An Interactionist Perspective on the Socioeconomic … · · 2007-01-10An Interactionist Perspective on the Socioeconomic Context ... and interactionist perspectives. ... income,

ANRV296-PS58-08 ARI 17 November 2006 1:24

An InteractionistPerspective on theSocioeconomic Contextof Human DevelopmentRand D. Conger1 and M. Brent Donnellan2

1The Family Research Group, Department of Human and Community Development,University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95616; email: [email protected] of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing,Michigan 48823; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007. 58:175–99

First published online as a Review inAdvance on August 11, 2006

The Annual Review of Psychology is onlineat http://psych.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551

Copyright c© 2007 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0066-4308/07/0110-0175$20.00

Key Words

socioeconomic status, social causation, social selection

AbstractThis article addresses the relationship between socioeconomic sta-tus (SES), family processes, and human development. The topic isframed as part of the general issue of health disparities, which in-volves the oft-observed positive relationship between SES and thecognitive, social, emotional, and physical well-being of adults andchildren. A review of recent research and theory identifies threegeneral theoretical approaches that provide possible explanations forthe association between SES and individual development: the socialcausation, social selection, and interactionist perspectives. Empiri-cal evidence demonstrates support for the social causation view thatSES affects families and the development of children in terms of bothfamily stress processes (the family stress model) and family invest-ments in children (the family investment model). However, there alsois empirical support for the social selection argument that individ-ual characteristics lead to differences in SES. Especially important,recent research is consistent with an interactionist approach, whichproposes a dynamic relationship between SES and developmentalchange over time. Drawing on the combined set of research find-ings, the article concludes with the description of an interactionistmodel that serves as a heuristic for future studies of the links amongSES, parenting behaviors, and child development.

175

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


SES: socioeconomicstatus

Social causation:the argument thatsocial and economicconditions influenceindividualfunctioning anddevelopment

Contents

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176Important Developmental

Correlates of SocioeconomicCircumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

The Multifaceted Nature ofSocioeconomic Status . . . . . . . . . 177

Moving from a Static to anInteractionist Model ofSocioeconomic Status andDevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

A SOCIAL CAUSATION VIEWOF SOCIOECONOMICINFLUENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178Major Theoretical Perspectives . . . 178Empirical Evidence for the Social

Causation Perspective . . . . . . . . . 181SOCIAL SELECTION AND

SOCIOECONOMICCIRCUMSTANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187The Social Selection Perspective . . 187Empirical Evidence for the Social

Selection Perspective . . . . . . . . . . 188THE INTERACTIONIST

APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189Taking the Long View of

Life-Course Dynamics . . . . . . . . . 189An Interactionist Model of SES

and Human Development . . . . . 190LOOKING TO THE FUTURE . . . . 192

INTRODUCTION

The present report provides a selective reviewof research and theory related to the impact ofsocioeconomic status (SES) on human devel-opment, with a special emphasis on the propo-sition that the family acts as a conduit for so-cioeconomic influences on the developmentof children and adolescents (e.g., Repetti et al.2002, but see Rowe & Rodgers 1997). Giventhe tremendous recent growth in this litera-ture, we focus on work during the past decadeor so (e.g., Bornstein & Bradley 2003, Bradley

& Corwyn 2002, Conger & Conger 2002). Inparticular, we consider and critically evaluatetwo dominant perspectives on the causal re-lation between SES and the development ofchildren: the social causation explanation andthe social selection explanation. In the lattersections of this review, we propose a new inte-grative model designed to guide future inves-tigations of the association between SES andhuman development.

Important Developmental Correlatesof Socioeconomic Circumstances

There is a long history of research on theinfluence of SES on human development,dating back to the middle of the past cen-tury (e.g., Davis & Havighurst 1946, Searset al. 1957). Economic changes in the UnitedStates and other countries during the pasttwo decades (e.g., increasing income inequal-ity) have enhanced this ongoing interest inhow social position and economic resourcesaffect families and the development of chil-dren (e.g., Conger & Conger 2002, Duncan& Brooks-Gunn 1997, Keating & Hertzman1999, Prior et al. 1999, Schoon et al. 2002).This research by developmental scholarsjoins with research in social epidemiologyon health disparities, or the general trendthat more socially and economically disadvan-taged adults and children are at increased riskfor physical, emotional, and behavioral prob-lems (Berkman & Kawachi 2000, Bradley &Corwyn 2002, McLeod & Shanahan 1996,Oakes & Rossi 2003). With respect to the in-fluence of SES on children and adolescents,there is evidence for an association betweenpoverty and mental health (e.g., Ackermanet al. 2004, Dearing et al. 2001, McLeod &Shanahan 1996), SES and cognitive develop-ment (e.g., Ackerman et al. 2004, Dearinget al. 2001, Hoff 2003, Mezzacappa 2004),and social class position and physical well-being (e.g., Evans & English 2002, McLoyd1998).

176 Conger · Donnellan

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


There are several reasons to suggest thatthe influence of SES on children and ado-lescents may result, in large part, from theactions of parents. For example, lower-SEScompared with middle-SES parents are morelikely to use a harsher, more authoritarian,parenting style as indicated by physical pun-ishment and the absence of reasoning withchildren about the consequences of their be-havior (e.g., Hoffman 2003, Hoff et al. 2002).These parenting practices have been linkedto less competent social and emotional de-velopment for children and adolescents (e.g.,Steinberg 2001). With regard to cognitivefunctioning, middle- compared with lower-SES parents are more likely to use richervocabularies and to engage in cognitivelystimulating activities with their children.Thus, current evidence suggests that SES isassociated with important family socializationpractices and with the health and well-being ofchildren. However, there is disagreement overthe causal interpretation of these observed re-lations, as we describe in a subsequent section.Prior to describing this controversy, we con-sider in some detail the concept of SES andits measurement.

The Multifaceted Nature ofSocioeconomic Status

SES is a construct that captures various di-mensions of social position, including pres-tige, power, and economic well-being (Hoffet al. 2002, Liu et al. 2004, Oakes & Rossi2003). Most contemporary investigators agreethat three quantitative indicators provide rea-sonably good coverage of the domains of in-terest: income, education, and occupationalstatus (Bradley & Corwyn 2002, Ensminger& Fothergill 2003). Despite the fact that theseindicators of social position are positively cor-related (Ensminger & Fothergill 2003), therealso is general agreement that they should notbe combined into simple composite scores.Duncan & Magnuson (2003), for example,suggest that each of these markers of social

Social selection:the argument thatattributes ofindividuals influencethe quality of theirsocial and economicenvironments

Socioeconomicstatus: anindividual’s locationin multipleenvironmentalhierarchies, usuallyinvolving economicresources,educationalachievement, andoccupational status

Health disparities:the well-establishedempiricalrelationship betweenhigher social andeconomic status andbetter health foradults and children

status demonstrates different levels of stabil-ity across time and differentially predicts fam-ily processes and child adjustment. Thus, in-come, education, and occupational status arenot interchangeable indicators of SES: Onlyby including each of them as a separate vari-able in data analyses can investigators begin tounderstand their unique and combined con-tributions to human development.

Indeed, education, occupation, and in-come represent separate yet related personal,social, and economic resources that have im-portant implications for the health and well-being of both parents and children. These re-sources can be thought of as “capital” thatdifferentiates persons, households, and neigh-borhoods (Bradley & Corwyn 2002, Hoff et al.2002, Oakes & Rossi 2003). As an illustra-tion, Oakes & Rossi (2003) draw on Coleman(1990) to propose that SES should be de-fined in terms of material or financial capital(economic resources), human capital (knowl-edge and skills), and social capital (connec-tions to and the status and power of indi-viduals in one’s social network). Income andother forms of wealth obviously relate to ma-terial or financial capital and education tohuman capital. Although the connection isnot as straightforward for occupational sta-tus, it can be considered a marker of socialcapital inasmuch as people in higher-statusoccupations are more likely to associate withothers who have higher-than-average occu-pational status, advanced skills, and economicresources (Bradley & Corwyn 2003, Oakes &Rossi 2003). Our main point is that each as-pect of SES may have an important indepen-dent influence on how children are raised andon how they develop over time. As such, re-searchers should separately measure income,education, and occupational status and use an-alytic techniques that are capable of identify-ing the potentially unique associations eachhas with human development. The connec-tion between social status and human devel-opment may be quite complex, however, anissue we next consider.

www.annualreviews.org • SES and Human Development 177

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Interactionistperspective: theargument thatindividual attributesinfluence a person’ssocial and economicposition in areciprocal processwithin and acrossgenerations

Family stressmodel (FSM): aframework that linkssocioeconomicdisadvantage to afamily stress processthat increasesparents’ emotionaldistress andjeopardizes thehealthy developmentof children

Family investmentmodel (FIM): anexplanatoryframework that linksparents’socioeconomicadvantage tochildren’s physical,emotional, cognitive,and social well-being

Moving from a Static to anInteractionist Model ofSocioeconomic Status andDevelopment

The majority of research on SES and hu-man development proposes that social posi-tion influences the lives of individuals acrosstime and that socioeconomic disadvantage hasnegative consequences for adults and children(e.g., Conger et al. 2002). This perspectiverepresents an instance of the social causationargument, which predicts that social condi-tions lead to variations in social, emotional,cognitive, and physical functioning. The an-tithesis to this viewpoint is the social selec-tion argument, which proposes that the traitsand dispositions of parents influence their so-cial status and the health and well-being oftheir children (see, e.g., Mayer 1997). Ac-cording to an interactionist perspective, theactual processes through which SES and a per-son’s health and well-being come to be asso-ciated with one another are far more complexthan suggested by either the social causationor social selection point of view. From thisintegrative perspective, the association be-tween SES and human development involvesa dynamic interplay between social causationand social selection. That is, the interaction-ist view of human development proposes anongoing reciprocal relationship between thecharacteristics of individuals and the broadersocioeconomic environments in which theylive (e.g., Magnusson & Stattin 1998). Inthis review, we consider evidence relatedto social causation, social selection, and themore dynamic interactionist argument, whichonly recently has been subjected to empiricalevaluation.

