[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure.
Stepwise Network Exposure Conditions
Stepwise Network Exposure Conditions

The solid line between mother and child represents a tie that is always present, as in this study because children were recruited through their mother; dashed lines represent ties that may or may not exist.

Table 1.  
Characteristics of 1082 Study Participants in CANDLE
Characteristics of 1082 Study Participants in CANDLE
Table 2.  
Stepwise Network Associations in Early Cognitive Development at 2 Years of Age
Stepwise Network Associations in Early Cognitive Development at 2 Years of Age
1.
Valente  TW.  Social Networks and Health: Models, Methods, and Applications. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2010. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301014.001.0001
2.
Christakis  NA, Fowler  JH.  The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years.  N Engl J Med. 2007;357(4):370-379. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa066082PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Bearman  PS, Moody  J, Stovel  K.  Chains of affection: the structure of adolescent romantic and sexual networks.  Am J Sociol. 2004;110(1):44-91. doi:10.1086/386272Google ScholarCrossref
4.
Berkman  LF, Glass  T, Brissette  I, Seeman  TE.  From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium.  Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(6):843-857. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00065-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Thoits  PA.  Multiple identities and psychological well-being: a reformulation and test of the social isolation hypothesis.  Am Sociol Rev. 1983;48(2):174-187. doi:10.2307/2095103PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Cochran  MM, Brassard  JA.  Child development and personal social networks.  Child Dev. 1979;50(3):601-616. doi:10.2307/1128926Google ScholarCrossref
7.
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University.  Young Children Develop in an Environment of Relationships. 2004. Working paper No. 1. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2004/04/Young-Children-Develop-in-an-Environment-of-Relationships.pdf. Accessed January 2018.
8.
Bronfenbrenner  U.  The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2009.
9.
Henderson  S.  The social network, support and neurosis: the function of attachment in adult life.  Br J Psychiatry. 1977;131(2):185-191. doi:10.1192/bjp.131.2.185PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Henderson  S, Byrne  DG, Duncan-Jones  P, Adcock  S, Scott  R, Steele  GP.  Social bonds in the epidemiology of neurosis: a preliminary communication.  Br J Psychiatry. 1978;132(5):463-466. doi:10.1192/bjp.132.5.463PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Kamarck  TW, Manuck  SB, Jennings  JR.  Social support reduces cardiovascular reactivity to psychological challenge: a laboratory model.  Psychosom Med. 1990;52(1):42-58. doi:10.1097/00006842-199001000-00004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Kawachi  I, Berkman  LF.  Social ties and mental health.  J Urban Health. 2001;78(3):458-467. doi:10.1093/jurban/78.3.458PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Shonkoff  JP, Phillips  DA, eds; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development.  From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2000.
14.
England  M, Sroufe  LA. Predicting peer competence and peer relationships in childhood from early parent-child relationships. In: Parke  RD, Ladd  GW, eds.  Family-Peer Relationships: Modes of Linkage. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1992:77-106.
15.
Hartup  WW.  Social relationships and their developmental significance.  Am Psychol. 1989;44(2):120-126. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.120Google ScholarCrossref
16.
Parke  RD, Buriel  R. Socialization in the family: ethnic and ecological perspectives: child and adolescent development. In: Damon W, Lerner RM, eds.  Child and Adolescent Development: An Advanced Course. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2008:95-138.
17.
Main  M, Weston  DR.  The quality of the toddler’s relationship to mother and to father: related to conflict behavior and the readiness to establish new relationships.  Child Dev. 1981;52(3):932-940. doi:10.2307/1129097Google ScholarCrossref
18.
Denham  SA, Blair  KA, DeMulder  E,  et al.  Preschool emotional competence: pathway to social competence?  Child Dev. 2003;74(1):238-256. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00533PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Denham  SA, Brown  C.  “Plays nice with others”: social–emotional learning and academic success.  Early Educ Dev. 2010;21(5):652-680. doi:10.1080/10409289.2010.497450Google ScholarCrossref
20.
Morris  AS, Silk  JS, Steinberg  L, Myers  SS, Robinson  LR.  The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation.  Soc Dev. 2007;16(2):361-388. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Vaillant  GE.  Adaptation to Life. Boston, MA: Little Brown; 1977.
22.
Berkman  LF, Glass  T. Social integration, social networks, social support, and health. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, eds.  Social Epidemiology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000:137-173.
23.
Braveman  P, Egerter  S, Williams  DR.  The social determinants of health: coming of age.  Annu Rev Public Health. 2011;32:381-398. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101218PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Bickart  KC, Wright  CI, Dautoff  RJ, Dickerson  BC, Barrett  LF.  Amygdala volume and social network size in humans.  Nat Neurosci. 2011;14(2):163-164. doi:10.1038/nn.2724PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Belsky  J.  Early human experience: a family perspective.  Dev Psychol. 1981;17(1):3-23. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.17.1.3Google ScholarCrossref
26.
Ainsworth  MS.  Infant-mother attachment.  Am Psychol. 1979;34(10):932-937. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.932PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Ainsworth  MDS.  Object relations, dependency, and attachment: a theoretical review of the infant-mother relationship.  Child Dev. 1969;40(4):969-1025. doi:10.2307/1127008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Fonagy  P. Patterns of attachment, interpersonal relationships and health. In: Blane D, Brunner E, Wilkinson R, eds.  Health and Social Organization: Towards a Health Policy for the Twenty-first Century. New York, NY: Routledge; 1996:125-151.
29.
Waters  E, Cummings  EM.  A secure base from which to explore close relationships.  Child Dev. 2000;71(1):164-172. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00130PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Bowlby  J.  A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2008.
