Home Environments on their Outcomes

Introduction

Systematic studies have strived to establish the extent by which the home environment impacts the development and life of infants (Britto et al., 2017 and Pluess & Belsky, 2010). However, the proposed models and opinions expressed concerning the role the environment plays on early childhood development differs. For example, Votruba-Drzal and Dearing (2017) focused on the role of genetics on cognitive development; and disregarded the environment in influencing childhood and future development of infants. Social theories such as the social cognitive theory propose that the home environment, including the early childhood caregivers, parents, or any close member, influence the young people's cognitive, psychomotor and affective development domains (Bandura, 2014). If you are looking for psychology dissertation help, understanding these differing perspectives can provide valuable insights into the complexities of early childhood development. Today, there are many environments and context where young people socialize, and this includes peer grouping, families as well as out-of-home contexts like religious gatherings and school classrooms. However, in the community, parents are given the primary role of "bending" the children in desirable directions, teaching them discipline, and direct how they grow. Therefore, this study will examine how the nature of young people’s home environments determines their outcomes more than any other social environment. The study will, therefore, look at the role of the home environment in the development of self-esteem in early childhood, the impacts of family environment on childhood development and later highlight how the nature of young people's home environments determine their outcomes compared to other social environments in which they spend their time.

From the perspective of theoretical models and approaches, Urie Bronfenbrenner, who was an American psychologist, developed an Ecological Systems Theory which explained how the inherent qualities of children, as well as their environment, interact to impact how they develop and grow (Skinner, 2012). The theory also emphasizes the importance of studying children in multiple settings. Moreover, the theory suggests that children generally find themselves enmeshed while in various ecosystems. The theory organizes development contexts into five levels of external influence. As per the scholar, there are different level of the environment which impact a child. Such levels include the exosystem microsystem, the macrosystem, and the mesosystem. The microsystem refers to a small, immediate environment where the child lives. It involves immediate relationships where the children interact, like in caregiver and family (Skinner, 2012). The way this environment interacts with a child affects the growth of the children. Therefore, the better and the more encouraging the environment is, the better the growth of the children. Also, how a child reacts to people in the microsystem impact how they treat her in return (Skinner, 2012).

The other level is the mesosystem. This describes how the various environment of a child- microsystem function together to nature the children. For instance, if a child's caregiver also takes part in a child's school environment, in roles such as parent-teacher conferences, this assists in ensuring the child's overall growth (Skinner, 2012). However, if the child is brought up in a violent environment, this will hinder the child's growth in different channels. The exosystem level includes other places and people that the child herself may not interact with often. However, this environment impacts how children develop. This consists of the neighborhood, the parents' workplaces, as well as the extended family members (Paat, 2013). For instance, if a parent is sacked from work, this greatly impacts child development. In contrast, a promotion at work impacts the child positively. Lastly, the macrosystem is the largest and most remote set of things and people to a child. However, the environment greatly impacts child development. This includes cultural values, wars, and the relative freedoms permitted by the national government (Paat, 2013).

Another critical theory to understanding child development is Bowlby's Attachment Theory. It was developed by John Bowlby (1907 - 1990) and suggests that behavior challenges and mental health could be attributed to early childhood. The theory reveals that the caregiver provides security for an infant which enhance infant survival. Therefore, in nature, an infant seeks close proximity with their caregiver when threatened. John Bowlby also explains that children have increased distress when separated from their caregivers or mothers. This seems to suggest that, home environment dramatically impacts child development (Holmes, 2017).

In respect to the role of family environment in the development of self-esteem and early childhood, Bourn, Hunt, and Hassan (2017) suggest that the family constitutes a strong influence on the child's self-esteem. The family environment is a characterization of various elements, including quality of parenting the child experiences, alongside the quality of the physical home environment and cognitive stimulation which the child experiences. Psychological theorists support that parenting impact the development of self-esteem. Furthermore, based on the attachment theory, an infant's secure attachment to the closest caregiver or parent results in the development of a positive internal working model of the self. This consequently cultivates the child's sense of self-image as he/she grows and develops (Votruba-Drzal and Dearing (2017). The presence and manifestation of reliable, responsive, and appropriate caregiving to a child is the most iconic predictors of attachment security. Further, attachment theory postulates that parenting has a fundamental effect on the development of an infant’s self-esteem. Empirical studies have concurred with the premise that secure attachment to fathers and mothers inspires infants’ self-esteem (Votruba-Drzal and Dearing, 2017).