A SOCIAL CAUSATION VIEW OFSOCIOECONOMIC INFLUENCE

In this section, we describe two major theoret-ical approaches consistent with the social cau-sation perspective and evaluate empirical evi-dence related to each of the approaches. The

first theoretical paradigm, the family stressmodel (FSM) of economic hardship, proposesthat financial difficulties have an adverse ef-fect on parents’ emotions, behaviors, and re-lationships, which in turn negatively influencetheir parenting strategies (Conger & Conger2002). As reflected in its name, this model fo-cuses on the means by which economic dis-advantage exacerbates family stresses that ul-timately imperil the healthy development ofchildren and adults. The second perspective,which we title the family investment model(FIM), takes a different approach to SES ef-fects by drawing attention to the ways that par-ents invest financial, social, and human capitalto promote the talents and well-being of theirchildren.

Major Theoretical Perspectives

The family stress model of economic hard-ship. This model focuses on the economicdimension of SES, consistent with evidencethat low income is associated with significantdevelopmental difficulties for children, espe-cially when poverty is severe or persistent(Dearing et al. 2001, Duncan & Magnuson2003, Magnuson & Duncan 2002, McLoyd1998). The model builds on a tradition of re-search dating back to the Great Depressionyears of the 1930s, when a series of stud-ies indicated that severe hardship underminedfamily functioning, which in turn negativelyaffected the lives of both parents and chil-dren (e.g., Angell 1936, Cavan & Ranck 1938,Komarovsky 1940; see also Elder 1974, Elder& Caspi 1988). These themes have been car-ried forward in contemporary investigationsthat both support and modify many of theconclusions reached in these earlier studies(Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn 2003, McLoyd1998). Consistent with this line of research,Conger and his colleagues developed the FSMto help explain how financial problems influ-enced the lives of Iowa families going througha severe downturn in the agricultural economyduring the 1980s (Conger & Conger 2002,Conger & Elder 1994, Conger et al. 2002).


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


As shown in Figure 1, the FSM proposesthat economic hardship leads to economicpressure in the family. Markers of hardshipinclude low income, high debts relative to as-sets, and negative financial events (e.g., in-creasing economic demands, recent incomeloss, and work instability). These indicatorsof hardship are consistent with the concept ofeconomic or material capital, which includesboth accumulated wealth and current income.These hardship conditions are expected to af-fect family functioning and individual adjust-ment primarily through the economic pres-sures they generate. The FSM proposes thateconomic pressures include (a) unmet mate-rial needs involving necessities such as ade-quate food and clothing, (b) the inability topay bills or make ends meet, and (c) havingto cut back on even necessary expenses (e.g.,health insurance and medical care). Accordingto this model, the experience of these kinds ofpressures or strains gives psychological mean-ing to economic hardship (Conger & Conger2002; Conger & Elder 1994; Conger et al.1992, 1993, 1994, 2002).

In addition, the model predicts that wheneconomic pressure is high, parents are at in-creased risk for emotional distress (e.g., de-pression, anxiety, anger, and alienation) andfor behavioral problems (e.g., substance useand antisocial behavior; Conger 1995, Con-ger et al. 2002). According to the model, theseemotional or behavioral problems predict in-creased marital conflict and reduced maritalwarmth, and this process diminishes nurtur-ing and involved parenting. That is, parentsdistracted by their own personal problemsand marital distress are expected to demon-strate less affection toward their children, tobe less involved in their children’s daily activ-ities, and to be more irritable, harsh, and in-consistent in their disciplinary practices. Thelast step in the FSM indicates that parentalnurturance and involvement lead to greateremotional, behavioral, cognitive, and physi-cal well-being for children. Thus, when thistype of child-rearing is threatened by the hy-pothesized economic stress process, successful

Economicpressure: asyndrome of eventsor conditions thatgive psychologicalmeaning to thestressful experienceof economichardship

development of the child is placed injeopardy.

According to the model, when familiesexperience economic hardship, children areat risk for suffering both decreases in posi-tive adjustment (e.g., cognitive ability, socialcompetence, school success, and attachmentto parents) and increases in internalizing(e.g., symptoms of depression and anxiety) orexternalizing (e.g., aggressive and antisocialbehavior) problems. The model also proposes,however, that these economic effects indi-rectly influence children through their im-pact on the lives of parents. For single-parentfamilies, caregiver conflicts with one anothermay be omitted from the model or conflictswith an ex-spouse or current romantic part-ner might be substituted, as economic prob-lems are expected to affect these relationshipsas well (Conger et al. 2002). Moreover, whenchildren are raised by caregivers other thanparents (e.g., grandparents), the same stressprocess is expected to operate. Although elab-orations of the FSM include factors that pro-mote resilience or exacerbate vulnerabilityto these mediating pathways, the model inFigure 1 provides the basic tenants of thistheoretical framework (Conger & Conger2002, Conger et al. 2002).

The family investment model. The FIMis rooted in economic principles of invest-ment and builds on the notion that higher-SES compared with lower-SES parents havegreater access to financial (e.g., income), social(e.g., occupational status), and human (e.g.,education) capital. According to this model,the investment of these resources by familiesis associated with the successful developmentof children and adolescents. In terms of finan-cial capital, the FIM proposes that familieswith greater economic resources are able tomake significant investments in the develop-ment of their children, whereas more disad-vantaged families must invest in more imme-diate family needs (Becker & Thomes 1986,Bradley & Corwyn 2002, Corcoran & Adams1997, Duncan & Magnuson 2003, Haveman


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Figu

re1

The

Fam

ilySt

ress

Mod

el.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


& Wolfe 1994, Linver et al. 2002, Mayer1997). These investments involve several dif-ferent dimensions of family support, including(a) learning materials available in the home, (b)parent stimulation of learning both directlyand through support of advanced or special-ized tutoring or training, (c) the family’s stan-dard of living (adequate food, housing, cloth-ing, medical care, etc.), and (d) residing in alocation that fosters a child’s competent devel-opment. For example, wealthier parents areexpected to reside in areas that promote achild’s association with conventional friends,access to good schools, and involvement ina neighborhood or community environmentthat provides resources for the developingchild such as parks and child-related activities.According to the theory, then, economic well-being will be positively related to parental ma-terial investments and child-rearing activitiesexpected to foster the academic and social suc-cess of a child (see Figure 2).

Although the traditional investment modelfrom economics is limited to the influenceof economic resources on families and chil-dren, we extend the basic model by proposingthat the educational achievements and occu-pational positions of parents and other care-givers will be similarly related to investmentsin children. For example, parents with greatereducation would be expected to place a prior-ity on activities, goods, and services that fosteracademic and social competence, a predictionconsistent with the idea that the human capitalof parents will tend to promote the develop-ment of human capital in their children. Withregard to occupational position, sociologistshave long argued that greater occupationalstatus affects parents’ values and priorities in afashion that positively influences their strate-gies of child rearing (Kohn 1959, 1963, 1969,1995). Consistent with these ideas, the modelproposes that parents with more prestigiousand higher paying work roles will tend to in-vest in their children in at least two importantways. First, they should provide social capitalby increasing access to employment and othercareer-related activities. Second, they should

provide human capital by guiding their chil-dren toward activities that will promote theireventual career success. Thus, the FIM pro-poses that parents with greater resources arelikely to invest their economic, educational,and occupational capital in ways that facilitatethe well-being of their offspring from child-hood into the adult years.

Empirical Evidence for the SocialCausation Perspective

The family stress model of economic hard-ship. We located seven published reportsthat both evaluated the FSM in studies ofchild or adolescent development and also usedthe same labels for constructs as described inFigure 1. These studies represent a rich ar-ray of ethnic or national groups, geographiclocations, family structures, children’s ages,and research designs. The first two reportsinvolved the Iowa Youth and Families Projectand provided the first tests of the full FSM.The two separate analyses involved 205 rural,white, seventh-grade boys from two-parentfamilies (Conger et al. 1992) and 220 rural,white, seventh-grade girls from two-parentfamilies (Conger et al. 1993). The third studywas of African American families and involved422 male and female fifth graders living withtwo caregivers in urban and rural locations(Conger et al. 2002). The fourth study, of 419boys and girls ranging in age from 5 to 12years, involved a poor urban sample of pri-marily ethnic minority (57% African Ameri-can, 28% Hispanic) families headed by a sin-gle parent (83%) (Mistry et al. 2002). The fifthstudy was based on a nationally representativesample of families and included 753 preschoolboys and girls, ages 3–5 years (Yeung et al.2002). The sixth research report involved 527early-adolescent boys and girls living in two-parent families in Finland (Solantaus et al.2004). Finally, the seventh study includedEuropean American (N = 111) and MexicanAmerican (N = 167) families of male and fe-male fifth graders living in urban areas ofSouthern California (Parke et al. 2004).


