a conceptual framework for understanding the relationship

P1: GTQ

The Journal of Primary Prevention [jpp] Ph251-461350 February 5, 2004 15:41 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002

The Journal of Primary Prevention, Vol. 24, No. 3, Spring 2004 (C© 2004)

A Conceptual Framework for Understanding theRelationship Between Poverty and AntisocialBehavior: Focusing on Psychosocial MediatingMechanisms1

Ick-Joong Chung2,3,4

This paper presents a framework that integrates and extends the literature onpsychosocial mechanisms mediating poverty and the development of antisocialbehavior. It provides a model to explain why some poor children outgrow earlyantisocial behavior, while others from the same environment adopt increasinglysevere antisocial behaviors. The ability to differentiate these effects of povertyon antisocial or prosocial behavior provides theoretical guidelines for preventiveintervention.

KEY WORDS: poverty; antisocial behavior; children; psychosocial; mediating mechanisms.

There is a large body of empirical literature linking poverty to negative out-comes for children (Chase-Lansdale & Brooks-Gunn, 1995; Duncan et al., 1998;Huston, 1991a; Lichter, 1997; Seccombe, 2000; Velez et al., 1989; Werner, 1985;Zill et al., 1995). Huston (1991b) describes the general agreement in this litera-ture that poverty has deleterious effects on children’s development. Duncan andcolleagues (1994) suggest that poverty places some children at risk for antiso-cial behavior. However, not all children in poverty develop antisocial behavior andthere is little clarity on the specific ways in which poverty affects some children butnot others. Although the relationship between macro-level social conditions andmicro-level individual behaviors has been a focal theme in sociological theories,researchers have not fully identified the mechanisms linking these two levels and

1A longer elaboration of the background to this framework is available from the author.2Department of Social Welfare, Duksung Women’s University, Seoul, Korea.3Social Development Research Group, School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.4Address correspondence to Ick-Joong Chung, Duksung Women’s University, 419 Ssangmoon-DongDobong-Gu, Seoul, Korea 132-714; e-mail: [email protected].

375

0278-095X/04/0300-0375/0C© 2004 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

P1: GTQ


376 Chung

have failed to examine the factors that mediate this link (Crane, 1991; Duncan,1991; Huston et al., 1994; Tienda, 1991). Identification of mediating factors isimportant for a more complete understanding of the mechanisms through whichpoverty may exert negative effects on children. Understanding the differential ef-fects of poverty on children’s development can help identify modifiable foci thatmay be amenable to preventive intervention.

There has been little attempt to synthesize disparate bodies of literature intoa more comprehensive understanding of the role that poverty may play in thedevelopment of antisocial behavior. The purpose of the present paper is to inte-grate portions of existing literature into a theoretically cohesive model in whichpsychosocial mediating mechanisms explain individual differences in antisocialbehavior among poor children. In this paper, antisocial behavior refers to both ag-gressive and violent acts that have their onset in childhood, and persistent violentacts in adolescence and adulthood. The general term “antisocial behavior” is used,rather than a more specific term (e.g., aggression, violence), in order to encompassa broad variety of different expressions of interpersonally and socially disruptivebehavior over a life-course. Mediating mechanisms refer to processes throughwhich a specific social condition—poverty—and its associated characteristics af-fect children. If children from the same environment experience different mediatingmechanisms, they may have different consequences. This variation within childrenfrom the same environment is a recurring issue in etiological theories, and is inneed of further attention.

Individual differences refer to the ways in which individuals are unlike eachother. Individual differences among poor children exist in consequences and incauses. Mediating mechanisms may alter the effects of poverty on children’s be-havior in either a risk-aggravating or a risk-buffering way, which may cause sub-stantial individual differences in consequences among poor children. The presentpaper focuses in particular on risk-aggravating mechanisms in order to developappropriate preventive interventions for poor children. However, resilience re-searchers have documented that at least 50% and usually closer to 70% of childrenfrom disadvantaged environments grow up to be not only well adjusted but alsosuccessful by societal indicators (Benard, 2002). Thus, the present paper also ac-knowledges that every individual, family, and neighborhood has strengths, evenin the face of economically disadvantaged situations. These positive mediatingmechanisms provide a basis for breaking the link between poverty and antisocialbehavior.

Generally speaking, there are two types of hypothesized causes for the oc-currence of antisocial behavior–biological (including genetic), and psychosocialfactors. The malleable causes that may be influential in the process of movementtoward antisocial behavior are primarily psychosocial ones. Although the evidenceis incomplete at this time, it seems probable that the malleability and modifiabilityof biological bases is limited both in purely scientific terms and in terms of ethical

P1: GTQ


Understanding the Relationship Between Poverty and Antisocial Behavior 377

constraints. Moreover, by focusing on biological bases of antisocial behavior, thereis a danger of “blaming the victim,” that is, attributing problems only to individualbiological characteristics. For these reasons, I focus on psychosocial mediatingfactors that are malleable, modifiable, and expressed in various forms at differentecological levels.

THEORIES ON PSYCHOSOCIAL MEDIATING MECHANISMSRELATED TO POVERTY

This paper employs an ecological/transactional perspective that views indi-viduals as active participants in nested and overlapping systems (Bronfenbrenner,1979). These systems are proposed to influence developmental outcomes, therebylinking proximal and distal contextual factors to individual developmental pro-cesses. The paper focuses on three levels of mediating mechanisms: (1) mecha-nisms (characteristics and processes) within the individual, (2) mechanisms withinfamilies, and (3) mechanisms within neighborhoods. Note that there are other sys-tems such as other microsystems, organizations, cultures, states, nations, and globalfactors that may also affect mediating mechanisms. However, for the present modelI have chosen to focus on these three domains because they offer the most directopportunities to institute preventive interventions.

As shown in Table I, many theories explaining psychosocial mediating mech-anisms related to poverty can be classified by the ecological levels they address:individual or environmental (family and neighborhood). For each level, there are

Table I. Theories on Psychosocial Mediating Mechanisms Related to Poverty

Processes

Domain\focus Characteristics Social learning Social control

Individuallevel

Biological/genetica Social information-processing(Dodge, 1993; Dodge &Newman, 1981)

Self-control(Gottfredson &Hirschi, 1990)

Family level Stress/distress(Conger et al., 1994;McLoyd, 1990)

Social learning (Akers, 1985;Bandura, 1969, 1986);Coercion (Patterson, 1982;Patterson et al., 1992)

Social control(Hirschi, 1969;Sampson &Laub, 1993);Attachment(Bowlby, 1982)

Neighborhoodlevel

Social disorganization(Bursik & Grasmick, 1993;Sampson, 1991;Sampson & Wilson, 1994);Social isolation(Wilson, 1987, 1991, 1996)

Role modeling/collectivesocialization (Hagan, 1994;Sampson & Wilson, 1994)

Social capital(Coleman, 1988)

aNot dealt with in the present paper

P1: GTQ


378 Chung

theories of characteristicsand theories of processes. Theories of characteristicsdescribe how poverty has an effect on each domain. These theories address thefeatures related to poverty in a particular ecological domain. These features formthe conditions in which the hypothesized explanatory processes take place. Incontrast, theories of processes are developed to understand the processes throughwhich poverty effects may be transmitted to children. Agnew (1997) suggested thattheories of processes consist of social learning and social control theories, whichmost appropriately explain mediating processes. Theories of characteristics implya single and deterministic pathway whereas theories of processes have room forindividual differences and imply multiple pathways. Pointing out this distinctionis not to say that characteristics and processes are unrelated. They may interact inthe etiology of antisocial behavior.

Individual Level

Individual level factors are one of the essential elements in ecological expla-nations of human behavior. This does not mean that an individual is the only, ornecessarily the most important target for preventive intervention because personalchange that is not reinforced at other levels is difficult to sustain. However, toexplain antisocial behavior, theories should understand and account for behaviorat the individual level, because all elements of social ecologies are composed ofindividuals.

As shown in Table 1, the theories at the individual level can be classifiedinto two categories—theories of individual characteristics related to poverty, andtheories of individual processes. Theories of individual characteristics related topoverty are based on research findings from biological and genetic research. Asnoted earlier, the present paper omits inclusion of biological and genetic bases ofantisocial behavior. Theories of individual processes include social information-processing theory and self-control theory. Social information-processing theory isrelated to social learning theory and self-control theory is related to social controltheory.

