Marriage And Family Example Empiricial Article

Does Neighborhood and Family Poverty Affect Mothers' Parenting, Mental Health, and SocialSupport?Author(s): Pamela Kato Klebanov, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Greg J. DuncanSource: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 56, No. 2 (May, 1994), pp. 441-455Published by: National Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/353111Accessed: 15/09/2009 15:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/353111?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr

PAMELA KATO KLEBANOV Columbia University

JEANNE BROOKS-GUNN Columbia University

GREG J. DUNCAN University of Michigan*

Does Neighborhood and Family Poverty Affect

Mothers' Parenting, Mental Health,

and Social Support?

The effects of neighborhood and family poverty and other components of socioeconomic status on maternal psychological and behavioral characteristics are estimated using data from an eight-site study of 3-year-olds and their mothers (n = 895). Three measures of the home environment (physical environment, provision of learning experiences, and warmth of the mother) and three maternal characteristics (depression, social support, and coping) were assessed. Neighborhood poverty (proportion of neighbors with incomes less than $10,000) was associated with a poorer home physical environment and with less maternal warmth, controlling for family conditions. The home environment also was adversely affected by family poverty, large household size, female headship, and low maternal education, although the largest effects were evidenced for family poverty.

Center for Children and Families, Teachers College, Colum- bia University, New York, NY 10027.

*Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248.

Key Words: coping behavior, home environment, mental health, neighborhoods, parenting behavior, poverty.

Of the maternal characteristics, social support was adversely affected by family poverty and female headship status, while active coping was positively associated with mother's education.

How neighborhoods affect families living in them has emerged as a key question in understanding the causes and effects of urban poverty. Over the last 20 years people with low incomes have be- come increasingly likely to live in metropolitan areas and in neighborhoods with a high concentration of low-income people (Jargowsky & Bane, 1990; Jencks & Peterson, 1991; Wacquant & Wil- son, 1989; Wilson, 1987). This is particularly true for economically disadvantaged blacks and His- panics, and for metropolitan areas in the Northeast and Midwest (Jargowsky & Bane, 1990). Some of the ways in which neighborhoods affect individuals have been elucidated in recent literature, although the focus of almost all existing work has been on adolescents and young adults, not on children or parents. Few studies have looked at the processes by which neighborhoods influence families, especially parents, and, in turn, how parents are likely to influence their children. This article addresses the question of how both neighborhood

Journal of Marriage and the Family 56 (May 1994): 441-455 441

Journal of Marriage and the Family

and family conditions might influence the ways in which parents behave.

In The Truly Disadvantaged, Wilson (1987) un- dertook an analysis of the structural changes in

postindustrial society that contributed to an in- crease in the number of poor and jobless people in inner-city neighborhoods. Wilson also has attempt- ed to model linkages between structural changes and the behavior of residents of inner-city, poor neighborhoods. Much of the related work to date has focused on documenting the association between the increased poverty and joblessness in

neighborhoods with a decline in jobs (especially jobs not demanding high literacy skills) in central cities (Freeman, 1991; Kasarda, 1990) and with the movement of more highly skilled and advantaged residents out of the inner cities (Wilson, 1987; however, see Massey & Eggers, 1990).

Recently, Wilson (1991a, 1991b) has gone be- yond structural changes to examine some of the familial and cultural processes that might result from living in neighborhoods with high concen- trations of jobless men and family poverty. He

suggested that living in neighborhoods in which relatively few individuals hold jobs, few jobs are located within the neighborhood, and single-parent households are prevalent may produce what he terms "social isolation"; these conditions in turn may produce socialization practices and family life styles that do not reinforce practices associated with steady employment. Postulated characteristics include a focus on the present rather than the future, poor planning and organization, little sense of personal control over events, and a lack of emphasis on school or job-related skills. This constellation of familial conditions might be expressed, and measured, through psychological dimensions such as coping behavior, self-efficacy, problem solving, and present-future orientation, as well as dimensions of family process, such as parenting behavior, organization of the household, and the provision of learning experiences for their children. While this hypothesis has received some attention, it has not been tested di- rectly. Thus, little is known about whether or how neighborhoods may affect maternal characteristics and behaviors. Rather, the primary focus of research has been on how family-level poverty affects parents and children.

Research bearing on the effect of family poverty has documented the association between poverty and greater psychological distress and depression (Belle, 1990; Belle, Longfellow, & Makosky, 1982; Danziger & Stern, 1990; McLoyd & Wil-

son, 1991; Parker, Greer, & Zuckerman, 1988). Poor families have to deal with a greater number of daily stresses which over time weaken their ability to handle subsequent stress (McLoyd, 1990). Both the inability to control the source of the stress, and the inability to cope or handle the stress itself contributes to the deleterious effect on psychological functioning (Makosky, 1982). Psy- chological distress, in turn, may lead to poor or impaired parenting behavior (McLoyd, 1990; McLoyd & Wilson, 1991), and even child abuse (Garbarino, 1976). Although it has been difficult to disentangle the effects of poverty from other factors often related to poverty, such as female headship and low educational attainment, some recent studies have done this (McClanahan, 1985; McClanahan & Booth, 1989; McClanahan, Wede- meyer, & Adelberg, 1981; Pearlin & Johnson, 1977). To date, however, no study has examined how neighborhood and family conditions in con- cert affect maternal characteristics and behavior. Such a study would help illuminate how poverty affects the developmental outcomes for children.

The thesis that social isolation might influence family processes and, indirectly, maternal behaviors may be tested using two neighborhood characteristics that might tap different aspects of organization, isolation, and economic resources-the proportion of families in the neighborhood with incomes less than $10,000 ("low income"), and the proportion of families with incomes over $30,000 ("high income"). The mixture of low- and high-income families in a neighborhood could affect parents and parenting in several ways. Drawing upon social-psychological expla- nations, Wilson hypothesized that planning, control, and organization might be low when most neighbors are engaged in subsistence living; or al- ternatively, they might be high when most neighbors have high incomes or are employed in high occupational status jobs. Most of the current argu- ments with respect to ghetto social isolation have focused on the concentration of poverty, specifically the numbers of persons with low incomes, even though it is equally plausible that lack of high-income earners is what makes the difference (Crane, 1991).

