Elsevier

Social Science & Medicine

Volume 87, June 2013, Pages 39-51
Social Science & Medicine

Family structure, victimization, and child mental health in a nationally representative sample

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.02.034Get rights and content

Abstract

Utilizing the 2008 National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV), the current study compares past year rates of 7 forms of child victimization (maltreatment, assault, peer victimization, property crime, witnessing family violence and exposure to community violence) across 3 different family structure types (two biological/adoptive parents, single parent, step/cohabiting family) among a representative sample of 4046 U.S. children ages 2–17. The study also considers whether certain social-contextual risk factors help to explain family structure variations in victimization, and the extent to which victimization exposure accounts for family structure differences in distress symptom levels. Findings showed significantly elevated rates of almost all types of victimization among children in both nontraditional family types, relative to those living with two biological/adoptive parents. Factors associated with increased victimization risk in these families include high parental conflict, drug or alcohol problems, family adversity, and community disorder. A summary measure of children's exposure to multiple forms of victimization was the strongest predictor of distress symptoms.

Highlights

► Reports U.S. national rates of seven different forms of child victimization. ► Children living with single parents and stepparents had higher victimization rates than those living with two biological parents. ► Victimization risk was associated parental conflict, drug/alcohol problems, family adversity, and community disorder. ► Multiple victimization was the strongest predictor of child psychological distress.

Introduction

Considerable research and policy attention has been focused on how different family structures affect children's development and well-being. Given high rates of divorce and increases in children born to unmarried mothers, 26% of all U.S. children (under 18 years) currently live with a single, unmarried parent (Kreider, 2008, pp. 70–114). Moreover, given high rates of remarriage and unmarried cohabitation, it has been estimated that about a third of children will also spend some time in a cohabiting or stepfamily arrangement (Bumpass, Raley, & Sweet, 1995). At any one time, about 11% of children are living in stepfamilies and another 3% are living in households with one biological parent and an unrelated cohabiting partner (Kreider, 2008).

Past research suggests that residing with a single parent, stepfamily, or in a household with a parent and cohabiting partner can represent a risk factor for psychopathology and adjustment problems in children and adolescents (Hetherington, Bridges, & Isabella, 1998). Although there are a variety of intervening and moderating conditions that influence whether these family structures are associated with negative child outcomes (Amato, 2010; Hetherington, 2006), research has found that, on average, children from divorced, never married, and remarried or cohabiting families are more likely than children living with both biological parents to have academic problems, externalizing and internalizing disorders, and lower social competency (Amato & Keith, 1991; Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994; Hetherington et al., 1998). Among the potential sources of risk for children in these nontraditional family structures may be greater exposure to violence, crime and victimization.

Earlier studies on family structure and child victimization have typically focused on specific forms of victimization, such as physical maltreatment or sexual abuse rather than address family structure patterns across a full range of victimization types. Nevertheless, there is evidence that exposure to child victimization differs significantly across family type. Based on a large national survey of 12–17 year-olds, Lauritsen (2003) found that youth in single parent families experienced more stranger and nonstranger victimizations than those in two-parent families, independent of race and socioeconomic status. A more recent study by Turner, Finkelhor, and Ormrod (2007) found that, relative to children living with two biological or adoptive parents, children living in single parent and stepfamilies had greater lifetime exposure to several forms of victimization, including sexual assault, child maltreatment, and witnessing family violence. Similarly, a large Dutch study using child protective service data found higher rates of maltreatment in single parent and stepfamilies than in biological two-parent and adoptive families (van IJzendoorn, Euser, Prinzie, Juffer, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2009). Research also suggests that the likelihood of multiple child maltreatment recurrence is greater in both single parent and stepparent households (Bae, Solomon, & Gelles, 2007), but particularly when youth are residing with nonrelated adults (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996; McRee, 2008; Turner et al., 2007).

In addition to identifying risk factors for specific types of child victimization, such as maltreatment or sexual victimization, it is crucial to specify contexts associated with exposure to multiple forms of victimization. As discussed below, recent research has pointed to the particular significance of multiple victimization exposure in producing negative outcomes in children and adolescents (Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007b; Ford, Elhai, Connor, & Frueh, 2010; Menard & Huizinga, 2001). To the extent that children in single parent and/or stepfamily arrangements are at increased risk for experiencing multiple forms of victimization, the importance of family structure as a risk factor becomes even greater.