Theories of Individual Processes

Social information-processing theorydescribes the cognitive processes thatare proximally responsible for the display of a maladaptive behavioral responseto a social stimulus (Dodge, 1993). According to social information-processingtheory, an individual’s behavioral response to a social stimulus occurs as a functionof a sequence of processing steps—encoding, mental representation, response ac-cess, response evaluation/selection, and enactment (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge,1993). How individuals accomplish the task in each processing step affects howthey interact with their social environment.

P1: GTQ



Over the past decade, a number of empirical studies have examined socialinformation-processing tendencies in aggressive children. These studies indicatethat aggressive children display biases and deficits at all steps of information-processing. Aggressive children attend to fewer cues than do non-aggressive chil-dren (Dodge & Newman, 1981) and direct their attention selectively toward hostilecues (Gouze, 1987). Aggressive children display deviant patterns of mental repre-sentation as well. Aggressive children are deficient at interpreting intention cues(Dodge & Feldman, 1990) and demonstrate hostile attributional bias (Dodge &Coie, 1987). Aggressive children are also less able to access different kinds ofresponses if their initial response is not successful (Rubin et al., 1991). Aggressivechildren evaluate aggression more positively than other children do (Crick & Ladd,1991) and are more likely to select aggressive behavior as an appropriate and thebest response (Garber et al., 1991). Finally, aggressive children are found to be lessskilled at enacting competent behaviors than other children (Dodge et al., 1990).

When particular social stimuli are encountered, knowledge structures guideand organize information-processing. Information-processing analysis provides adescription of how a particular behavior comes about, whereas knowledge struc-ture analysis is linked to an explanation of why the behavior occurs (Dodge, 1993).Dodge (1991) argues that aggression derives from basic social cognitive deficien-cies that make it difficult for some children to find non-aggressive solutions tointerpersonal dilemmas. Children growing up in highly stressed poor families inpoor neighborhoods may have fewer resources and opportunities to acquire thelevel of social cognitive skills to avoid conflict and aggressive solutions. Mayer(1997a) reported that children in poor families have, on average, less cognitively-stimulating home environments, because poor families have fewer resources topurchase materials such as toys, computers, and books. This type of impoverish-ment is associated with lack of cognitive/academic skills, which, in turn, influencesantisocial behavior (Downey, 1994; Gerard & Buehler, 1999; Seccombe, 2000).

Self-control theory. Classic theories of aggression have long highlighted theimportance of its emotional dimensions, including the association between frus-tration and aggression, and the contribution of anger to aggressive actions (Loeber& Hay, 1997). Unlike social information-processing theory, self-control theoryspecifically includes an emotional component, recognizing that emotional re-sponses to environments may well be different from cognitive responses (Rimer,1990). As children age, they gain increasing control over their emotions and behav-ior, a set of skills known as self-control (Cicchetti & Tucker, 1994). The controlof anger and tolerance for frustrating circumstances are major achievements inearly socialization and not ones that come automatically (Le Blanc, 1997). Somechildren have difficulty in regulating their emotions and controlling their impulses.

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) characterize people with low self-control as“impulsive, insensible, physical, risk-taking, short-sighted, and non-verbal.” Lowself-control persists when a child’s bonds to society are tenuous, when prosocialinfluences are weak, and when constraints are feeble (Le Blanc, 1997). According

P1: GTQ


380 Chung

to self-control theory, children with low self-control are most at risk of beingunable to resist the temptations of involvement in antisocial behavior (Leventhal,1990; Rothbart & Ahadi, 1994). Children with low self-control are more likely toprefer risk-taking activities that offer excitement and thrill, which in turn increasesthe number of occasions for engaging in antisocial behavior. They are also morelikely to evaluate adult supervision as inefficient (Le Blanc, 1995). As a result, theprobability of the occurrence of antisocial behavior is higher.

Family Level: Effect of Family Poverty and Mediating Factors on Children

Family level factors have been a primary focus for explaining antisocial be-havior because of the family’s central role in children’s socialization (Barber,1992). The assumption is that patterns of interaction and relationship schema ac-quired through experiences in the family are fundamental to a child’s interactionswith other socializing units and serve to prepare a child to meet the challengesof development. The importance of family functioning and socialization practices(e.g., monitoring and supervision, consistent discipline, and the formation of closesocial bonds between parents and children) for explaining antisocial behavior hasbeen well established (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986).

As shown in Table 1, the theories at the family level can be classified intotheories of family characteristics related to poverty, and theories of processes.Theories of family characteristics related to poverty include stress/distress theory.Theories of family processes include social learning theory and social controltheory.

Theories of Family Characteristics

Stress/distress theory. Stress is defined as an imbalance between demandsand resources (Lewis, 1990). It has been reported that there is an inverse relation-ship between socioeconomic status and various forms of psychological distressin adults (Liem & Liem, 1978; McAdoo, 1986; Neff & Husaini, 1980). Objec-tive conditions—for example, poverty status—do not invariably result in negativelong-term outcomes. Rather, the effect of the condition depends on the percep-tions and responses to it by the people involved. When people perceive that thedemands placed on them by their environment exceed their abilities (e.g., theymay feel as though they cannot meet important needs), this condition is perceivedas threatening or stressful (McGrath, 1970).

Stress theory postulates mediational sequences that link economic stress toparenting practices, and parenting practices, in turn, to child adjustment (Congeret al., 1994; Elder & Caspi, 1988; Hashima & Amato, 1994; McLeod & Shanahan,1993; McLoyd, 1990). There is some evidence that poverty is linked to low-quality

P1: GTQ



parent-child interaction and to increased use of inconsistent and harsh punishment(Coie & Dodge, 1998; Conger et al., 1994; Loeber, 1990; McLoyd, 1990). Poorparents are subject to more stress than non-poor parents because there is a gapbetween their own goals and the means available for achieving them (Bruce et al.,1991; Ensminger, 1995). For example, poor parents may experience stress andfrustration from joblessness and/or the lack of opportunities to participate in eco-nomic success (Smith & Zaslow, 1995). This stress, in turn, may diminish parents’abilities to respond to their children’s needs in supportive ways, may render parentsless warm toward their children, and may lead to increased coercive exchangeswith their children (Dodge et al., 1994). Such parenting and parent-child interac-tional patterns have been shown to be associated with negative child developmentaloutcomes, including antisocial behavior (Conger et al., 1994; McLoyd & Wilson,1991; Patterson et al., 1992; Yoshikawa, 1994).

Theories of Family Processes

Although several explanations of the intervening processes leading to anti-social behavior have been suggested, these processes are most often explained interms of social learning and social control theories (Siegel & Senna, 1994). Sociallearning theory is compatible or consistent with social control theory, but the twotheories differ from each other in explaining why the same risk factors affect an-tisocial behavior (Agnew, 1997; Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). For example, sociallearning theorists would argue that negative family relations increase antisocialbehavior because such relations expose the child to poorly-functioning models,result in the reinforcement of antisocial behavior, and implicitly teach the childthat antisocial behavior is acceptable in certain circumstances. In contrast, socialcontrol theorists would argue that negative family relations increase antisocial be-havior because such relations reduce attachment to parents and interfere with theinternalization of conventional beliefs.

Social learning theoryexplains antisocial behavior in terms of reciprocalmodels in which behaviors, individuals, and environmental influences all interact(Bandura, 1969). The immediate environment for children is family. The envi-ronment is important because it provides the social and physical situations withinwhich a child must function; it also provides the incentives and disincentives forthe performance of certain behaviors.

Social learning theory consists of two branches—a cognitive branch and anoperant conditioning branch (Perry et al., 1990). The cognitive branch emphasizesobservational learning, whereas the operant conditioning branch emphasizes theinfluence of external reinforcements. A child can learn from other persons, notonly through observing them but also by receiving reinforcements from them.