31.
Harris  JR.  Where is the child’s environment? a group socialization theory of development.  Psychol Rev. 1995;102(3):458-489. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.458Google ScholarCrossref
32.
Tamis-LeMonda  CS, Shannon  JD, Cabrera  NJ, Lamb  ME.  Fathers and mothers at play with their 2- and 3-year-olds: contributions to language and cognitive development.  Child Dev. 2004;75(6):1806-1820. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00818.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Grossmann  K, Grossmann  KE, Fremmer-Bombik  E, Kindler  H, Scheuerer-Englisch  H, Zimmerman  P.  The uniqueness of the child-father attachment relationship: fathers’ sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study.  Soc Dev. 2002;11(3):301-337. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00202Google ScholarCrossref
34.
Pedersen  FA, Rubenstein  JL, Yarrow  LJ.  Infant development in father-absent families.  J Genet Psychol. 1979;135(1st Half):51-61. doi:10.1080/00221325.1979.10533416PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Lamb  ME.  The Role of the Father in Child Development. 4th Ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
36.
Walberg  HJ, Marjoribanks  K.  Family environment and cognitive development: twelve analytic models.  Rev Educ Res. 1976;46(4):527-551.Google Scholar
37.
Higgins  JV, Reed  EW, Reed  SC.  Intelligence and family size: a paradox resolved.  Eugen Q. 1962;9(2):84-90. doi:10.1080/19485565.1962.9987508PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Crockenberg  SB.  Infant irritability, mother responsiveness, and social support influences on the security of infant-mother attachment.  Child Dev. 1981;52(3):857-865. doi:10.2307/1129087PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Abernethy  V.  Social network and response to the maternal role.  Int J Sociol Fam. 1973;3:86-92.Google Scholar
40.
Kirschbaum  C, Klauer  T, Filipp  SH, Hellhammer  DH.  Sex-specific effects of social support on cortisol and subjective responses to acute psychological stress.  Psychosom Med. 1995;57(1):23-31. doi:10.1097/00006842-199501000-00004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Guajardo  NR, Snyder  G, Petersen  R.  Relationships among parenting practices, parental stress, child behaviour, and children’s social-cognitive development.  Infant Child Dev. 2009;18(1):37-60. doi:10.1002/icd.578Google ScholarCrossref
42.
Moss  E, Rousseau  D, Parent  S, St-Laurent  D, Saintonge  J.  Correlates of attachment at school age: maternal reported stress, mother-child interaction, and behavior problems.  Child Dev. 1998;69(5):1390-1405. doi:10.2307/1132273PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Weinraub  M, Wolf  BM.  Effects of stress and social supports on mother-child interactions in single- and two-parent families.  Child Dev. 1983;54(5):1297-1311. doi:10.2307/1129683PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
von Elm  E, Altman  DG, Egger  M, Pocock  SJ, Gøtzsche  PC, Vandenbroucke  JP; STROBE Initiative.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.  PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e296. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Sontag-Padilla  L, Burns  RM, Shih  RA,  et al.  The Urban Child Institute CANDLE Study. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation; 2015.
46.
Albers  CA, Grieve  AJ.  Test review: Bayley, N. (2006). Bayley scales of infant and toddler development—third edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.  J Psychoed Assess. 2007;25(2):180-190. doi:10.1177/0734282906297199Google ScholarCrossref
47.
Bayley  N.  Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development. 3rd ed. Technical Manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment; 2006.
48.
Rousseeuw  PJ, Leroy  AM.  Robust Regression and Outlier Detection. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
49.
Palmer  FB, Anand  KJ, Graff  JC,  et al.  Early adversity, socioemotional development, and stress in urban 1-year-old children.  J Pediatr. 2013;163(6):1733-1739.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.08.030PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Gergely  G, Watson  JS. Early socio-emotional development: contingency perception and the social-biofeedback model. In: Rochat  P, ed.  Early Social Cognition: Understanding Others in the First Months of Life. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1999:101-136.
51.
Duncan  GJ, Brooks-Gunn  J, eds.  Consequences of Growing Up Poor. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 1999.
52.
Eamon  MK.  The effects of poverty on childrens socioemotional development: an ecological systems analysis.  Soc Work. 2001;46(3):256-266. doi:10.1093/sw/46.3.256PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Duncan  GJ, Brooks-Gunn  J, Klebanov  PK.  Economic deprivation and early childhood development.  Child Dev. 1994;65(2 Spec No):296-318. doi:10.2307/1131385PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
McLoyd  VC.  Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development.  Am Psychol. 1998;53(2):185-204. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.185PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Caughy  MOB, O’Campo  PJ.  Neighborhood poverty, social capital, and the cognitive development of African American preschoolers.  Am J Community Psychol. 2006;37(1-2):141-154. doi:10.1007/s10464-005-9001-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Sampson  RJ, Morenoff  JD, Earls  F.  Beyond social capital: spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children.  Am Sociol Rev. 1999;64(5):633-660. doi:10.2307/2657367Google ScholarCrossref
57.
Sampson  RJ. How do communities undergird or undermine human development? relevant contexts and social mechanisms. In: Booth  A, Crouter  AC, eds.  Does It Take a Village?: Community Effects on Children, Adolescents, and Families. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2001:3-30.
58.
Biller  HB.  Fathers and Families: Paternal Factors in Child Development. Westpoint, CT: Auburn House; 1993.
59.
Blake  J.  Family Size and Achievement (Studies in Demography). Vol 3. Berkeley: University of California Press;1989.
60.
Cook  TD, Shagle  SC, Degirmencioglu  SM. Capturing social process for testing mediational models of neighborhood effects. In: Brooks-Gunn J, Duncan GJ, Aber JL, eds.  Neighborhood Poverty: Context and Consequences for Children. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Press; 1997:94-119.
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    Social capital
    Paul Nelson, M.D., M.S. | Family Health Care, P.C. retired
    I offer two definitions to define the applicable universe for this study.

