Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T22:24:33.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tracing the connections between family poverty and problem behaviour in early childhood and adolescence: Some research evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Abstract

This article reviews some recent US research into the impact of family poverty on child development. These studies report on the link between family poverty and children's early cognitive development. They also report on the impact of family and neighbourhood poverty on family structure, family process and problem behaviour in adolescence. This is important research as it goes some way toward unraveling the connection between individual behaviour and social conditions. Knowledge of this research is important for those advocating for measures to combat family poverty in Australia as it quantifies the issue and offers new ways to caste the argument for intervention.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, F. 1996, ‘Family therapy or parent education and training: Does it matter which comes first?’ Child and Youth Care Forum, 25, 2, 101110.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, J. 1989, Crime, shame and reintegration, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Conger, R.D., Xiaojia, Ge., Elder, G. H Jnr., Lorenz, F. O. & Simons, R. L. 1994, ‘Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents’. Child Development, 65, 2, 541561.Google Scholar
Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J. & Klebanov, P. K. 1994, ‘Economic deprivation and early childhood development’, Child Development, 65, 2, 296318.Google Scholar
Gilligan, C. 1982, In a different voice: psychological theory and moral development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gilligan, C., Ward, J. V. C. & Taylor, J. (Eds.), Mapping the moral domain: a contribution of women’s thinking to psychological theory and education, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Glueck, S. & Glueck, E. 1950, Unraveling juvenile delinquency, New York, NY: Commonwealth Fund.Google Scholar
Gottfredson, M. & Hirschi, T. 1990, A general theory of crime, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, M. S. 1992, The panel study of income dynamics: a user’s guide, Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hirschi, T. 1969, Causes of delinquency, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hollingsworth, P. 1996, ‘Fiftieth anniversary: the profession and the future’, Australian Social Work, 49, 4, 2.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. & Allegritti, I. 1992, Social problems: an Australian perspective, Wentworth Falls: Social Science Press.Google Scholar
Owen, L. 1996, ‘Editorial’, Children Australia, 21, 4, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, G. R. 1982, Coercive family processes, Eugene, OR: Castalia.Google Scholar
Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D. & Ramsey, E. 1989, ‘A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior’, American Psychologist, 4, 2, 329335.Google Scholar
Pedazhur, E. J. & Schmelkin, L. P. 1991, Measurement, design, and analysis. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. 1994, ‘Urban poverty and the family context of delinquency: a new look at structure and process in a classic studyChild Development, 65, 2, 523540.Google Scholar
The Infant Health and Development Program Staff 1990, ‘Enhancing the outcomes of low birthweight premature infants: A muttisite randomized trial’, Journal of American Medical Association, 263, 22, 30353042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar