People’s personalities are quite stable, etched early in life in muscles and minds. But Rutgers University psychologist Daniel Hart and colleagues find that over time, the personalities of children in poor neighborhoods not only change more than do those of wealthier children, but also run a higher risk of taking a turn for the worse. The more rotten the barrel, their findings suggest, the more apples go bad.
“I don’t want to demonize these kids,” Hart says. “Most turn out to be very good, no matter their neighborhoods. But some kids will be hurt by these environments, in ways that jeopardize their later development.”
Using data from a long-running U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics study, Hart and his colleagues first assessed the personalities of 1,550 children at age 3 or 4. They next reassessed the same children’s personalities two years later, at age 5 or 6. Every two years for the remainder of the children’s elementary schooling, the researchers checked their academic performance (math and reading) and delinquent tendencies (e.g., fighting and shoplifting).
Hart and his colleagues then looked at how the economic status of children’s neighborhoods—as measured by the percentage of households living below the federal poverty line—shaped the unfolding of their personalities. Controlling for family-level factors such as household income, mother’s education, and father’s absence, the authors show that the poorer the neighborhood, the less resilient (e.g., even-tempered, obedient, prosocial) and more “undercontrolled” (e.g., aggressive, disobedient, antisocial) children became over time. They also demonstrate that, when the children are 11 or 12, resiliency is linked to greater reading and math skills and less delinquency, whereas undercontrol is linked to worse reading and math skills and more naughty behavior.
The stress of impoverished neighborhoods is what derails kids’ development, says Hart: “Most undesirable neighborhood characteristics—noise, crowding, poor housing, exposure to crime, violence—are correlated with poverty. This chronic stress just wears people down,” making it more likely that the children’s underlying problems will rise to the surface. “Some kids are more robust,” he adds, “but some kids are more vulnerable.”
For the robust and vulnerable alike, a little more social support from outside the neighborhood can go a long way. Poor neighborhoods tend to host a higher ratio of children to adults, which means that they have “fewer adults to provide the social web that can help communities to come together,” says Hart: “Hillary Clinton’s idea that ‘it takes a village’ is nice, but the reality is that some communities don’t have enough adults to make that village.”
Organizations such as Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, which import the knowledge, attention, and cultural capital of the suburbs, can keep poor kids from slipping into trouble. “Kids in the suburbs get all kinds of help from adults—summer leagues, homework tutoring, college advice,” notes Hart. “There are really good and remarkable kids in poor neighborhoods who could benefit from just a little bit of that kind of help. We should give them a chance.”
Read more stories by Alana Conner.