Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
Predictors of resilience in abused and neglected children grown-up: The role of individual and neighborhood characteristics夽 Kimberly A. DuMont a , Cathy Spatz Widom b,∗ , Sally J. Czaja b a
Bureau of Evaluation & Research, New York State Office of Children & Family Services, Rensselaer, NY, USA b Department of Psychiatry, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ 07103, USA Received 9 April 2005; received in revised form 14 November 2005; accepted 26 November 2005 Available online 26 March 2007
Abstract Purpose: This paper examines individual, family, and neighborhood level predictors of resilience in adolescence and young adulthood and describes changes in resilience over time from adolescence to young adulthood in abused and neglected children grown up. Method: We use documented cases of childhood physical and sexual abuse and neglect (n = 676) from a Midwestern county area during the years 1967–1971 and information from official records, census data, psychiatric assessments, and self-reports obtained through 1995. Analyses involve logistic regressions, replicated with Mplus to test for possible contextual effects. Results: Almost half (48%) of the abused and neglected children in adolescence and nearly one-third in young adulthood were resilient. Over half of those who were resilient in adolescence remained resilient in young adulthood, whereas 11% of the non-resilient adolescents were resilient in young adulthood. Females were more likely to be resilient during both time periods. Being white, non-Hispanic decreased and growing up in a stable living situation increased the likelihood of resilience in adolescence, but not in young adulthood. Stressful life events and a supportive partner promoted resilience in young adulthood. Neighborhood advantage did not exert a direct effect on resilience, but moderated the relationship between household stability and resilience in adolescence and between cognitive ability and resilience in young adulthood. 夽
This research was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Mental Health (MH49467 and MH58386), Justice (86-IJ-CX-0033 and 89-IJ-CX-0007), Child Health and Human Development (HD40774), and Drug Abuse (DA017842) to the second author. Points of view are those of the authors and do not reflect the position of the US Department of Justice. ∗ Corresponding author address. Psychology Department, John Jay College, 899 Tenth Avenue, New York City, NY 10019, USA. 0145-2134/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.11.015
256
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
Conclusions: Ecological factors appear to promote or interfere with the emergence and stability of resilience following childhood maltreatment. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Resilience; Child abuse and neglect; Neighborhood characteristics; Predictors
Introduction Childhood victimization has the potential to affect a number of domains of a person’s functioning (Widom, 2000) and numerous papers have reported on the long-term negative consequences of child maltreatment (Augoustinos, 1987; Beitchman et al., 1992; Berliner, 1991; Widom, 1989b; Wolfe, 1987). However, researchers have also observed that there are children who appear resilient and do not manifest problem behaviors despite facing considerable adversity or trauma in childhood (Cicchetti, Rogosch, Lynch, & Holt, 1993; Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993; Garmezy & Masten, 1986; Kaufman & Zigler, 1987; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Mannarino & Cohen, 1987; McGloin & Widom, 2001; Sirles, Smith, & Kusama, 1989; Widom, 1989c). Operational definitions of resilience vary considerably. Some studies have used only one criterion (Chambers & Belicki, 1998; Widom, 1991), while others have used more than one criterion (Chandy, Blum, & Resnick, 1996). For example, researchers have defined resilience as: (1) performing at least above average in school, having no suicide risk, no history of marijuana use, and infrequent or no use of alcohol or tobacco (Chandy et al., 1996); (2) having a good quality of sleep (Chambers & Belicki, 1998); and (3) not being depressed in combination with having good levels of self-esteem (Liem, James, O’Toole, & Boudewyn, 1997). There is also considerable variation in the methods and samples used in studies that have examined factors that contribute to resilience in abused and/or neglected children (for summaries, see Bolger & Patterson, 2003; Heller, Larrieu, D’Imperio, & Boris, 1999). Longitudinal studies have been used to investigate predictors of resilience among maltreated children, but have been limited to relatively small samples (Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, & Egolf, 1994). Studies that have examined predictors of resilience among adults have generally consisted of qualitative case studies of female victims of sexual abuse (Banyard, Williams, Siegel, & West, 2002; Himelein & McElrath, 1996; Hyman & Williams, 2001; Valentine & Feinauer, 1993). Despite the lack of an extensive literature on predictors of resilience, a few factors have emerged as likely candidates. Clinicians and child protective service workers have stressed the importance of a significant person in the lives of abused and neglected children. Although Farber and Egeland (1987) found few competent “survivors” among physically or emotionally neglected children, the children more likely to be competent were those whose mothers showed some interest in them and were able to respond to them emotionally. For sexually abused children, one positive mediating variable appears to be the presence of a supportive, positive relationship with a non-abusive parent or sibling (Conte & Schuerman, 1988). Research has also suggested that high (or above average) intelligence or cognitive ability may exert a protective effect in the context of an abusive or neglectful environment (Frodi & Smetana, 1984; Zimrin, 1986). Although Werner and Smith (1982) were not studying abused children, they found that high child intelligence and high verbal skills were associated with resilience in their longitudinal study of children in Kauai where children were followed from birth to young adulthood. Intelligence may play a
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
257
direct role or it may operate as a protective influence, mediating other factors such as school performance or problem-solving skills which may, in turn, be related to later outcomes. Studies of the predictors of resilience have focused on how characteristics of the individual, rather than contextual factors—an individual’s family, neighborhood, school, or work setting—might contribute to resilience. However, there is evidence that the long-term impact of childhood trauma may depend on characteristics of the family or community in which the child lived at the time of the abuse or neglect experience (Terr, 1983). Drillen (1964) found that the long-term disadvantage for premature infants was especially marked if the child was raised in an unstable, disturbed family setting, whereas premature children raised in stable homes showed minimal or no disadvantage. For some abused and neglected children, Widom (1991) reported that out-of-home placement did not appear to be detrimental to their long-term development and early stable placements were associated with better outcomes. Similarly, children who were reared in stable households tended to be more resilient than those with foster care placements or frequent moves (Banyard et al., 2002; Siegel, 2000). Other contextual factors may interfere with or promote resilience in abused and neglected children. First, individual and neighborhood level poverty are associated with the risk of child maltreatment (e.g., Coulton & Pandey, 1992; Finkelhor, 1980; Kotch et al., 1997; Newberger, Hampton, Marx, & White, 1986). Studies have also shown links between neighborhood disadvantage and adult outcomes (Goldsmith, Holzer III, & Manderscheid, 1998; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997) and between neighborhood disadvantage, stressful life events, and children’s adjustment (Dubow, Edwards, & Ippolito, 1997; Gephart, 1997). Growing up in poverty may increase a person’s risk of experiencing stressful life events and psychological distress (Bronfenbrenner, 1986; McLoyd, 1990), as well as reduce resources available to cope with stressors (Wandersman & Nation, 1998). However, Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, Yeung, & Smith (1998) have suggested that parental income during early childhood has the most influence later in the life of the child, particularly on achievement and attainment, despite the fact that children who grow up in poverty often move in and out of poverty later in life (Duncan & Rodgers, 1988; Hill, WeiJun, & Duncan, 2001). Similarly, researchers have found that living in an economically advantaged neighborhood is associated with higher scores on cognitive indicators for preschool and early school-age children (Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn, Chase-Lansdale, & Gordon, 1997). Thus, it is possible that abused and neglected children living in communities or neighborhoods that are economically advantaged (presumably with higher levels of resources) will be more likely to emerge as resilient compared to those reared in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Another aspect of resilience that few researchers have examined is whether resilience is stable across different developmental periods (Heller et al., 1999; Kinard, 1998). Some research has focused on shifts in resilience from early childhood to school entry (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1997; Egeland et al., 1993) and from school entry to adolescence (Herrenkohl et al., 1994), but little is known about whether shifts in resilience occur after adolescence and during adulthood. Shifts in contributing factors or predictors of resilience have also not undergone scrutiny. Purpose This paper has four goals: (1) to examine individual and family factors in maltreated children that may facilitate better functioning (resilience) during adolescence and young adulthood; (2) to evaluate the role of neighborhood resources on resilience and to examine the interaction between individual and neighborhood resources; (3) to determine the extent to which there is stability or change in resilience
258
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
from adolescence to young adulthood; and (4) to explore characteristics associated with the stability or change in resilience from adolescence to young adulthood. Our study is a prospective examination of predictors of resilience during late adolescence as well as in young adulthood, using a large sample of men and women, documented cases of physical and sexual abuse and neglect, and examination of contextual (neighborhood) factors.
