This article is based on a presentation at the First Urie Bronfenbrenner Conference at Cornell, October 2007.
Gary W. Evans, Department of Human Development and Department of Design and Environmental Analysis, Cornell University

John Eckenrode, Department of Human Development, and Director of the Family Life Development Center, Cornell University

Lyscha Marcynyszyn, Kings County Mental Health, Chemical Abuse, and Dependency Services Division

Mesosystem: A system comprised of connections between immediate environments such as a child’s home and school;

Exosystem: External environmental settings which only indirectly affect development such as parent's workplace; and

Macrosystem: The larger cultural context, national economy, political culture. According to this model, human development takes place through proximal processes – increasingly complex reciprocal interactions between the individual and the people, objects, and symbols in his or her immediate environment. Proximal processes are seen as the primary engines of development. Developmental outcomes are the result of the interaction of proximal processes and characteristics of the individual. Context can shape the occurrence of these processes as well as moderate their impacts. The length, frequency and regularity of exposure to proximal processes are also important to consider.

If the proximal processes in the immediate microsystem break down, the child will not have the tools to develop optimally. Using Bronfenbrenner's bioecological model as a theoretical framework, Evans’ presentation at the Bronfenbrenner conference, co-authored with John Eckenrode and Lyscha Marcynyszyn, examines the connections between poverty, chaotic living environments, and child development.
There are many reasons why the lives of low-income children are more chaotic than middle- and high-income households. Low-income parents suffer from many physical and social stressors. Poor parents juggle overlapping time obligations and have fewer resources than wealthier parents to deal with the multitude of demands and obligations they face. Low-income parents are less likely to have a reliable car, they cannot afford high quality and flexible childcare or after school care, they are less likely to have a partner who can share the burdens of household management as well as assisting in parenting, and their children are less likely to be enrolled in structured programs. Residential and school relocations, which erode social networks, are more common, and family disruptions and turmoil are much more frequent among low-income families (Evans, 2004).
Components of chaos that have been associated with socioeconomic status (SES) include household crowding, noise levels, household routines and rituals, residential and school relocation, as well as changes in parental romantic partners.
Crowding. Crowding, typically defined as people per room, contributes to chaotic living and school settings. Crowded settings are often over stimulating, confusing, and have a high degree of unpredictability and uncontrollability. Research shows that low-income and low SES families with children live under more crowded conditions (Evans, Eckenrode, & Marcynyszyn, 2007). High interior density appears to be especially problematic because it makes it extremely difficult to regulate social interaction.
Noise. Noise includes car traffic, airport noise, activities of other people, music, and various appliances. Studies of noise exposure indicate that it over stimulates the brain and when unpredictable can startle as well as interfere with relaxation and sleep. Noise interferes with concentration and often leads to greater expenditure of effort to maintain attention. Noise causes fatigue and is clearly linked to elevated negative affect, including irritability and hostility Evans 2001; 2006). In studies comparing noise exposures between various groups by income, poor children are exposed to between 5 and 10 more decibels on average (Evans et al., 2007). A ten decibel increase is perceived as twice as loud.
Routines. One of the key elements of stability in children's lives is the degree of structure and predictability in daily routines. Research indicates that families with higher SES are more likely to maintain meal, nap, and bedtime routines (Britto, Fuligni, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002). Flexibility and support may be in relatively short supply for parents with fewer economic and/or SES resources to draw upon. For example lower wage jobs, at least in the US, have less regular schedules (Han, 2005). Changes in parental work hours, particularly if frequent or unpredictable can make it difficult to maintain structure and routines in daily life.
Residential relocation. A major contributor to chaos in children's lives are changes in home or school location. Both types of changes disrupt children's social networks and remove them from familiar surroundings. Research suggests that if either type of move is frequent, children may also become reluctant to establish new friendships or to rely upon adults for guidance and support because they may soon have to break those ties and start over again (Adam, 2004). Relocation also disrupts geographic orientation and the ability to explore and extend one's range of activities. When school changes occur, children may also be confronted with unfamiliar academic demands in addition to the change in peers and teachers. Low-income children are more apt to experience changes in residence (Kohen, Hertzman, & Wiens, 1998; Wood, Halfon, Scarlata, Newacheck & Nessim, 1993).
School relocations. Studies indicate that low-income children change schools more often than those from families with higher incomes (Evans et al., 2007). In addition, teachers in low-income schools are more likely to relocate (Rutter et al., 1974), to have less experience and less educational background in their subject areas, and be paid less (Evans, 2004).
Maternal partner change. Family turmoil associated with poverty often leads to dissolution of romantic partnerships. Changes in household composition are highly disruptive for children. Research shows that the levels of divorce and changes in parental partners are strongly linked to SES. For example in the United States, the divorce rate is almost five times higher in the lowest income quintile (25.4%) than among the upper income quintile for households with children (5.7%) (Evans, 2004).
There is abundant evidence that various aspects of chaos are associated with income, education, and social class. Likewise there is evidence to support the adverse effects of chaotic living conditions on children's cognitive, socioemotional, and physical well being. This pattern of inter-relationships suggests the potential for chaotic environments to function as underlying mechanisms in child development, indicating a poverty→chaos→socioemotional outcomes pathway. Indeed studies provide preliminary evidence that the higher levels of adverse socioemotional outcomes, including psychological distress, learned helplessness, and self-regulatory behavior found in low-income households are brought about, in part, by higher levels of chaos in these households (Evans et al., 2007).
Bronfenbrenner's bioecological model of human development provides a theoretical framework to address the question of why chaos is harmful to children's development. One of the key elements of the bioecological model is proximal process. In order for proximal processes to be effective, they must take place regularly, over an extended period of time, and involve progressively more complex, reciprocal interactions (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). A fundamental reason that chaos is harmful to the developing child is because it interferes with effective proximal processes.
The predictability and sustained nature of increasingly complex interactions becomes more difficult to maintain in chaotic households. Children cannot develop socially cohesive, meaningful relationships with people unless they see them regularly and can count on them being around.
Not only are proximal processes less likely to occur in chaotic settings, but children and caregivers may respond to their surroundings in ways that exacerbate the negative consequences of chaos. For example, studies indicate that parents may become less responsive (Matheny, Wachs, Ludwig, & Phillips, 1995), exhibit less parental warmth, and adopt harsher parent-child interactions when living in chaotic environments (Coldwell, Pike, & Dunn, 2006). Likewise there is evidence that lack of structure and unpredictability have consequences for children’s feelings of mastery and self efficacy and may also undermine self-regulatory ability (Evans & Stecker, 2004; White, 1959).
Chaotic living conditions can interfere with the processes that are integral to the development of healthy, well adjusted children. Children need an environment that supports regular, sustained, increasingly complex interactions and relationships. Abundant evidence shows that poverty is bad for children's development. Not only are poor children more likely to experience adverse living conditions, such conditions often converge in a manner that undermines predictability and interferes with structure and routines in the daily lives of children.
References