Given the large body of literature pointing to the significance of child victimization for the development of psychiatric disorders, physical health problems, and poor social and economic outcomes (Molnar, Buka, & Kessler, 2001; Terr, 1991), specifying family arrangements and related social contexts that may contribute to child victimization remains an important objective.

Although past research suggests that youth in single parent and stepfamilies may be at elevated risk for victimization, the extent of risk, the types of victimizations they experience, and the mechanisms that lead to or help to explain increased exposure have not been clearly specified. A variety of social and structural factors has been linked to problematic outcomes for children in single parent and stepfamily households and, as discussed below, may also be associated with increased risk for specific types of victimization and/or cumulative exposure to multiple forms of victimization. We focus on three general conditions or qualities that may be both more common in nontraditional family arrangements and associated with greater exposure to child victimization: 1) adverse neighborhood conditions as indexed by level of community disorder, 2) factors that reflect family stress and instability, including residential moves, living in multiple households, and family adversity, and 3) problems that represent likely markers of family dysfunction, including parental verbal conflict, parent psychological disorder and family drug or alcohol problems.

Youth in nontraditional family structures, especially those in single parent families, may be at elevated risk for victimization that arises from economic-deprivation-related factors, such living in neighborhoods with high levels of community disorder (Kalil & Ryan, 2010; Thomas & Sawhill, 2005). Children in high community violence contexts (typically inner cities) are more likely both to witness violence and to experience personal victimization outside of the household (Margolin & Gordis, 2000). Because financial difficulties often force single parents to move into more dangerous neighborhoods (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; South & Crowder, 1998), this may represent a particularly important risk factor for children in single parent structures.

Frequent changes in residence may also represent an important connection between family structure and victimization risk (Sampson, 1985). Moving households is often accompanied by changing schools, leaving friendship networks, having new peer contacts, and exposure to different neighborhood conditions, which can undermine some factors protective against victimization. Residential mobility is typically higher for single parent families than for two-parent families (Astone & McLanahan, 1991; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994), but is also likely to be elevated in step and cohabiting families as residential changes often accompany blending and reconfiguring household composition. Children living in these family types often also reside in more than one household, as they adhere to shared custody arrangements or visit non-resident biological parents. Since such arrangements typically mean greater contact with multiple adults (and often children) across households, and possibly across neighborhoods, they have the potential to increase victimization risk (Turner et al., 2007).

Exposure to stress and adversity is higher in nontraditional family structures. Barrett and Turner (2005), for example, found significantly greater exposure to recent negative life events in both single parent and stepfamily households, relative to families with two biological parents. Youth in single parent households also experienced higher levels of chronic stress; that is, ongoing hardships associated with things like finances, job and relationship instability, and everyday discrimination. Parents who experience considerable stress are more likely to engage in harsh and inconsistent parenting (McLoyd, 1990; Turner, 2005) and ultimately are at greater risk for child maltreatment (Rodriguez, 2010; Stith et al., 2009). High levels of adversity likely also index stressful neighborhood contexts associated with elevated community violence (Latkin & Curry, 2003). Because many types of adversity arise directly from economic hardship, family adversity may be a particularly salient victimization risk factor in single parent households.

Nontraditional family structures may be more likely to experience interpersonal problems. Both single parents and parents in cohabiting relationships tend to have lower relationship quality and more conflict with partners (McLanahan & Beck, 2010). Parents in stepfamilies are also more likely than those in traditional family structure to exhibit interpersonal difficulties, including high parental conflict (Amato, 1993; Booth & Edwards, 1992; Dunn, 2002; O'Connor, Thorpe, Dunn, & Golding, 1999; Pryor & Rodgers, 2001). Because parental verbal conflict is a risk factor and/or corollary of domestic violence (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 2006) and problematic parenting practices (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000; Sturge-Apple, Davies, & Cummings, 2006), children in households with high parental conflict may be especially likely to witness family violence and be exposed to child maltreatment.