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Figu

re2

The

Fam

ilyIn

vest

men

tMod

el.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Given the diversity among these samples,the degree of replication of findings acrossstudies was quite remarkable. With regardto the connection between economic hard-ship (i.e., low income, debts relative to as-sets, and/or negative financial events) and eco-nomic pressure (see Figure 1), the medianpath or multiple correlation coefficient was0.68 across these investigations. Also consis-tent with the model, for all of the reports thelink between economic hardship and othervariables in the model was indirect througheconomic pressure. For all of the studies, eco-nomic pressure significantly predicted par-ents’ emotional and behavioral problems (me-dian path coefficient = 0.42). Also consistentwith the FSM, for the five studies that in-cluded information about caregiver relation-ships, each of the model tests found that par-ent emotional distress was directly related tointerparental conflict after economic pressurewas taken into account (median path coeffi-cient = 0.33). Emotional distress also pre-dicted conflicts between caregivers when ei-ther one or both of the caregivers were notbiological parents of the focal child (Congeret al. 2002). For six out of the seven re-ports, emotional distress also was either nega-tively related to positive parenting practices orpositively associated with negative parentingbehaviors. In most instances, parents’ emo-tional and behavioral problems did not di-rectly predict child or adolescent develop-ment once parenting behavior was taken intoaccount, a finding that is consistent with theFSM.

For four of the five reports that in-cluded a measure of interparental conflict, thismeasure was related in the expected direc-tion with parenting behaviors (median pathcoefficient = 0.45). That is, conflict was pos-itively related to indicators of harsh or re-jecting parenting and negatively related toindicators of nurturing and involved parent-ing. Interparental conflicts had the same ef-fect when one or both caregivers were notthe biological parent of the focal child. More-over, for almost all the studies, interparental

conflict was not directly related to measures ofchild or adolescent development. The majorexception was the Mexican American familiesin the Parke et al. (2004) study, in which in-terparental conflict demonstrated a substan-tial direct path to child adjustment problems(standardized path coefficient = 0.53). Webelieve this finding may result from the highvalue Mexican American parents and childrenplace on the family unit. Because threats to thefamily itself engendered by interparental con-flict may be especially distressing for MexicanAmerican children, interparental conflict maydirectly affect the emotional and behavioralproblems of these children independently ofstyles of parenting (Parke et al. 2004). Futureresearch is needed to see if this finding repli-cates in other samples of Mexican Americanfamilies.

Finally, all of the studies provided somesupport for the FSM hypothesis that parent-ing behavior is significantly associated withchild or adolescent well-being. Four of thereports included a measure of child or ado-lescent positive adjustment, and eight of thenine estimated path coefficients were statis-tically significant (median path coefficient =0.31 when parenting is scored in a positive di-rection). All of the studies included measuresof poor child or adolescent adjustment, and 17of the 21 estimated relationships were statis-tically significant (median path coefficient =−0.44 when parenting is scored in a positivedirection). These results provide substantialevidence that the child-rearing strategies ofparents provide the most proximal mechanismthrough which the economic fortunes of thefamily affect the development of children andadolescents, consistent with the FSM.

Other studies also indicate that specificaspects of the FSM apply to diverse racialand ethnic groups and to families living incountries outside of the United States (e.g.,Borge et al. 2004, Dodge et al. 1994, Gutmanet al. 2005, Prior et al. 1999, Robila &Krishnakumar 2005, Wickrama et al. 2005,Zevalkink & Riksen-Walraven 2001). Supportfor the FSM also comes from studies that use


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


HOME: homeobservation formeasurement of theenvironment

the concept of economic strain rather thaneconomic pressure as a key explanatory con-struct (e.g., Mistry et al. 2004). Even studiesthat omit these constructs altogether providesupport for the basic underlying economicstress process (e.g., Brody et al. 2002, Linveret al. 2002). Moreover, in an interesting ex-tension of the model, Sobolewski & Amato(2005) found that the economic stress pro-cesses proposed in the FSM influence the psy-chological well-being of children grown toadulthood.

Especially exciting are recent experimen-tal, quasi-experimental, or longitudinal stud-ies conducted over significant periods of timethat also report results consistent with theFSM. For instance, Costello and her col-leagues (2003) reported findings from a quasi-experimental study. The results demonstratedthat increased employment in a poor commu-nity that resulted from the opening of a casinoincreased family income, decreased problemsin parenting, and reduced externalizing prob-lems for children in the study. Experimen-tal research on income supplementation forpoor families or on moving poor familiesto more economically advantaged neighbor-hoods also has produced evidence that theseprograms can have a positive influence on par-ents’ well-being and on developmental out-comes for children and adolescents. Althoughthese findings are quite complex and tend tobe contingent on a number of factors, such asthe age of the child, a growing body of evi-dence suggests that improvements in familyincome may have beneficial effects on parentsand children consistent with predictions fromthe FSM (Gennetian & Miller 2002, Hustonet al. 2005, Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn2003, Leventhal et al. 2005, Morris et al.2005).

Finally, consistent with evidence reportedby Conger and his colleagues showing that theFSM predicts change over time (Conger et al.1994, 1999 a,b), recent longitudinal studieshave shown that increases in family income re-duced children’s symptoms of depression andantisocial behavior (Strohschein 2005) and

that poverty, and especially chronic poverty,disrupted family functioning, inhibited cogni-tive development, and exacerbated children’sbehavior problems across a several-year pe-riod (National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development Early Child Care Re-search Network 2005). Collectively, the stud-ies reviewed in this section suggest that theFSM is a useful model for helping to under-stand how the economic aspects of SES mayinfluence family members, child-rearing prac-tices, and the adjustment of children and ado-lescents.

The family investment model. Unlike theextensive literature on the FSM and varia-tions of the FSM, only a limited amount ofrecent research is focused specifically on theparameters included in the proposed FIM(Figure 2). In part, this paucity of findingsresults from the fact that these demographicmeasures typically are treated as control vari-ables in developmental research rather thanas phenomena of theoretical interest in theirown right (Hoff et al. 2002, Hoffman 2003).However, a small number of recent studies arespecifically related to each of the exogenousconstructs in the model involving income, ed-ucation, and occupational status. In terms offamily income, a number of studies have con-firmed the most basic propositions of the in-vestment model; that is, family income af-fects the types of investments parents make inthe lives of their children (Bradley & Corwyn2002, Davis-Kean 2005, Mayer 1997), andfamily income during childhood and adoles-cence is positively related to academic, finan-cial, and occupational success during the adultyears (Bradley & Corwyn 2002, Corcoran &Adams 1997, Mayer 1997, Teachman et al.1997).

With regard to the proposed associationbetween income and investments, a seminalstudy by Bradley and his associates (2001)demonstrated the pervasiveness of this con-nection. These researchers used data fromseveral waves of the National Longitudi-nal Survey of Youth to evaluate differences


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


in parental investments and parental behav-ior, as measured by the Home Observa-tion for Measurement of the Environment(HOME; Bradley & Caldwell 1980), for sev-eral thousand children ranging in age frominfancy to early adolescence. For three majorethnic groups (European American, AfricanAmerican, and Hispanic American), the studyshowed that widespread differences existedbetween the child-rearing contexts of fami-lies above the official poverty line in compari-son with families below the poverty line. Par-ents who were more economically advantagedwere more likely to engage their children inconversation, provide enriching learning ac-tivities for their children, demonstrate affec-tion and respect for their children, and avoidphysical punishment or restraint. Likewise,children in more financially secure familiesalso had greater access to books, magazines,toys, and games that stimulate learning; cul-tural events and activities; special lessons thatencourage particular talents in domains suchas music and sports; and homes that tendedto be safer, cleaner, and roomier. Taken to-gether, the results of this study of a large-scale,nationally representative, multiethnic sampleof families demonstrate a clear link betweenfamily income and the investments that aremade in the human capital of children.

Despite the noted evidence for the con-nection between family income and the long-term well-being of children grown to adult-hood, and between income and a variety ofparental investments in children, a significantlimitation in most of this earlier research isthat the full mediating process proposed bythe investment model (Figure 2) has not beenevaluated. That is, the central concern of themodel involves the degree to which parentalinvestments account for the connection be-tween family income and the long-term devel-opment of children. A series of recent studies,however, have provided evidence that is rea-sonably consistent with the full set of empiri-cal relationships proposed by the model.