This study examines how both neighborhood and family conditions influence maternal characteristics (mental health, coping behavior, and social support) and maternal child-directed behavior (the physical environment of the home, the provision of learning experiences, the warmth and responsiveness of the mother). Three issues are ad-

442

Poverty and Maternal Behavior

dressed: (a) whether neighborhood poverty influences maternal conditions over and above the effects of family poverty and family conditions, (b) the relative influence of family poverty and other family conditions on maternal conditions, and (c) whether maternal characteristics account for the effects of family poverty and family conditions on maternal child-directed behaviors.

Figure 1 presents the model upon which the analyses are based. Because we are interested in the effects of neighborhood on maternal characteristics and behavior, controlling for family level variables, arrows link neighborhood resources, family resources, and maternal characteristics and behaviors. In addition, because maternal characteristics may account for some of the associations previously reported between family-level variables and maternal behavior, arrows link family variables, maternal characteristics, and maternal behavior.

Our data set-the Infant Health and Develop- ment Program (IHDP)-is a randomized clinical trial carried out in eight sites across the nation to evaluate the benefits of educational and family support services and pediatric follow-up offered early in life on reducing the incidence of developmental delays in low-birth-weight, preterm infants. For our present research, the IHDP pro-

vides rich measures of family structure and family and neighborhood economic conditions. It also provides measures of family-level variables that reflect the social isolation Wilson describes in his analysis of "ghetto social dislocations" such as the physical environment of the home, the provision of learning experiences, and the warmth and responsiveness of the mother. The home environment has been studied extensively in the early childhood period, but not as possible products of neighborhood influences. Measures of maternal coping, depression, and social support are also available that tap the effects of social isolation upon the psychological adaptation of parents. The final set of family-level conditions included in our conceptual model involves family structure, economic resources, ethnicity, and maternal education and age. Each of these conditions has been associated with maternal characteristics and behavior (Belle, 1990; McClanahan et al., 1981; McLoyd, 1990; Pearlin & Johnson, 1977).

METHOD

Design and Sample

The Infant Health and Development Program is a randomized clinical trial to test the efficacy of ed-

FIGURE 1. MODEL OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND FAMILY INFLUENCES ON MATERNAL CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIOR

443


ucational and family-support services and high- quality pediatric follow-up offered in the first 3 years of life on reducing the incidence of developmental delay in low-birth-weight, preterm infants in eight clinical sites (Brooks-Gunn, Kle- banov, Liaw, & Spiker, 1993; Infant Health and Development Program, 1990; McCormick, Brooks-Gunn, Workman-Daniels, Turner, & Peckham, 1992). Infants weighing less than or

equal to 2500 grams at birth were screened for el- igibility if they were 40 weeks postconceptional age between January 7, 1985 and October 9, 1985 and were born in one of eight participating medical institutions (Arkansas at Little Rock, Einstein, Harvard, Miami, Pennsylvania, Texas at Dallas, Washington, and Yale). Of the 1,302 infants who met enrollment criteria, 274 (21%) were eliminat- ed because consent was refused and 43 were withdrawn before entry into their assigned group (resulting in a sample size of 985). Analyses examining whether those who refused to participate differ from those who participated, reported in Constantine, Haynes, Kendall-Tackett, and Con- stantine (1993), did not reveal differences that have any effect on the representativeness of the sample to the population or on the comparability of the treatment group. Attrition in the sample was low-7% at the 36-month assessment.

Our analysis of these data focuses on the cases within the eight data collection sites for which addresses could be matched to Census tract, enu- meration district, or minor civil division, produc- ing an analysis sample of 895, of whom 489 (54.7%) were black, 101 (11.3%) Hispanic, and 304 (34%) non-Hispanic white. One of the cases had missing data on ethnicity. Six of the centers (Einstein/Bronx, Harvard, Miami, Pennsylvania /Philadelphia, Seattle, and Texas at Dallas) were located in large metropolitan areas with large populations of poor families, and two were located in large metropolitan areas (Arkansas/Little Rock and Yale/New Haven) serving both urban and rural communities.

The IHDP research design included stratifica- tion by clinical site and into birth-weight groups. One-third of the infants were randomized to the intervention group and two-thirds to the follow- up group. The intervention program was initiated on discharge from the neonatal nursery and con- tinued until 36 months. The services for infants in the intervention group consisted of home visits over the 3 years, an educational child-care program at a child development center in the 2nd and

3rd years, and bimonthly parent group meetings in the child's 2nd and 3rd years of life.

Measures

Neighborhood conditions. Neighborhood conditions were constructed by matching family addresses to a 1980 Census geocode, usually the census tract. The relevant address was taken at the time of the infant's birth. Addresses were matched to minor civil division (MCD) in the relatively infrequent instances (n = 57) when tract information was not available.

Family conditions. Several sociodemographic measures were included: the total annual family income; number of household members; complet- ed schooling of the mother, in years; whether the family was headed by the mother at 24 and 36 months; whether there was a change in female headship status between 24 and 36 months; welfare status; whether the mother was a teenage parent; and whether the mother was black or Hispan- ic. The income categories in thousands of dollars were: under 5, 5-7.49, 7.5-9.9, 10-14.9, 15-19.9, 20-24.9, 25-34.9, 35-49.9, and over 50. We assigned a value of 3.5 to respondents in the first category and 65 to respondents in the last category. The midpoint of the range was assigned to all other categories. In the IHDP, mother's education, ethnicity, and age were measured at the time of the infants' birth; family income, household size, and welfare status was reported by the mother when the infant was 12 months old; and female headship status was measured when the child was 24 and 36 months old.

Maternal parenting behavior. The preschool version (ages 3-6) of the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME; Cald- well & Bradley, 1984) is a 55-item semistructured observation interview. A 2-day training session for the assessors at the eight sites was conducted by Caldwell and Bradley. Criterion videotapes of the test administration were produced and given to the sites. Assessors meeting the criterion of at least a 90% level of agreement with the criterion tape were allowed to collect data. In addition, visits to the eight sites and periodic checks were made to insure the 90% level (Bradley, Casey, Barrett, Whiteside, Mundfrom, & Caldwell, in press). The HOME was administered when the child was 36 months of age (corrected for prema- turity) as a measure of the child's level of stimu-

444


lation in the home environment. Three subscales were used here: provision of learning stimulation, which is a composite of the learning, academic, and language stimulation and variety in experi- ence subscales (e.g., child has toys which teach color, size, shape; child is encouraged to learn the alphabet and numbers), which has an alpha of .87 for 32 items; physical environment (outside play environment appears safe; interior of apartment not dark or perceptually monotonous), which has an alpha of .74 for seven items; and warmth (parent caresses, kisses, or cuddles child during visit), which has an alpha of .64 for seven items. Relia- bility coefficients are based only on the follow-up subjects.