Single parents, cohabiting parents, and parents in stepfamilies are all more likely to report depression, engage in heavy drinking, and use illicit drugs than are married parents (Kalil & Ryan, 2010; O'Connor, Hawkins, Dunn, Thorpe, & Golding, 1998) either because these problems reduce marital stability or because they are outcomes of associated stressful life conditions (Williams, Frech, & Carlson, 2010). Parental alcohol and drug problems and parent psychological disorder have, in turn, been found to be significant correlates of child maltreatment (Chaffin, Kelleher, & Hollenberg, 1996; Sidebotham & Golding, 2001; Weissman, Feder, & Pillowsky, 2004; Windham et al., 2004).

Although identifying risk factors for specific types of child victimization, such maltreatment or peer victimization, remains a crucial objective, recent research has also pointed to the particularly significance of multiple victimization (Finkelhor et al., 2007b; Ford et al., 2010; Menard & Huizinga, 2001; Romano, Bell, & Billette, 2011). Studies have demonstrated that children are often exposed to many different forms of victimization in a given period. Finkelhor, Ormrod, and Turner (2007a) found that, among children who had experienced any victimization, 69% had experienced two or more different types and 10% experienced 7 or more types in the last year. Importantly, cumulative exposure across victimization type, or what has been termed “poly-victimization”, is associated with especially high levels of distress in children and youth, over and above exposure to chronic or serious individual forms of victimization (Finkelhor et al., 2007b; Turner, Finkelhor, & Ormrod, 2010a). In addition to considering several individual forms of victimization, the current study will address whether children in single parent and/or step/cohabiting households experience more poly-victimization, identify the factors outlined above that may contribute to this type of cumulative risk, and consider the extent to which multiple victimization explains variations in distress across family structure.

In sum, there is reason to suspect that child victimization is higher in nontraditional family structures and may represent a significant risk factor for explaining higher levels of mental health symptoms among children living in these types of families. Family structure variations in victimization exposure may also be mediated by or co-occur with a variety of risky family and neighborhood conditions. It is important to specify how different forms of victimization as well as exposure to multiple forms, may vary across family types, which social and contextual factors are most associated with family structure differences in victimization, and the extent to which victimization exposure and related risks are implicated in elevated symptomatology. Such research can help to better identify the source of risk in nontraditional family structures and to inform prevention and intervention efforts targeted at the most at-risk children. Although, as detailed above, some past research has addressed these processes, few studies have utilized nationally representative samples, included children across the entire development spectrum, compared multiple family structures, and assessed a wide range of victimization types and contextual factors in the same study. The current research fills these gaps. Given that family structure is substantially linked to other social statuses such as race and social class (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002) and that such factors may also be associated with variations in child victimization (Turner, Finkelhor, & Ormrod, 2006), we also control for a variety of demographic factors including gender, age, race, socioeconomic status, and number of children in the household.

The specific objectives of this study were to:

  • 1)

    Examine differences in past year victimization across family structure, comparing three groups of children, namely those who are currently living a) with two biological or adoptive parents, b) with a single parent, and c) in a stepfamily or parent–partner household. Using a nationally representation sample of youth age 2–17, we compared family structure groups on wide range of victimization types (sexual victimization, maltreatment, assault, peer victimization, property crime, witnessing family violence, community violence) as well as exposure to multiple types of victimization (i.e. poly-victimization).

  • 2)

    Identify social and contextual risk factors that may explain greater victimization among children in nontraditional family structures. Factors considered include demographic variables, factors that potentially reflect family dysfunction (parental verbal conflict, parent psychological disorder, family drug or alcohol problems) family stress and instability factors (level of adversity, moving residence, and sharing residence across 2+ households), and community disorder.

  • 3)

    Examine the effect of total victimization (exposure to multiple types) on level of distress symptoms and determine whether multiple victimization explains higher levels of symptomatology in nontraditional family structures and helps to explain the effects of other social/contextual factors on distress symptoms.

Section snippets

Participants

The National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) was designed to obtain incidence and prevalence estimates of a wide range of childhood victimizations. NatSCEV is the largest and most comprehensive survey ever devoted to childhood victimization and the only one that considers experiences across the full developmental spectrum of childhood (Mitchell, Finkelhor, & Wolak, 2005; Wells, Finkelhor, Wolak, & Mitchell, 2004, 2007).

Conducted between January 2008 and May 2008, the survey

Results

Sample characteristics and descriptive statistics for variables used in our analyses are presented in Table 1.