Adam. E.K. (2004). Beyond quality: Parental and residential stability and children's adjustment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 210-213.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: emerging theoretical models, research designs, and empirical findings. Social Development, 9, 115-125.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 992-1028). New York: Wiley.

Britto, P. R., Fuligni, A. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). Reading, rhymes, and routines: American parents and their young children. In N. Halfon (Ed.), Childrearing in America (pp. 117-145). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Coldwell, J., Pike, A., & Dunn, J. (2006). Household chaos - links with parenting and child behaviour. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 116-1122.

Evans, G. W. (2001). Environmental stress and health. In A. Baum, T. Revenson & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of Health Psychology (pp. 365-385). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist, 59, 77-92. Evans, G. W. (2006). Child development and the physical environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 423-451.

Evans, G. W., Eckenrode, J., & Marcynyszyn, L. (2007, October). Poverty and Chaos. Paper presented at The First Bronfenbrenner Conference, Chaos and Children’s Development: Levels of Analysis and Mechanisms, Ithaca, NY.

Evans, G. W., & Stecker, R. (2004). The motivational consequences of environmental stress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 143-165.

Han, W. J. (2005). Maternal nonstandard work schedules and child cognitive outcomes. Child Development, 76, 137-154.

Kohen, D. E., Hertzman, C., & Wiens, M. (1998). Environmental changes and children's competencies. Applied Research Branch Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development Canada, Quebec, Canada..

Matheny, A., Wachs, T. D., Ludwig, J., & Phillips, K. (1995). Bringing order out of chaos: Psychometric characteristics of the confusion, hubbub, and order scale. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 429-444.

Rutter, M., Yule, B., Quinton, D., Rowland, O., Yule, W., & Berger, M. (1974). Attainment and adjustment in two geographic areas: III. Some factors accounting for area differences. British Journal of Psychiatry, 125, 520-533.

White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.