Method Subjects The data are from a prospective cohort design (Leventhal, 1982; Schulsinger, Mednick, & Knop, 1981) study in which abused and/or neglected children were matched with non-abused and non-neglected children (the control group) of similar age, race/ethnicity, gender, and approximate family social class at the time and followed prospectively into young adulthood. Since we are only considering resilience in the context of overcoming known childhood adversities or traumas, we restrict these analyses to individuals in our sample for whom we have documented histories of abuse and/or neglect in childhood (N = 676). The first phase of this research involved the identification of cases of physical and sexual abuse and neglect and matched controls (Widom, 1989a) and an examination of official juvenile and adult criminal arrest records (Maxfield & Widom, 1996; Widom, 1989c). Cases were drawn from the records of county juvenile and adult criminal courts in a metropolitan area in the Midwest during the years 1967 through 1971. The rationale for identifying the abused and neglected group was that their cases were serious enough to come to the attention of the authorities. That is, only court-substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect were included. To avoid potential problems with ambiguity in the direction of causality and to ensure that the temporal sequence was clear (that is, child abuse or neglect preceded outcomes of interest), abuse and neglect cases were restricted to those in which the children were less than 11 years of age at the time of the abuse or neglect incident. Excluded from the sample were court cases that represented: (1) adoption of the child as an infant; (2) “involuntary” neglect only—usually resulting from the temporary institutionalization of the legal guardian; (3) placement only; or (4) failure to pay child support. Physical abuse cases included injuries such as bruises, welts, burns, abrasions, lacerations, wounds, cuts, bone and skull fractures, and other evidence of physical injury. Sexual abuse charges varied from relatively non-specific charges of “assault and battery with intent to gratify sexual desires” to more specific charges of “fondling or touching in an obscene manner,” rape, sodomy, incest, and so forth. Neglect cases reflected a judgment that parents’ deficiencies in childcare were beyond those found acceptable by community and professional standards at the time. These cases represented extreme failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical attention to children. The second phase involved tracing, locating, and interviewing the study participants during 1989 through 1995, an average of 22 years after their childhood maltreatment experiences. During this phase, participants were assessed across a number of domains of functioning, including cognitive, intellectual, emotional, psychiatric, social, and interpersonal. The interviewers were blind to the purpose of the study, to the participants’ group membership, and to the inclusion of an abused and/or neglected group. Similarly, the subjects were blind to the purpose of the study and were told they had been selected to participate as part of a large group of individuals who grew up in that area in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Institutional Review Boards at Indiana University (Bloomington) and the State University of New York at Albany
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
259
approved the procedures involved in this study and subjects who participated signed a consent form acknowledging that they understood the conditions of their participation and that they were participating voluntarily. Of the original sample of 908 abused and neglected individuals, 737 subjects (81%) were located, and 676 interviewed (92%) during 1989 through 1995. Of those not interviewed, 27 were deceased (prior to interview), 8 were incapable of being interviewed, 171 were not found, and 26 refused to participate. There were no significant differences between the follow-up sample and the original sample in terms of demographic characteristics (male, white, poverty in childhood census tract, or current age) or group status (abuse/neglect versus comparison group). Those in the follow-up sample were significantly more likely to have been arrested than those in the non-interviewed sample (χ2 = 9.1, df = 1, p < .01), although this is not surprising since people with an arrest record are generally easier to find, in part because they have more “institutional footprints” to assist in locating them. Half the sample is female (50.4%), and about two-thirds is White (61.5%). The mean age of the sample at the time of the follow-up interview was 29.1 years (SD = 3.8). The average highest grade of school completed for the maltreated group was 11.05 (SD = 1.90, range = 5–20). The level of socioeconomic status for this group of previously abused and neglected children is skewed toward the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum (8.2% were in the highest levels and 41% were in menial or unskilled occupations). Measures The criteria for resilience in the current analyses are the same as previously described in McGloin and Widom (2001), although this paper focuses only on the abused and neglected participants. Briefly, each respondent was rated as successful or not successful on multiple domains of functioning (the first five domains in adolescence and the full eight domains covering young adulthood): (1) education; (2) psychiatric disorder; (3) substance abuse; (4) official reports of arrests; (5) self-reports violent behavior, (6) employment; (7) homelessness; and (8) social activity. These domains were selected to demonstrate evidence of adaptation over time despite a history of abuse or neglect in childhood. Below is a brief description of how resilience is operationalized. Education. This is a dichotomous variable where success in education (resilience) was indicated by graduating from high school (or receiving a high school diploma). Less than high school graduation was considered not successful. Psychiatric disorder. The National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS-IIIR; Robins, Helzer, Cottler, & Goldring, 1989) was used to assess a number of psychiatric diagnoses, including Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Dysthymic Disorder (DD), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD). Five items in the ASPD module of the DIS-III-R are used in other domains, including: three or more jobs in a 5-year period, fired from more than one job, quit a job three times or more without having another job, unemployed 6 months or more in the past 5 years, and homeless for at least a month or so. The first two are actually not used in the diagnosis of ASPD; the last three were excluded from the symptom counts and the diagnosis was recomputed.