Besides, the sociometer theory supports that parental behavior affects the emergence of self-esteem of a child; and the way in which the child relates to his surroundings. Sociometer theory supposes that self-esteem is an element of the psychosocial system serving the aim of controlling and monitoring the need for social inclusion. According to this theory, an individual's self-esteem reflects in a preconscious and automatic manner (Ruiz, Quackenboss and Tulve 2016). Considering the central position parenting positions itself in the child's development, an infant's sense of relational value may rely on the extent by which the parents value their relationships with the child. Besides, longitudinal studies have proposed that being valued by others triggers and contributes to the development and maturation of one's self-esteem (Quackenboss & Tulve, 2016).

One of the key characteristics of the family environment is the quality of the relationship between the child's parents. If the relationship between parents is healthy, it influences positive social, cognitive, and psycho motive development of the child. Besides, studies have suggested that quality relationship between parents is founded on the threshold of their parenting behavior which is consistent with theoretical accounts of the familial system and the relationship between co-parenting and marital conflict (Quackenboss & Tulve, 2016) For instance, fathers and mothers in a good relationship with each other manifest a large scale of warmth and responsiveness to their children (Illeris (2018). Contrary, parents in a distressful marriage portray low emotional and cognitive attachment to their children, which has damages to the children's holistic development to the future life.

Considering the impacts of family environment on childhood development, Illeris (2018) presents the environment as a particular space, object reality, phenomena, and objects whose presence is independent of human consciousness. In the narrow sense, the environment refers to space that induces certain conditions that are favorable to the life, development, and procreation of organisms. Ruiz, Quackenboss, and Tulve (2016) observed that the environment impacts the lives of not only a child but also society, family, and locality in any way. The environment brings forth necessary conditions for childhood development, including cultural, social, and biological determinants. These determinants are central to the functional attachment between the child and his/her immediate environment, which Garbarino (2017) suggested is a relationship of mutual influence.

According to Daelmans et al. (2017), a child's development is defined in three domains, namely the physical domain, cognitive domain, and social (emotional) domain. From the time of birth, the child begins developing along with these three domains, with the immediate family owing a huge impact on the manner in which the child develops. John Locke conceived children as tabula rasa; as individuals who are born blank and therefore, to be filled with information and proper nurturing. Since the immediate family environments, which may consist of parents, or caregivers are the closest to the child, John Locke believed they have a huge impact on how the child begins to develop and perceive the world (Naughton 2017). It is during the early stages of childhood development when a child becomes prepared into the future, and this preparation therefore greatly depends on the family available for the child.

Jean Jacques Rousseau contributed to the understanding of early childhood development; and how children construct meaning; and, therefore, how children learn. The psychologist viewed that children were noble savages; who are conceived and born with a sense of morality; and that these children grow up in distinct stages which should not be interfered with. Based on this premise that children grow in distinct stages, parental understanding of the child is essential in helping the child's potentials at an early age (Ruiz, Quackenboss and Tulve, 2016). The parent should always allow the child to express himself/herself freely within these distinct stages to optimize the manner in which the child matures in the three domains. A poorly utilized stage of childhood is likely to negatively influence the child's development and behavior from a future perspective. Out of this regard, the parent ought to be there for the child providing necessary resources and atmosphere fostering the child's holistic development on the physical, cognitive, and emotional cores (Naughton 2017). Various models, including psychoanalytical theories, have been proposed to exemplify childhood development.

Behavioral and social learning theories have also been proposed to echo the role of the environment and nurturing in the growth and development of a child. Pluess &Belsky (2010), while examining literature, suggested that infants are passive learners; yet who can be molded by controlling stimulus-response associations. In the same view, Bandura revealed that later, children become more selective in what they imitate (Daelmans et al., 2017). Since children learn through observation and imitating, whatever they learn from their immediate family members while young will have a permanent impact on how they behave in the future. In this regard, therefore, parents, guardians, or caregivers are therefore reminded to take responsibility for children and behave in a dignified manner and ways in which can form the foundation for infants to learn from (The Urban Child Institute 2013). To support this idea, Piaget's research concluded that whatever children extracted and made meaning through these interactions formed, which would later be used to construct new knowledge and meaning (Furnham, 2015). Similarly, Lev Vygotsky closely agreed to Jean Piaget; and went further to suggest that cultural customs and values exhibited by those close to the children dictated what and how the children learn. Further, Vygotsky established that children tend to learn from expert members of the society who may be their closest family members who form “the zone of proximal development” (Samerojf et al., 2014). Therefore, it can be said that children's early experiences shape who they grow into. Hence, for the development of their full potentials, children require a safe home environment, relationships that are secure with their caregivers, parenting that is both responsive and nurturing, and also learning opportunities of high quality.

