Cumulative Environmental Risk and Youth Problem Behavior

Gerard, Jean M.; Buehler, Cheryl

doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00048.x

Cited by 124 publications

(155 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…the participant's personal characteristics, family, school, peer and neighborhood factors. Such a pathway of accumulation of multiple risks has been tested in several studies with community-sample or referred subjects, demonstrating a significant linear relation between the cumulative risk index, computed by summing the number of dichotomized risk factors such as high vs. low IQ, secure vs. insecure attachment, or good vs. poor parenting for example, and children's or adolescents' externalizing or internalizing behavior (Appleyard, Egeland, van Dulmen, & Sroufe, 2005;Atzaba-Poria, Pike, & Deater-Deckard, 2004;Gerard & Buehler, 2004;Greenberg et al, 2001;Lanza, Rhodes, Nix, & Greenberg, 2010;Lucio, Rapp-Paglicci, & Rowe, 2011;Roskam, Meunier, Stievenart, & Noël, 2013;Trentacosta et al, 2008). Some of these studies were cross-sectional like the present one, and therefore unable to address the core question of the directionality of the effects (e.g., Atzaba-Poria et al, 2004;Greenberg et al, 2001).…”

Section: The Cumulative Effect Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather they contributed to documenting the association between multiple specific risks which are combined together and general issues. Others were based on a longitudinal design in which the accumulation of risks preceded the general outcome (e.g., Gerard & Buehler, 2004;Lanza et al, 2010;Roskam, Meunier et al, 2013;Roskam, Stievenart et al, 2014). The cumulative risk hypothesis has also been tested in follow-up studies of adoptees by considering the history of maltreatment and deprivation for the computation of the risk index (Kriebel & Wentzel, 2011); to the best of our knowledge, however, it has never been tested by considering the current characteristics of the adoptee and his/her post-adoption environment.…”

Section: The Cumulative Effect Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is there a common pathway to maladjustment for internationally adopted and non-adopted adolescents?

Roskam¹,

Stiévenart²

2014

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main purpose of the research was to test whether cumulative effects represent a common pathway to behavioral maladjustment for internationally adopted adolescents and controls. The findings of previous comparison and follow-up studies have been contradictory. The hypothesis was tested in an original multi-informant study with 74 adolescents: 40 adoptees and 34 controls. The analyses of the data provided arguments in favor of the existence of a common pathway for adoptees and controls. The accumulation of risk factors in the current characteristics of the adolescents and their family was significantly associated with behavioral outcomes of both adoptees and controls. Implications for research, policy and practice are discussed. The main purpose of the research was to test whether cumulative effects represent a common pathway to behavioral maladjustment for internationally adopted adolescents and controls. The findings of previous comparison and follow-up studies have been contradictory. The hypothesis was tested in an original multi-informant study with 74 adolescents: 40 adoptees and 34 controls. The analyses of the data provided arguments in favor of the existence of a common pathway for adoptees and controls. The accumulation of risk factors in the current characteristics of the adolescents and their family was significantly associated with behavioral outcomes of both adoptees and controls. Implications for research, policy and practice are discussed.© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.The literature on adoption is vast and rich. One of the major lines of research is comparison studies in which adopted participants are compared with control participants. In this set of studies, the fact of being adopted is considered as a risk factor per se that can lead to significant developmental differences in favor of the control participants. Another major line of research is follow-up studies analyzing the influence of deprivation severity (e.g., age of adoption, pre-adoption abuse or neglect) and other key-risk factors (e.g., age of the biological mother, low birth weight, drug exposure) on behavioral outcomes in adoptees. Because adoption research has been more concerned with outcomes than processes (Palacios, Román, Moreno, & León, 2009), we found in these two sets of studies contradictory arguments with regard to the main question of the current research, i.e. is there a common pathway to behavioral maladjustment for internationally adopted and nonadopted adolescents? In particular, do cumulative effects constitute a common pathway for this issue? The cumulative effect hypothesis is tested here as a well-known pathway in developmental psychopathology (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1996), by considering current adolescent and family factors, i.e. IQ, attachment and parenting, and their cumulative effect on behavioral maladjustment. After a presentation of the cumulative effect hypothesis, arguments in favor of a negative answer to the main question will be presented first before others supporting a positive a...

show abstract

Section: The Cumulative Effect Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Cumulative Effect Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there a common pathway to maladjustment for internationally adopted and non-adopted adolescents?