In a large-scale, multiethnic study of chil-dren from birth to five years of age at the time

of their analysis, Linver and her colleagues(2002) found an association between familyincome and child cognitive development atages 3 and 5 years (standardized intelligencetest scores, b = 0.70 without control vari-ables and 0.52 with control variables). Con-sistent with the mediating hypothesis, this as-sociation was significantly reduced (b = 0.36)when the investment mediator, items from theHOME scale, was introduced into the analy-ses. The investigators also found that the mea-sure of parental investment completely me-diated the association between income andchild behavior problems at three and fiveyears of age. Thus, the model tested in thisstudy partially explained how SES influencedboth child competence and maladjustment. Aparticularly important feature of the Linveret al. (2002) study is that the investigatorscontrolled for the influence of parent educa-tion and intelligence in the analyses, as wellas other social-demographic characteristics.These controls reduced the likelihood that theresults could be attributed simply to the ed-ucational attainment and intelligence of theparent, which might indicate a direct geneticeffect on the child’s cognitive abilities.

In a similar set of analyses using data fromthe Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Ye-ung et al. (2002) also controlled for parentpersonal and demographic characteristics in atest of the investment model. Even with thesecontrols, they found evidence that family in-come had an influence on child outcomes atleast in part through parental investments inthe competent development of children. In aseparate study of 868 eight- to twelve-year-old children, Davis-Kean (2005) showed thatfamily income is positively associated withparents’ expectations that their children willexperience significant educational achieve-ment. These expectations predicted parentalinvestments that promote learning, for exam-ple, by spending more time reading to theirchildren. Taken together, the findings fromthis set of studies provide substantial supportfor the link between income and investmentsand between income and child well-being, as


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


proposed by the FIM. They also provide pre-liminary support for the FIM proposition thatfamily income will affect the successful de-velopment of children primarily through suchinvestments.

Returning to Figure 2, the FIM proposesthat parent education will have an influence onparental investments similar to that of income,and that these investments, in turn, will havea positive relationship with competent devel-opment. Presumably, a better-educated par-ent will acquire more knowledge about childand adolescent development, have a greaterunderstanding of strategies for encouragingacademic and social competence, and will gen-erally be more skillful and effective in teach-ing children to negotiate the many environ-ments to which they must adapt (Bornsteinet al. 2003). Despite the reasonableness of thishypothesized mediating process, there are nospecific empirical tests of this proposition castin terms of the FIM. However, there is someevidence consistent with these ideas.

To begin with, several studies demon-strate that parental education predicts com-petent child development even when a num-ber of other variables are controlled, such asfamily income and occupational status, par-ent’s cognitive ability and emotional well-being, and family structure (Dearing et al.2001, Duncan & Magnusson 2003, Han 2005,Huston & Aronson 2005, Kohen et al. 2002,Tamis-LeMonda et al. 2004). Moreover, re-cent research is consistent with a long historyof empirical findings that relate parent edu-cation to socialization practices and priorities(Hoff et al. 2002). For example, in a studyof 1053 families from the National Instituteof Child Health and Human DevelopmentStudy of Early Child Care, Huston & Aronson(2005) found that maternal education was pos-itively correlated with maternal sensitivity to-ward the focal child at 36 months and alsowith parental investments involving a moreenriched and positive home environment asassessed by the HOME. These positive rela-tionships still existed after controlling for avariety of other maternal, child, and family

characteristics. Similarly, Tamis-LeMondaand colleagues (2004) found that maternal andpaternal education were positively associatedwith sensitivity, positive regard, and cognitivestimulation of a young child.

In addition to this more general evidencefor the plausibility of education as an impor-tant part of the investment process, three re-cent studies provide credible tests of a mediat-ing pathway. First, in an intensive study of 63families, Hoff (2003) found that more highlyeducated parents create a richer, more com-plex language environment for their children,and their children demonstrate greater lan-guage skills. Especially important for the in-vestment hypothesis, the richness of maternalspeech completely mediated the associationbetween parent education and child produc-tive vocabulary. In an analysis of data fromthe National Longitudinal Survey of Youthinvolving children ranging from 3 to 15 yearsof age, Bradley & Corwyn (2003) found thatparental education was positively related toa child’s vocabulary, reading, and mathemati-cal skills and negatively related to behavioralproblems. Moreover, the association betweeneducation and child development was sub-stantially mediated by the parent’s stimulationof learning. Finally, using data from the PanelStudy of Income Dynamics for 8- to 12-year-old children, Davis-Kean (2005) found thatthe connection between parent education andchild academic achievement was mediated byparental expectations for and investments inacademic ability. These three studies providepreliminary evidence consistent with the me-diating process proposed by the FIM.

The final exogenous variable in the FIMinvolves parent or caregiver occupational sta-tus (Figure 2). Unfortunately, there is verylittle evidence regarding the role of par-ents’ occupation in the proposed family in-vestment process. The Bradley & Corwyn(2003) paper reporting evidence that learn-ing stimulation (as measured by the HOME)mediated the relationship between parents’educational attainment and child competencealso reported a similar mediating process


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


for occupation, as assessed by the Socioeco-nomic Index of Occupations. In another study,Gottfried et al. (2003) followed a cohort of130 one-year-old children and their parentsfor almost two decades. They found that oc-cupational status of fathers (rated from la-borer to professional) reliably predicted anenriched cultural, intellectual, and learningenvironment for children, as measured bythe HOME and by the Family EnvironmentScale (correlations from 0.27 to 0.52). Theoccupation of mothers also predicted thesemarkers of parental investment, but not asfrequently, or at the same level, as the oc-cupation of fathers. The investigators alsofound that the father’s occupation predictedchildren’s cognitive ability, academic achieve-ment, and social-emotional well-being, butin most instances, the mother’s occupationalstatus did not. The lack of mother influencemay reflect the fact that these were gener-ally traditional two-parent families, in whichfathers were most likely to be the primarybreadwinners. Unfortunately, the authors didnot directly examine the mediating role ofparental investments in explaining the asso-ciation between occupation and child out-comes; however, the pattern of reported cor-relations suggests that a mediating process waslikely.

To summarize, there is general empiricalsupport for the social causation perspectiveand for several of the specific predictions gen-erated by the FSM and the FIM. Nonethe-less, many investigators have noted the limi-tations of drawing causal inferences from thepredominantly nonexperimental studies thathave addressed these issues (e.g., Rutter et al.2001). Indeed, true randomized experimentsare the best method for establishing causal-ity (Shadish et al. 2002) and the dilemma fac-ing researchers in this area is that true exper-iments are often not feasible or are gravelyunethical. As such, there are alternative ex-planations for the observed associations be-tween SES and life course development, aswe describe in the following section of thisreview.

SOCIAL SELECTION ANDSOCIOECONOMICCIRCUMSTANCES

The Social Selection Perspective

The major alternative explanation to thesocial causation argument is that the connec-tions between parental SES and child devel-opment result from a process of social selec-tion (e.g., Becker 1981, Lerner 2003, Mayer1997, Rowe & Rodgers 1997). To understandthis viewpoint better, it is useful to first con-ceptualize SES as a constellation of outcomesthat are potentially influenced by individualdifferences in traits such as intelligence andpersonality. According to the social selectionperspective, these individual differences bothfacilitate the accumulation of social advan-tages and are transmitted from parents to chil-dren. The most commonly invoked mode oftransmission is genetic (e.g., Rowe & Rodgers1997), but the exact mechanism is not essentialto this argument. What is critical is the propo-sition that the observed associations betweenparental SES and child and adolescent out-comes are spurious because they are causedby a third variable. That is, both parental SESand children’s development are hypothesizedto emanate from certain parental characteris-tics. For example, Mayer (1997) proposed that“parental characteristics that employers valueand are willing to pay for, such as skills, dili-gence, honesty, good health, and reliability,also improve children’s life chances, indepen-dent of their effect on parents’ income. Chil-dren of parents with these attributes do welleven when their parents do not have much in-come” (pp. 2–3). Corcoran & Adams (1997)have called this the “noneconomic parentalresources” perspective.

If the social selection perspective is cor-rect, then the FSM and the FIM are not validcausal accounts of the role that SES plays inchild development. For instance, returning toFigure 1, the social selection argument pro-poses that positive characteristics of parents,such as those described by Mayer (1997), will


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


reduce exposure to economic hardship andpressure, decrease the likelihood of parentemotional distress and interparental conflict,foster nurturing and involved parenting, andlead to greater child well-being. This proposi-tion leads to the statistical expectation that theconnections among the economic variables,family stress processes, and child well-beingpredicted by the FSM will be greatly reducedor eliminated once these positive parentalcharacteristics are included in data analyses.The same social selection arguments wouldapply to the connections among SES, parentalinvestments, and child outcomes as proposedby the FIM (see Figure 2).

Empirical Evidence for the SocialSelection Perspective

There is evidence from longitudinal stud-ies that early emerging individual differ-ences in personality, aggressiveness, and cog-nitive ability predict SES-relevant outcomesin adulthood such as income, occupationalstatus, and bouts of unemployment (e.g.,Caspi et al. 1998, Feinstein & Bynner 2004,Judge et al. 1999, Kokko & Pulkkinen 2000,McLeod & Kaiser 2004, Shiner et al. 2003).Indeed, Judge et al. (1999) noted that “knowl-edge about one’s personality and intelligenceearly in life proved to be an effective predictorof one’s later career success” (p. 643). More-over, these sorts of traits have been shownto be heritable to a significant degree (e.g.,Bouchard 2004). Thus, consistent with the so-cial selection perspective, there are individualdifferences that seem to influence SES andthat can be passed to offspring.