Wood, D., Halfon, N., Scarlata, D., Newacheck, P., & Nessim, S. (1993). Impact of family relocation on children's growth, development, school function, and behavior. Journal of the American Medical Association, 270, 1334-1338.

Further Resources

Chaos and Children’s Development: Distance learning panel seminar. June, 17, 2008, 114 MVR Hall, Cornell University or CCE video downlink locations.

Chaos Amidst Stability: The Diverging Fortunes of American Children in Historical Perspective: article

Human Development Today e-News

Human Development Outreach & Extension

Kim Kopko

Cornell University environmental and developmental psychologist Gary Evans has conducted numerous research studies examining the effects of the physical environment on children’s well being. Evans’ large and diverse body of research reveals that the effects of the physical environment—noise level, overcrowding, and housing and neighborhood quality—are as significant for children’s development as psychosocial characteristics such as relationships with parents and peers. Indeed, the physical environment profoundly influences developmental outcomes including academic achievement, cognitive, social and emotional development as well as parenting behavior.

NOISE

Children’s reading abilities, cognitive development, physiological indicators, and motivational tasks are affected by exposure to noise. The most common noises that children are exposed to are transportation (e.g. cars, airplanes), music and other people. Evans’ research reveals significant reading delays for children living near airports and exposed to airport noise. He and his colleagues found these delays in reading to occur at noise levels far below those required to produce hearing damage or loss.

Chronic and acute noise exposure also affects cognitive development, particularly long-term memory, especially if the task is complex. Short-term memory appears to be less affected, but this is dependent upon volume of noise. One way that children adapt to chronic noise is by disregarding or ignoring auditory input. A consequence of this coping strategy is that children also tune out speech, which is a basic and required component of reading. As a result, not only are children’s reading abilities affected, but also their abilities at tasks that require speech perception.

Noise levels also indirectly influence children’s cognitive development via their effect on the adults and teachers who interact with children. Teachers in noisy schools are more fatigued, annoyed, and less patient than teachers in quieter schools. Teachers in noisy schools also lose instruction time due to noise distractions and have a compromised teaching style.

Children exposed to chronic loud noise also experience a rise in blood pressure and stress hormones. And children as young as four are less motivated to perform on challenging language and pre-reading tasks under conditions of exposure to chronic noise.

Technical Note: Data from studies on aircraft noise and reading include a cross sectional study with statistical controls for socioeconomic status (income) and a prospective, longitudinal study with the same children before and after the opening of a new airport. “Controlling for income” is a statistical procedure that allows a researcher to eliminate the effect of income on the results. Thus, we can conclude that it is the level of noise, not that low-income families may live closer to airports, which accounts for the findings. In other words, significant reading delays are found for children living near airports, regardless of income.

CROWDING

Research demonstrates that crowding has an effect on interpersonal behaviors, mental health, motivation, cognitive development, and biological measures. Family size has not been found to be a critical factor in crowding. Rather, Evans identifies density, or number of people per room, as the crucial variable for measuring effects of crowding on children’s development.

Regarding child development, Evans has found that 10-12-year-old children are more likely to withdraw in overcrowded situations. Children may engage in withdrawal behavior as a means of coping with an overstimulating environment. Evans’ research also reveals that a highly concentrated number of children in an activity area results in more distractions and less constructive play among preschool-aged children.

Overcrowding also influences parenting behaviors. Parents in crowded homes are less responsive to young children. Evidence of parental unresponsiveness begins early—before a child is one year old, and occurs at all income levels. Overcrowding also strains parent-child relationships. Parents in overcrowded homes are more likely to engage in punitive parenting, which in turn, affects the level of children’s distress. Evans’ research shows that strained parent-child relationships negatively influence social, emotional, and biological measures (e.g. elevated blood pressure) in 10- to 12-year-old children.

Children’s mental health status may be affected by overcrowding. Elementary school-aged children who live in more crowded homes display higher levels of psychological distress and they also have higher levels of behavior difficulties in school. Evans has found that overcrowding produces psychological distress among 3rd and 4th grade students as reported by both the children and their teachers. These effects are intensified if children reside in large, multifamily structures. Effects were also intensified among a group of 8-to10-year-olds if the family home was chaotic.

Chronic overcrowding influences children’s motivation to perform tasks. Independent of household income, children aged 6-12 show declines in motivational behavior and also demonstrate a level of learned helplessness, a belief that they have no control over their situation and therefore do not attempt to change it, although they have the power to do so. But there are gender differences: Evans found the link between overcrowding and learned helplessness among 10-to-12-year-olds to exist for girls, but not for boys.