Generally, children thrive in environments that are both nurturing and stable, in which they have routines and where they are well aware of what to expect from their daily lives. While changes in the lives of children are normal and anticipated, disruptions that are sudden and dramatic bear a lot of stress and also affect the children`s security feelings (Best et al., 2014).

Parents who are supportive and who play the role of buffers against the different negative effects of instability are able to bring up their children in ways that help them to adapt to their surroundings, cope with adversity and further regulate their emotions. However, stress that is not buffered and that escalates to extreme levels is detrimental to the mental health of the children and also their cognitive functioning.

Samerojf et al., (2014) believed Parents play a very critical role in the attainment of education by their children and their further development to be lifelong learners. Often, it is normally expected of the mothers to help their children with their homework and also to volunteer in different school activities. Over the years, however, it has been proven that the support of fathers, whether through offering encouragement and support, whether sharing hobbies, reading books aloud to their children and even showing genuine interest to the contents that are read by their children have powerful impacts on the bringing up of lifelong learners (Tandon et al., 2014). The educational attainment of parents has also been observed to influence the environments the parents create for their children. The educational attainment of the parents also doubles up as a predictor of behavioral and cognitive outcomes. Ronfani et al. (2015), linked higher levels of maternal education to increased warmth and responsiveness of parents, increased learning materials within homes, increased readiness for school and improved educational and employment outcomes throughout one`s life. Parental beliefs and knowledge are influenced by education and all these are factors which in turn have an effect on the quality of home environments and also on parenting practices (Shanks and Robinson, 2013). Child exposure to parenting that is unresponsive and disengaged in a child`s early days is another predictor of academic outcomes that are poor in a child’s later years.

The development of children is influenced by their family’s incomes by way of the decisions of their parents on how to go about with resource allocation (Hills et al., 2013). The resources spent by families on their children like in the purchase of books, toys and even learning materials for the home and even for enrolment into child care of a higher quality and extracurricular activities are all investments that are capable of contributing to the positive outcomes of the children (Bécares and Priest, 2015). Additionally, the energy and time spent on children are also investments that are quite important. Those families that do not have as many financial resources with the capabilities of providing for their children physically could be capable of compensating in other different ways that do not require as many finances.

Furthermore, Samerojf et al (2014) argue that it is in the period of early childhood that children get to develop their critical skills like memory, executive functioning, and language, all of which serve as foundations for future learning. As such, low incomes in families at this stage have the worst effects. The structure of the family also plays a very important role in the experiences of the children and the support that they receive in their homes. It is worth noting that family structures are quite diverse even within two-parent households, and include both married and unmarried parents, adoptive parents, and cohabiting parents and also step-parents. And because families change over time, these structures are not static. Remarriages, separations, halting of cohabiting unions are all quite common. Britto et al., (2017), argue that the most instability is experienced by those children who are born into cohabiting families, and these are closely followed by those children raised by single mothers. Besides, there has been debate on how children are affected by new marriages and divorce and whether children are mostly affected by the change in parental unions or the parents underlying behaviors and characteristics, there has been increasing evidence that documents the negative effects such instability bears on children. According to Carneiro, Meghir, and Parey (2013), parental divorce brings about long-term chronic strains on families and also a short-term family crisis.

One of the most beneficial social aspects to families and also to the communities they live in is homeownership. There are also close associations between homeownership and the well-being of children. Fantuzzo et al. (2013), posit that early cognitive and behavioral development is improved by family homeownership. The benefits of early ownership are further observed to continue to adolescence and also young adulthood. Those children who are brought up in owner-occupied homes are observed to have a lower likelihood of dropping out of high school and further lesser likelihood of becoming teen parents. Another risk factor in the development of children is overcrowding. The quality of caregiving environments is reduced by overcrowding. Overcrowding, further, has the potential of affecting children even during the early stages of infancy.