The study of individual differences alsoraises other specific challenges to some ofthe pathways specified by the FSM and theFIM. One possibility is that characteristicsof children evoke certain parental responses(see, e.g., Bell 1968), thereby clouding the di-rection of effect proposed by these models.For example, child characteristics might cre-ate economic difficulties for parents in a man-ner that contradicts the causal sequence im-

plied by the FSM. Suggestive evidence forthis proposition comes from Hyde and herassociates (2004), who found that preschoolchildren with a difficult temperament exacer-bated feelings of parental incompetence anddepressed affect for mothers. These maternalcharacteristics, in turn, diminished the qual-ity of the mother’s work life. It is plausiblethat this sort of process could decrease themother’s success in work and the family’s over-all SES when played out over a significant spanof time. Evocative child effects likewise ap-ply to the FIM, given that certain talents andproclivities of children might cause parents toinvest certain kinds of resources in their off-spring. For example, an academically talentedyoungster might evoke investments in edu-cational domains, whereas an athletically tal-ented youngster might evoke investments inathletic domains.

Other evidence that individual differencesmight influence specific causal associationsproposed by the FSM was provided by Conger& Conger (2002), who showed that parentswho were high in generalized self-efficacy(mastery) actually reduced their level of eco-nomic pressure over time. Thus, this traitlikely helped the adults cope with economicproblems, which should help maintain oreven improve family SES in the future. Interms of the FIM, individual differences inparenting skill might moderate the effec-tiveness of parental investments. Thus, con-sistent with the broad theme of the socialselection argument, there is evidence that in-dividual differences are relevant factors forunderstanding the relation between parentalSES and the development of children andadolescents.

In sum, empirical support exists for boththe social causation and social selection per-spectives. To be sure, the tension betweenthese two competing explanations for the as-sociation between SES and human develop-ment is similar to the debates over natureversus nurture or person versus situation thatexist in psychology and related disciplines.All three debates are variations on a common


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


theme where the causes of behavior are at-tributed to either internal or external causes(Turkheimer 2004). To our minds, however,such extreme positions do not capture thecomplexities of human development, as is il-lustrated by the often-cited cross-fosteringstudy reported by Capron & Duyme (1989),who found evidence of main effects for boththe SES of adoptive parents and the SES ofbiological parents on the IQs of a sample ofFrench children adopted at birth. The factthat the IQs of these children were influencedby their adopted parents’ SES reflected socialcausation (see also van IJzendoorn et al. 2005for a review of adoption studies), and simi-larly, the fact that the IQs of these childrenwere influenced by their biological parents’SES is consistent with the thrust of the so-cial selection argument. Thus, it appears thatthe truth lies with the well-worn cliche thatboth intrinsic and extrinsic factors influencethe course of human development.

THE INTERACTIONISTAPPROACH

Taking the Long View ofLife-Course Dynamics

We believe that strict social selection or socialcausation explanations are unlikely to reflectthe complexities of human development as itis played out over time and across generations.On the one hand, the social selection perspec-tive tends to minimize the role that socioeco-nomic circumstances such as economic catas-trophes and windfalls may play in the livesof parents and children. On the other hand,the social causation explanation places too lit-tle emphasis on the role of individual differ-ences and human agency. Thus, a compre-hensive model that incorporates both socialcausation and social selection processes seemsto hold the most promise for guiding futureresearch. There appears to be an emergingbody of evidence for this viewpoint, given thatthree recent studies have generated findings

suggesting a dynamic interplay between so-cial position and life-course development.

Using data from two national birth co-hort studies in Britain, Schoon et al. (2002)showed that low SES in a child’s family oforigin predicted lower academic achievementand continuing life stress across the years ofchildhood and adolescence. Children’s loweracademic competence and higher life stress,in turn, were associated with lower SES whenthe children reached their adult years. In thesecond study, Wickrama and his colleagues(2005) found that low SES in the family oforigin predicted adverse economic and re-lated life circumstances for adolescents. Theseevents increased risk for both mental andphysical health problems during the transi-tion to adulthood, which in turn predictedeconomic problems and poorer social circum-stances during the early adult years. Thus,consistent with the interactionist perspective,both studies suggest a reciprocal process inwhich early SES predicts personal character-istics of children that influence their SES inadulthood. A problem with both of these stud-ies, however, is that the traits and dispositionsof parents may have led to SES in the familyof origin and to the course of children’s devel-opment, consistent with the social selectionargument.

Further consideration of this alternativeexplanation for these findings requires infor-mation about the interplay between SES andpersonal characteristics within a single gener-ation. Support for this type of reciprocal pro-cess was provided in a study by Miech and hiscolleagues (1999), who showed that antisocialyouths experience lower educational attain-ment, which in turn increases their risk forfurther antisocial behavior as young adults.Presumably, both the SES and ongoing be-haviors of these young adults would affect thedevelopment of their children. All told, thiscombined set of studies provides preliminarybut important support for the interactionistapproach. We next turn to consideration of amodel that applies these ideas by proposing a


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


process that begins with a future parent’s char-acteristics during childhood and adolescenceand, through a series of intervening mecha-nisms, eventually influences the developmentof the next generation of children.

An Interactionist Model of SES andHuman Development

Figure 3 depicts our interactionist perspec-tive on SES, family interaction processes, andchild development. The model systematicallyincorporates social selection and social causa-tion processes into an overarching framework.To address the social selection approach, themodel begins with the positive characteristicsof future parents (G1) during childhood andadolescence. These positive characteristics in-clude attributes such as cognitive abilities, so-cial competence, persistence, planfulness, andambition. The selection framework proposesthat these characteristics will be positively re-lated to G1 SES in adulthood and will be pos-itively related to the investments that parentsmake in their children (G2). The model alsoproposes a direct, positive path from G1 per-sonal characteristics to G2 child well-being.This direct pathway could occur biologically(e.g., through genes or the intrauterine en-vironment) or via social learning processeswhereby offspring emulate G1 characteristicsthat demonstrate continuity from childhoodto the adult years. Finally, G1’s social and cog-nitive skills are expected to reduce the oc-currence of SES-related family stressors, asproposed by the FSM.

The social causation aspects of the inte-grated model are reflected in pathways fromfamily stress processes to G2 child outcomesalong the lines specified by the FSM and inpathways from family SES to parental invest-ments in their offspring along the lines pro-posed by the FIM. The interactionist modelindicates that, although social selection willplay a role in determining an adult’s social po-sition, socioeconomic circumstances will havean additive influence on eventual outcomes

independent of original G1 characteristics.That is, although adult SES is affected byearlier G1 characteristics, the model depictedin Figure 3 proposes that G1 SES will havean additional and independent impact onparental investments and family stress pro-cesses, consistent with both the FIM andFSM. Moreover, family stress processes areexpected to decrease parental investments andhave a negative impact on G2 developmentabove and beyond the influence of G1 char-acteristics.

Simply put, the model in Figure 3 de-scribes a reciprocal dynamic according towhich G1 attributes affect SES and SES af-fects G1 functioning as a parent and spouse,even after controlling for earlier G1 char-acteristics. According to the model, thisreciprocal process ultimately affects the de-velopment of the next generation of children.Empirical evaluation of the model will clar-ify the degree to which this hypothesized dy-namic actually occurs. For example, if care-ful intergenerational studies demonstrate thatSES has little influence on family processesor investments after G1’s characteristics aretaken into account, then the weight of theevidence would favor a social selection argu-ment. On the other hand, if G1 characteristicsplay only a limited role in predicting eitherSES or the later constructs in the model afterSES is taken into account, then the evidencewould favor a social causation view. However,we expect that all of the elements in the modelwill prove to be important, consistent with theinteractionist perspective.

Tests of the model depicted in Figure 3 re-quire very special types of studies conductedover long periods of time. Data must be col-lected during childhood or adolescence on fu-ture parents, and this G1 generation must befollowed long enough into adulthood to eval-uate the competing theoretical processes pro-posed in Figure 3. Fortunately, an increas-ing number of such studies are now available(e.g., Capaldi et al. 2003). Although the de-mands and costs of such research are quite


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Figu

re3

The

Inte

ract

ioni

stM

odel

.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


high, without such long-term investigationsit will be impossible to disentangle the de-gree to which the relationships among SES,family interactions, and child developmentrepresent processes of social selection, so-cial causation, or a combination of the two.Nonetheless, many existing datasets can beused to provide preliminary evaluations of as-pects of the model described in Figure 3,and we hope that researchers will pursue suchinvestigations.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

This review was broadly concerned with howSES influences developmental outcomes forchildren via family processes. We initiallyframed this discussion within the context ofhealth disparities, given the consistent evi-dence that lower-SES children are at risk forhigher-than-average rates of physical illnessand reduced life expectancies, as well as fortruncated life opportunities and behavioral oremotional problems. We presented two broadexplanations for these findings: a social cau-sation perspective and a social selection per-spective. Our final conclusion, however, isthat neither perspective is satisfactory on itsown, and both explanations can be incorpo-rated into an interactionist model that moreaccurately captures how SES influences hu-man development over time and across gener-ations. The major take-home message of thisreview is that researchers should design stud-ies that can evaluate both perspectives simul-taneously. To help facilitate the next genera-tion of research, we proposed an interactionistmodel as a heuristic for future studies of thelinks among SES, parenting behaviors, andchild development. The following brief com-ments explore future research needs in moredetail.