In the cognitive branch, observational learning occurs when a child watchesthe behaviors of other persons and observes the reinforcements that other persons

P1: GTQ


382 Chung

receive (Bandura, 1986). The cognitive evaluation of events taking place in thechild’s environment through his/her observation is important in determining thechild’s behavior at that time and also in the future. In the operant conditioningbranch, reinforcement and punishment are the primary constructs. Social learningtheory specifies the reinforcement and punishment processes by which behavior—whether prosocial or antisocial—is learned and maintained (Akers, 1985; Akerset al., 1979). Classification as reinforcement or punishment depends upon whethera child’s responding behavior increases or decreases. Any event that increasesthe likelihood of the responding behavior occurring in the future is called rein-forcement and any event that decreases the likelihood of the behavior is calledpunishment.

Coercion theory. The operant conditioning branch of social learning theoryhas been incorporated into coercion theory, which emphasizes how reinforcementand punishment in parent-child interactions explain the emergence, escalation,and eventual maintenance of serious antisocial behavior in children (Patterson,1982). Coercion theory places emphasis on direct parental controls in explainingantisocial behavior by assuming that less skilled parents fail to provide effectivepunishments for transgressions. This theory also depicts a process by which lessskilled parents unintentionally reinforce the child’s antisocial behavior (Patterson,1982; Patterson et al., 1992). A further feature of coercive and more generallypoor parenting associated with antisocial behavior is failure to monitor, track,or supervise the child’s behavior. Children raised under poor parenting do notlearn to control antisocial behavior, but they do learn that such behavior can bea successful way to meet their needs. Antisocial behavior is learned at home andthen generalized to other settings such as school.

Social control theory. Social control refers generally to the capacity of agroup to regulate its members according to desired principles (Janowitz, 1975).The central idea of social control theory is that antisocial behavior is more likelywhen an individual’s bond to society or key social institutions (e.g., attachment tofamily, school) is weak or broken (Hirschi, 1969; Kornhauser, 1978). Weak bondsto conventional norms and institutions counteract the constraints on antisocial be-havior otherwise provided by those norms and institutions. Early social controltheorists mistakenly thought of social control solely in terms of social repres-sion and state sanctions, such as enforced conformity and incarceration (Janowitz,1975; Sampson & Laub, 1993). As a result, most previous studies failed to exam-ine processes of informal social control (social ties and bonds) in childhood andadolescence.

Sampson and Laub (1993) emphasize the role of informal social control inexplaining antisocial behavior. They suggest that such control emerges from thestructure of interpersonal bonds linking members of society to one another and towider social institutions (e.g., family and neighborhood). Social control theory hasshown that attachment to family, school, and conventional others; commitment toconventional lines of action; and belief in the validity and legitimacy of the legal

P1: GTQ



order are elements of a social bond to conventional society that prevent antisocialbehavior (Le Blanc, 1997).

The emphasis on parent-child interaction in coercion theory has much incommon with social control theory’s focus on informal social control (Hirschi,1969). Coercion theory emphasizes direct parental controls as found in disciplineand monitoring practices. In contrast, social control theory emphasizes indirectcontrols in the form of the child’s emotional bond to parents and to other prosocialinfluences (Hirschi, 1969). Because direct parental controls via consistent disci-pline and clear supervision are likely to be positively related to indirect controls, thetwo theories appear to be compatible with one another (Sampson & Laub, 1993).

Attachment theoryaddresses the crucial role of early experiences of chil-dren and the impact of these experiences on aspects of later functioning (Bowlby,1982). The key assumption made by attachment theorists is that individual behav-ior may be understood in terms of social relationship schemas constructed by theindividual. These schemas, although constantly evolving and subject to modifica-tion, are strongly influenced by the child’s experiences with primary caregiversand reinforced by later experience. The parent-child bond in early childhood hasimplications for later bonds to social institutions and to the adult figures whichrepresent these institutions (e.g., teachers, employers). Attachment processes mayprotect the child from committing antisocial behavior by promoting relationshipswith prosocial individuals and social supports. Secure attachment facilitates the de-velopment of clear standards, healthy beliefs, and prosocial bonds, which reduce,in turn, the child’s potential to engage in antisocial behavior (Carlson & Sroufe,1995; Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Fonagy et al., 1997; Masten & Coatsworth,1998).

Neighborhood Level: Effect of NeighborhoodPoverty and Mediating Factors on Children

Neighborhoods have long been recognized as potentially important contextsfor children’s development. According to an ecological model, children are notonly influenced by factors in their immediate environment such as the family, butalso by aspects of the environment in which they do not actively participate, suchas neighborhoods. Although there is much speculation, more empirical researchelucidating the mechanisms through which neighborhoods may influence childrenis needed (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000).

Several theories have been put forward to explain effects of neighborhoodlevel mediating factors on children’s antisocial behavior. These theories oftenhave different foci, yet frequently overlap. As shown in Table 1, the theories atthe neighborhood level can be divided into two categories—theories of charac-teristics and theories of processes. Neighborhood characteristics are mediated byneighborhood processes that directly and indirectly influence children’s antisocial

P1: GTQ


384 Chung

behavior. Theories of characteristics consist of social disorganization theory andsocial isolation theory. Theories of processes include role modeling (collectivesocialization) theory and social capital theory.

Theories of Neighborhood Characteristics

The most important neighborhood characteristic associated with antisocialbehavior is the degree to which neighborhoods are characterized by structuralsocial disorganization and cultural social isolation, both of which stem from theconcentration of poverty. These two characteristics are overlapping, but each isdistinct enough to require its own explanation.

Social disorganization theory. Social disorganization refers to the loss ofneighborhood control over residents, the deficiency of consensus and cohesionamong residents, and the erosion of informal social networks (Sampson, 1991).Social organization and social disorganization are seen as different ends of the samecontinuum of neighborhood social control (Sampson & Wilson, 1994). Accordingto social disorganization theory, variation along this continuum (i.e., differentialsocial organization) is related to antisocial behavior through processes of childsocialization. Neighborhoods vary considerably in their ability to supervise andcontrol youth peer groups (e.g., gangs); in the quality of local friendship andacquaintanceship networks; and in the rate of participation in formal or informalorganizations (Sampson, 1988). These variations should be reflected in differentialrates of antisocial behavior in neighborhoods (Reiss, 1995).

Based on social disorganization theory, researchers have examined neighbor-hood variables as risk factors for child and adolescent development (Chung et al.,2002; Coulton & Pandey, 1992; Duncan et al., 1994; Gonzales et al., 1996; Loeber& Wikstrom, 1993; Rankin & Quane, 2002; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Sampsonet al., 1997; Simons et al., 1996). Evidence favoring social disorganization theoryis available with respect both to its structural antecedents and to mediating pro-cesses. As hypothesized by social disorganization theory, three structural neighbor-hood characteristics—low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, and residentialmobility—lead to the disruption of neighborhoods and to social disorganization,which in turn prevents neighborhoods from accomplishing the common values ofresidents and from maintaining effective social controls for youth (Elliott et al.,1996; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Sampson et al., 1999). Investigators have foundthat residing in low-income neighborhoods is associated with increased behaviorproblems (Chase-Lansdale et al., 1997; Duncan et al., 1994). Low-income andmultiethnic neighborhoods produce deleterious effects because they are plaguedby higher crime rates and lack of opportunities for prosocial friendship networks,and collectively are less able to supervise youth peer groups (Gonzales et al., 1996).In addition, the increasing anonymity accompanying rapid population change andurbanization (e.g., housing density, population size) undercuts the capacity of

P1: GTQ



impoverished neighborhoods to exercise collective controls (Sampson & Groves,1989).

Social isolation theory. Wilson (1987) defines social isolation as the lackof contact or sustained interaction with individuals and institutions that representmainstream society. He suggests that social isolation has been a major result ofliving in areas of concentrated poverty and that such isolation strongly affects thelife chances of those who grow up in the inner city. Social isolation fostered by theconcentration of poverty deprives children not only of resources and conventionalrole models, but also of cultural learning from mainstream social networks thatfacilitate social and economic advancement (Wilson, 1991). A poor family whosemobility is impeded by the macro-structural constraints in the economy, but wholives in an area with a relatively low rate of poverty, experiences a different envi-ronment than a poor family that lives in an inner-city ghetto neighborhood that isinfluenced not only by these same constraints but also by the behavior of other poorfamilies in the neighborhood (Wilson, 1991). Because antisocial behavior occursmuch more frequently in inner-city ghetto neighborhoods than in middle-classneighborhoods, the transmission of antisocial behavior by role modeling is moreeasily facilitated. For example, children in inner-city ghetto neighborhoods aremore likely to have role models who do not adequately control their own violentimpulses nor restrain their own anger.

