody GH, Ge X, Conger RD, Gibbons FX, Murry VM, et al. 2001. The influence of neighborhood dis-
advantage, collective socialization, and parenting on African American children’s affiliation with deviant
peers. Child Dev. 72:1231–46
Bronfenbrenner U. 1989. Ecological systems theory. In Annals of Child Development: Six Theories of Child
Development-Revised Formulations and Current Issues, ed. R Vasta, 6:187–249. Boston: JAI
Bronfenbrenner U, Crouter A. 1983. The evolution of environmental models in developmental research. In
Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol. 1. History, Theory, and Methods, ed. W Kessen, PH Mussen, pp. 357–414.
New York: Wiley
Bronfenbrenner U, Morris PA. 1998. The ecology of developmental processes. In Handbook of Child Psychology.
Vol. 1: Theoretical Models of Human Development, ed. W Damon, RM Lerner, pp. 993–1028. New York:
Wiley. 5th ed.
Bronfenbrenner U, Morris PA. 2006. The bioecological model of human development. In Handbook of Child
Psychology. Vol. 1: Theoretical Models of Human Development, ed. W Damon, RM Lerner, pp. 793–828.
New York: Wiley. 6th ed.
Burchinal MR, Campbell FA, Bryant DM, Wasik BH, Ramey CT. 1997. Early intervention and mediating
processes in cognitive performance of children in low-income African American families. Child Dev.
68:935–54
Burchinal MR, Howes C, Pianta R, Bryant D, Early D, et al. 2008. Predicting child outcomes at the end of
kindergarten from the quality of prekindergarten teacher-child interactions and instruction. Appl. Dev.
Sci. 12:140–53
Burchinal MR, Peisner-Feinberg ES, Bryant DM, Clifford RM. 2000. Children’s social and cognitive devel-
opment and child-care quality: testing for differential associations related to poverty, gender, or ethnicity.
Appl. Dev. Sci. 4:149–65
Caughy MOB, Nettles SM, O’Campo PJ. 2008. The effect of residential neighborhood on child behavior
problems in first grade. Am. J. Community Psychol. 42:39–50
Cavanagh SE, Huston AC. 2008. The timing of family instability and children’s social development. J. Marriage
Fam. 70:1258–69
Chase-Lansdale PL, Moffit RA, Lohman BJ, Cherlin AJ, Coley RL, et al. 2003. Mothers’ transitions from
welfare to work and the well-being of preschoolers and adolescents. Science 299:1548–52
Citro CF, Michael RT. 1995. Measuring Poverty: A New Approach. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
Coley RL, Lohman BJ, Votruba-Drzal E, Pittman LD, Chase-Lansdale PL. 2007. Maternal functioning, time,
and money: the world of work and welfare. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 29:721–41