260
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
The DIS-III-R is a fully structured interview schedule designed for use by lay interviewers. Interviewers received a week of training and, at the end of training, were required to conduct a full interview with a community volunteer that was observed and critiqued by a member of the research staff. Computer programs for scoring the DIS-III-R were used to compute DSM-III-R diagnoses. The DIS has been used in prior community-based studies of psychiatric disorders, and adequate reliability and validity have been reported (Leaf & McEvoy, 1991). If the person received any of the above diagnoses (MDD, DD, GAD, PTSD, or ASPD)—either current or remitted—and the age of onset was less than 18 years, the respondent was considered not successful in the psychiatric disorder domain as an adolescent. If any of these diagnoses was made and the most recent age was 18 years or older, the respondent was considered not successful in this domain as a young adult. Thus, the absence of these psychiatric diagnoses is regarded as demonstrating positive mental health following adversity. Substance abuse. The National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS-IIIR; Robins et al., 1989) was also used to assess substance dependence and abuse (including Alcohol Abuse/Dependence and Drug Abuse/Dependence). To qualify for a diagnosis of dependence, the DSMIII-R requires the presence of at least 3 of 9 characteristic symptoms, and the persistence of some symptoms for at least 1 month or repeated occurrences over a longer period of time (American Psychiatric Association, 1987). The diagnosis of substance abuse is assigned to those who do not meet the criteria for dependence, but who do continue to use despite knowledge that the use has caused persistent or recurring social, occupational, psychological or physiological problems, or who report recurrent use in situations in which use is physically hazardous. With regard to resilience, success in the substance abuse domain was defined as the absence of a diagnosis (current or remitted) for either alcohol or drug abuse or dependence in the period before age 18 (adolescence) or later (young adulthood). Official arrest records. Arrest information was obtained from complete criminal histories collected for all subjects. Records of arrests were collected in 1987–1988 and again in 1994 from three levels of law enforcement (local, state, and national). “Arrest as a juvenile” counted delinquency and status offenses while the person was 17-years old or younger. “Arrest as an adult” referred to (non-traffic) arrests that occurred when the person was 18-years old or older (Maxfield & Widom, 1996; Widom, 1989c). Success in this domain was defined as the absence of any arrests in adolescence or young adulthood. Self-reports of violent behavior. Self-reports of delinquency and criminality were obtained from a measure used by Wolfgang and Weiner (1989) in which subjects were asked whether they had “ever” engaged in the behavior and the number of times before age 18 (delinquency) and after age 18 (adult criminal behavior) (Maxfield, Weiler, & Widom, 2000). Seven items representing self-reported violent behavior were used here: (1) hurt someone badly enough for him or her to require medical treatment; (2) threatened to hurt someone if he or she didn’t give you money or something else; (3) used a weapon to threatened another person; (4) forced someone to have sex with you; (5) shot someone; (6) attacked someone with the purpose of killing him or her; and (7) used physical force to get money, drugs, or something else from someone. Success in this domain was defined as the absence of any self-reported violent behaviors in adolescence (prior to age 18) or young adulthood (18 or older).
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
261
Employment. Four indicators were used to characterize employment in young adulthood: (1) having three jobs in 5 years; (2) being fired from more than one job; (3) quitting before having another job; and (4) having been out of work for more than 6 months in the past 5 years. Having no employment problems according to these four indicators was defined as success; having any of the four employment problems was considered as not successful. Homelessness. If the respondent answered “no” to the following question (“Has there ever been a period when you had no regular place to live for at least a month or so?”), the respondent was defined as successful in the homelessness domain. If the respondent answered “yes,” he or she was considered not successful in this domain. Social activity. Respondents were asked five questions about how often they get together with family, close friends, or neighbors, or with other people to share an activity or hobby, or attend a religious service or prayer group. Responses to questions were rated on an eight-point scale ranging from “daily” to “once per month” to “never.” If a respondent reported participating in at least one type of activity “daily” or “at least several times a week,” they were considered socially active and successful in this domain. If not, they were considered not successful in the social domain (socially isolated). Overall resilience. Respondents were considered resilient as juveniles (before age 18) if they had been successful in at least four of the five domains assessed: graduating from high school, psychiatric diagnoses, substance abuse or dependence diagnosis, arrests, and self-reported violence. Respondents were considered resilient as young adults (age 18 and older) if they had been successful in at least six of the eight domains assessed: graduating from high school, psychiatric disorder, substance abuse or dependence, arrests, self-reported violence, employment, homelessness, and social activity. Juvenile and adult resilience are dichotomous measures: resilient (1) or not resilient (0). Predictors of resilience Cognitive ability was measured by the Wide Range Achievement Test, 1984 Revised edition (WRAT: Jastak & Wilkinson, 1984), a test of reading ability. WRAT scores were standardized on the entire sample (including the control group). Internal consistency estimates of the WRAT range from .96 to .99 and steadily progressing raw score means over age until adulthood suggest that the test is sensitive to developmental changes. Concurrent validity with other achievement and ability tests ranges from the high .60s to .80s. For 18 cases that were missing WRAT scores, we substituted standardized scores from the Quick Test (Ammons & Ammons, 1962), an easily administered measure of current level of verbal intelligence where the subject can point to a picture on a card corresponding to a spoken word. Quick Test scores correlate highly with Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) full scale (.79–.80) and verbal (.79–.86) IQs (Dizzone & Davis, 1973). A dichotomous variable, standardized on the entire sample (including the control group), was created to reflect whether the respondent was in the top 25% of the overall sample in cognitive ability (high = 1) or not in the top quartile (not high = 0). Sixteen percent of the abused and neglected individuals had high cognitive ability as defined here. Stable living situation. Based on previous work with placement information for this sample (Widom, 1991), we created a three-category variable to represent the stability of the respondent’s living situation as a
262
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