First, it is important to evaluate all of themodels we have described using diverse fam-ilies in terms of their structure, ethnicity, andnationality. These kinds of samples strengtheninferences about the generalizability of the

proposed models and identify the boundaryconditions for particular models. Results fromthese kinds of studies often suggest impor-tant avenues for future research. For example,Parke et al. (2004) reported that certain as-pects of the FSM might operate differentlyfor Mexican American than for EuropeanAmerican families. Likewise, Mistry et al.(2002) and Yeung et al. (2002) found that par-ent emotional distress was directly related toproblems in parenting for single-parent fami-lies, whereas research with two-parent fam-ilies suggested that emotional distress usu-ally relates indirectly to parenting problemsthrough interparental conflict. These stud-ies indicate that there are both common andunique pathways that characterize the pro-cesses linking SES to child development indiverse types of families and that future workis needed to clarify these processes. Sec-ond, it is important to incorporate neighbor-hood or community effects into discussionsof the impact of SES on human development(Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn 2000). We haveaddressed this issue only tangentially in thepresent review, but it remains an importantissue for future investigations. Third, geneti-cally informed longitudinal studies can be veryuseful for addressing questions about the in-terplay between individuals and environmen-tal circumstances (Moffitt et al. 2005). For in-stance, Kim-Cohen and her associates (2004;but see Turkheimer et al. 2005) found thatchildren’s resilience to low SES was in part ge-netic and in part a function of environmentalinfluences such as parental warmth and stim-ulating activities.

Finally, a crucial direction for future re-search is the design of experiments and quasi-experiments that can more powerfully ad-dress questions of causality with respect tothe models we have considered. As notedearlier, some evaluations of income supple-mentation or residential relocation programshave shown positive effects (e.g., Gennetian& Miller 2002, Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn2003). These effects appear to be relatively


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


limited, however, and we suspect these find-ings result from the fact that planned inter-ventions do not fundamentally alter a fam-ily’s socioeconomic standing. To be sure, moresubstantial effect sizes have been reported,but consistent with our argument, these seemto be tied to more substantial boosts in in-come (see, e.g., Costello et al. 2003). Thus,researchers should have appropriate expecta-tions regarding effect sizes and design stud-ies with adequate power. It is also imperativethat all effect sizes are interpreted in the con-text of these concerns, both for the sake ofthe scientific literature and for policy makerswho may use such findings for making im-portant decisions about programs for familiesand children. Evaluation studies also shouldexamine the effects of interventions that ad-dress other aspects of the models discussedin this article, such as mental health servicesrelevant to family stress processes or supple-mental learning programs consistent with theFIM.

All told, researchers from a wide rangeof disciplines and subdisciplines are using anumber of research strategies to tackle theformidable challenge of understanding howSES and family contexts influence individuallives. We anticipate that the next decade orso will provide broad support for interactivemodels that incorporate aspects of both so-cial causation and social selection. Moreover,we predict that attention to the sort of inter-actionist model we have outlined in this ar-ticle will lead to the design of more effectiveprevention and intervention programs whencompared with models that are built exclu-sively on one tradition or the other. In closing,we note that SES-related health disparitiesare a reality for both adults and children(Berkman & Kawachi 2000, Repetti et al.2002), and there is a fundamental need to im-prove scientific understanding of the reasonsfor this relationship so that appropriate stepscan be taken to improve the lives of families,parents, and children.

SUMMARY POINTS

1. Health disparities are pervasive and demonstrate that lower socioeconomic status isassociated with less healthy physical, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive functioningof adults and children.

2. The relationship between SES and healthy development is likely complex.

3. Empirical evidence suggests that low SES may have an adverse influence on childdevelopment by exacerbating family stresses that reduce the effective functioning ofparents.

4. Empirical evidence suggests that high SES may promote successful child developmentthrough the many investments that higher-SES parents are able to make in theirchildren’s well-being.

5. Empirical evidence suggests that the earlier attributes of individuals may play a crucialrole in their eventual social and economic successes and failures.

6. Empirical evidence indicates that social and economic position and individual at-tributes may be reciprocally interrelated over time, providing support for an interac-tionist perspective that argues for both social causes and social selection.

7. Future research on SES and human development would benefit by testing predictionsfrom the interactionist perspective both within and across generations in the samefamilies.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Work on this review was supported by grants from the National Institute of Child Healthand Human Development (HD047573, HD051746), the National Institute of Mental Health(MH51361), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA017902, HD047573).

LITERATURE CITED

Ackerman BP, Brown ED, Izard CE. 2004. The relations between persistent poverty andcontextual risk and children’s behavior in elementary school. Dev. Psychol. 40:367–77

Angell RC. 1936. The Family Encounters the Depression. New York: Scribner’sBecker GS. 1981. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. PressBecker GS, Thomes N. 1986. Human capital and the rise and fall of families. J. Labor Econ.

4:S1–139Bell RQ. 1968. A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychol.

Rev. 75:81–95Berkman LF, Kawachi I. 2000. Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford Univ. PressBorge AIH, Rutter M, Cote S, Tremblay RE. 2004. Early childcare and physical aggression:

differentiating social selection and social causation. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 45:367–76

Bornstein MH, Bradley RH, eds. 2003. Socioeconomic Status, Parenting, and Child Development.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Bornstein MH, Hahn CS, Suwalsky JTD, Haynes OM. 2003. Socioeconomic status, parenting,and child development: the Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Social Status and theSocioeconomic Index of Occupations. See Bornstein & Bradley 2003, pp. 29–82

Bouchard TJJ. 2004. Genetic influence on human psychological traits: a survey. Curr. Dir.Psychol. Sci. 13:148–51

Bradley RH, Caldwell BM. 1980. The relation of the home environment, cognitive compe-tence, and IQ among males and females. Child Dev. 51:1140–48

Bradley RH, Corwyn RF. 2002. Socioeconomic status and child development. Annu. Rev.Psychol. 53:371–99

Bradley RH, Corwyn RF. 2003. Age and ethnic variations in family process mediators of SES.See Bornstein & Bradley 2003, pp. 161–88

This importantstudy clearlydemonstrates theassociationbetween SES and arange of parentalinvestments inchildren. Based ona diverse, nationalsample of severalthousandparticipants, theresults show that incomparison withlower-SESchildren,higher-SESchildren experienceadvantages in termsof more effectiveand affectionateparenting, enrichedlearningenvironments, andsafer and morepleasing physicalenvironments.

Bradley RH, Corwyn RF, McAdoo HP, Garcıa Coll C. 2001. The home environmentsof children in the United States: part I. Variations by age, ethnicity, and povertystatus. Child Dev. 72:1844–67

Brody GH, Murry V, Kim S, Brown AC. 2002. Longitudinal pathways to competence andpsychological adjustment among African American children living in rural single-parenthouseholds. Child Dev. 73:1505–16

Capaldi DM, Conger RD, Hops H, Thornberry TP. 2003. Introduction to special section onthree-generation studies. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 31:123–25

Capron C, Duyme M. 1989. Assessment of effects of socio-economic status on IQ in a fullcross-fostering study. Nature 340:552–54

Caspi A, Wright BRE, Moffitt TE, Silva PA. 1998. Early failure in the labor market: childhoodand adolescent predictors of unemployment in the transition to adulthood. Am. Sociol.Rev. 63:424–51

Cavan RS, Ranck KH. 1938. The Family and the Depression: A Study of One Hundred ChicagoFamilies. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Coleman JS. 1990. The Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. PressConger RD. 1995. Unemployment. In Encyclopedia of Marriage and the Family, ed. D Levinson,

pp. 731–35. New York: MacMillan

This reportprovides anelaborated versionof the family stressmodel, whichincludespredictionsregardingresilience andvulnerability tohypothesizedfamily stressprocesses.Empirical findingsare reviewed thatrelate to the basicand extendedversions of themodel.

Conger RD, Conger KJ. 2002. Resilience in Midwestern families: selected findingsfrom the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. J. Marriage Fam. 64:361–73

Conger RD, Conger KJ, Elder GHJ, Lorenz FO, Simons RL, Whitbeck LB. 1992. A familyprocess model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Dev.63:526–41

Conger RD, Conger KJ, Elder GHJ, Lorenz FO, Simons RL, Whitbeck LB. 1993. Familyeconomic stress and adjustment of early adolescent girls. Dev. Psychol. 29:206–19

Conger RD, Conger KJ, Matthews LS, Elder GHJ. 1999a. Pathways of economic influenceon adolescent adjustment. Am. J. Community Psychol. 27:519–40

Conger RD, Elder GHJ. 1994. Families in Troubled Times: Adapting to Change in Rural America.Hawthorne, NY: de Gruyter Aldine

Conger RD, Ge X, Elder GHJ, Lorenz FO, Simons RL. 1994. Economic stress, coercive familyprocess, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Dev. 65:541–61

Conger RD, Rueter MA, Elder GHJ. 1999b. Couple resilience to economic pressure. J. Per-sonal. Soc. Psychol. 76:54–71

Conger RD, Wallace LE, Sun Y, Simons RL, McLoyd VC, Brody G. 2002. Economic pressurein African American families: a replication and extension of the family stress model. Dev.Psychol. 38:179–93

Corcoran M, Adams T. 1997. Race, sex, and the intergenerational transmission of poverty. SeeDuncan & Brooks-Gunn 1997a, pp. 461–517

This study providesgroundbreakingevidence thatcommunityimprovements infamily incomereduce risk forchildpsychopathology.The findings fromthisquasi-experimentdemonstrated thatnew employmentopportunities thatincreased familyincome on averageled to lower ratesof children’spsychiatricdisorder.