    A caring relationship may be defined as:
    a variably asymmetric interaction between two persons that
    begins with a beneficent goal to enhance each other's autonomy and
    flourishes from a shared obligation to communicate "in harmony" with
    warmth, non-critical acceptance, honesty and empathy.

    Social capital may be defined as:
    a community's norms of trust, cooperation and reciprocity that
    its citizens more commonly apply to resolve the social dilemmas
    they encounter daily within their community's municipal life
    when caring relationships increasingly pervade
    the social networks of the
    community's citizens,
    especially the micro-neighborhood network of each citizen's family.

    Assuming that improved early childhood "reflective-cognition" development will eventually promote improved social mobility for the children whose family occupied the lowest socio-economic levels, then we could assume that all sorts of social determinants of health would also be ameliorated. As a BHAG, there are thousands of public and private institutions that could be nationally cajoled in their own way into helping each family sustain a micro-neighborhood network (could be asked for help with short notice). This network would be separate (occasionally some over-lap) from a family's extended family. The extended family helps to maintain a family's traditions (meal times, ethnic and spiritual rituals, celebrations, etc). Here's the universe: child neglect, virtual illiteracy, adolescent suicide, childhood obesity, substance abuse, mass shootings, maternal mortality (another story) and mid-life depression.

    This original investigation should be on the immediate reading list of every director of a community's Public Health Department, the Dean of every University's medical school and Nursing School, the Director of every Hospital's Emergency Department and the Director of every State's system of Penitentiaries.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Original Investigation
    Pediatrics
    January 11, 2019

    Association of Maternal Social Relationships With Cognitive Development in Early Childhood

    Author Affiliations
    • 1University of Tennessee Health Science Center–Oak Ridge National Laboratory Center for Biomedical Informatics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis
    • 2Child and Adolescent Division, Department of Psychiatry, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco
    • 3Division of Developmental Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco
    • 4Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis
    JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(1):e186963. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.6963
    Key Points

    Question  How are social relationships and structures, such as dyads, families, and neighborhoods, associated with early cognitive development in children?