child, using information from both official records and self-reports. The categories were: (1) stable—lived with both parents until age 18 (self-report) or more than 10 years in first placement (10%); (2) single parent—did not live with both parents continuously until age 18 but was not placed outside the home (self-report) (23.8%); and (3) short first placement—10 or fewer years in first placement (66.2%). “Living with both parents” was combined with “long first placement” because the Ns in these groups were small and they showed the same pattern of relationships to other variables. Dummy variables in these analyses compared participants in the first two categories to those in the short placement category. Neighborhood advantage. Positive characteristics of the neighborhood in which the respondent lived as a child were summarized in an index of neighborhood advantage. Four items from the 1970 US Census (percent owner occupied housing, families with annual incomes of $25,000 and above, individuals 25 years or older with 4-year college degrees, and individuals 16 years or older working as professionals or managers) were standardized at the level of the census tract for the whole sample (including the control group) and their mean computed. Studies examining associations between neighborhood conditions and mental health or behavioral outcomes typically define neighborhood advantage as the top 1–25% of a sample. Such definitions are applied to samples where there is a wide distribution of neighborhood resources and for which there are ample numbers of respondents residing in each of these neighborhood types. However, since neighborhood level poverty is associated with increased reports of child abuse and neglect (e.g., Coulton & Pandey, 1992; Finkelhor, 1980; Newberger et al., 1986), the top quartile is a less relevant and discriminating predictor for this group. In the current sample, less than 1% of the abused and/or neglected respondents lived in the top 10% of advantaged tracts and 4.5% lived in the top quartile, whereas 19% of the abused in neglected children lived in neighborhoods that fell in the top half of the distribution. Here, we use the threshold of growing up in relatively more advantaged neighborhoods—the top half, compared to a relatively less advantaged neighborhood—the bottom half. The result is a measure of neighborhood advantage that is relevant to the population being studied and also facilitates reliable estimates of interactions between neighborhood- and individual-level variables. Using the 50% cutoff, there is considerable variation in resources in the more and less advantaged neighborhoods: 68.6% versus 44.3% of homes were owneroccupied, 8.0% versus 1.3% of households had incomes of $25,000/year or greater, 16.7 versus 2.7% of adults had 4 or more years of college, and 30.5 versus 9.8% of adults were professionals or managers. Neighborhood advantage was dummy coded: relatively advantaged (1) and less advantaged (0). Two additional predictors were included in the model for adulthood. Stressful life events. A 25-item scale Cochrane and Robertson (1973), with modifications suggested by Egeland and Deinard (1975), was used to determine the number of stressful life events in the past 12 months (M = 4.8, SD = 2.8). Items included events such as moving, being unemployed, getting a prison sentence, and deaths. Supportive partner or spouse. Social support was assessed using a measure based on the work of Procidano and Heller (1983). Whether or not someone has an intimate and confiding relationship has been found to exert a stress-buffering effect (Kessler & McLeod, 1985). Participants were asked to respond to 9 statements about their husband/wife/partner (e.g., he or she is someone to whom the respondent can tell just about anything or who shows concern for the respondent’s feelings and problems) with four response options (almost always = 4, sometimes = 3, a little = 2, and not at all = 1). Using information for
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255â&#x20AC;&#x201C;274
263
Table 1 Percent of sample meeting criteria for resilience across multiple domains during adolescence and young adulthood Resilience criterion Graduated from high school No psychiatric diagnosis No alcohol or drug abuse or dependence diagnosis No official arrests No self-reported severe violent behavior No employment problems Never homeless Socially active Resilient overall
Adolescence (up to age 18) 48.3 54.0 66.5 73.1 81.4
48.0
Young adulthood (age 18 and older) 48.3 52.9 44.2 50.9 74.5 34.1 73.5 66.8 30.2
the entire sample (including controls), an index was created to classify participants into three decreasing levels of partner or spouse support: (1) participants with mean scores on partner/spouse support in the top quartile (21.4%); (2) participants with mean scores on partner/spouse support in the lower 75% (43.8%); and (3) participants who were not in a relationship at the time (34.7%). Dummy variables in the analyses compared respondents with higher or lower support (1) to those not in a relationship (0). Data analysis Logistic regression was used to examine the effects of predictor variables (e.g., gender) on the dichotomous dependent variable (e.g., resilient in adolescence or not). Odds ratios (ORs) and significance levels are reported for multivariate analyses. Odds ratios provide an estimate of the likelihood of resilience in individuals with certain characteristics compared to individuals without those characteristics. Only cases with data for both the adolescent and adult models were used for consistency (n = 639). Statistical significance was set at 0.05 and SPSS 12.0.1 was used for analyses. All analyses were rerun using Mplus 3.01, a statistical software package designed in part to test for possible contextual effects by using multi-level models (Muthen & Muthen, 2004). Mplus allowed us first to predict resilience by creating within group regression models for each tract using the individual-level predictors (e.g., cognitive ability). We then created between group regression models using neighborhood advantage to predict the intercepts of the within group models. We also tested interactions of group- and individual-level variables by using neighborhood advantage to predict the slopes of cognitive advantage and stable living situation in the individual-level models. The advantage of the multi-level modeling is that it allowed us to evaluate whether the ordinary least squares (OLS) model overestimated the relationship between neighborhood advantage and resilience. In the results, we present findings from the logistic regression models and footnote differences between the logistic and multilevel models. Results How prevalent is resilience among maltreated children? Table 1 shows the extent of resilience in adolescence and young adulthood for abused and neglected children for each specific domain and overall. Overall, 48.0% of individuals with documented cases of
264
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
Table 2 Logistic regression results: Predictors of resilience in adolescence (odds ratios, significance levels, and 95% confidence levels) Predictor Female White, non-Hispanic High cognitive ability Both parent (or long placement) versus short placement Single parent versus short placement Neighborhood advantage (top 50%) Neighborhood advantage × both parents (or long placement) Neighborhood advantage × single parent Neighborhood advantage × high cognitive ability *
Equation 1
Equation 2
Equation 3
Equation 4
2.18*** (1.58–2.03) .70* (.50–.98) 1.23 (.79–1.91) 3.14*** (1.74–5.66)
2.18*** (1.57–3.02) .70* (.50–.98) 1.23 (.79–1.91) 3.14*** (1.74–5.67)
2.21*** (1.59–3.06) .72 (.51–1.01) 1.27 (.82–1.98) 3.22*** (1.70–6.07)
2.18*** (1.57–3.02) .70* (.50–.98) 1.23 (.74–2.05) 3.14*** (1.74–5.67)
1.24
1.24 1.03
1.63* (1.06–2.51) 1.44 (.88–2.36) 1.00 (.17–5.79)
1.24 1.03
(.85–1.83) (.65–1.65)
.98
(.36–2.69)
(.85–1.83)
(.85–1.83) (.68–1.56)
.24**
(.09–.65)
p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
child abuse and neglect showed resilience in adolescence, that is, success in at least four of the five domains. In contrast, 61% of individuals in the control group (those without a documented history of child abuse or neglect), showed resilience in adolescence (χ2 = 19.75, p = .000). Overall, 30.2% showed resilience in young adulthood (i.e., success in at least six of the eight domains of functioning, including high school graduation). In contrast, 46% of individuals from the comparison group showed resilience in young adulthood (χ2 = 29.62, p = .000). What predicts resilience in adolescence? Table 2 shows predictors of resilience in adolescence based on the results of logistic regression analyses. Equation 1 shows individual-level predictors only. Females were more than twice as likely as males (OR = 2.18, p < .001), and Whites were less likely than nonWhites (OR = .70, p < .05) to be resilient in adolescence. Cognitive ability was not a significant predictor of resilience in adolescence. However, abused and neglected individuals who had grown up in a stable household (two parents or long first placement) (OR = 3.14, p < .001) were more likely to be resilient in adolescence than those who were placed outside the home and had a shorter first placement (10 or fewer years). The difference between growing up in a household with only one parent versus having a short first placement outside the home (OR = 1.24) was not statistically significant. Next, we evaluated the extent to which living as an abused or neglected child in a relatively advantaged neighborhood contributed to being resilient in adolescence (Equation 2). The results indicated that the effects for individual level predictors did not change and that, overall, for abused and neglected children, living in a relatively advantaged neighborhood early on did not predict resilience in adolescence (OR = 1.03). However, there was a significant interaction that indicated that neighborhood advantage moderated the relationship between household stability and resilience (Equation 3). Respondents who grew up in a relatively advantaged neighborhood with a single parent were significantly less likely to be resilient in adolescence than respondents from the same type of neighborhood who had a short first