Maternal psychological characteristics. The Health and Daily Living Form Revised Version (Moos, Cronkite, Billings, & Finney, 1986) is a 32-item self-report coping scale, developed for use with clinical populations and adolescents. Coping responses are classified into three do- mains according to their method of coping: (a) active cognitive coping, (b) active behavioral coping, and (c) avoidance coping. Respondents indi- cate a recent stressful event and rate the frequency with which they use 32 coping responses using a scale from 0 (no) to 3 (yes, fairly often). The reliability of this measure ranges from .60 to .74 for nonclinical adult populations, with the highest reliability for active behavioral coping, the form of coping examined here (e.g., talked with a friend about the problem; made a plan of action and followed it).

The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ; Goldberg, 1978) taps depression, somatization, and anxiety dimensions. A total score based on recoding the responses to values from 0 to 3 (see Goldberg, 1972) results in a total score from 0 to 36. The 12-item version of the GHQ was used.

Social Support was assessed at 36 months using six vignettes adapted from Cohen and Lazarus (1977). These vignettes, pretested and used in the Central Harlem Study, have good dis- criminant validity (McCormick, Brooks-Gunn, Shorter, Holmes, & Heagarty, 1989; McCormick, Brooks-Gunn, Shorter, Wallace, Holmes, & Hea- garty, 1987). For each vignette, whether help can be expected from people living within the household and from those outside the household is determined by yes (1) or no (0) responses. Scores range from 0 to 12. A variety of situations are presented: whether support is available if the respon- dent needs to go out unexpectedly, is laid up for 3

months with a broken leg, needs help making an important decision, has a serious personal problem, needs to borrow money in an emergency, or has someone with whom to enjoy a free afternoon.

Descriptive Characteristics of the Sample

Means and standard deviations of all of the neighborhood and family-level measures included in our analyses are shown in Table 1. The descriptive statistics show vast racial differences in neighborhood and family conditions. A greater proportion of blacks and Hispanics live in poorer neighborhoods, come from poorer families, are on welfare, receive less education, are more likely to live in female-headed families, and have poorer home environments, but are less depressed than whites. Black children are born at lower birth weights and are more likely to be born to teenage mothers, but are in slightly better health than white and Hispanic children.

RESULTS

Wilson hypothesizes that neighborhood effects operate through intra-individual psychological dimensions such as self-efficacy, problem solving, and present-future orientation, as well as intrafa- milial interaction dimensions, such as parenting behavior, organization of the home, and provision of learning experiences.

To test this hypothesis, each of the maternal characteristics of interest was regressed on neighborhood and family resources and child characteristics. Ordinary Least Squares multiple linear regressions were conducted with the following independent variables: Neighborhood income (fraction of families with incomes less than $10,000 and fraction of families with incomes greater than $30,000; fraction of families with incomes between $10,000 and $30,000 were omitted as a control), site (dummy coded with each site being compared to the eighth site), treatment (1 = intervention, 0 = follow-up), birth weight (in grams), neonatal health index (adjusted for birth weight and standardized to a mean of 100), gender of child (1 = male, 0 = female), total family income (in thousands of dollars), household size, welfare status (1 = on welfare, 0 = not on welfare), maternal age (1 = age 18 and younger, 0 = 19 and older), maternal education (in years), female headship at 24 and 36 months (1 = female head, 0 = other), change in female headship status from 24 to 36 months (1 = change in status, 0 = other),

445


TABLE 1. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD-LEVEL, FAMILY-LEVEL, AND

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL VARIABLES AND MATERNAL OUTCOMES.

Variable All Subjects Whites Blacks Hispanics

Neighborhood level Fraction of families with income < $10K 0.32

(0.18) Fraction of families with income > $30K 0.17

(0.14) Family level

Total family income $20,324.51 ($17,428.04)

Number in household 5.11 (2.54)

Welfare status 0.38 (0.49)

Teenage birth 0.17 (0.37)

Mother's education 11.81 (2.47)

Female headship 0.36 (0.48)

Change in female headship 0.14 (0.35)

Black 0.55 (0.50)

Hispanic 0.11 (0.32)

Individual level Birth weight 1788.02

(459.32) Neonatal health 100.49

(15.69) Gender (male = 1) 0.49

(0.50) Maternal outcomes

Home learning environment 21.05 (5.95)

Home physical environment 5.30 (1.83)

Home warmth 5.12 (1.66)

Depression

Social support

Active behavioral coping

10.54 (4.67) 8.85

(2.49) 21.62 (5.82)

0.18 (0.12) 0.27

(0.16)

$31,639.68 ($20,211.32)

4.34 (2.12) 0.14

(0.35) 0.07

(0.25) 12.87 (2.67) 0.12

(0.32) 0.12

(0.33) 0.00

(0.00) 0.00

(0.00)

1842.39 (438.28)

96.81 (17.16)

0.49 (0.50)

24.75 (5.01) 6.20

(1.49) 5.71

(1.32)

11.39 (4.89) 9.15

(1.96) 23.22 (5.41)

0.39 (0.17) 0.12

(0.09)

$14,302.84 ($12,247.07)

5.54 (2.61) 0.51

(0.50) 0.23

(0.42) 11.35 (2.12) 0.60

(0.49) 0.15

(0.35) 1.00

(0.00) 0.00

(0.00)

1741.70 (469.33) 103.32 (13.94)

0.47 (0.50)

18.99 (5.54) 4.80

(1.84) 4.72

(1.80)

0.40 (0.16) 0.09

(0.06)

$14,500.00 ($11,098.61)

5.40 (2.85) 0.51

(0.50) 0.13

(0.34) 10.84 (2.36) 0.37

(0.48) 0.20

(0.40) 0.00

(0.00) 1.00

(0.00)

1848.56 (451.59)

97.88 (16.44)

0.58 (0.50)

20.05 (5.14) 5.02

(1.71) 5.36

(1.28)

9.95 (4.54) 8.72

(2.72) 20.73 (5.95)

10.82 (4.13) 8.55

(2.69) 21.10 (5.38)

Note: Standard deviations appear in parentheses below the means.

nonfemale headship at 24 and 36 months (omitted as a control), ethnicity (1 = black, 0 = other; 1 =

Hispanic, 0 = other; with whites omitted as the control group). Comparison regressions that include only the two neighborhood measures were also run. The results are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Each column represents a separate regression. Two regressions are represented for each of the

maternal characteristics. For example, column 1 of Table 2 presents coefficients from the regression of home learning on the neighborhood income variables. Column 2 presents coefficients from the regression of home learning on the neighborhood income and family variables.