    Findings  In this cohort study of 1082 mother-child pairs, the mother’s social networks were significantly positively associated with early childhood cognitive development. Being in a large family network was significantly associated with lower cognitive performance.

    Meaning  The findings suggest that maternal social relationships are associated with cognitive development in children and that social relationships beyond the mother-child-father triad are significantly associated with cognitive development.

    Abstract

    Importance  This study examines how different types of social network structures are associated with early cognitive development in children.

    Objectives  To assess how social relationships and structures are associated with early cognitive development and to elucidate whether variations in the mother’s social networks alter a child’s early cognitive development patterns.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This cohort study used data from 1082 mother-child pairs in the University of Tennessee Health Science Center–Conditions Affecting Neurocognitive Development and Learning and Early Childhood project to examine the association between networks of different levels of complexity (triad, family, and neighborhood) and child cognitive performance after adjustment for the mother’s IQ, birth weight, and age, and the father’s educational level. The final model was adjusted for the household poverty level. Data were collected from December 2006 through January 2014 and analyzed from October through November 2018.

    Exposures  The child-mother relationship, child-mother-father triad, family setting, child’s dwelling network, mother’s social support network, and neighborhood networks.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Measure of cognitive development of the child using Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) at 2 years of age.

    Results  Of 1082 participants, 544 (50.3%) were males and 703 (65.1%) were African American; the mean (SD) age was 2.08 (0.12) years. Large family size had a negative association with early cognitive development, with a mean 2.21-point decrease in BSID coefficient score (95% CI, 0.40 to 4.02; P = .01). Mother’s social support network size was positively associated early cognitive development, with a mean 0.40-point increase in BSID coefficient score (95% CI, 0.001 to 0.80; P = .05). Knowing many neighbors was not statistically significantly associated with early cognitive development, with a mean 1.39-point increase in BSID coefficient score (95% CI, −0.04 to 2.83; P = .06).

    Conclusions and Relevance  The findings suggest that maternal social relationships are associated with cognitive development in children and that social relationships beyond the mother-child-father triad are significantly associated with children’s cognitive development. This study investigates the environmental influences on child health outcomes and, specifically, how early cognitive development is associated with social networks for the primary caregiver.

    Introduction

    Social networks, broadly defined as interconnectedness with other people, can influence behavioral and health outcomes.1-3 The importance of social and relational environments for cognitive development and emotional well-being is well known.4-8 Networks of social support can attenuate psychologic stress and provide support to people experiencing neurotic symptoms.9-12 The progress that children make when forming healthy relationships during the period from birth to 5 years can have long-lasting benefits throughout their entire lives.13 In early childhood development, relationships between children and caregivers are crucial and play an important role in socialization.14-17 The social environment and relationships early in life are critical for children’s emotional, intellectual, and social development into adulthood and can considerably influence the child’s life-long adaptation strategy.6,13,18-21 Social networks channel benefits and risks associated with social health determinants, such as health-related knowledge, attitudes, and capacity to cope with adversities associated with social disadvantage.1,4,6,22-24

    The network microsystem has been regarded as a critical domain for child development.6,15 Children’s early experience of relationships can influence a wide range of developmental outcomes,7,15,25 and the child-mother relationship is important in shaping early childhood development.17,21,26,27 From the child’s perspective, these intimate bonds form the basis for solid attachments and provide prototypes for adulthood and the basis for social interaction.15,28-31 The child-mother relationship is not the only determinant but is nested within larger social contexts. The father plays a significant role in children’s development,17,25,32-35 as do the number of siblings and household size.36,37 Social support, along with other aspects of the social networks surrounding the child-mother bond, can influence the child-mother relationship.38,39 For mothers, social support is significantly associated with lower maternal stress, which is correlated with better child development.40-43

    Little is known about how different types of relationships, especially the multiple social networks of the mother, are associated with children’s cognitive development. Only a few studies8,43 have characterized a range of maternal social networks and examined their association with early childhood cognitive development. In this study, we examined the associations of multiple types of social relationships and structures, including the child-mother-father triad, family setting, and larger neighborhood network conditions, with early cognitive development. Within a large group of white and African American families in Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee, we examined how social relationships and networks were associated with children’s cognitive development.