Conger RD, Donnellan MB. 2007. An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human
development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58:175–99
Costello EJ, Compton SN, Keller G, Angold A. 2003. Relations between poverty and psychopathology.
J. Am. Med. Assoc. 290:2023–29
Currie J, Thomas D. 2000. School quality and the longer-term effects of Head Start. J. Hum. Resour. 35:755–74
Dearing E, McCartney K, Taylor BA. 2001. Change in family income-to-needs matter more for children with
less. Child Dev. 72:1779–93
Dearing E, McCartney K, Taylor BA. 2006. Within-child associations between family income and externalizing
and internalizing problems. Dev. Psychol. 42:237–52
Dilworth-Bart JE, Moore CF. 2006. Mercy mercy me: social injustice and the prevention of environmental
pollutant exposures among ethnic minority and poor children. Child Dev. 77:247–65
Dowsett CJ, Huston AC, Imes AE, Gennetian L. 2008. Structural and process features in three types of child
care for children from high and low income families. Early Child. Res. Q. 23:69–93
Duncan GJ, Brooks-Gunn J. 2000. Family poverty, welfare reform, and child development. Child Dev. 71:188–
96
Duncan GJ, Ludwig J, Magnuson KA. 2007. Reducing poverty through preschool interventions. Future Child.
17:143–60
Duncan GJ, Magnuson KA. 2005. Can family socioeconomic resources account for racial and ethnic test score
gaps? Future Child. 15:35–54
Duncan GJ, Yeung WJ, Brooks-Gunn J, Smith JR. 1998. How much does childhood poverty affect the life
chances of children? Am. Sociol. Rev. 63:406–23
Dunifon R, Kalil A, Danziger SH. 2003. Maternal work behavior under welfare reform: How does the transition
from welfare to work affect child development? Child Youth Serv. Rev. 25:55–82
Eamon MK. 2001a. The effects of poverty on children’s socioemotional development: an ecological systems
analysis. Soc. Work 46:256–67
Eamon MK. 2001b. Poverty, parenting, peer and neighborhood influences on young adolescent antisocial
behavior. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 28:1–23
Eamon MK. 2005. Social-demographic, school, neighborhood, and parenting influences on the academic
achievement of Latino young adolescents. J. Youth Adolesc. 34:163–74
Ellis BJ, Bates JE, Dodge KA, Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, et al. 2003. Does father absence place daughters
at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child Dev. 75:801–21
Epps SR, Huston AC. 2007. Effects of a poverty intervention policy demonstration on parenting and child
behavior: a test of the direction of effects. Soc. Sci. Q. 88:344–65
Evans GW. 2006. Child development and the physical environment. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57:423–51
Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 2008. America’s Children in Brief: Key National
Indicators of Well-Being, 2008. Fed. Interagency Forum Child Fam. Stat., Washington, DC: U.S. Gov.
Print. Off. http://www.childstats.gov/pdf/ac2008/ac 08.pdf
Foster EM. 2002a. How economists think about family resources and child development. Child Dev. 73:1904–
14
Foster EM. 2002b. Trends in multiple and overlapping disadvantages among Head Start enrollees. Child. Youth
Serv. Rev. 24:933–54
Fuligni AJ, Yoshikawa H. 2003. Socioeconomic resources, parenting, and child development among immigrant
families. See Bornstein & Bradley 2003, pp. 107–24
Gassman-Pines A, Yoshikawa H. 2006. The effects of antipoverty programs on children’s cumulative level of
poverty-related risk. Dev. Psychol. 42:981–99
Gennetian LA, Magnuson K, Morris PA. 2008. From statistical associations to causation: what developmen-
talists can learn from instrumental variables techniques coupled with experimental data. Dev. Psychol.
44:381–94
Gershoff ET, Aber JL, Raver CC, Lennon MC. 2007. Income is not enough: incorporating material hardship
into models of income associations with parenting and child development. Child Dev. 78:70–95
Ginther DK, Pollack RA. 2004. Family structure and children’s educational outcomes: blended families,
stylized facts and descriptive regressions. Demography 41:671–96