Tables 2 and 3 focus on neighborhood income distribution. Including both the low-income and

446


high-income measures in the same regression produces coefficients that reflect the effects of addi- tional low-income or affluent neighbors relative to the omitted category of moderate-income families. Thus, this formulation provides a summary look at the relative importance of the presence of low-income families versus the absence of high- income families.

Bivariate Links Between Neighborhoods and Maternal Characteristics and Behaviors

Columns 1, 3, and 5 of Tables 2 and 3 show bivariate relationships between neighborhood income and the six maternal characteristics and behaviors. There were significant links between neighborhood income and maternal characteristics and behavior. Compared to moderate-income neighbors, low-income neighbors had a negative

effect on five of the six outcomes, the only exception being maternal depression. However, com-

pared to moderate-income neighbors, affluent

neighbors had a positive effect on the learning and physical environment of the home, but not on maternal warmth, behavioral coping, depression or social support.

The Effect of Neighborhoods, Controlling for Family Resources

Sample-wide associations between the socioeconomic position of a family and its neighborhood are certain to be positive. Including both in our regressions produces estimates of the net impact of neighborhood, although this may overcontrol for family effects if the family's socioeconomic position is itself caused by neighborhood factors.

TABLE 2. OLS REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND STANDARD ERRORS FOR VARIOUS MODELS OF EFFECTS OF NEIGHBORHOODS ON HOME ENVIRONMENT SCORES

Home Learning Physical Environment Warmth

Independent Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

Neighborhood level Fraction of families with income < $10K -5.55* -2.23 -3.27* -2.26* -1.94* -1.29*

(1.81) (1.65) (0.59) (0.57) (0.56) (0.56) Fraction of families with income > $30K 10.49* 1.76 1.35* -0.42 0.52 -0.50

(2.37) (2.22) (0.77) (0.76) (0.73) (0.76) Famly level

Total family income in thousands 0.050* 0.018* 0.004 (0.013) (0.005) (0.005)

Number in household -0.28* -0.10* -0.03 (0.07) (0.02) (0.02)

Welfare status -0.01 -0.27 0.05 (0.43) (0.15) (0.15)

Teenage birth 0.69 -0.15 -0.24 (0.51) (0.18) (0.18)

Mother's education 0.54* 0.12* 0.07* (0.09) (0.03) (0.03)

Female headship -1.16* 0.05 -0.30* (0.44) (0.15) (0.15)

Change in female headship -2.16* -0.08 -0.18 (0.54) (0.19) (0.18)

Black -2.96* -0.34* -0.58* (0.51) (0.17) (0.17)

Hispanic -2.40* 0.002 -0.09 (0.72) (0.25) (0.25)

R2 (adjusted) 0.25 0.42 0.17 0.28 0.09 0.14 Constant 19.98 14.03 6.70 5.18 5.58 4.73

Note: Each column represents a separate regression. All regression models also include dummy variables for seven of the eight data collection sites, treatment group status, birth weight, neonatal health, and sex of child. Dependent variable mean (+ SD) for home learning = 21.05 (5.95), for physical environment = 5.30 (1.83), warmth = 5.12 (1.66). Number of observations for each = 719.

*1 B/SE I > 2.

447


TABLE 3. OLS REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND STANDARD ERRORS FOR VARIOUS MODELS OF EFFECTS OF NEIGHBORHOODS ON MATERNAL COPING SCORES

Moos Active Behavioral Coping Depression Social Support

Independent Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

Neighborhood level Fraction of families with income < $10K -3.77t -2.35 -0.67 -0.11 -1.88* -1.33

(1.95) (2.02) (1.57) (1.63) (0.87) (0.84) Fraction of families with income > $30K 3.57 1.57 -0.36 0.08 -0.89 -2.03tt

(2.55) (2.71) (2.06) (2.18) (1.13) (1.14) Famly level

Total family income in thousands 0.006 -0.019 0.014* (0.016) (0.013) (0.007)

Number in household 0.01 0.08 0.02 (0.09) (0.07) (0.04)

Welfare status 0.02 -0.02 -0.24 (0.53) (0.43) (0.22)

Teenage birth -0.08 0.62 0.74* (0.63) (0.51) (0.26)

Mother's education 0.21* 0.003 0.005 (0.10) (0.09) (0.04)

Female headship -0.30 -0.43 -1.88* (0.54) (0.43) (0.22)

Change in female headship 0.74 0.48 -1.05* (0.66) (0.53) (0.28)

Black -1.40* -1.29* 0.41 (0.63) (0.50) (0.26)

Hispanic -0.81 -0.39 0.09 (0.88) (0.71) (0.37)

R2 (adjusted) 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.001 0.12 Constant 21.59 18.80 10.74 10.87 9.84 9.86

Note: Each column represents a separate regression. All regression models also include dummy variables for seven of the eight data collection sites, treatment group status, birth weight, neonatal health, and sex of child. Dependent variable mean (+ SD) for Moos active behavioral coping = 21.62 (5.82), depression = 10.54 (4.67), and social support = 8.85 (2.49). Number of observations for each = 736.

*IB/SEI >2. tt= -1.39,p = .05. ttt=-1.79,p = .07.

Two of the neighborhood effects persisted even after controlling for differences in family- level measures. Low-income neighbors were associated with a worse physical environment in the home, as well as less warmth between mother and child. A third neighborhood effect-the association of affluent neighbors with less social support-was marginally significant (p < .07). Be- cause the effect of affluent neighbors may be more pronounced for those at the highest income levels, we dichotomized this variable into: (a) fraction of neighbors with incomes greater than $30,000 but less than or equal to $75,000, and (b) fraction of neighbors with incomes greater than $75,000. Substituting these two variables into our regression equations, we found significant negative effects only for those neighbors with incomes over $75,000, even when controlling for family- level variables (B = -9.35, SE = 4.47, p < .05; B =

-10.42, SE = 4.74, p < .05, for regressions not controlling for family variables). There was no significant effect for neighbors with incomes between $31,000 and $75,000 (B = 1.44, SE = 1.59 for regressions not controlling for family-level variables, and B = -.20, SE = 1.57 for regressions controlling for family-level variables). There was no effect of poor neighbors (B = -1.16, SE = .93 for regressions not controlling for family-level variables, and B = -.76, SE = .91 for regressions controlling for family-level variables).