The majority of the changes in familial structure, however, are observed to bring about stress and financial emotional insecurity in the lives of the children. This is dependent on the context of the changes in the structure of the family. As such, there is a close association between family instability and negative outcomes for those children who find themselves at the center of the relationships of their parents (Weiss. 2017). Those children who are born into married parents and who go ahead to divorce by the time the children are five years, record lower pre-reading and vocabulary skills and also show more aggressive behaviors when they are compared to other children from families that are stable. Additionally, the formation of parental unions that are potentially unstable bears associations that are negative with the wellbeing of the children. Cabrera et al (2014), carried out a study that established that those adolescents that transitioned from single-mother families to unmarried and cohabiting families, that are characterized by the living with the boyfriend of the mother demonstrated reduced engagement in school and increased delinquent behaviors when they were compared to their peers who transitioned into married stepfamilies and also other peers who stayed in stable families with their single mothers.

There is also a relationship between the number of changes in familial structures that are experienced from birth throughout kindergarten and the problematic behaviours of the children as they transition to the 1st grade. For those children who are born to single parents, more negative behaviors are shown by those who experience more instability (Hetherington and Arasteh, 2014). Based on these findings, changes in the structure of a family have the potential of disrupting the well-being of a child, and every other additional change that leads to the instability of families predicts outcomes that even worse. After separations, the majority of the children live under one of the parent's primary custody even though these days, joint arrangements have become quite common. The mother becomes the primary custodian in most of the cases, and that implies that the absence of the father is in most experiences of post-separation family life, the most significant aspect. Tartari (2015) notes that the absence of one of the parents has the implication that a deficit would come about in terms of the parental time that is available for carrying out parenting activities. Additionally, when a child is only brought up by their mother, they lack the exposure to a male role model and also to those processes and skills that are involved in committed adult relations including aspects like the expression of intimacy, compromise, negotiation and communication (Cabrera et al., 2014). This situation greatly influences how children behave and affect their development.

Even with these hypothetical grounds for expecting the effect of the absence of a father, different studies have not really been able to bring out the evidence that shows that a strong role is played by this in the explanation of the different outcomes children from intact and divorced families’ experience (Anderson, 2014). There are two pieces of existing evidence that weigh against this. First, those children whose parents have undergone separation are observed to do worse in comparison to those children going through bereavement of their parents. Anderson (2014), posits that in comparison to those children whose mothers have passed on, the children whose mothers have divorced record lower education levels, adult happiness, and occupational status. There is no evidence that widowed mothers are more competent than divorced mothers and there is speculation that contrasting positions in the social structures of different types of single-mother families could possibly account for observed differences in the outcomes of children (Amato, 2014).

The majority of those effects that are reported of parental separation on the wellbeing of children are based on observations that are drawn in the short term. There are, however, other studies that examine the effects of these separations over the long-term, into the child`s adulthood (Fuller, 2017). There is evidence that while most of the difficulties encountered by children as results of the separations of their parents diminish over time, there also exists evidence that there are also some effects that are enduring and persistent. Amato (2014) posits that during the first two years after a divorce, emotional, pragmatic, and physical problems are experienced by both adults and the children together with declines in the functioning of families. While after two years there are significant adjustments in most of the families, Weaver and Schofield (2015) established that the divorce of parents had negative consequences for the offspring’s mental health that often persists to the child’s adulthood. This view, therefore, suggests that, the surroundings in which children grow largely impact on their well-being. It is indisputable that positive home environments form strong foundations for the healthy development of the brain. Home environments that are safe and healthy are quite important for the growth, learning, and exploration endeavors of young children (Fuller, 2017).

Concerning influences inside the home environment, some of the key policies which influence child development include the Childcare Act 2006. The legislation places a duty on local authorities (LAs) to secure early years provision free of charge. Together with the duty, of the legislation puts LAs under a role to secure enough childcare, to enable parents in their respective areas (Doe, 2019). However, the role under the legislation does not mean that childcare should be directly funded. Though the legislation that has income below a certain level is eligible for extra tax credits to assist in dealing with child needs. Local authorities (LAs) also has the role of providing information and advice concerning child health care. Therefore, this legislation must improve the wellbeing of young children as well as reducing inequalities within the society that affects child development as per the Urie Bronfenbrenner Ecological Systems Theory environments. The legislation also provides early childhood services in an integrated manner (Doe, 2019).