Costello EJ, Compton SN, Keeler G, Angold A. 2003. Relationships between povertyand psychopathology: a natural experiment. JAMA 290:2023–29

Davis A, Havighurst RJ. 1946. Social class and color differences in child-rearing. Am. Sociol.Rev. 11:698–710

Davis-Kean PE. 2005. The influence of parent education and family income on child achieve-ment: the indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. J. Fam. Psychol.19:294–304

Dearing E, McCartney K, Taylor BA. 2001. Change in family income-to-needs matters morefor children with less. Child Dev. 72:1779–93

Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE. 1994. Socialization mediators of the relation between socio-economic status and child conduct problems. Child Dev. 65:649–65

Duncan GJ, Brooks-Gunn J, eds. 1997a. Consequences of Growing Up Poor. New York: RussellSage Found.

Duncan GJ, Brooks-Gunn J. 1997b. Income effects across the life span: integration and inter-pretation. See Duncan & Brooks-Gunn 1997a, pp. 596–610

Duncan GJ, Magnuson KA. 2003. Off with Hollingshead: socioeconomic resources, parenting,and child development. See Bornstein & Bradley 2003, pp. 83–106

Elder GHJ. 1974. Children of the Great Depression: Social Change in Life Experience. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press

Elder GHJ, Caspi A. 1988. Economic stress in lives: developmental perspectives. J. Soc. Issues44:25–45

Ensminger ME, Fothergill K. 2003. A decade of measuring SES: what it tells us and where togo from here. See Bornstein & Bradley 2003, pp. 13–27

Evans GW, English K. 2002. The environment of poverty: multiple stressor exposure, psy-chophysiological stress, and socioemotional adjustment. Child Dev. 73:1238–48


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Feinstein L, Bynner J. 2004. The importance of cognitive development in middle childhoodfor adulthood socioeconomic status, mental health, and problem behavior. Child Dev.75:1329–39

Gennetian LA, Miller C. 2002. Children and welfare reform: a view from an experimentalwelfare program in Minnesota. Child Dev. 73:601–20

Gottfried AW, Gottfried AE, Bathurst K, Guerin DW, Parramore MM. 2003. Socioeconomicstatus in children’s development and family environment: infancy through adolescence.See Bornstein & Bradley 2003, pp. 189–207

Gutman LM, McLoyd VC, Tokoyawa T. 2005. Financial strain, neighborhood stress, parentingbehaviors, and adolescent adjustment in urban African American Families. J. Res. Adolesc.15:425–49

Han WJ. 2005. Maternal nonstandard work schedules and child cognitive outcomes. Child Dev.76:137–54

Haveman RH, Wolfe BS. 1994. Succeeding Generations: On the Effects of Investments in Children.New York: Sage

Hoff E. 2003. The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects earlyvocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Dev. 74:1368–78

Hoff E, Laursen B, Tardif T. 2002. Socioeconomic status and parenting. In Handbook of Par-enting Volume 2: Biology and Ecology of Parenting, ed. MH Bornstein, pp. 231–52. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum. 2nd ed.

Hoffman LW. 2003. Methodological issues in the studies of SES, parenting, and child devel-opment. See Bornstein & Bradley 2003, pp. 125–43

Huston AC, Aronson SR. 2005. Mothers’ time with infant and time in employment as predictorsof mother-child relationships and children’s early development. Child Dev. 76:467–82

Huston AC, Duncan GJ, McLoyd VC, Crosby DA, Ripke MN, et al. 2005. Impacts on childrenof a policy to promote employment and reduce poverty for low-income parents: New Hopeafter 5 years. Dev. Psychol. 41:902–18

Hyde JS, Else-Quest NM, Goldsmith HH, Biesanz JC. 2004. Children’s temperament andbehavior problems predict their employed mothers’ work functioning. Child Dev. 75:580–94

Judge TA, Higgins CA, Thoresen CJ, Barrick MR. 1999. The Big Five personality traits,general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Pers. Psychol. 52:621–52

Keating DP, Hertzman C. 1999. Developmental Health and the Wealth of Nations. New York:Guilford

Kim-Cohen J, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Taylor A. 2004. Genetic and environmental processesin young children’s resilience and vulnerability to socioeconomic deprivation. Child Dev.75:651–68

Kohen DE, Brooks-Gunn J, Leventhal T, Hertzman C. 2002. Neighborhood income andphysical and social disorder in Canada: associations with young children’s competencies.Child Dev. 73:1844–60

Kohn ML. 1959. Social class and parental values. Am. J. Sociol. 64:337–51Kohn ML. 1963. Social class and parent-child relationships: an interpretation. Am. J. Sociol.

68:471–80Kohn ML. 1969. Class and Conformity: A Study in Values. Oxford: DorseyKohn ML. 1995. Social structure and personality through time and space. In Examining Lives

in Context: Perspectives on the Ecology of Human Development, ed. P Moen, GH Elder Jr, KLuscher, pp. 141–68. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.

Kokko K, Pulkkinen L. 2000. Aggression in childhood and long-term unemployment in adult-hood: a cycle of maladaptation and some protective factors. Dev. Psychol. 36:463–72


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Komarovsky M. 1940. The Unemployed Man and His Family: The Effect of Unemployment Uponthe Status of the Man in Fifty-nine Families. New York: Dryden

Lerner RM. 2003. What are SES effects effects of? A developmental systems perspective. SeeBornstein & Bradley 2003, pp. 231–55

Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. 2000. The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of neighbor-hood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychol. Bull. 126:309–17

Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. 2003. Moving on up: neighborhood effects on children andfamilies. See Bornstein & Bradley 2003, pp. 209–30

Leventhal T, Fauth RC, Brooks-Gunn J. 2005. Neighborhood poverty and public policy: a5-year follow-up of children’s educational outcomes in the New York City Moving toOpportunity demonstration. Dev. Psychol. 41:933–52

In this paper, theauthors reportresults from alarge, multiethnicstudy of youngchildren. They findsupport forpredictions fromboth family stressand familyinvestment modelsin terms of SESinfluences onchildren. Theanalyses includeimportant controlsfor maternalcharacteristics thatreduce thelikelihood that theresults representprocesses of socialselection ratherthan socialcausation.

Linver MR, Brooks-Gunn J, Kohen D. 2002. Family processes as pathways from incometo young children’s development. Dev. Psychol. 38:719–34

Liu WM, Ali SR, Soleck G, Hopps J, Dunston K, Pickett TJ. 2004. Using social class incounseling psychology research. J. Counsel. Psychol. 51:3–18

Magnuson KA, Duncan GJ. 2002. Parents in poverty. In Handbook of Parenting: Volume 4. SocialConditions and Applied Parenting, ed. MH Bornstein, pp. 95–121. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.2nd ed.

Magnusson D, Stattin H. 1998. Person-context interaction theories. In Handbook of ChildPsychology: Theoretical Models of Human Development, ed. W Damon, RM Lerner, pp. 685–759. New York: Wiley. 5th ed.

This book lays outvarious models forevaluating incomeeffects onchildren’sdevelopment andprovides aparticularly helpfuldescription of theinvestmentperspective. Theauthor questionswhether incomereally has aninfluence onchildren’sdevelopment andprovides a numberof analyses that areconsistent herargument.

Mayer S. 1997. What Money Can’t Buy: Family Income and Children’s Life Chances. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

McLeod JD, Kaiser K. 2004. Childhood emotional and behavioral problems and educationalattainment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 69:636–58

McLeod JD, Shanahan MJ. 1996. Trajectories of poverty and children’s mental health. J. HealthSoc. Behav. 37:207–20

McLoyd VC. 1998. Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. Am. Psychol. 53:185–204

Mezzacappa E. 2004. Alerting, orienting, and executive attention: developmental propertiesand sociodemographic correlates in an epidemiological sample of young, urban children.Child Dev. 75:1373–86

Miech et al. reportsthat mentaldisorders duringadolescence caninfluence eventualSES, and

Miech RA, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Wright BRE, Silva PA. 1999. Low socioeconomic statusand mental disorders: a longitudinal study of selection and causation during youngadulthood. Am. J. Sociol. 104:1096–131

Mistry RS, Biesanz JC, Taylor LC, Burchinal M, Cox MJ. 2004. Family income and its relationto preschool children’s adjustment for families in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care.Dev. Psychol. 40:727–45

Mistry RS, Vandewater EA, Huston AC, McLoyd VC. 2002. Economic well-being and chil-dren’s social adjustment: the role of family process in an ethnically diverse low incomesample. Child Dev. 73:935–51

Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Rutter M. 2005. Strategy for investigating interactions between measuredgenes and measured environments. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 62:473–81

Morris P, Duncan GJ, Clark-Kauffman E. 2005. Child well-being in an era of welfare reform:the sensitivity of transitions in development to policy change. Dev. Psychol. 41:919–32

Natl. Inst. Child Health Human Dev. Early Child Care Res. Netw. 2005. Duration and devel-opmental timing of poverty and children’s cognitive and social development from birththrough third grade. Child Dev. 76:795–810


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


that SES duringearly adulthood caninfluence latermental disorders.The articleprovides importantpreliminarysupport for aninteractionistperspective on SESand humandevelopment.