The lack of social resources to make connections with mainstream institutionsleaves individuals in inner-city ghetto neighborhoods ill-prepared for success ineducation, the mainstream economy, and traditional family life (Wilson, 1991).Growing up in inner-city ghetto neighborhoods, where there is a concentrationof permanent underclass, generates both a weak labor force attachment and amovement to illegal alternatives to earn a living. Moreover, in the more sociallyisolated neighborhoods, individuals develop a sense of low self-efficacy, whichfosters doubt in their ability to achieve socially approved goals (Reiss, 1995). Incontrast, growing up in a poor neighborhood, where families are employed andsome individuals are upwardly mobile, promotes a sense of self-efficacy and asearch for legitimate opportunities for success. These poor neighborhoods havethe internal strengths and resources to create opportunities for belonging and par-ticipating as contributing members of the neighborhood, which, in turn, builds thesense of community and connections between neighbors (Saleebey, 2002). Theseneighborhoods provide youths with expectations of opportunity for success andconnections to prosocial people, and thus inhibit antisocial behavior and promoteprosocial behavior.

Theories of Neighborhood Processes

Role modeling/collective socialization theory. Role modeling theory, which isoften called collective socialization theory, focuses on how adults in a neighborhood

P1: GTQ


386 Chung

influence children who are not their own. According to role modeling theory, mid-dle class and professional neighbors serve as positive role models and exercisesocial control, helping children internalize social norms and learn the bound-aries of acceptable behavior (Gephart, 1997). This theory suggests that growingup with relatively affluent neighbors encourages children to learn in school, getgood jobs, and avoid antisocial behavior. The mass exodus of jobs and workingfamilies from inner-city ghetto neighborhoods has resulted in an increased con-centration of the most disadvantaged segments of the urban poor population andin a reduction of the availability of conventional role models for children (Hagan,1994; Sampson & Wilson, 1994). An abundance of negative role models or a lackof positive role models in a neighborhood has a negative effect on developmen-tal outcomes (Duncan et al., 1994). For example, Brooks-Gunn and colleagues(1993) found that neighborhoods with few managerial and professional workerstended to have higher rates of behavior problems. In addition, a high rate of delin-quency, coupled with high adult criminality in a neighborhood, can lead to a lossof the male population to jails and prisons. When fewer male adults reside in theneighborhood in which children grow up, boys often lack stable male role models(Reiss, 1995).

The social and cultural system of poor neighborhoods gives rise to differentsubcultures that shape the nature of antisocial behavior in a given neighborhood.Spergel (1964) identifies racket, conflict, and theft subcultures. They differ intheir emphasis on legitimate and illegitimate opportunities for achieving successand on desirable role models (Reiss, 1995). Evidence from ethnographic studiesshows that neighborhoods vary considerably in the adult role models available tochildren (Reiss, 1995). For example, Spergel (1964) emphasizes the importance ofthe racketeer as a role model in the racket subculture, and Reiss (1995) emphasizesthe importance of the drug dealer as a role model in drug epidemic neighborhoods.

Social capital theory. Social capital refers to the aspects of structured or-ganizations that increase their capacities for action oriented to the achievementof group and individual goals (Hagan, 1994). Social capital theory includes themajor components of control theory: the strengths of social networks as the foun-dation of control, the importance of direct controls, the weakness of norms, andthe defective adaptation to cultural values. On the basis of Coleman’s (1988) so-cial capital theory, neighborhoods are seen as high in social capital if some of thefollowing characteristics are present: (1) relationships are dense and complex; (2)information networks are easily accessible or are seen as helpful; (3) norms andsanctions about parent and child behavior are relatively clear-cut; (4) opportunityfor advancement is believed to exist (i.e., job opportunities, good schools); and (5)residence patterns are perceived as stable.

When social capital is abundant in a neighborhood, it can be converted intocultural capital, and children easily adapt themselves to more conforming forms ofcultural values and social norms in order to improve their life chances in adulthood(Hagan, 1994; Hagan & Wheaton, 1993). Poverty (absence of financial capital),

P1: GTQ



especially when aggregated and concentrated, results in a dramatic successive de-privation of all kinds of capital, from financial to social and cultural capital. Povertyplays a key role in intensifying the devaluation of the social and cultural capitalof those who live in its midst. It also indirectly encourages antisocial subculturaladaptations, which are in effect an effort to reorganize what resources are available,even if illicit, to reach attainable goals. The former is called a capital disinvestmentprocess and the latter is called a recapitalization process (Hagan, 1994). Both pro-cesses in disadvantaged neighborhoods produce intensified delinquency and crimeproblems.

Integrated Theories

In recent years theorists have attempted to integrate several theories intoa single theoretical model of antisocial behavior. For example, Elliott and col-leagues’ integrated theory (Elliott et al., 1979; Elliott et al., 1985; Elliott et al.,1989), Thornberry’s interactional theory (Thornberry, 1987, 1996; Thornberryet al., 1994), and Hawkins, Catalano, and colleagues’ social development model(Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Farrington & Hawkins, 1991; Hawkins & Weis,1985) are important integrated theories. My research on antisocial behavior hasbeen largely guided by the social development model (SDM). Thus, I discuss theSDM as a starting point for my conceptual framework.

The SDM combines the empirically supported components of social learningand social control theories to specify intervening processes. The SDM specifies twosocialization pathways. One path delineates the processes that encourage prosocialbehavior and the other path those that encourage antisocial behavior. It suggeststhat socialization involves the same processes whether it produces prosocial orantisocial behavior. The socialization process involves four constructs: (1) oppor-tunities for involvement in activities and interactions with others, (2) the degreeof involvement and interactions, (3) the skills to participate in these involvementand interactions, and (4) the rewards forthcoming from their performance in in-volvement and interactions. When socializing processes are consistent in matchingopportunities, involvement, skills, and rewards for children, a social bond developsbetween those children and the socializing unit. Once established, this social bondhas the power to affect behavior independently by creating an informal control onbehavior. That control inhibits antisocial behavior through the establishment of achild’s “stake” in conforming to the norms and values of the socializing unit. TheSDM hypothesizes that a child’s behavior will be prosocial if the predominant be-haviors, norms, and values held by those to whom the child is bonded are prosocial.The model also hypothesizes the antisocial socialization pathway that bonding toantisocial others increases the likelihood of antisocial behavior in a similar manner.Finally, the SDM includes consideration of socialization influences from severalecological levels (individual, family, peer, school, and neighborhood).

P1: GTQ


388 Chung

CONCEPTUAL SYNTHESIS

I have reviewed a variety of theories that could be useful for understandingthe influence of poverty on antisocial behavior. The task for this paper is to begin toweave together these separate (sometimes overlapping) explanations into a morecoherent and integrated framework. The next section addresses such a conceptualframework.

The proposed conceptual framework extends prior theories in the followingways: It focuses simultaneously on three ecological levels: individual, family,and neighborhood; it includes consideration of both exogenous characteristicsand developmental processes; and it includes consideration of three processes:modeling, bonding, and constraining.

First, unlike most of the theories reviewed, the proposed conceptual frame-work addresses three ecological levels (individual, family, and neighborhood)of explanation of antisocial behavior. This is also true of the SDM, however,the proposed conceptual framework extends the SDM by considering individualinformation-processing within a child at the psychological level. Further, prior the-ories of either the individual or the other ecological levels have tended to ignore theinterrelationships and interactions among levels. The proposed framework appliessimultaneously to individual, family, and neighborhood levels of explanation, andconsiders interactions among levels.

Second, the proposed conceptual framework combines theories of exogenouscharacteristics and theories of processes into a larger set of interrelated proposi-tions in order to provide a more comprehensive explanation of antisocial behavior.The SDM also includes exogenous characteristics and developmental processesbut in a different manner. The SDM includes a general view of exogenous charac-teristics such as position in the social structure (e.g., poverty, ethnicity), externalconstraints (e.g., legal sanctions), and individual constitutional factors (e.g., hy-peractivity) (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). By contrast, the proposed frameworkfocuses specifically on the role of poverty and poverty-related characteristics suchas stress, social disorganization, and social isolation.