    Methods
    Data Source

    This study followed Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.44 We used data from the University of Tennessee Health Science Center’s Conditions Affecting Neurocognitive Development and Learning in Early Childhood (CANDLE) project.45 Recruitment for CANDLE started from December 2006 through July 2011. A total of 1503 mothers with a low-risk pregnancy were recruited at 16 to 28 weeks’ gestation from 5 participating health care settings in Shelby County, Tennessee. For 1082 mothers, a measure of cognitive development of the child at age 2 was available, representing the final sample for analysis. In this subset, the race/ethnicity of participants reflected the sociodemographic characteristics of Shelby County. This study was approved by the University of Tennessee Health Science Center institutional review board and participant written informed consent was obtained. Data were collected from December 2006 through January 2014 and analyzed from October through November 2018.

    Variable Definitions

    Table 1 summarizes the key variables used in the analysis and their descriptive distribution. Because our outcome variable was cognitive development at 2 years of age, we used the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID), which is designed to measure the developmental functioning of young children and to identify potential developmental delays.46,47 The BSID46 is composed of 5 scales: cognitive (score range, 55-145), language (47-153), motor (46-154), socio-emotional (55-145), and adaptive behavior (40-160).

    Because of the availability of extensive information about child-mother relationships and their contexts in the CANDLE study, we systematically examined multiple layers of networks and their association with cognitive development in early childhood.

    The framework of the stepwise network structures is presented in the Figure. We studied 4 network conditions: father’s cohabitation (triad), large family network (family), mother’s social support network (caregiver’s social support network), and neighborhood. Family network size was estimated using data on household size, including all adults and other children living with the child involved in the CANDLE study. The mean (SD) of the household size variable was 4.37 (1.51) people, and we defined a family of 6 or more as a large family network. The primary caregiver’s social network was defined by the mother’s self-reported social support network. The mothers participating in CANDLE reported 3 to 4 people they could rely on for help, with a mean (SD) of 3.49 (1.82) people. We also included an indicator variable that asked mothers if they knew many people in their neighborhood.

    Statistical Analysis

    We used multivariate robust regression models to study the associations of multiple social networks and cognitive development of 2-year-old children. To minimize the influence of outliers, we used robust regression methods.48 This approach allowed us to investigate how multiple layers of social network conditions are associated with cognitive development in early childhood. A 2-sided P ≤ .05 was set a priori to represent a statistically significant difference. We used Stata, version 14 (StataCorp) for statistical analysis.

    We adjusted for several maternal and socioeconomic characteristics in a stepwise fashion. The first step included network variables.32 We included the following factors as independent variables in the model because of potential confounding: mother’s IQ, child’s birth weight, mother’s age, and father’s educational level. We originally tested other possible confounders, such as child sex, gestational age at birth, breastfeeding, birth weight, maternal smoking, and mother’s educational level. However, they were not included in the model because they did not substantively influence the coefficient of the main variables. The second model was adjusted for the same variables as the main model, but family poverty level was added.49-57

    Results

    Of 1082 participants, 544 (50.3%) were males and 703 (65.1%) were African American; the mean (SD) age was 2.08 (0.12) years. The BSID score at 2 years of age ranged from 55 to 145 (mean [SD], 97.74 [12.87]). After adjustment for household poverty (Table 2), some social network characteristics were significantly associated with cognitive development. Mother’s social network was significantly associated with increased mean BSID coefficient scores (difference, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.001 to 0.80; P = .05), whereas living in a large family was associated with a 2.21-point decreased mean BSID coefficient score (95% CI, −4.02 to −0.40; P = .01). Father’s cohabitation (0.07; 95% CI, −1.58 to 1.73) and knowing many neighbors (1.39; 95% CI, −0.04 to 2.83; P = .06) were not significantly associated with an increased mean BSID coefficient score after controlling for poverty level.

    Discussion

    The importance of the mother-child bond for child development has long been recognized.17,21,26,27 However, to our knowledge, the multiple layers of a mother’s social relationships beyond mother and child have not been simultaneously examined. Social relationships do not exist in isolation, and mother-child relationships are intertwined with other relationships, such as spouses, family or dwelling settings, and friendships. Our empirical analysis simultaneously investigated the association of multiple layers of the mothers’ social networks with children’s early cognitive development. Most social contacts and contexts of young children were determined by their primary caregiver’s social networks, who were often mothers in the CANDLE cohort.

    In this study, we showed that a primary caregiver’s network conditions were significantly associated with early cognitive development in children. Network variables were significantly associated with early cognitive development after controlling for a number of biological and social confounders. Specifically, the mother’s social network seemed to have a beneficial association with the cognitive development of children, whereas family size had a negative association. Although father’s cohabitation has been suggested to be an important factor for early childhood cognitive development,17,34,58 after controlling for other social network conditions of the mother and other possible confounders, we did not find evidence for this result in our study. This might be because of the local context—Memphis is an economically disadvantaged area of the United States, which might mitigate an otherwise positive association of father’s cohabitation.