Evans’ studies find several effects of overcrowding on both objective and subjective measures of children’s cognitive development. Elementary school children living in more crowded homes score lower on standardized reading tests and they see themselves as less scholastically competent than their classmates.

Parenting behaviors directly related to children’s cognitive and language development are also affected by density level. Evans found that parents in crowded homes speak less to their infants and use fewer complicated words during the period from infancy up to age two and a half. Research demonstrates that the quality and sophistication of speech as well as the quantity (number of words spoken) to children by parents are significant factors in the amount and types of words children produce.

Biological measures implicate the effects of overcrowding on children’s physiology. In one study, Evans found gender differences in measures of blood pressure among 10-12-year-old children with males in higher residential crowding situations demonstrating elevations in blood pressure, but not females. However, higher overnight levels of the stress hormones epinephrine and norepinephrine were found in both 8- to 10-year-old male and female children living in high-density apartments. This finding was especially relevant when chaos and disorder was present in the family.

HOUSING AND QUALITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD

Housing quality and the neighborhoods in which houses are situated have also been investigated in relation to children’s socioemotional development. For example, families living in high-rise housing, as opposed to single-family residences, have fewer relationships with neighbors, resulting in less social support. Studies on housing and quality of neighborhood have also examined the role of chaos in children’s environments finding an association between chaotic home environments and levels of psychological distress among middle school children.

Research has identified the physical characteristics of neighborhoods that significantly influence children’s development. These characteristics include: residential instability, housing quality, noise, crowding, toxic exposure, quality of municipal services, retail services, recreational opportunities, including natural settings, street traffic, accessibility of transportation, and the physical quality of both educational and health facilities. Perhaps not surprisingly, Evans’ research findings support the therapeutic effects of children’s exposure to natural settings. Natural settings are preferred by children and allow them to exercise gross motor abilities as well as engage in social interactions. In addition, these settings also alleviate the adverse effects of children’s exposure to chronic stress.

The research outlined above demonstrates both the direct and indirect effects of the physical environment on children’s development. Direct effects include cognitive, social, emotional, and biological outcomes. Indirect effects include interactions with parents and teachers, which in turn, influence developmental outcomes such as learning and language development. Although in several studies Evans demonstrates these effects for children at all income levels, low-income children experience excessive exposure to noise, overcrowding, and unfavorable housing and neighborhood conditions. Exposure to these poor-quality physical conditions is linked to other psychological and social aspects of the environment, especially poverty. Using a building block analogy, low-income children have more blocks stacked one on top of the other than children of other income levels. Thus, children living in poverty experience multiple exposures, rather than a single exposure to risk.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

⇒Guard against additional, interior noise sources. Individuals living in noisy environments often habituate, or become accustomed to the noise level. Aim to reduce the existing noise instead of adding other sources of noise.

⇒Check the volume level on your child’s music devices (e.g., iPod, walkman; it is too loud if someone else can hear the music). If he listens to his favorite music too loudly, make proper volume adjustments. Also monitor the volume level on computers, televisions, and other electronic devices, keeping them as low as possible.

⇒Engage your child. Children ignore and tune out speech as a way of coping with environmental overstimulation. Take notice if your child is not paying attention or listening to your speech and if so, intervene. Take your child to a quiet outdoor nature spot or a quiet indoor location such as the local library. This is especially important during the preschool and early elementary school years (ages 3-6 years) when children are learning to read.

⇒Tune in instead of tuning out. Parents living under high noise exposure appear to withdraw, be less responsive, and talk less to their children. The natural tendency is to disengage from speaking and reading to children so as not to compete with the noise. These coping strategies negatively affect children’s reading and cognitive abilities. Be alert to the occurrence of these behaviors and counter them by talking to your child, reading aloud to her, engaging her in discussions, and actively listening to what she has to say to you.

⇒Modify your environment. If your budget permits, consider purchasing extra noise attenuation devices for your child's room for use during homework activities and sleeping. Ear plugs are a low-cost alternative.

⇒Consider your child’s school environment. If you have a choice, send your child to a quiet, less chaotic school. This is particularly desirable if your home environment is also noisy. Be active in your community. The noisiest environmental conditions occur in low income and ethnic minority communities. One way to counteract this is to be active and involved. Ask your representative why it is noisier in these communities.

⇒Seek information. If a major source of noise in your community is road traffic, check with your local planning department. Note that traffic volume is closely aligned with traffic noise levels. The busiest streets are usually the noisiest.