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
265
Table 3 Logistic regression results: Predictors of resilience in young adulthood (odds ratios, significance levels, and 95% confidence intervals) Predictor
Equation 1
Equation 2
Female White, non-Hispanic Age High cognitive ability Both parents (or long placement) versus short placement Single parent versus short placement Stressful life events Low relationship support versus no relationship High relationship support versus no relationship Neighborhood advantage (top 50%) Neighborhood advantage × both parents (or long placement) Neighborhood advantage × single parent Neighborhood advantage × High cognitive ability
***
***
*
2.06 .71 .96 1.00 1.42 .92
(1.42–3.00) (.48–1.05) (.92–1.01) (.61–1.64) (.80–2.52)
2.05 .69 .96 .99 1.43
(.59–1.43)
.93
Equation 3
(1.41–2.09) (.47–1.02) (.92–1.01) (.60–1.62) (.80–2.54)
2.02 .69 .96 .98 1.26
(.60–1.43)
.92
***
Equation 4
(1.39–2.94) (.46–1.01) (.92–1.01) (.60–1.61) (.67–2.38)
2.03 .71 .97 .70 1.39
(.57–1.50)
.90
***
(1.40–2.96) (.48–1.05) (.92–1.01) (.39–1.28) (.78–2.48) (.58–1.40)
.76*** (.70–.82) 1.27 (.82–1.96)
.76*** (.70–.82) 1.27 (.82–1.97)
.76*** (.70–.82) 1.29 (.83–2.01)
.75*** (.70–.82) 1.25 (.81–1.95)
1.67* (1.01–2.74)
1.69* (1.02–2.79)
1.71* (1.03–2.83)
1.72* (1.04–2.84)
1.27
1.18
(.67–2.07)
2.21
(.44–11.04)
1.01
(.33–3.09)
(.80–2.03)
.97
(.57–1.66)
3.47* (1.13–10.63)
p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
placement outside the home. In contrast, respondents who grew up in a less advantaged neighborhood with a single parent were significantly more likely to be resilient in adolescence than respondents from the same type of neighborhood who had a short first placement outside the home. Neighborhood advantage did not interact with cognitive ability in predicting resilience in adolescence (Equation 4). Coefficients and significance levels from Mplus analyses were very similar to those reported above. What predicts resilience through young adulthood? Table 3 shows predictors of resilience in young adulthood. Individual level predictors were examined in Equation 1. Being female remained a significant predictor of resilience in young adulthood (OR = 2.06, p < .001), whereas race and household stability during childhood were no longer significant. Cognitive ability was again not a statistically significant predictor of resilience, and neither was age. However, the number of stressful life events was negatively related to resilience (OR = .76, p < .001) and individuals involved in a highly supportive spousal or partner relationship were more likely to be resilient in young adulthood than those who did not have any relationship (OR = 1.67, p < .05). Respondents with low levels of support from their spouse or partner were not significantly more resilient than those without a spouse or partner (OR = 1.27, ns). The level of advantage in one’s neighborhood of origin was not predictive of resilience in young adulthood (Equation 2), nor was there a significant interaction between household stability and neighborhood
266
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255â&#x20AC;&#x201C;274
advantage (Equation 3). There was, however, a significant interaction between cognitive ability and neighborhood advantage (Equation 4) in predicting resilience in adulthood (OR = 3.47, p < .05). Respondents who grew up in relatively more advantaged neighborhoods and have high cognitive ability are roughly three times more likely to be resilient than respondents from the same kind of neighborhood who have lower levels of cognitive ability. On the other hand, in less advantaged neighborhoods, cognitive ability is not significantly related to resilience. Coefficients and significance levels from Mplus analyses were similar to those reported here. To what extent is there stability or change in resilience from adolescence to young adulthood? Figure 1 shows the extent of stability and change in resilience in adolescence and adulthood for the abused and neglected group and for the control group (to provide a standard of comparison only). Four categories of resilience over adolescence and young adulthood were created: (1) resilient in both adolescence and young adulthood (continuous resilience); (2) resilient in adolescence but not young adulthood (adolescent only resilience); (3) resilient in young adulthood but not adolescence (adult only resilience), and (4) non-resilient in both adolescence and young adulthood (continuous non-resilience). Of the abused and neglected participants who were resilient in adolescence (n = 307), 50.4% (n = 155) were also resilient in young adulthood. Of the respondents who were not resilient in adolescence (n = 332), 11.4% (n = 38) were resilient in young adulthood. All 38 of these people continued to be successful as young adults in the domains in which they had achieved success in adolescence. Some of these people also appeared successful in young adulthood in additional domains of functioning (19 in psychiatric diagnoses, 12 in criminal arrests, 8 in violent behavior, and 2 in substance abuse diagnoses). Many of these individuals (n = 28) were successful in all three of the adult-only domains (employment, homelessness, and social activity). The majority of people who were non-resilient in adolescence (88.6%) continued to be non-resilient in young adulthood). Characteristics associated with stability or change in resilience from adolescence to young adulthood in abused and neglected individuals To begin to understand the characteristics associated with stability or change in resilience across the two developmental periods, we conducted preliminary bivariate analyses of characteristics identified in prior analyses across the four categories of resilience over adolescence and young adulthood: (1) resilient in both adolescence and young adulthood (continuous resilience, n = 155); (2) resilient in adolescence but not young adulthood (adolescent only resilience, n = 152); (3) resilient in young adulthood but not adolescence (adult only resilience, n = 38), and (4) non-resilient at both adolescence and young adulthood (continuous non-resilience, n = 294). We were unable to conduct multivariate models of the predictors of continuity and change in resilience due to the small cell sizes in the â&#x20AC;&#x153;adult only resilienceâ&#x20AC;? category, and therefore emphasize that these results are preliminary and exploratory (Table 4). Those who were continuously resilient were more likely to be female, lived with both parents or had a long first placement, or were involved in a highly supportive relationship compared to those who were continuously non-resilient. They also had the lowest mean number of stressful life events across all four groups. Conversely, individuals in the continuous non-resilience group were more likely to be male,
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255â&#x20AC;&#x201C;274
267
Figure 1. Stability and change in resilience from adolescence into young adulthood.
White, or to have a short first placement, and less likely to have lived with both parents or involved in a supportive relationship than the continuously resilient group. Individuals in the continuous non-resilience group were the least likely to have had a long first placement, and reported experiencing the greatest mean number of stressful life across all four groups. Those who were resilient in adolescence but no longer resilient in young adulthood (adolescent only resilience) were like the continuous resilience group in having lived with both parents or having had a long first placement. Like the continuous non-resilience group, they lacked involvement in a highly supportive relationship. Those in the adult only resilience group were the mostly likely to be White, involved in a highly supportive relationship, and from a more advantaged neighborhood, but had a higher mean number of stressful life events than the continuous resilience group.