Gormley WT, Gayer T. 2005. Promoting school readiness in Oklahoma. J. Hum. Resour. 40:533–58
Guo G, Harris KM. 2000. The mechanisms mediating the effects of poverty on children’s intellectual devel-
opment. Demography 37:431–47
Hart D, Atkins R, Matsuba MK. 2008. The association of neighborhood poverty with personality change in
childhood. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 94:1048–61
Hauser-Cram P, Warfield ME, Stadler J, Sirin SR. 2006. School environments and the diverging pathways
of students living in poverty. In Middle Childhood: Contexts of Development, ed. AC Huston, M Ripke,
pp. 198–217. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Hernandez DF, Denton NA, Macarney SE. 2008. Children in immigrant families: looking to America’s future.
Soc. Policy Rep. 22:1–23
Huston AC. 2004. Child care for low-income families: problems and promises. In Work-Family Challenges for
Low-Income Parents and Their Children, ed. AC Crouter, A Booth, pp. 139–64. New York: Erlbaum
Huston AC, Gupta AE, Bentley AC, Dowsett C, Ware A, Epps SR. 2008. New Hope’s Effect on Social Behavior,
Parenting, and Activities at Eight Years. New York: MDRC
Kane TJ. 2004. College-going and inequality. See Neckerman 2004, pp. 319–53
Kahn AJ, Kamerman SB. 2002. Social exclusion: a better way to think about childhood deprivation? In Beyond
Child Poverty: The Social Exclusion of Children, pp. 11–36. New York: Inst. Child Fam. Policy Columbia
Univ.
Kalil A, Dunifon R. 2007. Maternal work and welfare use and child well-being: evidence from six years of data
from the Women’s Employment Study. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 29:742–61
Karoly LA, Kilburn MR, Cannon JS. 2005. Early Childhood Interventions: Proven Results, Future Promise. Santa
Monica, CA: Rand
Kaufman JE, Rosenbaum JE. 1992. The education and employment of low-income Black youth in White
suburbs. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 14:229–40
Kling JR, Ludwig J, Katz LF. 2005. Neighborhood effects on crime for male and female youth: evidence from
a randomized housing voucher experiment. Q. J. Econ. 120:87–130
Kohen DE, Leventhal T, Dahinten VS, McIntosh CN. 2008. Neighborhood disadvantage: pathways of effects
for young children. Child Dev. 79:156–69
Lankford H, Loeb S, Wyckoff J. 2002. Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: a descriptive analysis.
Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 24:37–62
Lerner RM. 2003. What are SES effects effects of? A developmental systems perspective. See Bornstein &
Bradley 2003, pp. 231–55
Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. 2000. The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of neighborhood residence
on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychol. Bull. 126:309–37
Li Grining CP, Coley RL. 2006. Child care experiences in low-income communities: developmental quality
and maternal views. Early Child. Res. Q. 21:125–41
LoCasale-Crouch J, Konold T, Pianta RC, Howes C, Burchinal M, et al. 2007. Observed classroom quality
profiles in state-funded prekindergarten programs and associations with teacher, program, and classroom
characteristics. Early Child. Res. Q. 22:3–17
Lomel’i EV. 2008. Conditional cash transfers as social policy in Latin America: an assessment of their contri-
butions and limitations. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 34:475–99
Lugo-Gil J, Tamis-LeMonda CS. 2008. Family resources and parenting quality: links to children’s cognitive
development across the first three years. Child Dev. 79:1065–85
Luthar SS. 2003. The culture of affluence: psychological costs of material wealth. Child Dev. 74:1581–93
Magnuson KA, Waldfogel J. 2005. Early childhood care and education: effects on ethnic and racial gaps in
school readiness. Future Child. 15:169–96
Magnuson KA, Ruhm CJ, Waldfogel J. 2007. The persistence of preschool effects: Do subsequent classroom
experiences matter? Early Child. Res. Q. 22:18–38
Magnuson KA, Sexton H, Davis-Kean PE, Huston AC. 2009. Increases in maternal education and children’s
language skills at age 3: evidence from the NICHD Study. Merrill Palmer Q. 55:319–50
Mahoney JL, Larson RW, Eccles JS. 2005. Organized Activities as Contexts of Development: Extracurricular
Activities, After-School and Community Programs. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Mayer SE. 1997. What Money Can’t Buy: Family Income and Children’s Life Chances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press
McLanahan S. 1997. Parent absence or poverty: Which matters more? In Consequences of Growing Up Poor, ed.
GJ Duncan, JB Gunn, pp. 35–48. New York: Sage
McLanahan S, Percheski C. 2008. Family structure and the reproduction of inequalities. Annu. Rev. Sociol.
34:257–76
McLeod JD, Nonnemaker JM. 2000. Poverty and child emotional and behavioral problems: racial/ethnic
differences in processes and effects. J. Health Soc. Behav. 41:137–61
McLoyd VC. 1998. Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. Am. Psychol. 53:185–204
McLoyd VC, Aikens NL, Burton LM. 2006. Childhood poverty, policy, and practice. In Child Psychology in
Practice, ed. KA Renninger, I Sigel, pp. 700–75. New York: Wiley
Meyers MK, Rosenbaum DT, Ruhm C, Waldfogel J. 2004. Inequality in early childhood education and care:
What do we know? See Neckerman 2004, pp. 223–70
Mistry RS, Biesanz JC, Chien N, Howes C, Benner AD. 2008a. Socioeconomic status, parental investments,
and the cognitive and behavioral outcomes of low-income children from immigrant and native households.
Early Child. Res. Q. 23:193–212
Mistry RS, Biesanz JC, Taylor LC, Burchinal MR, Cox MJ. 2004. Family income and its relation to preschool
children’s adjustment for families in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Dev. Psychol. 40:727–45
Mistry RS, Lowe ED, Benner AD, Chien N. 2008b. Expanding the family economic stress model: insights
from a mixed-methods approach. J. Marriage Fam. 70:196–209
Morris PA, Duncan GJ, Clark-Kauffman E. 2005. Child well-being in an era of welfare reform: the sensitivity
of transition in development to policy change. Dev. Psychol. 41:919–32
Morris PA, Gennetian LA, Duncan GJ, Huston AC. 2009. How welfare policies affect child and adolescent
school performance: investigating pathways of influence with experimental data. In Welfare Reform and
Its Long-Term Consequences for America’s Poor, ed. J Ziliak. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
National Center for Children in Poverty. 2009. Demographics of Poor Children. http://www.nccp.org/
profiles/US profile 7.html
Neckerman KM, ed. 2004. Social Inequality. New York: Sage
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 2005. Duration and developmental timing of poverty and
children’s cognitive and social development from birth through third grade. Child Dev. 76:795–810
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 2006. The relations of classroom contexts in the early ele-
mentary years to children’s classroom and social behavior. In Developmental Contexts in Middle Childhood:
Bridges to Adolescence and Adulthood, ed. AC Huston, M Ripke, pp. 217–36. New York: Cambridge Univ.
Press
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, Duncan GJ. 2003. Modeling the impacts of child care quality
on children’s preschool cognitive development. Child Dev. 74:1454–75
Noble KG, McCandliss BD, Farah MJ. 2007. Socioeconomic gradients predict individual differences in neu-
rocognitive abilities. Dev. Sci. 10:464–80
O’Brien Caughy M, O’Campo PJ. 2006. Neighborhood poverty, social capital, and the cognitive development
of African American preschoolers. Am. J. Community Psychol. 37:141–54
Palacios N, Guttmannova K, Chase-Lansdale PL. 2008. Early reading achievement of children in immigrant
families: Is there an immigrant paradox? Dev. Psychol. 44:1381–95
Pettit GS, Bates JE, Dodge KA, Meece DW. 1999. The impact of after-school peer contact on early adolescent
externalizing problems is moderated by parental monitoring, perceived neighborhood safety, and prior
adjustment. Child Dev. 70:768–78
Phillips DA, Voran M, Kisker E, Howes C, Whitebook M. 1994. Child care for children in poverty: opportunity
or inequity? Child Dev. 65:472–92
Pinderhughes EE, Nix R, Foster EM, Jones D. 2001. Parenting in context: impact of neighborhood poverty,
residential stability, public services, social networks, and danger on parental behaviors. J. Marriage Fam.
63:941–53
Rainwater L, Smeeding TM. 2003. Poor Kids in a Rich Country: America’s Children in Comparative Perspective.
New York: Sage