Finally, while many of the reviewed theories focus on a particular process,the proposed conceptual framework explicitly integrates three mediating processesderived from social learning and social control theories: modeling, bonding, andconstraining. The concept of modeling originates from social learning theory,whereas the concepts of bonding and constraining come from social control theory.

Conceptual Framework

The proposed conceptual framework is illustrated in Fig. 1. This conceptualframework consists of three broad components: poverty, mediating mechanisms(characteristics and processes), and antisocial/prosocial behavior. The starting

P1: GTQ



Nei

ghbo

rhoo

dP

over

ty

Ind

ivid

ual

Fam

ily

Pov

erty

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Pro

cess

esP

roce

sses

Kno

wle

dge

Str

uctu

re

Info

rmat

ion

Pro

cess

ing

Ant

isoc

ial B

ehav

ior

/ Pro

soci

alB

ehav

ior

Soc

ial

diso

rga-

Soc

ial

niza

tion

/ org

aniz

atio

n

Soc

ial

Soc

ial

isol

atio

n /

conn

ecte

dnes

s

Str

ess

/ Sup

port

Mod

elin

gB

ondi

ngC

onst

rain

ing

Mod

elin

gB

ondi

ngC

onst

rain

ing

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d

ab

c

d

Hos

tile

sch

ema

/ Non

-hos

tile

sch

ema

Low

sel

f-co

ntro

l / S

elf-

cont

rol

Sen

siti

vity

to h

osti

le c

ues

/ S

ensi

tivi

ty to

non

-hos

tile

cue

sH

osti

le a

ttri

buti

onal

bias

/ N

o at

trib

utio

nalb

ias

Acc

ess

aggr

essi

ve r

espo

nses

/ A

cces

s no

n-ag

gres

sive

res

pons

esIn

corr

ect E

valu

atio

n / C

orre

ct e

valu

atio

n

Agg

ress

ive

mod

els

/ Pro

soci

alm

odel

s In

secu

re a

ttac

hmen

t / S

ecur

e at

tach

men

tU

ncle

ar s

tand

ards

/ C

lear

sta

ndar

ds

Pro

cess

es

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Fam

ily

Fig

.1.

Con

cept

ualf

ram

ewor

kfo

run

ders

tand

ing

the

rela

tions

hip

betw

een

pove

rty

and

antis

ocia

l/pro

soci

albe

havi

or.

No

te:A

llte

rms

toth

ele

ftof

the

slas

h(/

)le

adto

antis

ocia

lbeh

avio

rw

hile

thos

eto

the

right

ofth

esl

ash

(/)

lead

topr

osoc

ialb

ehav

ior.

P1: GTQ


390 Chung

point in the framework is poverty, which has been shown to be predictive ofantisocial behavior. The end point in the framework involves children’s antisocial/prosocial behavior. Mediating mechanisms operate either to place children at fur-ther risk, increasing the likelihood of antisocial behavior, or to counteract existingpotential risk, resulting in decreasing antisocial behavior and promoting proso-cial behavior. These mediating mechanisms are defined at individual, family, andneighborhood levels. This conceptual framework addresses both antisocial andprosocial pathways. Although only a minority of children in fact take the anti-social pathway, my major interest is in identifying those who will likely followthe antisocial pathway in order to consider which preventive interventions mightbenefit them.

The center column in Fig. 1 depicts the individual level characteristics andprocesses. At the individual level, this conceptual framework identifies character-istics influenced by family and neighborhood processes. It is hypothesized thatexposure to aggressive models from the modeling process, insecure attachmentrelationships from the bonding process, and unclear standards from the constrain-ing process lead a child to develop a knowledge structure of the world as a hostileplace that requires coercive behavior to achieve desired outcomes. These aggressivemodels, insecure attachment, and unclear standards also make the development ofself-control more difficult.

This conceptual framework also specifies processes at the individual levelthat mediate the effects of family and neighborhood factors on antisocial behavior.Later, when a child is presented with provocative stimuli, these knowledge struc-tures lead him or her to attend to the hostile aspects of these cues and to attributethese stimuli as a threat to the self. These knowledge structures also lead the childto access aggressive responses to these cues. The child evaluates the probableoutcomes of aggressing in this instance as favorable and engages in aggressivebehavior. Note that although this path only delineates the processes that encourageantisocial behavior, the opposite path (right-hand side of the slash) delineating theprocesses that encourage prosocial behavior is also possible. Like the SDM, thisconceptual framework hypothesizes that a child’s behavior will be prosocial orantisocial depending on models and relationships that the child encounters, andstandards that the child holds. Many children from disadvantaged environmentscan be resilient. For example, poor children may engage in prosocial behavior ifthey happen to have prosocial models, secure attachment relationships, and clearstandards through positive mediating processes such as modeling from prosocialparents and others, bonding to prosocial parents and others, and constraining ofmisbehavior through parental and collective monitoring/discipline.

As indicated by patha in Fig. 1, repeated experiences of the antisocial pathwithout any control or discipline will strengthen the child’s hostile knowledgestructures, make this negative information-processing more automated, and lead tomore serious antisocial behavior. In contrast, if the antisocial path is interrupted byappropriate control or discipline and the prosocial path is consistently promoted,

P1: GTQ



the child will develop non-hostile knowledge structures, have more automaticpositive information-processing, and behave in a more prosocial manner.

At the family level (top right-hand side of Fig. 1), processes of modeling,bonding, and constraining determine these individual level models, attachment,and standards that affect knowledge structure and information-processing. Theframework hypothesizes that processes of modeling, bonding, and constrainingare independent but influence one another. Parents may provide either aggressiveor prosocial models. Parents may also be unresponsive and punitive or they may besupportive and warm, which affects the bonding process and attachment. Parentalpunitive control is inversely related to bonding while parental emotional support ispositively related to bonding. Finally, parents may ignore or monitor their child’sbehavior, affecting the constraining process and standards. Parental behavioralmonitoring and supervision play a constraining role.

Because of their position at the bottom of the social hierarchy, poor parentsand adults in poor neighborhoods may develop values, norms, and behaviors thatcause them to be “bad” role models for their children (Mayer, 1997b). Childrenwho grow up in poor families and in poor neighborhoods during early childhoodare likely to be socialized in ways that produce a high risk for antisocial behavior,and to associate with others who reinforce antisocial behavior because of a lackof prosocial role models. Families experiencing long-term poverty have difficultyproviding positive role models for children. In families experiencing short-termpoverty, stress may have a greater effect on parental behavior (Mayer, 1997a).

At the family level, these family processes are affected by family povertyand stress/support. The most important family characteristic related to poverty isparental stress. Poverty and the accompanying stresses resulting from economicdeprivation influence parent-child relations and interactions within the family(Sampson & Lauritsen, 1994). Poor parents are subject to increased stress be-cause of a gap between demands and resources. Parental stress is highly predictiveof parental unresponsiveness, inconsistency, and punitiveness. Unresponsive, in-consistent, and punitive parenting is linked to antisocial behavior among children(Patterson et al., 1992; Yoshikawa, 1994). Thus, some behavioral problems of poorchildren are mediated by negative parenting precipitated by economic hardship.In contrast, support from parents contributes to better adjustment among children.Despite poverty, children high in parental support, compared with children low inparental support, and children whose interactions with their parents are supportive,sensitive, and well-matched to their needs will engage in less antisocial behaviorand develop more prosocial behavior (Pierce et al., 1996; Rak & Patterson, 1996).

As indicated by pathb, family stress is also affected by the child’s ownantisocial behavior. When considering the role of families in shaping antisocialbehavior, researchers often view parenting in a static framework that flows fromparent to child. This static view ignores the fact that parenting practices are alsoan adaptation to children in a process of reciprocal interaction. Lytton (1990) sug-gests that parent and child display reciprocal adaptation to each other’s behavior

P1: GTQ


392 Chung

level, leading to “child effects” on parents. One reason for these child effects isthat discipline does not work in the usual way for conduct disordered children(Lytton, 1990). Hence, normal routines of parenting may become subject to dis-ruption if parents suffer from intense stress because of a child’s early antisocialbehavior. In addition, the child’s antisocial behavior results in the withdrawalof parental support, whereas his/her prosocial behavior leads to more parentalsupport.