Oakes JM, Rossi PH. 2003. The measurement of SES in health research: current practice andsteps toward a new approach. Soc. Sci. Med. 56:769–84

Parke and hiscolleagues providefascinating findingssuggesting that thefamily stress modelmight operatedifferently forEuropeancompared withMexican Americanfamilies. Inparticular,economic pressuresthat increaseconflicts in themarital relationshipmay be especiallydistressing forchildren ofMexican origin.

Parke RD, Coltrane S, Duffy S, Buriel R, Dennis J, et al. 2004. Economic stress, parent-ing, and child adjustment in Mexican American and European American families.Child Dev. 75:1632–56

Prior M, Sanson A, Smart D, Oberklaid F. 1999. Psychological disorders and their correlatesin an Australian community sample of preadolescent children. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry40:563–80

Repetti RL, Taylor SE, Seeman TE. 2002. Risky families: family social environments and themental and physical health of offspring. Psychol. Bull. 128:330–66

Robila M, Krishnakumar A. 2005. Effects of economic pressure on marital conflict in Romania.J. Fam. Psychol. 19:246–51

Rowe DC, Rodgers JL. 1997. Poverty and behavior: Are environmental measures natureand nurture? Dev. Rev. 17:358–75

Rutter M, Pickles A, Murray R, Eaves LJ. 2001. Testing hypotheses on specific environmentalcausal effects on behavior. Psychol. Bull. 127:291–324

Schoon I, Bynner J, Joshi H, Parsons S, Wiggins RD, Sacker A. 2002. The influence of context,timing, and duration of risk experiences for the passage from childhood to midadulthood.Child Dev. 73:1486–504

Sears RR, Maccoby EE, Levin H. 1957. Patterns of Child Rearing. Oxford: PetersonShadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for

Generalized Causal Inference. New York: Houghton MifflinShiner RL, Masten AS, Roberts JM. 2003. Childhood personality foreshadows adult personality

and life outcomes two decades later. J. Personal. 71:1145–70Sobolewski JM, Amato PR. 2005. Economic hardship in the family of origin and children’s

psychological well-being in adulthood. J. Marriage Fam. 67:141–56

Rowe & Rodgersquestion whetherstudies that relateSES to childdevelopment haveadequatelycontrolled forpossible geneticinfluences. Thispaper provides animportantorientationregarding possiblegenetic pathways insocial selectioneffects.

Solantaus T, Leinonen J, Punamaki RL. 2004. Children’s mental health in times ofeconomic recession: replication and extension of the family economic stress modelin Finland. Dev. Psychol. 40:412–29

Steinberg L. 2001. We know some things: parent-adolescent relationships in retrospect andprospect. J. Res. Adolesc. 11:1–19

Strohschein L. 2005. Household income histories and child mental health trajectories. J. HealthSoc. Behav. 46:359–75

Tamis-LeMonda CS, Shannon JD, Cabrera NJ, Lamb ME. 2004. Fathers and mothers at playwith their 2- and 3-year-olds: contributions to language and cognitive development. ChildDev. 75:1806–20

Teachman JD, Paasch KM, Day RD, Carver KP. 1997. Poverty during adolescence and sub-sequent educational attainment. See Duncan & Brooks-Gunn 1997a, pp. 382–418

Turkheimer E. 2004. Spinach and ice cream: why social science is so difficult. In Behavior Ge-netics Principles: Perspectives in Development, Personality, and Psychopathology, ed. LF DiLalla,pp. 161–89. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.

Turkheimer E, D’Onofrio BM, Maes HH, Eaves LJ. 2005. Analysis and interpretation of twinstudies including measures of the shared environment. Child Dev. 76:1217–33

Van IJzendoorn MH, Juffer F, Klein Poelhuis CW. 2005. Adoption and cognitive develop-ment: a meta-analytic comparison of adopted and nonadopted children’s IQ and schoolperformance. Psychol. Bull. 131:301–16

Wickrama KAS, Conger RD, Abraham WT. 2005. Early adversity and later health: the in-tergenerational transmission of adversity through mental disorder and physical illness. J.Gerontol. 60B:125–29


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Solantaus et al.provide animportantcross-nationalreplication inFinland of resultsrelated to thefamily stressmodel. Thefindings are quitecomparable to testsof the modelconducted in theUnited States, andthus providecross-culturalsupport forpredictions fromthe model.

Yeung WJ, Linver MR, Brooks-Gunn J. 2002. How money matters for young children’s de-velopment: parental investment and family processes. Child Dev. 73:1861–79

Zevalkink J, Riksen-Walraven JM. 2001. Parenting in Indonesia: inter- and intracultural dif-ferences in mothers’ interactions with their young children. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 25:167–75


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Contents ARI 8 November 2006 21:2

Annual Review ofPsychology

Volume 58, 2007

Contents

Prefatory

Research on Attention Networks as a Model for the Integration ofPsychological ScienceMichael I. Posner and Mary K. Rothbart � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Cognitive Neuroscience

The Representation of Object Concepts in the BrainAlex Martin � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 25

Depth, Space, and Motion

Perception of Human MotionRandolph Blake and Maggie Shiffrar � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 47

Form Perception (Scene Perception) or Object Recognition

Visual Object Recognition: Do We Know More Now Than We Did 20Years Ago?Jessie J. Peissig and Michael J. Tarr � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 75

Animal Cognition

Causal Cognition in Human and Nonhuman Animals: A Comparative,Critical ReviewDerek C. Penn and Daniel J. Povinelli � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 97

Emotional, Social, and Personality Development

The Development of CopingEllen A. Skinner and Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 119

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Biological and Genetic Processes in Development

The Neurobiology of Stress and DevelopmentMegan Gunnar and Karina Quevedo � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 145

Development in Societal Context

An Interactionist Perspective on the Socioeconomic Context ofHuman DevelopmentRand D. Conger and M. Brent Donnellan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 175

Culture and Mental Health

Race, Race-Based Discrimination, and Health Outcomes AmongAfrican AmericansVickie M. Mays, Susan D. Cochran, and Namdi W. Barnes � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 201

Personality Disorders

Assessment and Diagnosis of Personality Disorder: Perennial Issuesand an Emerging ReconceptualizationLee Anna Clark � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 227

Social Psychology of Attention, Control, and Automaticity

Social Cognitive Neuroscience: A Review of Core ProcessesMatthew D. Lieberman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 259

Inference, Person Perception, Attribution

Partitioning the Domain of Social Inference: Dual Mode and SystemsModels and Their AlternativesArie W. Kruglanski and Edward Orehek � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 291

Self and Identity

Motivational and Emotional Aspects of the SelfMark R. Leary � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 317

Social Development, Social Personality, Social Motivation,Social Emotion

Moral Emotions and Moral BehaviorJune Price Tangney, Jeff Stuewig, and Debra J. Mashek � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 345

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


The Experience of EmotionLisa Feldman Barrett, Batja Mesquita, Kevin N. Ochsner,

and James J. Gross � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 373

Attraction and Close Relationships

The Close Relationships of Lesbian and Gay MenLetitia Anne Peplau and Adam W. Fingerhut � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 405

Small Groups

OstracismKipling D. Williams � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 425

Personality Processes

The Elaboration of Personal Construct PsychologyBeverly M. Walker and David A. Winter � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 453

Cross-Country or Regional Comparisons

Cross-Cultural Organizational BehaviorMichele J. Gelfand, Miriam Erez, and Zeynep Aycan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 479

Organizational Groups and Teams

Work Group DiversityDaan van Knippenberg and Michaéla C. Schippers � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 515

Career Development and Counseling

Work and Vocational Psychology: Theory, Research,and ApplicationsNadya A. Fouad � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 543

Adjustment to Chronic Diseases and Terminal Illness

Health Psychology: Psychological Adjustmentto Chronic DiseaseAnnette L. Stanton, Tracey A. Revenson, and Howard Tennen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 565

Contents ix

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Research Methodology

Mediation AnalysisDavid P. MacKinnon, Amanda J. Fairchild, and Matthew S. Fritz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 593

Analysis of Nonlinear Patterns of Change with Random CoefficientModelsRobert Cudeck and Jeffrey R. Harring � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 615

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 48–58 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 639

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 48–58 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 644

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology chapters (if any, 1997 to thepresent) may be found at http://psych.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

x Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

75-1

99. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

o -

Bou

lder

on

12/2

8/06

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Documents

An Interactionist Perspective on the Socioeconomic … · · 2007-01-10An Interactionist Perspective on the Socioeconomic Context ... and interactionist perspectives. ... income,