Incorporating Children's Lives into a Life Course Perspective on Stress and Mental Health

The University of Western Ontario, Children's Health Research Institute, Canada.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior (Impact Factor: 2.72). 12/2010; 51(4):361-75. DOI: 10.1177/0022146510386797
Source: PubMed


Emerging themes in demography, developmental medicine, and psychiatry suggest that a comprehensive understanding of mental health across the life course requires that we incorporate the lives of children into our research. If we can learn more about the ways in which the stress process unfolds for children, we will gain important insights into the factors that influence initial set points of trajectories of mental health over the life course. This will simultaneously extend the scope of the stress process paradigm and elaborate the life course perspective on mental health. Incorporating children's lives into the sociology of mental health will also extend the intellectual influence of the discipline on sociomedical and biomedical research on mental illness. I contend that sociology's greatest promise in understanding trajectories of mental health across the life course lies in a systematic analysis of the social and social-psychological conditions of children, the stressful experiences that arise out of these conditions, and the processes that mediate and moderate the stress process in childhood. In this regard, there are three major issues that sociologists could begin to address: (1) the identification of structural and institutional factors that pattern children's exposure to stress; (2) the construction of a stress universe for children; and (3) the identification of key elements of the life course perspective that may set or alter trajectories of mental health in childhood and adolescence.

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • Source
    • "That is, disadvantaged groups show poorer physical, emotional, and behavioral health, in part, because they encounter higher levels of stress or possess fewer social or personal resources to reduce or buffer stress than do their advantaged counterparts (Turner and Avison 2003; Turner, Wheaton, and Lloyd 1995; Van Gundy et al. 2011). Health inequalities emerge early in life (Avison 2010; Chen, Martin, and Matthews 2006; Ferraro and Wilkinson 2013; Horwitz et al. 2001), and accordingly, an appreciation of the " stress process " in youth is important. In particular, isolating the mechanisms that underlie youth resiliency in high-stress contexts can inform policies aimed at reducing health disparities across the life course (George 2013; Thoits 2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In adolescence, vital sources of support come from family relationships; however, research that considers the health-related impact of ties to both parents and siblings is sparse, and the utility of such ties among at-risk teens is not well understood. Here we use two waves of panel data from the population of 8th and 12th grade students in a geographically isolated, rural, northeastern U.S. county to assess whether socioeconomic status (SES) moderates the effects of parental and sibling attachments on three indicators of adolescent health: obesity, depression, and problem substance use. Our findings indicate that, net of stressful life events, prior health, and sociodemographic controls, increases in parental and sibling attachment correspond with reduced odds of obesity for low-SES adolescents, reduced odds of depression for high-SES adolescents, and reduced odds of problem substance use for low-SES adolescents. Results suggest also that sibling and maternal ties are more influential than paternal ties, at least with regard to the outcomes considered. Overall, the findings highlight the value of strong family ties for the physical, psychological, and behavioral health of socioeconomically strained rural teens, and reveal the explanatory potential of both sibling and parental ties for adolescent health.
    Rural Sociology 12/2014; 80(1). DOI:10.1111/ruso.12055 · 1.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Thus, they draw attention to the opportunities and constraints that influence people's decisions as well as to the consequences of the chronology of events and experiences that constitute people's life histories. They place particular emphasis on childhood and adolescence and argue that events and experiences in these periods often have long-term consequences that may only be realized in adulthood (Avison, 2010; Hertzman, Power, Matthews , & Manor, 2001). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Explanations of adult involvement in sex work typically adopt one of two approaches. One perspective highlights a variety of negative experiences in childhood and adolescence, including physical and sexual abuse, family instability, poverty, associations with "pimps" and other exploiters, homelessness, and drug use. An alternative account recognizes that some of these factors may be involved, but underscores the contribution of more immediate circumstances, such as current economic needs, human capital, and employment opportunities. Prior research offers a limited assessment of these contrasting claims: most studies have focused exclusively on people working in the sex industry and they have not assessed the independent effects of life course variables central to these two perspectives. We add to this literature with an analysis that drew on insights from life course and life-span development theories and considered the contributions of factors from childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Our comparative approach examined predictors of employment in sex work relative to two other low-income service or care work occupations: food and beverage serving and barbering and hairstyling. Using data from a study of almost 600 workers from two cities, one in Canada and the other in the United States, we found that both immediate circumstances and negative experiences from early life are related to current sex work involvement: childhood poverty, abuse, and family instability were independently associated with adult sex work, as were limited education and employment experience, adult drug use, and marital status.
    Archives of Sexual Behavior 03/2014; 43(7). DOI:10.1007/s10508-014-0281-7 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "It also seems clear that although both genetic and environmental factors play key roles in the causality of human disease, the interaction between genotype and environment ought to be a significant concern if we are to fully comprehend the link between socioeconomic status and health. Although genes can be expressed at specific times in development, Seabrook and Avison (2010) argue that a cross-sectional conceptualization and measurement of social context does not capture the dynamic properties of environment that determine the meaning of social experiences. Thus, a careful consideration of life course sociology may ensure that the dynamic nature of the environment in genotype-environment interaction is incorporated into explanations of social disparities in health. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Given the complexity surrounding various interactions among health determinants and the challenge of being able to adequately describe the dynamic processes through which health determinants have their effects, the purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual overview demonstrating the effects of socioeconomic status and cumulative disadvantage on producing health disparities across the life course. The idea underlying cumulative disadvantage is that socioeconomic-based health inequalities will increase across the life course, mostly because of differential exposure to risk factors and access to protective resources. The advantage of life course sociology is its consideration of early life experiences, and the social and historical context of their occurrences, as important contingencies in producing these systematic socioeconomic differences in health gradients.
    Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie 02/2012; 49(1):50-68. DOI:10.1111/j.1755-618X.2011.01280.x · 0.57 Impact Factor
Show more