At the neighborhood level (top left-hand side of Fig. 1), processes of mod-eling, bonding, and constraining also affect individual level models, attachment,and standards. Available prosocial or antisocial adults in the neighborhood play amodeling role. Social and cultural capital plays a bonding role. Collective moni-toring, sanctions, and norms play a constraining role in the neighborhood. Whenparental support is low, in order to increase resiliency among poor children othersettings in the neighborhood need to compensate for this lack or provide assistance.Neighborhood poverty and characteristics affect these processes. The frameworkspecifies structural social disorganization and cultural social isolation as negativeneighborhood characteristics that vary with the concentration of poverty and re-source deprivation, and that may affect children’s antisocial behavior. In contrast,despite poverty, social organization and social connectedness of neighborhoodsmay promote positive neighborhood processes. The neighborhood level processesare assumed to mediate the effects of neighborhood characteristics on antiso-cial/prosocial behavior.

As shown in pathc, neighborhood poverty also affects family psychoso-cial mechanisms (characteristics and processes), thereby playing an indirect rolethrough parenting practices in the explanation of antisocial behavior. For exam-ple, poor parents may experience stress from the lack of economic opportunitiesbecause they live in poor neighborhoods. And parents in inner-city ghetto neigh-borhoods may exercise a higher level of control over their children, and isolatethemselves and their families from those around them in an attempt to protectthem from risk (Baldwin et al., 1990; Furstenberg, 1993; Jarrett, 1995; Masten &Coatsworth, 1998; McLoyd, 1989; Rutter & Giller, 1983). Although this serves toincrease parents’ sense of safety, it may cut them off from potential social supports.In contrast, if poor parents are able to derive support from their neighborhood, theycan provide resources and support that enable their children to develop the skillsnecessary for survival and success. In addition, because parents usually adjust theirparenting to conform to neighborhood norms, poor neighborhoods with greater so-cial organization may encourage parents to monitor and supervise their childrenmore intensively, which in turn is associated with less antisocial behavior andmore prosocial behavior (Rankin & Quane, 2002). Finally, as shown in pathd,the concentration of individual antisocial behavior in a geographic area causes adeterioration in neighborhoods. These deteriorated conditions in turn support therise of further serious delinquency and predatory crime. However, a concentrationof individual prosocial behavior leads to an increase in social organization and

P1: GTQ



social connectedness in the neighborhood, which in turn promotes developmentalong the prosocial path.

The three levels are not mutually exclusive. In fact, longitudinal researchindicates that individual, family, and neighborhood factors all influence antiso-cial behavior (Brooks-Gunn, 1995). It is likely that antisocial behavior resultsfrom transactions between individuals with different propensities toward antiso-cial behavior and their physical and social environments, which also differ in theirmotivating versus inhibiting properties (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996).

Limitations of the study should be noted. First, since this paper is focusedon the influence of poverty in the development of antisocial behavior, its attentionto the many ways in which individuals and families in poverty succeed in sup-porting the successful development of children is necessarily limited. Second, Ichose to focus exclusively on the three domains of influence—individual, family,and neighborhood—that offer the most direct way to institute preventive inter-ventions. However, there are, indeed, other systems such as other microsystems,organizations, cultures, states, nations, and global factors that may also impinge onthe mediating mechanisms I discuss. Integrative models incorporating these otherlevels of influence may also be useful, and may provide extensions of the currentmodel. Future research should incorporate other systems and related transactionsin a comprehensive conceptual model that may provide further insight into therelationship between poverty and antisocial/prosocial behavior.

In sum, the proposed conceptual framework articulates individualinformation-processes that lead to antisocial/prosocial behavior and details theprocesses that link these individual information-processes to family and neighbor-hood mediating mechanisms. It provides a linkage between micro-psychologicaland macro-social levels. This framework further specifies why some poor childrenadopt increasingly severe antisocial behaviors and full-blown antisocial careers,while others from the same environment do not engage in antisocial behavior ordesist from early antisocial behavior. It, therefore, has potential for enhancing ourunderstanding of the etiology of antisocial behavior.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PREVENTION

This integrated conceptual framework has several implications for interven-tions intended to prevent antisocial behavior among poor children. First, it is note-worthy that a number of mediating factors at the family and neighborhood levelshave effects on antisocial behavior. Intervention programs focusing on these me-diating factors should hold promise for prevention. This framework also suggeststhe need for preventive intervention targets at the psychological level. Programsare needed to promote positive individual processes. Those programs should helpchildren develop a non-hostile schema and self-control skills in order to avoidsensitivity to hostile cues and hostile attributional bias, and to increase behavioral

P1: GTQ


394 Chung

repertoire and correct evaluation of intention cues. Through those programs, chil-dren can learn how to control hostility when provoked and to constructively manageinterpersonal conflict.

Second, programs that acknowledge the salience of the social environmentappear especially important for poor children. Children growing up in disadvan-taged social environments may be in double jeopardy. In such environments, notonly are risk factors more intense and more prevalent, but also protective factorsmay be less available. It is in such environments that antisocial behavior is morelikely to be unrecoverable, whereas the very same behavior in a less adverse set-ting often gains for children the opportunity and support for getting back on track.The proposed conceptual framework specifies how risk is embedded in the largersocial context of children’s lives, and indicates that reduction in environmentalrisk requires a degree of social change. In the field of preventive intervention therehas been a growing appreciation of the extent to which neighborhoods and broadersocietal factors affect child development. This growing awareness is likely to leadto further expansion of the concept of childhood intervention to include such policyconcerns as housing, employment, community mobilization, and the like (Devel-opmental Research and Programs, 2000; Garbarino & Ganzel, 2000; Sameroff &Fiese, 2000; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).

Third, this framework suggests that comprehensive prevention efforts thatoperate at multiple levels promise to yield greater success than those that aremore limited in scope. Programs that fail to engage multiple ecological domainsare unlikely to generate long-lasting effects. Preventive interventions should usemultiple routes of influence to reduce antisocial behavior (Petersen et al., 1993).In addition, prevention programs should seek to simultaneously reduce risk andenhance protection. Neither an approach focused on decreasing risk alone nor anapproach focused on increasing protection alone can be successful in preventingand reducing antisocial behavior (Pollard et al., 1999). Combining both approachescan produce synergetic effects on prevention and reduction of antisocial behavior.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writing of this article was supported by the 2002 research grant from theSocial Sciences Research Center at Duksung Women’s University. I am gratefulto Lewayne Gilchrist, Gunnar Almgren, Alex Mason, Karl Hill, Brian Smith, andJ. David Hawkins for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. Also I would liketo thank anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions.

REFERENCES

Agnew, R. (1997). Stability and change in crime over the life-course: A strain theory explanation.In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.),Developmental theories of crime and delinquency(pp. 101–132).New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

P1: GTQ



Akers, R. L. (1985).Deviant behavior: A social learning approach(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Akers, R. L., Krohn, M., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant

behavior: A specific test of a general theory.American Sociological Review, 44,636–655.Baldwin, A. L., Baldwin, C., & Cole, R. E. (1990). Stress-resistant families and stress-resistant children.

In J. E. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchette, K. H. Neuchterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.),Risk andprotective factors in the development of psychopathology(pp. 257–280). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Bandura, A. (1969).Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt.Bandura, A. (1986).Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Barber, B. K. (1992). Family, personality, and adolescent problem behaviors.Journal of Marriage and

the Family, 54,69–79.Benard, B. (2002). Turnaround people and places: Moving from risk to resilience. In D. Saleebey (Ed.),

The strengths perspective in social work practice(3rd ed., pp. 213–227). Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.

Bowlby, J. (1982).Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979).The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). Children in families in communities: Risk and intervention in the Bronfen-

brenner tradition. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder Jr., & K. Luscher (Eds.),Examining lives in context:Perspectives on the ecology of human development(pp. 467–519). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Klebanov, P. K., & Sealand, N. (1993). Do neighborhoods influencechild and adolescent development?American Journal of Sociology, 99,353–395.

Bruce, M. L., Takeuchi, D. T., & Leaf, P. J. (1991). Poverty and psychiatric status: Longitudinal evidencefrom the New Haven epidemiologic catchment area study.Archives of General Psychiatry, 48,470–474.

Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993).Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effectivecommunity control. New York: Lexington Books.