268
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
Table 4 Characteristics associated with resilient (continuous, adolescence only, adult only) and non-resilient groups Continuous resilience (n = 155) Female White, non-Hispanic High cognitive ability Both parents or long placement Single parent – no placement Never Short placement Mean # stressful life events No relationship Low relationship support High relationship support Neighborhood advantage (top 50%)
Adolescent only resilience (n = 152)
Adult only resilience (n = 38)
Continuous non-resilience (n = 294)
63.2%b 53.5%b 15.5%a 15.5%a 24.5%a
58.6%b 58.6%ab 19.1%a 14.5%a 27.0%a
55.3% 73.7% 18.4% 7.9% 18.4%
38.8%a 63.6%a 16.0%a 5.1%b 22.4%a
60.0%a 3.4c 32.3%a 40.6%a 27.1%a 18.7%a
58.6%a 4.6b 36.2%a 45.4%a 18.4%b 19.1%a
73.7% 4.3 23.7% 44.7% 31.6% 26.3%
72.4%b 5.7a 36.7%a 44.6%a 18.7%b 18.4%a
Note. Numbers with the same subscript are not significantly different from each other; significance tests for the “Adult only resilience” column are not reported due to the limited power to test for differences.
Discussion After facing an adverse childhood experience of documented maltreatment, nearly half of the abused and neglected sample was resilient in adolescence. However, by young adulthood this percentage dropped to roughly 30%. In an effort to understand how contributions from individuals and their social environment can aid or impede the promotion of resilience following abuse and/or neglect in childhood (Bonanno, 2004; Harvey, 1996), the current study examined predictors of resilience at two points in time, adolescence and young adulthood. Our findings suggest that individual characteristics as well as the fit between an individual and his or her environment are important in understanding resilience. Two individual characteristics (race and gender) appear to be “fixed” factors (Kraemer, Schultz, & Arndt, 2002) that play prominent roles in understanding resilience. However, the contributions of these factors to resilience have traditionally been difficult to evaluate because of differences in study designs and subject populations. For example, research on resilience in the context of military combat situations predominantly involves male samples, whereas research on resilience to maltreatment, particularly when the focus of the research is on childhood sexual abuse, primarily involves female samples. Similarly, most studies considering predictors of resilience have looked within racial or ethnic groups rather than across groups. Thus, an important contribution of the current paper is the finding that woman and African American individuals who were maltreated in childhood appear to be more resilient in adolescence than men and White, non-Hispanic individuals abused or neglected in childhood. The gender finding is consistent with epidemiological data that reveal men to be at greater risk throughout the life course for illness, chronic disease, mental health and behavioral disorders, and premature death (McGloin & Widom, 2001). Similarly, a number of researchers have documented positive psychosocial outcomes among African-Americans who come from economically disadvantaged families and live in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Dumont, 2001; Jarrett, 1994, 1998), yet few have focused on the resilience of White, non-Hispanic adults who face trauma. Questions raised by the current study include: Why are
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
269
females/Blacks more resilient to childhood maltreatment? How are they able to achieve “normative” functioning despite significant childhood adversities? Rutter (1987) has suggested that gender differences in response to trauma may result from responses to the event by the child and by the adults surrounding the child as well as from an underlying vulnerability to the “disease” or risk. It is also possible that the stigmatization associated with one subgroup is less than for another. While we can speculate as to why and how resilience occurred, it is also useful to consider existing ethnographic or qualitative research to ground these hypotheses. For example, Jarrett (1993) used ethnographic research to explore different strategies that African-American adolescents or their parents adopt to promote resilience, such as tightening curfews in high crime neighborhoods or establishing ties with people who have resources to provide opportunities for success. Additional studies are needed to learn if this pattern of predictors of resilience is found across different types of adversities and to determine what promotes resilience within the successful subgroups as well as obstacles faced by others. Our finding that living in “a stable living situation” (either with both parents or through a long foster care placement) at least triples the odds of being resilient in adolescence is consistent with previous research (Banyard et al., 2002; Siegel, 2000). Growing up in a “stable” home may reduce the number of moves or residential disruptions the child experiences or may create opportunities to establish long-term friendships or supports outside of the household (cf Quinton, Rutter, & Liddle, 1984). Alternatively, there may be important confounds between the severity of the abuse, the proximity of the abuser, or the temperament or behavioral problems of the child victim and frequent placement experiences and changes in household living situations. For abused and neglected children, growing up in an advantaged neighborhood does not appear to contribute directly to resilience in adolescence or young adulthood. Rather, growing up in an advantaged neighborhood in conjunction with other characteristics (such as cognitive ability and household stability) appears to influence the likelihood of resilience. These results are not surprising in light of research investigating links between neighborhood characteristics and psychosocial outcomes (Goldsmith et al., 1998; Ross, 2000; Sampson et al., 1997). In general, main effects of census-derived neighborhood characteristics are small or inconsistent across domains, but appear to be play a more potent role as a modifier (cf, Cutrona, Russell, Hessling, Brown, & Murry, 2000; Ross, 2000). These interactions often reflect the complexities, reinforcements, or overall fit between an individual, his or her family, and their larger context. Additional research is needed in this area to explore other potential contextual resources that may contribute to the production of resilience as well as how length of residence in a particular neighborhood affects resilience. Similar to other studies that have examined shifts in resilience during childhood or adolescence, we also found that the number of resilient individuals decreases over time from 48 to 30% (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1997; Egeland et al., 1993). Different factors may account for this pattern of declining resilience. For example, there is increasing recognition of the role of revictimization and retraumatization experiences in the lives of previously abused individuals (Arata, 2002; van der Kolk, 1989). Another possibility is that subsequent stressors may erode remaining supports, resources, or competencies, thus, propelling the individual into a state of maladjustment of unknown duration. We began to explore this hypothesis by examining the number of stressful life events that occurred between adolescence and young adulthood. Although the number of stressful life events was significantly related to resilience status in young adulthood, the occurrence of these events was not deterministic. Consequently, it is likely that subsequent life events either do not uniformly impact resilience (i.e., inoculating some, while eroding resources for others) or that their impact varies by type of events.