Raver CC, Gershoff ET, Aber JL. 2007. Testing equivalence of mediating models of income, parenting, and
school readiness for White, Black, and Hispanic children in a national sample. Child Dev. 78:96–115
Rossi PH, Lyall KC. 1978. An overview evaluation of the NIT experiment. In Evaluation Studies Review Annual,
ed. TD Cook, ML Del Rosario, KM Hennigan, MM Mark, WMK Trochim, pp. 412–27. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage
Rouse C, Brooks-Gunn J, McLanahan S. 2005. Introducing the issue. School readiness: closing racial and
ethnic gaps. Future Child. 15:5–14
Ryabov I, Van Hook J. 2007. School segregation and academic achievement among Hispanic children. Soc.
Sci. Res. 36:767–88
Salkind NJ, Haskins R. 1982. Negative income tax: the impact on children from low-income families. J. Fam.
Issues 3:165–80
Sameroff AJ, Seifer R. 1995. Accumulation of environmental risk and child mental health. In Children of Poverty:
Research, Health, and Policy Issues, ed. HE Fitzgerald, BM Lester, BS Zuckerman, pp. 233–58. New York:
Garland
Sampson RJ. 2006. Collective efficacy theory: lessons learned and directions for future inquiry. In Taking Stock,
ed. RJ Sampson, pp. 149–67. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Sanbonmatsu L, Kling JR, Duncan GJ, Brooks-Gunn J. 2006. Neighborhoods and academic achievement:
results from the MTO Experiment. J. Hum. Resour. 41:649–91