Carlson, E. A., & Sroufe, L. A. (1995).Contribution of attachment theory to developmental psy-chopathology. New York: Wiley.

Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocialbehavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.),Delinquency and crime: Current theories(pp. 149–197). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds.). (1995).Escape from poverty: What makes a differencefor children?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Gordon, R. A., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1997). Neighborhoodand family influences on the intellectual and behavioral competence of preschool and earlyschool-age children. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.),Neighborhoodpoverty: Vol. 1. Context and consequences for children(pp. 79–118). New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Chung, I.-J., Hill, K. G., Hawkins, J. D., Gilchrist, L. D., & Nagin, D. (2002). Childhood predictors ofoffense trajectories.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39,60–90.

Cicchetti, D., & Tucker, D. (1994). Development and self-regulatory structures of the mind.Develop-ment and Psychopathology, 6, 533–549.

Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In N. Eisenberg (Series Ed.) &W. Damon (Vol. Ed.),Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personalitydevelopment(5th ed., pp. 779–862). New York: Wiley.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital.American Journal of Sociology,94,95–120.

Conger, R. D., Xiaojia, G., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress,coercive family process and developmental problems of adolescents.Child Development, 65,541–561.

Coulton, C. J., & Pandey, S. (1992). Geographic concentration of poverty and risk to children in urbanneighborhoods.American Behavioral Scientist, 35,238–257.

Crane, J. (1991). The epidemic theory of ghettos and neighborhood effects on dropping out and teenagechildbearing.American Journal of Sociology, 96,1226–1259.

P1: GTQ


396 Chung

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processingmechanisms in children’s social adjustment.Psychological Bulletin, 115,74–101.

Crick, N. R., & Ladd, G. W. (1991). Children’s perceptions of the consequences of aggressive behavior:Do the ends justify being mean?Developmental Psychology, 26,612–620.

Developmental Research and Programs. (2000).Communities That Care prevention strategies: A re-search guide to what works. Seattle, WA: Author.

Dodge, K. A. (1991). Emotion and social information processing. In J. Garber & K. A. Dodge (Eds.),The development of emotion regulation and dysfunction(pp. 159–181). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Dodge, K. A. (1993). Social-cognitive mechanisms in the development of conduct disorder and de-pression.Annual Review of Psychology, 44,559–584.

Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence.Science, 250,1678–1683.

Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactiveaggression in children’s playgroups.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1146–1158.

Dodge, K. A., & Feldman, E. (1990). Issues in social cognition and sociometric status. In S. R. Asher& J. D. Coie (Eds.),Peer rejection in childhood(pp. 119–155). Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Dodge, K. A., & Newman, J. P. (1981). Biased decision making processes in aggressive boys.Journalof Abnormal Psychology, 90,375–379.

Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Socialization mediators of the relation betweensocioeconomic status and child conduct problems.Child Development, 65,649–665.

Downey, D. B. (1994). The school performance of children from single-mother and single-father families: Economic or interpersonal deprivation?Journal of Family Issues, 15,129–147.

Duncan, G. J. (1991). The economic environment of childhood. In A. C. Huston (Ed.),Children inpoverty: Child development and public policy(pp. 23–51). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Economic deprivation and early childhooddevelopment.Child Development, 65,296–318.

Duncan, G. J., Yeung, W. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Smith, J. R. (1998). How much does childhood povertyaffect the life chances of children?American Sociological Review, 63, 406–423.

Elder, G. H., Jr., & Caspi, A. (1988). Human development and social change: An emerging perspectiveon the life course. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G. Downey, & M. Moorehouse (Eds.),Persons incontext: Developmental processes(pp. 77–113). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Elliott, D. S., Ageton, S. S., & Canter, R. J. (1979). An integrated theoretical perspective on delinquentbehavior.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 16,3–27.

Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985).Explaining delinquency and drug use. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989).Multiple problem youth: Delinquency, substanceuse, and mental health problems. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Elliott, D. S., Wilson, W. J., Huizinga, D., Sampson, R. J., Elliott, A., & Rankin, B. (1996). The effectsof neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent development.Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency, 33,389–426.

Ensminger, M. E. (1995). Welfare and psychological distress: A longitudinal study of African Americanurban mothers.Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36,346–359.

Farrington, D. P., & Hawkins, J. D. (1991). Predicting participation, early onset and later persistencein officially recorded offending.Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 1, 1–33.

Fonagy, P., Target, M., Steele, M., Steele, H., Leigh, T., Levinson, A., et al. (1997). Morality, disruptivebehavior, borderline personality disorder, crime, and their relationships to security of attachment.In L. Atkinson & K. J. Zucker (Eds.),Attachment and psychopathology(pp. 223–274). New York:Guilford.

Furstenberg, F. F. (1993). How families manage risk and opportunity in dangerous neighborhoods.In W. J. Wilson (Ed.),Sociology and the public agenda(pp. 231–258). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

P1: GTQ



Garbarino, J., & Ganzel, B. (2000). The human ecology of early risk. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels(Eds.),Handbook of early childhood intervention(2nd ed., pp. 76–93). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Garber, J., Quiggle, N. L., Panak, W., & Dodge, K. A. (1991).Aggression and depression in children:Comorbidity, specificity, and cognitive processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gephart, M. A. (1997). Neighborhoods and communities as contexts for development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.),Neighborhood poverty: Vol. 1. Context and consequencesfor children(pp. 1–43). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gerard, J. M., & Buehler, C. (1999). Multiple risk factors in the family environment and youth problembehaviors.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61,343–361.

Gonzales, N. A., Cauce, A. M., Friedman, R. J., & Mason, C. A. (1996). Family, peer, and neighborhoodinfluences on academic achievement among African-American adolescents: One-year prospectiveeffects.American Journal of Community Psychology, 24,365–387.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990).A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress.

Gouze, K. R. (1987). Attention and social problem solving as correlates of aggression in preschoolmales.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15,181–197.

Hagan, J. (1994).Crime and disrepute. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.Hagan, J., & Wheaton, B. (1993). The search for adolescent role exits and the transition to adulthood.

Social Forces, 71,955–980.Hashima, P. Y., & Amato, P. R. (1994). Poverty, social support, and parental behavior.Child Develop-

ment, 65,394–403.Hawkins, J. D., & Weis, J. G. (1985). The social development model: An integrated approach to

delinquency prevention.Journal of Primary Prevention, 6, 73–97.Hirschi, T. (1969).Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.Huston, A. C. (Ed.). (1991a).Children in poverty: Child development and public policy. Cambridge,

MA: Cambridge University Press.Huston, A. C. (1991b). Children in poverty: Developmental and policy issues. In A. C. Huston (Ed.),

Children in poverty: Child development and public policy(pp. 1–22). Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Huston, A. C., McLoyd, V. C., & Garcia Coll, C. (1994). Children and poverty: Issues in contemporaryresearch.Child Development, 65,275–282.

Janowitz, M. (1975). Sociological theory and social control.American Journal of Sociology, 81,82–108.

Jarrett, R. L. (1995). Growing up poor: The family experiences of socially mobile youth in low-incomeAfrican-American neighborhoods.Journal of Adolescent Research, 10,111–135.

Kornhauser, R. R. (1978).Social sources of delinquency: An appraisal of analytic models. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Le Blanc, M. (1995). The relative importance of internal and external constraints in the explanation oflate adolescence delinquency and adult criminality. In J. McCord (Ed.),Coercion and punishmentin long-term perspectives(pp. 272–288). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Le Blanc, M. (1997). A generic control theory of the criminal phenomenon: The structural and dynamicstatements of an integrative multilayered control theory. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.),Developmentaltheories of crime and delinquency(pp. 215–285). New Brunswick: Transaction.

Leventhal, H. (1990). Emotional and behavioral processes. In M. Johnston & L. Wallace (Eds.),Stressand medical procedures(pp. 25–57). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhoodresidence on child and adolescent outcomes.Psychological Bulletin, 126,309–337.

Lewis, F. M. (1990). Perspectives on models of interpersonal health behavior. In K. Glanz, F. M. Lewis,& B. K. Rimer (Eds.),Health behavior and health education: Theory, research and practice(pp. 242–251). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lichter, D. T. (1997). Poverty and inequality among children.Annual Review of Sociology,23,121–145.Liem, R., & Liem, J. (1978). Social class and mental illness reconsidered: The role of economic stress

and social support.Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19,139–156.Loeber, R. (1990). Development and risk factors of juvenile antisocial behavior and delinquency.