270
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
Another possibility is that maltreatment that occurs in childhood may set these individuals on different trajectories or life courses that eventually converge at a point where few if any childhood victims are resilient. However, the positive changes (adult only resilient individuals) and the maintenance of resilience into young adulthood (continuous resilience) suggest that this is unlikely as a general explanation. Rather, our findings suggest that individuals who have supports in place or individual factors to establish resilience early on are more likely to sustain resilience over the life course. In turn, early resilience may make it possible for these individuals to sustain or put new developmentally appropriate supports in place for subsequent challenges. Consistent with this hypothesis we found that individuals with a highly supportive partner or spouse were 1.7 times more likely to be resilient in young adulthood than those without a supportive partner or spouse. An important unanswered question is whether the supportive partner or spouse is a product of early adaptive functioning or whether predictors of resilience in adolescence, such as a stable living situation, laid the foundation for this resource later in life. A similar finding regarding the potentially important role of spouses or partners has been reported previously in a different context (Quinton, Rutter, & Liddle, 1984), suggesting that positive interventions are possible throughout the life course. But the current findings suggest that an important avenue of future research might be to focus on factors or interventions that enable abused and neglected individuals to develop or become involved in supportive relationships. When considering these results, certain caveats need to be mentioned. First, although the current study includes measures of functioning obtained at various developmental stages, it does not describe these individuals’ level of functioning prior to the occurrence of maltreatment. Hence, we cannot know if problem behaviors were present before the abuse or neglect experiences. As Kinard (1998) noted: “If cognitive deficits were present prior to the maltreatment and high cognitive ability is used to define resilience, then how could maltreated children with low cognitive ability ever be defined as resilient?” Like others, we are unable to address this issue. Additional longitudinal research is needed to help disentangle factors that contribute to resilience from those that are products of resilience. Second, due to limitations in our data, this paper does not report on the role of certain maltreatment characteristics, such as severity or chronicity, although these characteristics need further exploration (Heller et al., 1999). A third caveat concerns our criteria for resilience. This longitudinal study was originally designed to examine sequelae of child maltreatment, not to measure competencies per se. Consequently, our measure of resilience reflects both the absence of psychopathology as well as manifestations of competence. This definition necessarily influenced our selection of predictors and therefore limits the studies with which our results can be compared. Finally, because these cases came to the attention of the courts, these results may not be generalizable to cases of abuse and neglect that did not come to the attention of the authorities. Despite these limitations, these findings demonstrate clearly that there is a subset of individuals within the larger group of abused and neglected children who are resilient in adolescence and young adulthood, sustaining adaptive levels of functioning across a number of domains over the course of different developmental stages. In addition, the resources available to these children at the individual level as well as the fit between individual and neighborhood appear to play significant roles. Researchers need to continue to broaden their ecological lens to consider not only situational factors that may influence resilience but also to include biological mechanisms or correlates (Charney, 2004; Curtis & Cicchetti, 2003). Further understanding of resilience as well as predictors of resilience may help practitioners develop intervention strategies to assist abused and neglected children to function within acceptable bounds on measures of behavioral, social, and cognitive competence.
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
271
References American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Washington, DC: Authors. Ammons, R. B., & Ammons, C. H. (1962). The Quick Test (QT): Provisional manual. Psychological Reports, 11, 111–162. Monograph supplement 7-VII. Arata, C. M. (2002). Child sexual abuse and sexual revictimization. Clinical Psychology-Science and Practice, 9(2), 135–164. Augoustinos, M. (1987). Developmental effects of child abuse: Recent findings. Child Abuse & Neglect, 11, 15–27. Banyard, V. L., Williams, L. M., Siegel, J. A., & West, C. M. (2002). Childhood sexual abuse in the lives of Black women: Risk and resilience in a longitudinal study. Women & Therapy, 25(3–4), 45–58. Beitchman, J. H., Zucker, K. J., Hood, J. E., daCosta, G. A., Akman, D., & Cassavia, E. (1992). A review of the long-term effects of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 101–118. Berliner, L. (1991). Effects of sexual abuse on children. Violence Update, 1(8), 10–11. Bolger, K. E., & Patterson, C. J. (2003). Sequalae of child maltreatment: Vulnerability and resilience. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptations in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 156–181). New York: Cambridge University Press. Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59, 20–28. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742. Chambers, E., & Belicki, K. (1998). Using sleep dysfunction to explore the nature of resilience in adult survivors of childhood abuse or trauma. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(8), 753–758. Chandy, J. M., Blum, R. W., & Resnick, M. D. (1996). Gender specific outcomes for sexually abused adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(12), 1219–1231. Charney, D. S. (2004). Psychobiological mechanisms of resilience and vulnerability: Implication for successful adaptation to extreme stress. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 195–216. Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. (1997). The role of self-organization in the promotion of resilience in maltreated children. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 797–815. Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F., Lynch, M., & Holt, K. (1993). Resilence in maltreated children: Process leading to adaptive children. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 629–647. Cochrane, R., & Robertson, A. (1973). The Life Events Inventory: A measure of relative severity of psycho-social stressors. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 17, 135–139. Conte, J. R., & Schuerman, J. R. (1988). The effects of sexual abuse on children: A multidimensional view. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 380–390. Coulton, C., & Pandey, S. (1992). Geographic concentration of poverty and risk to children in urban neighborhoods. American Behavioral Scientist, 35(3), 238–257. Curtis, W. J., & Cicchetti, D. (2003). Moving research on resilience into the 21st century: Theoretical and methodological considerations in examining the biological contributors to resilience. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 773– 810. Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D., Hessling, R. M., Brown, P. A., & Murry, V. (2000). Direct and moderating effects of community context on the psychological well-being of African-American women. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 79, 1088–1101. DeFrances, C. J. (1996). The effects of racial ecological segregation on quality of life: A comparison of middle-class Blacks and middle-class Whites. Urban Affairs Review, 31, 799–809. Dizzone, M. F., & Davis, W. E. (1973). Relationship between Quick test and WAIS IQs for brain-injured and schizophrenic subjects. Psychological Reports, 32, 337–338. Drillen, C. M. (1964). The growth and development of the prematurely born infant. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. Dubow, E. F., Edwards, S., & Ippolito, M. F. (1997). Life stressors, neighborhood disadvantage, and resources: A focus on inner-city adjustment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 130–144. Dumont, K. (2001). Neighborhood context and psychological distress among poor African-American and Latina women and their 7–10-year-old children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62–108(Section B), 8237. Duncan, G., Brooks-Gunn, J., Yeung, W. J., & Smith, J. (1998). How much does childhood poverty affect the life chances of children? American Sociological Review, 63(3), 406–423.