Sawhill I. 2003. One Percent for the Kids: New Policies, Brighter Futures for America’s Children. Washington, DC:
Brookings Inst.
Scarr S, McCartney K. 1983. How people make their own environments: a theory of genotype–environment
effects. Child Dev. 54:424–35
Scholtz JK, Levine K. 2004. U.S. Black-White wealth inequality. See Neckerman 2004, pp. 895–930
Scott EK, Edin K, London AS, Mazelis JM, Duncan GJ, Chase Lansdale PL. 2002. My children come first:
welfare-reliant women’s post-TANF views of work-family trade-offs and marriage. In For Better or for
Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-Being of Children and Families, ed. GJ Duncan, PL Chase Lansdale,
pp. 132–53. New York: Sage
Sullivan JX, Turner L, Danziger S. 2008. The relationship between income and material hardship. J. Policy
Anal. Manag. 27:63–81
Turley Lopez RN. 2003. When do neighborhoods matter? The role of race and neighborhood peers. Soc. Sci.
Res. 32:61–79
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2008. The State of the World’s Children 2009: Maternal and Newborn
Health. http://www.unicef.org/sowc09/
Van Hook J, Brown SL, Kwenda MN. 2004. A decomposition of trends in poverty among children of immi-
grants. Demography 41:649–70
Votruba-Drzal E. 2003. Income changes and cognitive stimulation in young children’s home learning envi-
ronments. J. Marriage Fam. 65:341–55
Votruba-Drzal E. 2006. Economic disparities in middle childhood development: Does income matter?
Dev. Psychol. 42:1154–67
Walker JT. 2008. Cumulative environmental advantage and children’s achievement: a mediation analysis of the effects
of an employment support and antipoverty program. Master’s thesis, Univ. Texas, Austin
Walker JT, Imes AE, Huston AC. 2008. Effects of welfare and employment policies on children’s social
behavior: Is family stress a pathway? Paper presented at Meet. Assoc. Public Policy Manag., Los Angeles.
Weisner TS, Yoshikawa H, Lowe ED, ed. 2006. Making It Work: Low-Wage Employment, Family Life, and Child
Development. New York: Russell Sage Found.
Yeung WJ, Linver MR, Brooks-Gunn J. 2002. How money matters for young children’s development: parental
investment and family processes. Child Dev. 73:1861–79

Figure 1
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model. Published with permission of McGraw-Hill Companies.
www.annualreviews.org ● Human Development in Societal Context C-1
View publication stats

Human Development in Societal Context

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Development in Societal Context

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Human Development in Societal Context

Article in Annual Review of Psychology · August 2009

Aletha C. Huston Alison C. Bentley

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Department of Human Ecology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712;

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2010. 61:411–37 Key Words

The Annual Review of Psychology is online at Abstract

how some societal contexts set the conditions

disadvantage are not literally contexts, but are

412 Huston · Bentley

www.annualreviews.org • Human Development in Societal Context 413

of the literature investigating poverty effects is

transactional processes where possible.

414 Huston · Bentley

poverty has remained relatively steady, ranging

www.annualreviews.org • Human Development in Societal Context 415

(Neckerman 2004). linguistic isolation and low levels of educa-

416 Huston · Bentley

tention, probably because they can be modiﬁed

group. It is possible, and even likely, however,

www.annualreviews.org • Human Development in Societal Context 417

children as well as scattered effects on nutrition

weight (Salkind & Haskins 1982).

418 Huston · Bentley

www.annualreviews.org • Human Development in Societal Context 419

420 Huston · Bentley

performance and children’s behavior prob-

component of SES (Mistry et al. 2008a).

www.annualreviews.org • Human Development in Societal Context 421

uses indicators of absolute levels of poverty. effects.

422 Huston · Bentley

children ages three to ﬁve, Yeung et al. (2002)

tween income and children’s reading and math

www.annualreviews.org • Human Development in Societal Context 423

stimulation was less strong as a predictor for (Dunifon et al. 2003).

424 Huston · Bentley

www.annualreviews.org • Human Development in Societal Context 425

426 Huston · Bentley

(Aikens & Barbarin 2008). Among Latino ado-

www.annualreviews.org • Human Development in Societal Context 427

428 Huston · Bentley

These encouraging ﬁndings led to the Mov- CONCLUSIONS AND

investigation in which public housing residents

www.annualreviews.org • Human Development in Societal Context 429

430 Huston · Bentley

www.annualreviews.org • Human Development in Societal Context 431

4. Understanding how contexts combine and interact is as important as understanding their

432 Huston · Bentley

See Bornstein & Bradley 2003, pp. 161–88

www.annualreviews.org • Human Development in Societal Context 433

434 Huston · Bentley

www.annualreviews.org • Human Development in Societal Context 435

436 Huston · Bentley

results from the MTO Experiment. J. Hum. Resour. 41:649–91

www.annualreviews.org • Human Development in Societal Context 437

www.annualreviews.org ● Human Development in Societal Context C-1

View publication stats

You might also like