Peers have been indicated to play a great role in the emotional and social development of children. Peer influence begins at an early age and increases as the children grow. In a natural setting, children have to rely on friends as they grow (Hay et al., 2018). However, not all peer pressure is negative. Some are positive and supportive. They can assist children in developing new skills as well as stimulate their talents. A peer can also be negative, especially when it influences children to skip classes, cheat, share inappropriate materials, and steal. Moreover, peer pressure can promote the building of a child’s self-esteem and confidence. A study by Hay (2005) suggests that children/toddlers meet peers daily. Some of the friendship in children begins at birth, and by six months of age, infants are able to communicate with other infants by touching, smiling as well as babbling. The study also suggests that there are clear links between early peer relations and the phenomena that occur in child development. For instance, infants who engaged in complex play with peers seem to be more competent in dealing with other children in the outside environment, such as in school. Children who do not have many friends have difficulty in dealing with peers at the age of older age. Therefore, the study concludes that peer pressure has a very significant impact on child development.

In comparing the nature of young people's home environments and other social environments in which they spend their time, it is evident that the nature of young people's home environments determines their outcomes more than any other social setting. While discussing a study by Maccoby on parenting and its impacts on children, Pluess & Belsky (2010) suggests that the way parents interact and deal with their children affects the behavior of the children at home and the relationships they develop with their parents. The study also reveals that the behavior developed at home affects how the children behave in out-of-home contexts. The research also suggests that children of parents who are firm and responsive are more cooperative and competent compared to children whose parents are either authoritarian. This argument, therefore, indicates that authoritative parenting has a beneficial impact on children. However, this study seems to have ignored the possibility that the causal connection may be reverse in that cooperative and competent children make it easier for their parents to be responsive and firm. Therefore, it can be urged that the behavior of parent behavior is driven by the behavior of children (Pluess & Belsky (2010). However, in this view, it can be firmly be suggested that children's behavior is constructed at home, which seems to support the claim that children's behavior is more built-in home environment compared to any other context.

Parental and home children caregiver has been suggested to influence children behavior, and it's of great importance in shaping children's development. Charleworth (2013) argues that those children who engaged in interactions that are positive with their caregivers have higher capabilities of meeting their full potential. Their full potential would be characterized by an exhibition of reduced problematic behaviors and also the presentation of high competency levels. When these interactions are absent or negative, however, then it becomes hard to realize the capacities of the child, and they are seen to demonstrate increased difficulties. Under such circumstances, the role of the parent would be viewed as buffering their children from the adverse stress effects and also further stimulating positive development through sensitive caregiving and active engagement. Therefore, this is an indication that the first impact on a home is very critical to dictating children behaviour compared to other social influences.

Regardless of parenting and home environment influence, Sigel et al. (2014) seen to highlight that research varies considerably with respect to family environment influence in relation to children's behavior. The study suggests that, though parents behavior may have different impact differently on children, there also other factors which influence behavior which is not learned at homes such as age, distinctive prior experience, sex, and temperament. With the existence of these factors, differential effects exist which wash out parent/child effects. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that parent-child correlation is the most critical determinant of children's behavior. Thus regardless of evidence showing that there is more connection in the home environment compared to other social settings, Sigel et al. (2014) reveal that this conclusion only depends on the researcher's empirical and theoretical skill in identifying what the pertinent groupings might be. This argument shows that a conclusion to this issue depends on the domain of children's development the researcher is studying. However, the fact that parents spend the most time with young children and in extended periods, the conclusion that parents are more influential to children's behavior is also valid

Looking for further insights on Language and Cognition? Click here.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the structural characteristics of infants' home environments do affect the consequential development of their emotional, physical, and social domains. The caregivers, guardians, or parents constitute the closest family members to these young people, and therefore they need to understand their role in influencing the child's development. As discussed above, children are passive learners from and are able to construct knowledge from that which they observe. In this sense, persons given a duty to bring the children up should behave responsively and be exemplary to the young people. Additionally, in comparing the nature of young people's home environments and other social environments, the way parents interact and deal with their children affects the behavior of the children at home and the relationships they develop with their parents. Secondly, parental and home children's caregivers influence children's behavior and play a greater role in shaping children's development. However, though parent’s behaviour may have different impact differently on children, there also other factors which influence behaviour which is not learned at homes hence the existence of these factors- sex and age may wash out parent/child effects. Raising a debate on which environment significantly influence child behaviour. However, the parenting environment positively nurtures the men and women of our societies.

