How Money Matters for Young Children's Development: Parental Investment and Family Processes

Abstract

This study used data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and its 1997 Child Development Supplement to examine how family income matters for young children's development. The sample included 753 children who were between ages 3 and 5 years in 1997. Two sets of mediating factors were examined that reflect two dominating views in the literature: (1) the investment perspective, and (2) the family process perspective. The study examined how two measures of income (stability and level) were associated with preschool children's developmental outcomes (Woodcock-Johnson [W-J] Achievement Test scores and the Behavior Problem Index [BPI]) through investment and family process pathways. Results supported the hypothesis that distinct mediating mechanisms operate on the association between income and different child outcomes. Much of the association between income and children's W-J scores was mediated by the family's ability to invest in providing a stimulating learning environment. In contrast, family income was associated with children's BPI scores primarily through maternal emotional distress and parenting practices. Level of income was associated with W-J letter-word scores and income stability was associated with W-J applied problem scores and BPI, even after all controls were included in the models.

Role of cash in conditional cash transfer programmes for child health, growth, and development: an analysis of Mexico's Oportunidades

“…23 The scales have been used to evaluate effects of early childhood nutritional interventions and early health insults on cognitive development in children, 24 and were selected because they have shown sensitivity to an income intervention in low income families, 25 and to outcomes in children born with low birth weight. 26 Scores were log-transformed due to positive skew.…”

“…25,[45][46][47][48] Nonetheless, the relevance of this comparison may be questionable given the non-comparability of the populations and the diverse nature of the interventions. Studies in the developing world aiming to improve cognitive development in very low income populations have focused on nutritional interventions 49 or on early childhood development interventions, 50 and evidence of an association between income change and developmental outcomes in this context is scarce.…”

“…53,54 The second primary pathway through which income could influence child development would be by improving the psychological well-being of family members and thereby improving the care, support and nurturance provided to the children in the household. 25,48 Given the limitations of the data we have collected, we are not able to comment on the specific pathways by which cash transfers to the family would have influenced outcomes. Future research should be designed in such a way as to explore these potential pathways.…”

“…Both stimulation and responsiveness have been shown to be primary mediators of the impact of income on child development. 25,48 Children with more stimulating caregivers and those who live in rich, responsive environments are more cognitively advanced at the start of school than children in less stimulating homes. Similarly, parents who interact frequently with their children promote their cognitive development as well as their social and emotional development.…”

Cumulative Social Risk, Parenting, and Infant Development in Rural Low-Income Communities

“…Previous studies have reported that positive, involved, and responsive parenting apparently buffers the negative impact of risk exposure on academic achievement and social skills for preschoolers in rural areas (Brody, Murray, Kim, & Brown, 2002), during the transition to school for African American children in suburban areas (Burchinal et al, 2006), and in middle and high school (Garmezy, 1993;Grotevant, 1998;Gutman, Sameroff, & Eccles, 2002). Exposure to social risk is much less related to preschool-or school-age outcomes when parents are positive, involved, and responsive (Brody et al, 2002;Burchinal et al, 2006;Krishnakumar & Black, 2002;Masten et al, 1999;Yeung, Linver, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002). Therefore, a third goal of our study was to test whether access to stimulating materials, warm and sensitive motherchild interactions, and the size of the mother's vocabulary in mother -child interactions serve as protective factors for cognitive development in infancy.…”