    Many of our findings are consistent with previous studies36,37,59 of early cognitive development and add important evidence that social networks across several levels may be significantly associated with cognitive development in early childhood. Being raised in a large family (≥6 people) was significantly associated with lower cognitive performance, a finding that is also in line with previous studies of large families.36,37 However, past studies have also shown that family size can have advantages (ie, positive socialization) and disadvantages (ie, resource competition or limitation).59 Our findings about the negative association of family size may have been attributable to the limited attention and resources that a child received from the primary caregiver when faced with competing demands. Further investigation is needed to identify the mechanisms of this disadvantage.

    We also reported results that large maternal social networks were positively associated with the cognitive development of children. Children of mothers who knew many people in the neighborhood had better cognitive development. It is possible that mothers who socialized locally provided children with more opportunities for playdates with other children or stimulation through more social activities. In addition, the primary caregiver’s social networks within the neighborhood may have buffered the association between reduced economic resources and child outcomes.60 Our results captured the importance of a community-based social life.

    Limitations

    Our study has a number of limitations. We did not have information on relationship quality. Our measure of neighborhood embeddedness was based on subjective perception self-report. In addition, we only looked at relational embeddedness, not the physical or built neighborhood environment. Further research is needed to examine the nature of the association between neighborhood embeddedness, both physical and relational, and cognitive development in early childhood.

    Conclusions

    The findings suggest that social relationships beyond the mother-child-father triad are significantly associated with children’s cognitive development and that maternal social relationships may be associated with the cognitive development of children.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: November 25, 2018.

    Published: January 11, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.6963

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Shin EK et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Arash Shaban-Nejad, PhD, MPH, University of Tennessee Health Science Center–Oak Ridge National Laboratory Center for Biomedical Informatics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 50 N Dunlap, R492, Memphis, TN 38103 (ashabann@uthsc.edu).

    Author Contributions: Dr Shin had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: All authors

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Shin, Tylavsky.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

    Statistical analysis: Shin, Davis.

    Obtained funding: LeWinn, Bush, Tylavsky, Davis, Shaban-Nejad.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: LeWinn, Bush, Tylavsky, Davis, Shaban-Nejad.