References

Amato, P.R., 2014. The consequences of divorce for adults and children: An update. Društvena istraživanja: časopis za opća društvena pitanja, 23(1), pp.5-24.

Anderson, J., 2014. The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce. The Linacre Quarterly, 81(4), pp.378-387.

Archer, L., DeWitt, J. and Wong, B., 2014. Spheres of influence: what shapes young people’s aspirations at age 12/13 and what are the implications for education policy? Journal of Education Policy, 29(1), pp.58-85.

Bandura, A., 2014. Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In Handbook of moral behavior and development (pp. 69-128). Psychology Press.

Bécares, L. and Priest, N., 2015. Understanding the influence of race/ethnicity, gender, and class on inequalities in academic and non-academic outcomes among eighth-grade students: Findings from an intersectionality approach. PloS one, 10(10), p.e0141363.

Best, D.W., Wilson, A.S., MacLean, S., Savic, M., Reed, M., Bruun, A. and Lubman, D.I., 2014. Patterns of family conflict and their impact on substance use and psychosocial outcomes in a sample of young people in treatment. Vulnerable children and youth studies, 9(2), pp.114-122.

Bornstein, M.H. and Bradley, R.H., 2014. Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. Routledge.

Bourn, D., Hunt, F. and Hassan, A., 2017. Childhood development stages and learning on global issues.

Brito, N.H. and Noble, K.G., 2014. Socioeconomic status and structural brain development. Frontiers in neuroscience, 8, p.276.

Britto, P.R., Lye, S.J., Proulx, K., Yousafzai, A.K., Matthews, S.G., Vaivada, T., Perez-Escamilla, R., Rao, N., Ip, P., Fernald, L.C. and MacMillan, H., 2017. Nurturing care: promoting early childhood development. The Lancet, 389(10064), pp.91-102.

Britto, P.R., Lye, S.J., Proulx, K., Yousafzai, A.K., Matthews, S.G., Vaivada, T., Perez-Escamilla, R., Rao, N., Ip, P., Fernald, L.C. and MacMillan, H., 2017. Nurturing care: promoting early childhood development. The Lancet, 389(10064), pp.91-102.

Cabrera, N.J., Fitzgerald, H.E., Bradley, R.H. and Roggman, L., 2014. The ecology of father‐child relationships: An expanded model. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(4), pp.336-354.

Carneiro, P., Meghir, C. and Parey, M., 2013. Maternal education, home environments, and the development of children and adolescents. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(suppl_1), pp.123-160.

Charlesworth, R., 2013. Understanding child development. Cengage Learning.

Daelmans, B., Darmstadt, G.L., Lombardi, J., Black, M.M., Britto, P.R., Lye, S., Dua, T., Bhutta, Z.A. and Richter, L.M., 2017. Early childhood development: the foundation of sustainable development. The Lancet, 389(10064), pp.9-11.

Doe, J., 2019. Early Childhood Education and Care. Eurydice - European Commission. Available at: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/early-childhood-education-and-care-93_en [Accessed April 30, 2020].

Fantuzzo, J., LeBoeuf, W., Brumley, B. and Perlman, S., 2013. A population-based inquiry of homeless episode characteristics and early educational well-being. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(6), pp.966-972.

Fuller, C. (2017). The impact of home environment. [online] focus on the family. Available at: https://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/the-impact-of-home-environment/ [Accessed 13 Jan. 2020].

Furnham, A., 2015. Young People's Understanding of Society (Routledge Revivals). Routledge.

Garbarino, J., 2017. Children and families in the social environment: Modern applications of social work. Routledge.

Gottfried, A.W. ed., 2013. Home environment and early cognitive development: Longitudinal research. Academic Press.

Hay, D.F., 2005. Early peer relations and their impact on children’s development. Encyclopedia on early childhood development, 1(1), pp.1-6.

Hay, D.F., Caplan, M. and Nash, A., 2018. The beginnings of peer relations.