Roskam¹,

Stiévenart²

2014

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An important question arises from these findings: why does child neglect appear to have more negative effects on White children than on other minority groups? The possible explanation could be that relative to White children, minority children are more challenged with various issues such as living in disadvantaged neighborhood, lower family income, and other risk factors, which appear to have cumulative negative effects on their healthy development (Gerard and Buehler 2004). As a result, child neglect would merely be one of the many negative life experiences for minority youth, and thus, its unique connection to the higher propensity to adolescent drug and alcohol abuse could be masked by other adverse life experiences.…”

Section: Interaction Effect Of Race and Child Neglect On Adolescent Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Child Neglect and Its Association With Subsequent Juvenile Drug and Alcohol Offense

Chen

Propp

deLara

et al. 2011

Child Adolesc Soc Work J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents empirical findings about the association between childhood neglect and adolescents' subsequent involvement with drug and alcohol related offense from a sample of 251 neglected children and their community matched control (N = 502) from a 17-year period longitudinal data set. Findings confirmed that neglected children were at greater risk to be arrested for later juvenile drug and alcohol offenses than non-neglected children. Being male, White and the presence of domestic violence also significantly contributed to elevated risks of being arrested for juvenile drug and alcohol violations for neglected children. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

show abstract

“…Greenberg et al, 2001) or community samples (e.g. Deater-Deckard et al, 1998;Furniss et al, 2009;Gerard & Buehler, 2004;Lanza et al, 2010;Rouse, Fantuzzo, & Leboeuf, 2011). Regardless of these variations, all of the studies supported the cumulative risk hypothesis.…”

Section: The Accumulation Of Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 78%

When there seem to be no predetermining factors: Early child and proximal family risk predicting externalizing behavior in young children incurring no distal family risk

Roskam¹,

Meunier²,

Stiévenart³

et al. 2013

Research in Developmental Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Externalizing behavior (EB) is characterized by agitation, opposition, aggression, provocation, negative thoughts and transgression of social norms (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). A certain level of EB is considered to be typical in preschoolers (Wakschlag et al., 2007). But persistent high levels of EB were found in subgroups of children (e.g. Calkins, Blandon, Williford, & Keane, 2007). Research has tried to identify risk factors that potentially increase the likelihood of EB. Based on the work of key leaders in this topic, Loeber and Farrington (2000) established a list according to several ecological levels, i.e. child, family, school, peer and neighborhood factors. The relations between child and family factors and EB have especially been documented in young children, while the potential contribution of school, peer and neighborhood factors was more specific in the prediction of school age children's and adolescents' EB. The current research examines the impact of two single risk factors at the child level, i.e. personality and inhibition capacities, and two single risk factors at the family level, i.e. attachment and parenting, and the impact of their cumulative effect on young children's EB incurring no distal family risk. We first review studies documenting the relations between children's EB and each of the four risk factors at the child and family levels. Second, we document research into cumulative risk with EB as an outcome. The main objective of the current study was to examine the impact of two child risk factors, i.e. personality and inhibition, and two proximal family risk factors, i.e. parenting and attachment, and the impact of their cumulative effect on later externalizing behavior among young children incurring no distal family risk. Data were collected in a longitudinal two-wave design from 161 non-referred and referred children aged three to five years at the onset of the study. All of the children were raised in families of middle to high socioeconomic status, i.e. their parents were educated to a middle to high level, had access to the job market and lived together as couples. The four risk domains were assessed at the onset of the study, while EB was rated both at the onset of the study and in the 24-month follow-up. Results confirmed that the four risk domains were each both correlates of EB and efficient at discriminating non-referred from referred children; that their combination regardless of their content (cumulative risk) provided a strong prediction of both later EB and non-referred vs referred sample membership. The results are discussed both for research and clinical purposes. ß

show abstract

Cumulative Environmental Risk and Youth Problem Behavior

Cited by 124 publications

References 43 publications

Is there a common pathway to maladjustment for internationally adopted and non-adopted adolescents?

Is there a common pathway to maladjustment for internationally adopted and non-adopted adolescents?

Child Neglect and Its Association With Subsequent Juvenile Drug and Alcohol Offense

When there seem to be no predetermining factors: Early child and proximal family risk predicting externalizing behavior in young children incurring no distal family risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About