    Supervision: Davis, Shaban-Nejad.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Tylavsky reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: The Urban Child Institute funded the Conditions Affecting Neurocognitive Development and Learning and Early Childhood (CANDLE) project.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The Urban Child Institute funded the data collection for the CANDLE project but had no role in the design and conduct of the study; management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    References
    1.
    Valente  TW.  Social Networks and Health: Models, Methods, and Applications. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2010. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301014.001.0001
    2.
    Christakis  NA, Fowler  JH.  The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years.  N Engl J Med. 2007;357(4):370-379. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa066082PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Bearman  PS, Moody  J, Stovel  K.  Chains of affection: the structure of adolescent romantic and sexual networks.  Am J Sociol. 2004;110(1):44-91. doi:10.1086/386272Google ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Berkman  LF, Glass  T, Brissette  I, Seeman  TE.  From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium.  Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(6):843-857. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00065-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Thoits  PA.  Multiple identities and psychological well-being: a reformulation and test of the social isolation hypothesis.  Am Sociol Rev. 1983;48(2):174-187. doi:10.2307/2095103PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Cochran  MM, Brassard  JA.  Child development and personal social networks.  Child Dev. 1979;50(3):601-616. doi:10.2307/1128926Google ScholarCrossref
    7.
    National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University.  Young Children Develop in an Environment of Relationships. 2004. Working paper No. 1. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2004/04/Young-Children-Develop-in-an-Environment-of-Relationships.pdf. Accessed January 2018.
    8.
    Bronfenbrenner  U.  The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2009.
    9.
    Henderson  S.  The social network, support and neurosis: the function of attachment in adult life.  Br J Psychiatry. 1977;131(2):185-191. doi:10.1192/bjp.131.2.185PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Henderson  S, Byrne  DG, Duncan-Jones  P, Adcock  S, Scott  R, Steele  GP.  Social bonds in the epidemiology of neurosis: a preliminary communication.  Br J Psychiatry. 1978;132(5):463-466. doi:10.1192/bjp.132.5.463PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Kamarck  TW, Manuck  SB, Jennings  JR.  Social support reduces cardiovascular reactivity to psychological challenge: a laboratory model.  Psychosom Med. 1990;52(1):42-58. doi:10.1097/00006842-199001000-00004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Kawachi  I, Berkman  LF.  Social ties and mental health.  J Urban Health. 2001;78(3):458-467. doi:10.1093/jurban/78.3.458PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Shonkoff  JP, Phillips  DA, eds; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development.  From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2000.
    14.
    England  M, Sroufe  LA. Predicting peer competence and peer relationships in childhood from early parent-child relationships. In: Parke  RD, Ladd  GW, eds.  Family-Peer Relationships: Modes of Linkage. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1992:77-106.
    15.
    Hartup  WW.  Social relationships and their developmental significance.  Am Psychol. 1989;44(2):120-126. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.120Google ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Parke  RD, Buriel  R. Socialization in the family: ethnic and ecological perspectives: child and adolescent development. In: Damon W, Lerner RM, eds.  Child and Adolescent Development: An Advanced Course. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2008:95-138.
    17.
    Main  M, Weston  DR.  The quality of the toddler’s relationship to mother and to father: related to conflict behavior and the readiness to establish new relationships.  Child Dev. 1981;52(3):932-940. doi:10.2307/1129097Google ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Denham  SA, Blair  KA, DeMulder  E,  et al.  Preschool emotional competence: pathway to social competence?  Child Dev. 2003;74(1):238-256. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00533PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Denham  SA, Brown  C.  “Plays nice with others”: social–emotional learning and academic success.  Early Educ Dev. 2010;21(5):652-680. doi:10.1080/10409289.2010.497450Google ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Morris  AS, Silk  JS, Steinberg  L, Myers  SS, Robinson  LR.  The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation.  Soc Dev. 2007;16(2):361-388. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Vaillant  GE.  Adaptation to Life. Boston, MA: Little Brown; 1977.
    22.
    Berkman  LF, Glass  T. Social integration, social networks, social support, and health. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, eds.  Social Epidemiology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000:137-173.
    23.
    Braveman  P, Egerter  S, Williams  DR.  The social determinants of health: coming of age.  Annu Rev Public Health. 2011;32:381-398. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101218PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Bickart  KC, Wright  CI, Dautoff  RJ, Dickerson  BC, Barrett  LF.  Amygdala volume and social network size in humans.  Nat Neurosci. 2011;14(2):163-164. doi:10.1038/nn.2724PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Belsky  J.  Early human experience: a family perspective.  Dev Psychol. 1981;17(1):3-23. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.17.1.3Google ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Ainsworth  MS.  Infant-mother attachment.  Am Psychol. 1979;34(10):932-937. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.932PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Ainsworth  MDS.  Object relations, dependency, and attachment: a theoretical review of the infant-mother relationship.  Child Dev. 1969;40(4):969-1025. doi:10.2307/1127008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Fonagy  P. Patterns of attachment, interpersonal relationships and health. In: Blane D, Brunner E, Wilkinson R, eds.  Health and Social Organization: Towards a Health Policy for the Twenty-first Century. New York, NY: Routledge; 1996:125-151.
    29.
    Waters  E, Cummings  EM.  A secure base from which to explore close relationships.  Child Dev. 2000;71(1):164-172. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00130PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Bowlby  J.  A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2008.