To define further the nature of neighborhood effects, we interacted the low-income and affluent neighborhood measures and (a) maternal ethnicity and (b) family-level income (data not shown in Table 2) for the two outcomes, home physical environment and warmth, that were significantly associated with neighborhood conditions once the effects of family variables were controlled. There

448


was some evidence that the effects of neighborhood differ between blacks and whites. Relative to affluent neighbors, low-income neighbors had a negative effect on the physical environment and warmth of the home for white families, but not for black families. In addition, there was some evidence that effects differ between poor and non- poor families. Relative to affluent neighbors, low- income neighbors have a negative effect on the physical environment of the home for poorer families than for more affluent families.

Because other characteristics of the neighborhood such as labor force participation and concentration of minorities may also contribute to social isolation, the effects of these neighborhood characteristics on maternal characteristics and behaviors were examined. In a series of regressions that controlled for neighborhood income (fraction of neighbors with incomes less than $10,000 and fraction of neighbors with incomes greater than $30,000) and family-level variables, the effects of fraction of blacks in the neighborhood or fraction of males between the ages of 16 and 64 in the neighborhood who were not in the labor force on parenting behavior and maternal characteristics were assessed. The results for 11 of the 12 regressions were nonsignificant. The only exception was that fraction of blacks in the neighborhood was associated with greater social support over and above the neighborhood and family-level variables.

Finally, because neighborhood conditions were measured at the time of the infant's birth and because 40.7% of the sample had moved within the 3-year time period, regression analyses that also controlled for the effect of moves were conducted. These analyses revealed that, with the exception of social support (with mothers who moved reporting less social support), whether a family moved was not related to maternal outcomes. More importantly, controlling for the effect of moves did not alter our regression results. Moreover, related analyses using IHDP data also have revealed that whether a family moves to a new neighborhood or not has little if any effect on our maternal characteristics and parenting behavior outcomes (Duncan, Connell, & Klebanov, in press).

The Effect of Family Conditions, Controlling for Neighborhoods

Results presented in columns 2, 4, and 6 of Table 2 show that most family conditions were associat-

ed with parenting behavior. With the exception of welfare status and maternal age, all family variables were significantly associated with the learning environment of the home. Specifically, higher family income, smaller household size, greater education, nonfemale headship or no change in female headship status, and being white were associated with better learning environments. A somewhat different pattern of results was found for the physical environment and warmth of the home. While higher income, smaller household size, greater education, and being nonblack were associated with a better physical environment, female headship status was not associated with the physical environment. Greater education, constant female headship status, and being nonblack were associated with greater warmth, while income and household size were not associated with maternal warmth.

As revealed in columns 2, 4, and 6 of Table 3, family-level variables were less strongly associated with maternal characteristics. Welfare status, household size, and being Hispanic were not associated with any of the maternal characteristics. However, income, nonfemale headship, and maternal age were associated with social support. Mothers with greater incomes who were not female head at 24 or 36 months and who gave birth as teenagers reported greater social support. Eth- nic differences also were associated with coping and depression. Black mothers reported less active behavioral coping and less depression than white mothers. None of the child control variables (birth weight, neonatal health, sex) were associated with any of the maternal outcomes.

Finally, whether maternal characteristics account for the association between family conditions and maternal behavior was examined by re- gressing maternal behavior at 36 months on maternal characteristics, and family and neighborhood conditions. The results are shown in Table 4 where each column represents a separate regression. These analyses revealed that maternal behavioral coping and social support were associated with a better learning environment. Maternal behavioral coping and low levels of depression were associated with a better physical environment. None of the maternal characteristics were associated with the warmth of the home. More important, however, was that maternal characteristics accounted for the association between female headship at 24 and 36 months and parenting behavior. The effect of female headship at 24 and 36 months on learning and warmth in the

449


home became nonsignificant once maternal characteristics were controlled. These results suggest that it is the diminished ability of mothers to cope with the stress of role overload associated with being a female head of household that may adversely affect the home environment.

DISCUSSION

Both neighborhood and family poverty indices had adverse effects on maternal characteristics and the home environment. Although family poverty was associated with most of the maternal outcomes, as expected, neighborhood poverty also

played a role, even after controlling for family poverty and other family conditions. As hypothesized by Wilson (1991a, 19991b), residing in a poor neighborhood was associated with worse maternal outcomes, specifically the provision of a more negative physical environment and less maternal warmth. However, neighborhood poverty was not associated with the provision of learning experiences, maternal depression, or behavioral coping.

Neighborhood and family poverty were associated with the physical environment of the home. As expected, greater family resources (higher levels of family income, smaller family size, and greater maternal education) were associated with a

TABLE 4. OLS REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND STANDARD ERRORS FOR VARIOUS MODELS OF

EFFECTS OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND FAMILY-LEVEL VARIABLES ON HOME ENVIRONMENT SCORES

Independent Variable Home Learning Physical Environment Warmth

Neighborhood level Fraction of families with income < $10K

Fraction of families with income > $30K

Family level Total family income in thousands

Number in household

Welfare status

Teenage birth

Mother's education

Female headship

Change in female headship

Black

Hispanic

Individual level

-1.51 (1.61) 2.39

(2.16)

0.043* (0.013) -0.29* (0.07) 0.08

(0.42) 0.43

(0.50) 0.52*

(0.09) -0.43 (0.45) -1.81* (0.53) -3.02* (0.50) -2.37* (0.70)

-2.19* (0.57) -0.46 (0.76)

0.017* (0.005) -0.10* (0.02) -0.27 (0.15) -0.14 (0.18) 0.11*

(0.03) 0.06

(0.16) -0.08 (0.19) -0.33* (0.18) 0.01

(0.25)

-1.21* (0.56) -0.40 (0.76)

0.003 (0.004) -0.03 (0.02) -0.06 (0.15) -0.27 (0.18) 0.07*

(0.03) -0.21* (0.16) -0.13 (0.19) -0.61* (0.18) -0.10 (0.25)

Moos active behavioral coping 0.09* 0.03* 0.01 (0.03) (0.01) (0.01)

Depression -0.03 -0.02* -0.01 (0.04) (0.01) (0.01)

Social support 0.38* 0.01 0.05 (0.07) (0.03) (0.03)

R2 (adjusted) 0.46 0.29 0.14 Constant 8.80 4.84 4.26

Note: Each column represents a separate regression. All regression models also include dummy variables for seven of the eight data collection sites, treatment group status, birth weight, neonatal health, and sex of child. Number of observations for each = 719.

*1 B/SE I> 2.

450


better physical environment. In addition, neighborhood poverty had a negative effect on the physical environment. The presence of low-income neighbors may have played a role by gener- ally lowering the quality of housing in the neighborhood which indirectly might affect mothers' efforts to provide a positive physical environment. Secondary analyses that examined the effects of maternal characteristics on parenting behavior found that depression and poor coping were associated with poor physical environments. Mothers who were depressed may not have the emotional energy to provide a positive physical environment.

Neighborhood poverty also was associated with less maternal warmth and responsiveness. Living in an impoverished neighborhood might influence the warmth displayed to children in several ways, although the following is speculative. In dangerous neighborhoods, less parental warmth may be seen as adaptive. Parents may want to teach their children to adjust to a harsh environment. Ethnographies of poor urban families suggest this (Jarrett, 1992), as well as studies that have found that parenting may be more au- thoritarian in poor families (McLoyd, 1990).

Another possibility is that mothers, confronted with the dangers and social isolation of living in an impoverished neighborhood, exhibit less warmth overall. Mothers may be less amiable not only to their children, but to others as well. Such behavior may be adaptive for mothers, rather than the result of explicit socialization for their children. A third related possibility is that of collective socialization. Social interaction between neighbors, even when it is limited and infrequent, may serve to subtly communicate neighborhood norms and values (Unger & Wandersman, 1985); our findings, however, are not due to the effects of poor neighborhoods on maternal coping and mental health, because these factors did not relate to maternal warmth nor did adding them to the regression reduce the neighborhood poverty finding. It is interesting that family poverty was not associated with maternal warmth, although low maternal education and being a single parent were associated with warmth.

What was unexpected was the lack of neighborhood effects for the provision of learning experiences in the home. Instead, family resources-income, education, smaller household size, and female headship-all contributed to the learning environment, as others have found (Bradley et al., in press). As expected, although not studied frequently, better coping skills and

greater social support also were associated with the provision of learning experiences.

Maternal characteristics-depression, support, coping-typically have not been examined vis-a- vis neighborhood and family poverty. Family poverty and female headship were associated with less social support. While neighborhood poverty was not associated with social support, neighborhood affluence was marginally associated with less support (p = .07), with this effect being accounted for by residence in neighborhoods with a large proportion of very affluent neighbors. That social isolation may exist in very affluent neighborhoods (compared to middle-class neighborhoods) where neighbors may impose psychological as well as physical barriers (e.g., secured buildings, individual entryways, fences) is a possibility not often considered. Contrary to the findings of others (Belle, 1990; Danziger & Stern, 1990; McLoyd & Wilson, 1991), depression was not associated with family poverty nor was it associated with neighborhood poverty. One possibility for the differences in our findings for family poverty and those of others may be that we used the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ; Gold- berg, 1978) rather than the Center for Epidemio- logical Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977, 1991) used by McLoyd and Wil- son (1991). Another possibility is that given the fairly high level of depression across the sample, the sample range was truncated. Finally, active coping was associated with maternal education, but not with family or neighborhood poverty. More educated mothers engaged in more active forms of coping than less educated mothers.

Our results also may be interpreted in light of the theoretical framework of Jencks and Mayer (1990) who present the ways in which neighborhoods might affect children. They distinguish between five different types of mechanisms that may be operating, based on the following: neighborhood resource theories, which consider the importance of public and private services in the neighborhood; contagion theories, which consider the strength of peer behavior to influence one's own behavior; collective socialization theories, which posit that monitoring, supervision, and role modelling affect child outcomes; competition theories, which suggest that neighbors compete for scarce resources; and relative deprivation theories, which posit that neighborhood effects are due to the evaluation of one's own situation as being better or worse than one's neighbors. The first three theories would predict that living

451


among poor neighbors would have a detrimental effect on maternal characteristics and behaviors while living among affluent neighbors would have a beneficial effect. The last two theories, competition and relative deprivation, would posit that living among poor neighbors would have a beneficial effect while living among affluent neighbors would have a negative effect. Analyses examining the effects of neighborhoods on young children have supported the contagion and socialization theories (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Kle- banov, & Sealand, 1993; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, in press). Our current findings also support the contagion and socialization theories. Poor neighbors were associated with worse physical home environments and with less maternal warmth. In addition, finding that very affluent neighbors are associated with less social support provides support for competition and relative de-

privation theories. From the standpoint of competition theories, people may be seen as possible resources from which affluent neighbors may be better able to obtain emotional and instrumental support. On the other hand, from the standpoint of relative deprivation theories, the presence of affluent neighbors who are able to afford neces- sary childcare and household help may lead less affluent neighbors to evaluate the quality and availability of their support more negatively.

Our analyses include the following limitations. Our sample consists of low-birth-weight, premature infants in eight medical sites. Whether similar results would be found for a national sample of normal-birth-weight children is not known. Based on the results of a large study of low-birth-weight and normal-birth-weight 8-year-old children, we suspect the findings may be similar. The results of that study suggest that maternal education, ethnicity, and female headship are associated with child outcomes similarly across the birth-weight spectrum (McCormick et al., 1992). The birth of a low-birth-weight infant, however, may affect the association between neighborhood-level variables and maternal characteristics and behaviors, although we are not aware of a data set that allows for the examination of this possibility. Studies have found that some maternal variables are associated with low birth weight. In the 1st year of an infant's life, mothers are somewhat less likely to place low-birth-weight than normal-birth-weight infants in out-of-home child care, but by the 2nd and 3rd years, no differences are found (based on analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of Youth by Mott, 1991, and by Baydar & Brooks-

Gunn, 1991). Maternal interaction patterns also differ somewhat by child's birth weight in the 1st year (Field, 1987; Field, Dempsey, & Shuman, 1979; Friedman & Sigman 1991). Such differences in parenting may place low-birth-weight children at greater risk for poor developmental outcomes compared to normal-birth-weight children (Parker et al., 1988; Sameroff & Chandler, 1975). Thus, caution should be taken in generaliz- ing these results to normal-birth-weight samples.

Another limitation is that part of the correla- tion between family resources and current neighborhood economic characteristics may reflect a causal connection. Affluent neighbors may provide better networks to higher-paying jobs than moderate-income neighbors. Because we do not know the nature of the causal link but suspect it to be small, our estimates of neighborhood effects control for differences in family-level resource and structure. It may be that the process by which families select themselves into different neighborhoods may impart an unknown bias in our estimates (Tienda, 1991). Moreover, there is the possibility that the neighborhood income variable is capturing unmeasured dimensions of the family (e.g., permanent income) rather than pure neighborhood effects, more so than do neighborhood characteristics (Ellwood, 1992).