272
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
Duncan, G., & Rodgers, W. (1988). Longitudinal aspects of childhood poverty. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 1007–1021. Egeland, B. E., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process. Special issue: Milestones in the development of resilience. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 517–528. Egeland, B. E., & Deinard, A. (1975). Life Events Scale: Unpublished test. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Farber, E. A., & Egeland, B. (1987). Invulnerability among abused and neglected children. In E. J. Anthony & B. Cohler (Eds.), The invulnerable child (pp. 253–288). New York: Guilford Press. Finkelhor, D. (1980). Risk factors in the sexual victimization of children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 4(4), 265–273. Frodi, A., & Smetana, J. (1984). Abused, neglected, and nonmaltreated preschoolers’ ability to discriminate emotions in others: The effects of IQ. Child Abuse & Neglect, 8, 459–465. Garmezy, N., & Masten, A. (1986). Stress, competence, and resilience: Common frontiers for therapist and psychopathologist. Behavior Therapy, 17, 500–521. Gephart, M. (1997). Neighborhoods and communities as contexts for development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences for children (pp. 1–43). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Goldsmith, H. F., Holzer, C. E., III, & Manderscheid, R. W. (1998). Neighborhood characteristics and mental illness. Evaluation and Program Planning, 21, 211–225. Harvey, M. R. (1996). An ecological view of psychological trauma and trauma recovery. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 3–23. Heller, S. S., Larrieu, J. A., D’Imperio, R., & Boris, N. W. (1999). Research on resilience to child maltreatment: Empirical considerations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(4), 321–338. Herrenkohl, E. C., Herrenkohl, R. C., & Egolf, B. (1994). Resilient early school-age children from maltreating homes: Outcomes in late adolescence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 301–309. Hill, M. S., Wei-Jun, J., & Duncan, G. (2001). Childhood family structure and young adult behaviors. Journal of Population Economics, 14, 271–299. Himelein, M. J., & McElrath, J. A. (1996). Resilient child sexual abuse survivors: Cognitive coping and illusion. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 747–758. Hyman, B., & Williams, L. (2001). Resilience among women survivors of child sexual abuse. Affilia, 16, 198–219. Jarrett, R. L. (1993). Focus group interviewing with low-income minority populations: A research experience. In D. Morgan (Ed.), Conducting Successful Focus Groups (pp. 184–201). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Jarrett, R. L. (1994). Living poor: Family life among single-parent, African-American women. Social Problems, 41(1), 30–49. Jarrett, R. L. (1998). African-American mothers and grandmothers in poverty: An adaptational perspective. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 29, 388–396. Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. S. (1984). Wide range achievement test: Administration manual. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates, Inc., 1984 Revised ed. Kaufman, J., & Zigler, E. (1987). Do abused children become abusive parents? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 186–192. Kessler, R., & McLeod, J. D. (1985). Social support and mental health in community samples. In S. Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 219–240). New York: Academic Press. Kinard, E. M. (1998). Methodological issues in assessing resilience in maltreated children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(7), 669–680. Klebanov, P. K., Brooks-Gunn, J., Chase-Lansdale, L., & Gordon, R. (1997). Are neighborhood effects on young children mediated by features of the home environment? In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighbourhood poverty: Context and consequences for children (pp. 119–145). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Kotch, J. B., Browne, D. C., Ringwalt, C. L., Dufort, V., Ruina, E., Stewart, P. W., & Jung, J. W. (1997). Stress, social support, and substantiated maltreatment in the second and third years of life. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21(11), 1025–1037. Kraemer, H. C., Schultz, S. K., & Arndt, S. (2002). Biomarkers in psychiatry: Methodological issues. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 10(6), 653–659. Leaf, P. J., & McEvoy, L. T. (1991). Procedures used in the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study. In L. N. Robins & D. A. Regier (Eds.), Psychiatric disorders in America: The Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study. New York: Free Press. Leventhal, J. M. (1982). Research strategies and methodologic standards in studies of risk factors for child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 6, 113–123.
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
273
Liem, J. H., James, J. B., O’Toole, J. G., & Boudewyn, A. C. (1997). Assessing resilience in adults with histories of childhood sexual abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67(4), 594–606. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562. Mannarino, A. P., & Cohen, J. A. (1987). A clinical-demographic study of sexually abused children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10, 17–23. Maxfield, M. G., Weiler, B. L., & Widom, C. S. (2000). Comparing self-reports and official records of arrest. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16(1), 87–110. Maxfield, M. G., & Widom, C. S. (1996). The cycle of violence: Revisited six years later. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 150, 300–395. McGloin, J. M., & Widom, C. S. (2001). Resilience among abused and neglected children grown up. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 1021–1038. McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioeconomic development. Child Development, 61, 311–346. Muthen, B., & Muthen, L. (2004). Mplus (version 3.01). Los Angeles, CA: Authors. Newberger, E. H., Hampton, R. I., Marx, T. J., & White, K. M. (1986). Child abuse and pediatric social illness: An epidemiological analysis and ecological reformulation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 589–601. Phillips, G. Y. (1996). Stress and residential well-being. In H. W. Neighbors & J. S. Jackson (Eds.), Mental health in Black America (pp. 27–44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Procidano, M. E., & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived social support from friends and from family: Three validation studies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 1–24. Quinton, D., Rutter, M., & Liddle, C. (1984). Institutional rearing, parenting difficulties, and marital support. Psychological Medicine, 14, 107–124. Robins, L. N., Helzer, J. E., Cottler, L., & Goldring, E. (1989). National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule, Version III Revised (DIS-III-R). St. Louis, MO: Washington University. Ross, C. (2000). Neighborhood disadvantage and adult depression. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 41, 177– 187. Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316– 331. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. Schulsinger, F., Mednick, S. A., & Knop, J. (1981). Longitudinal research: Methods and uses in behavioral science. Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff. Siegel, J. A. (2000). Aggressive behavior among women sexually abused as children. Violence and Victims, 15, 235–255. Sirles, E. A., Smith, J. A., & Kusama, H. (1989). Psychiatric status of intrafamilial child sexual abuse victims. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28(2), 225–229. Terr, L. A. (1983). Chowchilla revisited: The effects of psychiatric trauma four years after a school-bus kidnapping. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 1543–1550. Valentine, L., & Feinauer, L. L. (1993). Resilience factors associated with female survivors of childhood sexual abuse. American Journal of Family Therapy, 21, 216–224. van der Kolk, B. A. (1989). The compulsion to repeat the trauma: Re-enactment, revictimization, and masochism. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12(2), 389–411. Wandersman, A., & Nation, M. (1998). Urban neighborhoods and mental health. American Psychologist, 53, 647–656. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and youth. New York: McGraw-Hill. Widom, C. S. (1989a). Child abuse, neglect, and adult behavior: Design and findings on criminality, violence, and child abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 355–367. Widom, C. S. (1989b). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 3–28. Widom, C. S. (1989c). The cycle of violence. Science, 244, 160–166. Widom, C. S. (1991). The role of placement experiences in mediating the criminal consequences of early childhood victimization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 6, 195–209.
274
K.A. DuMont et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 255–274
Widom, C. S. (2000). Understanding the consequences of childhood victimization. In M. D. Robert & M. Reese (Eds.), Treatment of child abuse (pp. 339–361). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Wolfe, D. A. (1987). Child abuse: Implications for child development and psychopathology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Wolfgang, M. E., & Weiner, N. (1989). Unpublished interview protocol: University of Pennsylvania Greater Philadelphia Area Study. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Zimrin, H. (1986). A profile of survival. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10, 339–349.