    31.
    Harris  JR.  Where is the child’s environment? a group socialization theory of development.  Psychol Rev. 1995;102(3):458-489. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.458Google ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Tamis-LeMonda  CS, Shannon  JD, Cabrera  NJ, Lamb  ME.  Fathers and mothers at play with their 2- and 3-year-olds: contributions to language and cognitive development.  Child Dev. 2004;75(6):1806-1820. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00818.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Grossmann  K, Grossmann  KE, Fremmer-Bombik  E, Kindler  H, Scheuerer-Englisch  H, Zimmerman  P.  The uniqueness of the child-father attachment relationship: fathers’ sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study.  Soc Dev. 2002;11(3):301-337. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00202Google ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Pedersen  FA, Rubenstein  JL, Yarrow  LJ.  Infant development in father-absent families.  J Genet Psychol. 1979;135(1st Half):51-61. doi:10.1080/00221325.1979.10533416PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Lamb  ME.  The Role of the Father in Child Development. 4th Ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
    36.
    Walberg  HJ, Marjoribanks  K.  Family environment and cognitive development: twelve analytic models.  Rev Educ Res. 1976;46(4):527-551.Google Scholar
    37.
    Higgins  JV, Reed  EW, Reed  SC.  Intelligence and family size: a paradox resolved.  Eugen Q. 1962;9(2):84-90. doi:10.1080/19485565.1962.9987508PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Crockenberg  SB.  Infant irritability, mother responsiveness, and social support influences on the security of infant-mother attachment.  Child Dev. 1981;52(3):857-865. doi:10.2307/1129087PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Abernethy  V.  Social network and response to the maternal role.  Int J Sociol Fam. 1973;3:86-92.Google Scholar
    40.
    Kirschbaum  C, Klauer  T, Filipp  SH, Hellhammer  DH.  Sex-specific effects of social support on cortisol and subjective responses to acute psychological stress.  Psychosom Med. 1995;57(1):23-31. doi:10.1097/00006842-199501000-00004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Guajardo  NR, Snyder  G, Petersen  R.  Relationships among parenting practices, parental stress, child behaviour, and children’s social-cognitive development.  Infant Child Dev. 2009;18(1):37-60. doi:10.1002/icd.578Google ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Moss  E, Rousseau  D, Parent  S, St-Laurent  D, Saintonge  J.  Correlates of attachment at school age: maternal reported stress, mother-child interaction, and behavior problems.  Child Dev. 1998;69(5):1390-1405. doi:10.2307/1132273PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Weinraub  M, Wolf  BM.  Effects of stress and social supports on mother-child interactions in single- and two-parent families.  Child Dev. 1983;54(5):1297-1311. doi:10.2307/1129683PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    von Elm  E, Altman  DG, Egger  M, Pocock  SJ, Gøtzsche  PC, Vandenbroucke  JP; STROBE Initiative.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.  PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e296. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    45.
    Sontag-Padilla  L, Burns  RM, Shih  RA,  et al.  The Urban Child Institute CANDLE Study. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation; 2015.
    46.
    Albers  CA, Grieve  AJ.  Test review: Bayley, N. (2006). Bayley scales of infant and toddler development—third edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.  J Psychoed Assess. 2007;25(2):180-190. doi:10.1177/0734282906297199Google ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Bayley  N.  Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development. 3rd ed. Technical Manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment; 2006.
    48.
    Rousseeuw  PJ, Leroy  AM.  Robust Regression and Outlier Detection. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
    49.
    Palmer  FB, Anand  KJ, Graff  JC,  et al.  Early adversity, socioemotional development, and stress in urban 1-year-old children.  J Pediatr. 2013;163(6):1733-1739.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.08.030PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    50.
    Gergely  G, Watson  JS. Early socio-emotional development: contingency perception and the social-biofeedback model. In: Rochat  P, ed.  Early Social Cognition: Understanding Others in the First Months of Life. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1999:101-136.
    51.
    Duncan  GJ, Brooks-Gunn  J, eds.  Consequences of Growing Up Poor. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 1999.
    52.
    Eamon  MK.  The effects of poverty on childrens socioemotional development: an ecological systems analysis.  Soc Work. 2001;46(3):256-266. doi:10.1093/sw/46.3.256PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    53.
    Duncan  GJ, Brooks-Gunn  J, Klebanov  PK.  Economic deprivation and early childhood development.  Child Dev. 1994;65(2 Spec No):296-318. doi:10.2307/1131385PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    54.
    McLoyd  VC.  Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development.  Am Psychol. 1998;53(2):185-204. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.185PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    55.
    Caughy  MOB, O’Campo  PJ.  Neighborhood poverty, social capital, and the cognitive development of African American preschoolers.  Am J Community Psychol. 2006;37(1-2):141-154. doi:10.1007/s10464-005-9001-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    56.
    Sampson  RJ, Morenoff  JD, Earls  F.  Beyond social capital: spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children.  Am Sociol Rev. 1999;64(5):633-660. doi:10.2307/2657367Google ScholarCrossref
    57.
    Sampson  RJ. How do communities undergird or undermine human development? relevant contexts and social mechanisms. In: Booth  A, Crouter  AC, eds.  Does It Take a Village?: Community Effects on Children, Adolescents, and Families. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2001:3-30.
    58.
    Biller  HB.  Fathers and Families: Paternal Factors in Child Development. Westpoint, CT: Auburn House; 1993.
    59.
    Blake  J.  Family Size and Achievement (Studies in Demography). Vol 3. Berkeley: University of California Press;1989.
    60.
    Cook  TD, Shagle  SC, Degirmencioglu  SM. Capturing social process for testing mediational models of neighborhood effects. In: Brooks-Gunn J, Duncan GJ, Aber JL, eds.  Neighborhood Poverty: Context and Consequences for Children. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Press; 1997:94-119.
    ×