Hanson, J.L., Hair, N., Shen, D.G., Shi, F., Gilmore, J.H., Wolfe, B.L. and Pollak, S.D., 2013. Family poverty affects the rate of human infant brain growth. PloS one, 8(12), p.e80954.

Hetherington, E.M. and Arasteh, J.D., 2014. Impact of divorce, single parenting and stepparenting on children: a case study of visual agnosia. Psychology press.

Hill, H.D., Morris, P., Gennetian, L.A., Wolf, S. and Tubbs, C., 2013. The consequences of income instability for children's well‐being. Child Development Perspectives, 7(2), pp.85-90.

Holmes, J., 2017. Attachment theory. The Wiley‐Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory, pp.1-3.

Illeris, K., 2018. An overview of the history of learning theory. European Journal of Education, 53(1), pp.86-101.

Jensen, E., 2013. How poverty affects classroom engagement. Educational Leadership, 70(8), pp.24-30.

McCubbin, H.I. and Patterson, J.M., 1983. Family transitions: Adaptation to stress. Stress and the family/edited by Hamilton I. McCubbin & Charles R. Fisley.

Montico, M. and Barbone, F., 2015. The complex interaction between home environment, socioeconomic status, maternal IQ and early child neurocognitive development: a multivariate analysis of data collected in a newborn cohort study. PloS one, 10(5), p.e0127052.

Naughton, C.M., 2017. Child exposure to domestic violence, social factors and wellbeing in young people.

Paat, Y.F., 2013. Working with immigrant children and their families: An application of Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23(8), pp.954-966.

Palazzi, K. and Mattick, R.P., 2017. Effects of parental alcohol rules on risky drinking and related problems in adolescence: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug and alcohol dependence, 178, pp.243-256.

Pluess, M. and Belsky, J., 2010. Children's differential susceptibility to effects of parenting. Family Science, 1(1), pp.14-25.

Romano, E., Babchishin, L., Marquis, R. and Fréchette, S., 2015. Childhood maltreatment and educational outcomes. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(4), pp.418-437.

Ronfani, L., Brumatti, L.V., Mariuz, M., Tognin, V., Bin, M., Ferluga, V., Knowles, A.,

Ruiz, J.D.C., Quackenboss, J.J. and Tulve, N.S., 2016. Contributions of a child’s built, natural, and social environments to their general cognitive ability: A systematic scoping review. PLoS One, 11(2).

Samerojf, A.J., Bartko, W.T., Baldwin, A., Baldwin, C. and Seifer, R., 2014. Family and social influences on the development of child competence. In Families, risk, and competence (pp. 171-196). Routledge.

Shanks, T.R.W. and Robinson, C., 2013. Assets, economic opportunity and toxic stress: A framework for understanding child and educational outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 33, pp.154-170.

Sigel, I.E., McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A.V. and Goodnow, J.J., 2014. Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children. Psychology Press.

Skinner, N., 2012. Ecological systems theory.

Tandon, P., Grow, H.M., Couch, S., Glanz, K., Sallis, J.F., Frank, L.D. and Saelens, B.E., 2014. Physical and social home environment in relation to children's overall and home-based physical activity and sedentary time. Preventive medicine, 66, pp.39-44.

Tartari, M., 2015. Divorce and the cognitive achievement of children. International Economic Review, 56(2), pp.597-645.

The Urban Child Institute. (2013). The State of Children in Memphis and Shelby County. [online] Available at: http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/resources/publications/data-book-2013/family-home#r17 [Accessed 13 Jan. 2020].

UNICEF. (2019). Wealth is associated with richer home learning environments for young children. [online] Available at: https://data.unicef.org/topic/early-childhood-development/home-environment/ [Accessed 13 Jan. 2020].Weaver, J.M. and Schofield, T.J., 2015. Mediation and moderation of divorce effects on children’s behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(1), p.39.

Votruba-Drzal, E. and Dearing, E. eds., 2017. The Wiley handbook of early childhood development programs, practices, and policies. John Wiley & Sons.

Weiss, H.B., 2017. Family support and education programs: Working through ecological theories of human development. In Evaluating family programs (pp. 3-36). Routledge.

Ziol‐Guest, K.M. and McKenna, C.C., 2014. Early childhood housing instability and school readiness. Child development, 85(1), pp.103-113.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Historical Foundations of Forensic Psychology in Ancient Greece, Rome.