Do risk factors for problem behaviour act in a cumulative manner? An examination of ethnic minority and majority children through an ecological perspective

Atzaba‐Poria, Naama; Pike, Alison; Deater‐Deckard, Kirby

doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00265.x

Cited by 187 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is consistent with our previous results which indicated that externalizing problems were influenced mainly by factors at the level of the child's proximal environment (i.e., the microsystem level; Bronfenbrenner, 1979) such as parental positivity and parent-child dyadic mutuality, whereas internalizing problems were more strongly linked to the child's own attributes (e.g., self-worth, temperament) as well as more distal factors such as socioeconomic status (Atzaba-Poria et al, 2004).…”

Section: Mutuality and Child Behavior Problemssupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mother– and Father–Child Mutuality in Anglo and Indian British Families: A Link with Lower Externalizing Problems

Deater‐Deckard

Atzaba‐Poria

Pike

2004

J Abnorm Child Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Mutuality and Child Behavior Problemssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Therefore, we focused on externalizing problems in the current paper. However, there was a modest ethnic group difference in child internalizing problems that we describe in another paper (Atzaba-Poria, Pike, & Deater-Deckard, 2004). …”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 54%

Mother– and Father–Child Mutuality in Anglo and Indian British Families: A Link with Lower Externalizing Problems

Deater‐Deckard

Atzaba‐Poria

Pike

2004

J Abnorm Child Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…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). Rather they contributed to documenting the association between multiple specific risks which are combined together and general issues.…”

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

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

“…A common feature of these studies is the use of combined indicators from the domains (community, school, family, and peers) into a single cross-domain composite factor. Although this methodology offers certain advantages [14], it obviates the ability to explore some central questions.First, there is ambiguity about the interrelations among risk and protective factors and, more precisely, the relations between different risk factors and specific adolescent outcomes [18,19]. Research indicates variation in the magnitude of relations and that generally, risk factors are more influential than protective factors [20,21].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Risk and Protective Factors in Substance Use Across Adolescence

Cleveland

Feinberg

Bontempo

et al. 2008

Journal of Adolescent Health

244

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-To compare the relative influence of risk and protective factors across several domains on adolescent substance use in a large sample of youth.Methods-Cross-sectional survey data were collected from 6th, 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students in Pennsylvania (N = 91,778). Generalized linear mixed models were estimated for each grade level to examine associations among indices of 3 risk (individual, peer, and family) and 3 protective (family, school, and community) factors and (a) lifetime substance use and (b) recent substance use.Results-The risk factors were stronger predictors of substance use outcomes compared to the protective factors, regardless of grade level or substance use type. In particular, the individual and peer risk factors were strongly related to lifetime and recent use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. Among the protective factors, the strongest associations with substance use were found in the community domain. Several age-related differences in the associations were also found, suggesting that family and community factors were more salient among younger grades whereas peer and school factors were stronger among older adolescents.Conclusions-These findings provide support for the Social Development Model (SDM), which proposes that adolescent substance use is associated with factors across multiple spheres of influence. Age-related differences in these associations suggest that effective interventions to reduce adolescent substance use may need to emphasize different domains of risk and protective factors at different stages of adolescent development. KeywordsAdolescence; age differences; risk factors; protective factors; substance use Recent epidemiologic surveys indicate that substance use by U.S. youth remains a matter of concern. For example, the 2006 Monitoring the Future results showed that among 12 th graders, most (72.7%) had tried alcohol at least once in their lives and almost half (42.3%) reported lifetime use of marijuana. Among the 8 th grade students, lifetime prevalence of alcohol exceeded 40% and nearly 16% reported trying marijuana at least once. Lifetime use of cigarettes was reported by nearly half (47.1%) of 12 th graders and almost one-fourth (24.6%)Corresponding Author: Michael J. Cleveland, The Methodology Center, 204 E. Calder Way, Suite 400, State College, PA 16801, Email: mjc37@psu.edu, Phone: 814-867-0333, Fax: 814-863-0000. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. [1,2]. Moreover, even though the lifetime and annual prevalence rates have declined in the last decade, there is some evidence that the rat...

show abstract

Do risk factors for problem behaviour act in a cumulative manner? An examination of ethnic minority and majority children through an ecological perspective

Cited by 187 publications

References 47 publications

Mother– and Father–Child Mutuality in Anglo and Indian British Families: A Link with Lower Externalizing Problems

Mother– and Father–Child Mutuality in Anglo and Indian British Families: A Link with Lower Externalizing Problems

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

The Role of Risk and Protective Factors in Substance Use Across Adolescence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About