In a similar vein, our examination of whether maternal characteristics account for some of the associations between family-level variables and maternal behaviors reveals only an association between these variables. Because maternal characteristics and behaviors are both measured at the same time point, the directionality of effects can- not be determined, and the possibility that maternal behavior may affect maternal characteristics should be taken into account.

Finally, it is important to emphasize that our neighborhood-level variables are only rough prox- ies of neighborhoods, since we have focused on census tracts which are composed of 4,000 to 5,000 people. Smaller aggregations might be more important in terms of how individuals define neighborhoods, perceive others' behavior, and in- teract with their neighbors. In some sense, neighborhood tract-level data are like the family-level data so often measured (e.g., income, education, and family structure). These are status variables that provide a window with which to see how family and neighborhood variables influence parents; they may be seen as "distal causes or markers of the community resources and processes" (Aber, Mitchell, Garfinkel, Allen, & Seidman, 1992).

452


In summary, these analyses reveal associations between neighborhood indices of poverty and the home environment of the child, over and above family-level resources. Neighborhoods provide one context in which children are reared, and these neighborhoods influence parents' behavior. Our data provide partial evidence for Wilson's (1991a, 19991b) thesis that poor neighborhoods influence parenting-in this case the physical environment of the home and the warmth of the care- giver. However, neighborhood poverty did not influence parental depression or coping styles or the provision of learning experiences. At the same time, family-level variables retained their importance for maternal behavior, as other studies have found. That the strength of the associations were stronger for family- than for neighborhood-level variables suggests that maternal characteristics and behavior are influenced more by more proxi- mal factors, in this case resources available to the mother in the family.

NOTE

Portions of this paper were presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Child Develop- ment, Seattle, April 20, 1991. The research was funded by the Russell Sage Foundation and Social Science Re- search Council's Committee for Research on the Urban Underclass. The Infant Health and Development Pro- gram was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Bureau of Mater- nal and Child Health and Resources Development, HRSA, PHS, DHHS, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The analysis and writing of this paper were supported by grants to the second author as Codirector of the follow-up of the In- fant Health and Development Program from the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health and Resources Development, by grants to the first and second authors by the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation and the NICHD, and by grants to the first and third authors by the Russell Sage Foun- dation. Their generosity is greatly appreciated.

The participating universities and site directors of the IHDP were P. H. Casey, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (Little Rock, AR); C. M. McCarton, Albert Einstein College of Medicine (Bronx, NY); M. McCormick, Harvard Medical School (Boston, MA); C. R. Bauer, University of Miami School of Medicine (Miami, FL); J. Bernbaum, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine (Philadelphia, PA); J. E. Tyson and M. Swanson, University of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas; C. J. Sells and F. C. Bennett, University of Washington School of Medicine (Seattle, WA); and D. T. Scott, Yale University School of Medicine (New Haven, CT). The Longitudinal Study Office is directed by C. McCarton and J. Brooks-Gunn. The Data Coordinating Center is directed by J. Tonascia and C. Meinert at the Johns Hopkins Uni- versity, School of Hygiene and Public Health. We

would especially like to thank James Tonascia, Pat Belt, and Michelle Donithan for assistance in data preparation and coordination as well as Rosemary Deibler for her assistance in manuscript preparation.

REFERENCES

Aber, J. L., Mitchell, C., Garfinkel, R., Allen, L., & Seid- man, E. (1992, June). Indices of neighborhood im- poverishment: Their associations with adolescent mental health and school achievement. Paper presented at the Conference on the Urban Underclass: Perspectives from the Social Sciences, Ann Arbor.

Baydar, N., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1991). Effects of maternal employment and child-care arrangements in in- fancy on preschoolers' cognitive and behavioral outcomes: Evidence from the children of the NLSY. Developmental Psychology, 27(6), 932-945.

Belle, D. (1990). Poverty and women's mental health. American Psychologist, 45(3), 385-389.

Belle, D., Longfellow, C., & Makosky, V. P. (1982). Stress, depression and the mother-child relationship: Report of a field study. International Journal of So- ciology of the Family, 12, 251-263.

Bradley, R. H., Casey, P. H., Barrett, K., Whiteside, L., Mundfrom, D. J., & Caldwell, B. M. (in press). The impact of the Infant Health and Development Pro- gram on the home environments of low birthweight premature infants. In R. T. Gross & D. Spiker (Eds.), The Infant Health and Development Program for low birth weight premature infants. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Klebanov, P. K., & Sealand, N. (1993). Do neighborhoods influence child and adolescent development? American Jour- nal of Sociology, 99, 353-395.

Brooks-Gunn, J., Klebanov, P. K., Liaw, F. R., & Spik- er, D. (1993). Enhancing the development of low- birth-weight, premature infants: Changes in cogni- tion and behavior over the first three years. Child Development, 64, 736-753.

Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Administra- tion manual (revised edition): Home observation for measurement of the home environment. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas.

Cohen, J. B., & Lazarus, R. S. (1977). Social support questionnaire. Berkeley: University of California.

Constantine, W. L., Haynes, C. W., Spiker, D., Kendall- Tackett, K., & Constantine, N. A. (1993). Recruit- ment and retention in a clinical trial of low birth weight, premature infants. Developmental and Be- havioral Pediatrics, 14(1), 1-7.

Crane, J. (1991). The epidemic theory of ghettos and neighborhood effects on dropping out and teenage childbearing. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 1126-1159.

Danziger, S., & Stern, J. (1990, September). The causes and consequences of child poverty in the United States. Research report prepared for UNICEF, Inter- national Child Development Center, Project on Child Poverty and Deprivation in Industrialized Counties (No. 90-194).

Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (in press). Economic deprivation and early-childhood development. Child Development.

453


Duncan, G. J., Connell, J. P., & Klebanov, P. K. (in press). Are neighborhood effects really causal? In G. Duncan, J. Brooks-Gunn, & L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences for development. New York: Russell Sage Founda- tion.

Ellwood, D. T. (1992, June). Mr Wilson's Neighbor- hoods? Review of neighborhood effects papers. Paper presented at the Conference on the Urban Un- derclass: Perspectives from the Social Sciences, Ann Arbor.