Clinical Psychology Review, 10,1–41.

P1: GTQ


398 Chung

Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and violence from childhoodto early adulthood.Annual Review of Psychology, 48,371–410.

Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenileconduct problems and delinquency. In N. Morris & M. Tonry (Eds.),Crime and justice: An annualreview of research(Vol. 7, pp. 29–149). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Loeber, R., & Wikstrom, P.-O. H. (1993). Individual pathways to crime in different types of neigh-borhoods. In D. P. Farrington, R. J. Sampson, & P.-O. H. Wikstrom (Eds.),Integrating individualand ecological aspects of crime(BRA-report No. 1, pp. 169–204). Stockholm, Sweden: SwedishNational Council for Crime Prevention.

Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects in boys’ conduct disorder: A reinterpretation.DevelopmentalPsychology, 26,683–697.

Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorableenvironments: Lessons from research on successful children.American Psychologist, 53, 205–220.

Mayer, S. E. (1997a).What money can’t buy: Family income and children’s life chances. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Mayer, S. E. (1997b). Trends in the economic well-being and life chances of America’s children. InG. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.),Consequences of growing up poor(pp. 49–69). New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

McAdoo, H. P. (1986). Strategies used by black single mothers against stress. In M. C. Simms &J. Malveaux (Eds.),Slipping through the cracks: The status of black women(pp. 153–166).New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

McGrath, J. E. (Ed.). (1970).Social and psychological factors in stress. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &Winston.

McLeod, J. D., & Shanahan, M. J. (1993). Poverty, parenting, and children’s mental health.AmericanSociological Review, 58,351–366.

McLoyd, V. C. (1989). Socialization and development in a changing economy: The effects of paternaljob and income loss on children.American Psychologist, 44,293–302.

McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on black families and children: Psychologicaldistress, parenting, and socioemotional development.Child Development, 61,311–346.

McLoyd, V. C., & Wilson, L. (1991). The strain of living poor: Parenting, social support, and childmental health. In A. C. Huston (Ed.),Children in poverty: Child development and public policy(pp. 105–135). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Neff, J. A., & Husaini, B. A. (1980). Race, socioeconomic status, and psychiatric impairment: Aresearch note.Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 16–19.

Patterson, G. R. (1982).A social learning approach to family intervention: Coercive family process.Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992).A social interactional approach: Vol. 4. Antisocialboys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Perry, C. L., Baranowski, T., & Parcel, G. S. (1990). How individuals, environments, and healthbehavior interact: Social learning theory. In K. Glanz, F. M. Lewis, & B. K. Rimer (Eds.),Healthbehavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice(pp. 161–186). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Petersen, A. C., Richmond, J. B., & Leffert, N. (1993). Social changes among youth: The United Statesexperience.Journal of Adolescent Health, 14,632–637.

Pierce, G. R., Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G., Joseph, H. J., & Henderson, C. A. (1996). Conceptualizingand assessing social support in the context of the family. In G. R. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, & I. G.Sarason (Eds.),Handbook of social support and the family(pp. 3–23). New York: Plenum.

Pollard, J. A., Hawkins, J. D., & Arthur, M. W. (1999). Risk and protection: Are both neces-sary to understand diverse behavioral outcomes in adolescence?Social Work Research, 23,145–158.

Rak, C. F., & Patterson, L. E. (1996). Promoting resilience in at-risk children.Journal of Counselingand Development, 74,368–373.

Rankin, B. H., & Quane, J. M. (2002). Social contexts and urban adolescent outcomes: The interrelatedeffects of neighborhoods, families, and peers on African-American youth.Social Problems, 49,79–100.

P1: GTQ



Reiss, A. J., Jr. (1995). Community influences on adolescent behavior. In M. Rutter (Ed.),Psychosocialdisturbances in young people: Challenges for prevention(pp. 305–332). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Rimer, B. K. (1990). Perspectives on intrapersonal theories in health education and health behavior.In K. Glanz, F. M. Lewis, & B. K. Rimer (Eds.),Health behavior and health education: Theory,research and practice(pp. 140–157). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rothbart, M. K., & Ahadi, S. A. (1994). Temperament and the development of personality.Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 103,55–66.

Rubin, K. H., Bream, L. A., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1991). Social problem solving and aggression inchildhood. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.),The development and treatment of childhoodaggression(pp. 219–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rutter, M., & Giller, H. (1983).Juvenile delinquency: Trends and perspectives. Harmondsworth: Pen-guin Books.

Saleebey, D. (2002). Community development, neighborhood empowerment, and individual resilience.In D. Saleebey (Ed.),The strengths perspective in social work practice(3rd ed., pp. 228–246).Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Sameroff, A. J., & Fiese, B. H. (2000). Models of development and developmental risk. In C. H. Zeanah(Ed.),Handbook of infant mental health(2nd ed., pp. 3–19). New York: Guilford.

Sampson, R. J. (1988). Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: A multilevelsystemic model.American Sociological Review, 53,766–779.

Sampson, R. J. (1991). Linking the micro and macrolevel dimensions of community social disorgani-zation.Social Forces, 70,43–64.

Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social disorganizationtheory.American Journal of Sociology, 94,774–802.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993).Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1994).Violent victimization and offending: Individual, situational,and community level risk factors. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collectiveefficacy for children.American Sociological Review, 64,633–660.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevelstudy of collective efficacy.Science, 277,918–924.

Sampson, R. J., & Wilson, W. J. (1994). Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban inequality. InJ. Hagan & R. D. Peterson (Eds.),Crime and inequality(pp. 37–54). Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress.

Seccombe, K. (2000). Families in poverty in the 1990s: Trends, causes, consequences, and lessonslearned.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62,1094–1113.

Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000).From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of earlychildhood development. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Siegel, L. J., & Senna, J. J. (1994).Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice and law(5th ed.). St. Paul:West Publishing Company.

Simons, R. L., Johnson, C., Beaman, J., Conger, R. D., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1996). Parents and peergroup as mediators of the effect of community structure on adolescent problem behavior.AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 24,145–171.

Smith, S., & Zaslow, M. (1995). Rationale and policy context for two-generation interventions. InS. Smith (Ed.),Two-generation programs for families in poverty: A new intervention strategy(pp. 1–36). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Spergel, I. (1964).Racketville, Slumtown, Haulburg: An exploratory study of delinquent subcultures.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Thornberry, T. P. (1987). Toward an interactional theory of delinquency.Criminology, 25,863–891.Thornberry, T. P. (1996). Empirical support for interactional theory: A review of the literature. In J. D.

Hawkins (Ed.),Delinquency and crime: Current theories(pp. 198–235). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Thornberry, T. P., Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., Farnworth, M., & Jang, S. J. (1994). Delinquent peers,beliefs, and delinquent behavior: A longitudinal test of interactional theory.Criminology, 32,47–83.

P1: GTQ


400 Chung

Tienda, M. (1991). Poor people and poor places: Deciphering neighborhood effects on poverty out-comes. In J. Huber (Ed.),Macro-micro linkages in sociology(pp. 244–262). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Velez, C. N., Johnson, J., & Cohen, P. (1989). A longitudinal analysis of selected risk factors for child-hood psychopathology.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,28,861–864.

Werner, E. E. (1985). Stress and protective factors in children’s lives. In A. R. Nicol (Ed.),Longitudinalstudies in child psychology and psychiatry: Practical lessons from research experience(pp. 335–355). New York: Wiley.

Wilson, W. J. (1987).The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wilson, W. J. (1991). Studying inner-city social dislocations: The challenge of public agenda research.American Sociological Review, 56,1–14.

Wilson, W. J. (1996).When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Knopf.Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and edu-

cation on chronic delinquency and its risks.Psychological Bulletin, 115,28–54.Zill, N., Moore, K. A., Smith, E. W., Stief, T., & Coiro, M. J. (1995). The life circumstances and

development of children in welfare families: A profile based on national survey data. In P. L.Chase-Lansdale & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.),Escape from poverty: What makes a difference forchildren?(pp. 38–59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

a conceptual framework for understanding the relationship

Documents