Discussion

This study found higher rates of victimization among children in single parent families, and step or cohabiting families relative to those living with two biological or adoptive parents. Elevated exposure existed for almost every type of victimization, including maltreatment, physical assault, property crime, witnessing family violence, exposure to community violence and sexual victimization, highlighting the wide range and breadth of child victimization risk associated with these

References (81)

  • H.A. Turner et al.

    The effect of lifetime victimization on the mental health of children and adolescents

    Social Science & Medicine

    (2006)
  • H.A. Turner et al.

    Poly-victimization in a national sample of children & youth

    American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    (2010)
  • M.M. Weissman et al.

    Depressed mothers coming to primary care: maternal reports of problems with their children

    Journal of Affective Disorders

    (2004)
  • A.M. Windham et al.

    Risk of mother-reported child abuse in the first 3 years of life

    Child Abuse & Neglect

    (2004)
  • R. Acierno et al.

    Assessing elder victimization – demonstration of a methodology

    Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

    (2003)
  • P.R. Amato

    Children's adjustment to divorce: theories, hypotheses, and empirical support

    Journal of Marriage and the Family

    (1993)
  • P.R. Amato

    Research on divorce: continuing trends and new developments

    Journal of Marriage and the Family

    (2010)
  • P.R. Amato et al.

    Parental divorce and the well-being of children: a meta-analysis

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1991)
  • N.M. Astone et al.

    Family structure, parenting practices and high school completion

    American Sociological Review

    (1991)
  • B.K. Atrostic et al.

    Nonresponse in U.S. government household surveys: consistent measures, recent trends, and new insights

    Journal of Official Statistics

    (2001)
  • E. Babbie

    The practice of social research

    (2007)
  • N. Bajos et al.

    Analysis of sexual behavior in France (ACSF): a comparison between two modes of investigation: telephone survey and face-to-face survey

    AIDS

    (1992)
  • A.E. Barrett et al.

    Family structure and mental health: the mediating effects of socioeconomic status, family process, and social stress

    Journal of Health and Social Behavior

    (2005)
  • E. Bermack

    Effects of telephone & face-to-face communication on rated extent of self-disclosure by female college students

    Psychological Reports

    (1989)
  • A. Booth et al.

    Starting over: why remarriages are more unstable

    Journal of Family Issues

    (1992)
  • M.D. Bramlett et al.

    Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States

    (2002)
  • J. Briere

    Trauma symptoms checklist for children (TSCC): Professional manual

    (1996)
  • L.L. Bumpass et al.

    The changing character of stepfamilies: implications of cohabitation and nonmarital childbearing

    Demography

    (1995)
  • A.J. Cherlin et al.

    Stepfamilies in the United States: a reconsideration

  • R. Curtin et al.

    The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (2000)
  • R. Curtin et al.

    Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (2005)
  • R. Czaja

    Asking sensitive behavioral questions in telephone interviews

    International Quarterly of Community Health Education

    (1987)
  • J. Dunn

    The adjustment of children in stepfamilies: lessons from community studies

    Child and Adolescent Mental Health

    (2002)
  • D. Finkelhor et al.

    Risk factors for youth victimization: beyond a lifestyles theoretical approach

    Violence & Victims

    (1996)
  • D. Finkelhor et al.

    Poly-victimization and trauma in a national longitudinal cohort

    Development and Psychopathology

    (2007)
  • D. Finkelhor et al.

    The victimization of children and youth: a comprehensive, national survey

    Child Maltreatment

    (2005)
  • R.M. Groves

    Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (2006)
  • J.H. Grych et al.

    Marital conflict and children's adjustment: a cognitive contextual framework

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1990)
  • S.L. Hamby et al.

    The Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ): Administration and scoring manual

    (2004)
  • S.L. Hamby et al.

    The community disorder questionnaire

    (2007)
  • Cited by (77)

    • Defining trauma, adversity, & toxic stress

      2022, Not Just Bad Kids: The Adversity and Disruptive Behavior Link
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    For the purposes of compliance with Section 507 of PL 104-208 (the “Stevens Amendment”), readers are advised that 100% of the funds for this program are derived from federal sources, (this project was supported by Grant Nos. 2006-JW-BX-003 & 2009-JW-BX-0018, awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice). The total amount of federal funding involved is $2,848,809. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice.

    View full text