Field, T. M. (1987). Affective and interactive distur- bances in infants. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2nd ed., pp. 972-1005). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Field, T. M., Dempsey, J. R., & Shuman, H. H. (1979). Developmental assessments of infants surviving the respiratory distress syndrome. In T. M. Field, A. M. Sostek, S. Goldberg, & H. H. Shuman (Eds.), Infants born at risk (pp. 261-280). New York: Spectrum Publications.

Freeman, R. B. (1991). Employment and earning of disadvantaged young men in a labor shortage economy. In C. Jencks & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The urban underclass (pp. 103-121). Washington, DC: Brook- ings Institution.

Friedman, S. L., & Sigman, M. D. (Eds.). (1991). The psychological development of low birth weight children: Advances in applied developmental psychology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Garbarino, J. (1976). A preliminary study of some eco- logical correlates of child abuse: The impact of socioeconomic stress on mothers. Child Development, 47, 178-185.

Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric ill- ness by questionnaire. London: Oxford University Press.

Goldberg, D. P. (1978). Manual of the General Health Questionnaire. Great Britain: NFER.

Infant Health and Development Program. (1990). En- hancing the outcomes of low birth weight, premature infants: A multisite randomized trial. Journal of American Medical Association, 263, 3035-3042.

Jargowsky, P. A., & Bane, M. J. (1990). Ghetto-poverty: Basic questions. In L. E. Lynn, Jr., & G. H. McGeary (Eds.), Inner-city poverty in the United States (pp. 235-280). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Jarrett, R. (1992). A comparative examination of socialization patterns among low-income African-Ameri- cans, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and whites: A review of the ethnographic literature. Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research.

Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. E. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood. In L. E. Lynn, Jr. & G. H. McGeary (Eds.), Inner city poverty in the United States (pp. 111-186). Washing- ton, DC: National Academy Press.

Jencks, C., & Peterson, P. E. (Eds.). (1991). The urban underclass. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Kasarda, J. D. (1990). City jobs and residents on a colli- sion course: The urban underclass dilemma. Eco- nomic Development Quarterly, 4, 313-319.

Makosky, V. P. (1982). Sources of stress: Events or conditions? In D. Belle (Ed.), Lives in stress: Women and depression (pp. 35-53). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Massey, D. S., & Eggers, M. L. (1990). The ecology of inequality: Minorities and the concentration of poverty, 1970-1980. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1153-1188.

McClanahan, S. S. (1985). Family structure and the reproduction of poverty. American Journal of Sociolo- gy, 90, 873-901.

McClanahan, S. S., & Booth, K. (1989). Single mothers and their children: Problems, reproduction, and poli- tics. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 557- 580.

McClanahan, S. S., Wedemeyer, N. V., & Adelberg, T. (1981). Network structure, social support, and psychological well-being in the single-parent family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 601-612.

McCormick, M. C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Shorter, T., Holmes, J. H., & Heagarty, M.C. (1989). Factors associated with maternal rating of infant health in central Harlem. Developmental and Behavioral Pedi- atrics, 10(3), 139-144.

McCormick, M. C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Shorter, T., Wal- lace, C. Y., Holmes, J. H., & Heagarty, M. C. (1987). The planning of pregnancy among low-income women in central Harlem. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 156(1), 145-149.

McCormick, M. C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Workman- Daniels, K., Turner, J., & Peckham, G. (1992). The health and developmental status of very low birth weight children at school age. Journal of the Ameri- can Medical Association, 267, 2204-2208.

McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hard- ship on black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development, 61, 311-346.

McLoyd, V. C., & Wilson, L. (1991). The strain of living poor: Parenting, social support, and child mental health. In A. C. Huston (Ed.), Children in poverty (pp. 105-135). Canada: Cambridge University Press.

Moos, R. H., Cronkite, R. C., Billings, A. G., & Finney, J. W. (1986). Health and daily living form manual. Palo Alto, California: Veterans Administration and Stanford University Medical Centers.

Mott, F. L. (1991). Developmental effects of infant care: The mediating role of gender and health. Journal of Social Issues, 47(2), 139-158.

Parker, S., Greer, S., & Zuckerman, B. (1988). Double jeopardy: The impact of poverty on early child development. The Pediatric Clinics of North America, 35, 1227-1240.

Pearlin, L., & Johnson, J. (1977). Marital status, life- strains and depression. American Sociological Re- view, 42, 704-715.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385- 401.

Radloff, L. S. (1991). The use of the Center for Epi- demiological Studies Depression (CES-D) scale in adolescents and young adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20(1/2), 149-166.

Sameroff, A. J., & Chandler, M. J. (1975). Reproductive risk and the continuum of caretaking casualty. In F. D. Horowitz (Ed.), Review of Child Development

454


Research (Vol. 4, pp. 187-244). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tienda, M. (1991). Poor people, poor places: Decipher- ing neighborhood effects on poverty outcomes. In J. Huber (Ed.), Macro-micro linkages in sociology (pp. 244-262). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publica- tions.

Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1985). The importance of neighbors: The social, cognitive, and affective components of neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(2), 139-169.

Wacquant, L. J. D., & Wilson, W. J. (1989). Poverty, joblessness and the social transformation of the inner

city. In P. Cottingham & D. Ellwood (Eds.), Welfare policy for the 1990's (pp. 70-102). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chica- go: University of Chicago Press.

Wilson, W. J. (1991a). Public policy research and "the truly disadvantaged." In C. Jencks, & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The urban underclass (pp. 460-481). Wash- ington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Wilson, W. J. (1991b). Studying inner-city social dislocations: The challenge of public agenda research. American Sociological Review, 56(1), 1-14.

MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION GUIDELINES

If you plan to submit a paper to the Journal of Marriage and the Family, you can make sure your manuscript begins the review process promptly by complying with the following guidelines:

*Double space everything, including tables. Type should be large enough to be easily read.

*Use the format outlined in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (3rd ed.) for end references and citations in the text.

*Submit 4 copies of your paper. Three of these copies should be prepared for blind review. Remove all citations and references to authors' own works-or replace the entire reference with the words "author citation." Grants and acknowledgements should appear on the title page only. While these 3 copies may be double-sided, the title page must be separate.

*One full, single-sided copy should also be submitted. This copy must include the complete list of references.

*If your paper is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide a copy of the article on a com- puter disk.

*For information regarding submission fees and other guidelines, refer to Instructions to Authors on the last page of this issue. Authors may also request copies by writing the editorial office.

455

Marriage And Family Example Empiricial Article

Health & Medicine

Transcript of Marriage And Family Example Empiricial Article