Childhood multiple risk factor exposure exceeds the adverse developmental impacts of singular exposures. Multiple risk factor exposure may also explain why sociodemographic variables (e.g., poverty) can have adverse consequences. Most research on multiple risk factor exposure has relied upon cumulative risk (CR) as the measure of multiple risk. CR is constructed by dichotomizing each risk factor exposure (0 = no risk; 1 = risk) and then summing the dichotomous scores. Despite its widespread use in developmental psychology and elsewhere, CR has several shortcomings: Risk is designated arbitrarily; data on risk intensity are lost; and the index is additive, precluding the possibility of statistical interactions between risk factors. On the other hand, theoretically more compelling multiple risk metrics prove untenable because of low statistical power, extreme higher order interaction terms, low robustness, and collinearity among risk factors. CR multiple risk metrics are parsimonious, are statistically sensitive even with small samples, and make no assumptions about the relative strengths of multiple risk factors or their collinearity. CR also fits well with underlying theoretical models (e.g., Bronfenbrenner's, 1979, bioecological model; McEwen's, 1998, allostasis model of chronic stress; and Ellis, Figueredo, Brumbach, & Schlomer's, 2009, developmental evolutionary theory) concerning why multiple risk factor exposure is more harmful than singular risk exposure. We review the child CR literature, comparing CR to alternative multiple risk measurement models. We also discuss strengths and weaknesses of developmental CR research, offering analytic and theoretical suggestions to strengthen this growing area of scholarship. Finally, we highlight intervention and policy implications of CR and child development research and theory.

The utility of different theoretical models of restorative experience was explored in a quasi-experimental field study and a true experiment. The former included wilderness backpacking and nonwilderness vacation conditions, as well as a control condition in which participants continued with their daily routines. The latter had urban environment, natural environment, and passive relaxation conditions. Multimethod assessments of restoration consisted of self-reports of affective states, cognitive performance, and, in the latter study, physiological measures. Convergent self-report and performance results obtained in both studies offer evidence of greater restorative effects arising from experiences in nature. Implications for theory, methodology, and design are discussed.

The one in five children growing up in poverty in America have elevated risk for socioemotional difficulties. One contributing factor to their elevated risk may be exposure to multiple physical and psychosocial stressors. This study demonstrated that 8- to 10-year-old, low-income, rural children (N = 287) confront a wider array of multiple physical (substandard housing, noise, crowding) and psychosocial (family turmoil, early childhood separation, community violence) stressors than do their middle-income counterparts. Prior research on self-reported distress among inner-city minority children is replicated and extended among low-income, rural White children with evidence of higher levels of self- and parent-reported psychological distress, greater difficulties in self-regulatory behavior (delayed gratification), and elevated psychophysiological stress (resting blood pressure, overnight neuroendocrine hormones). Preliminary mediational analyses with cross-sectional data suggest that cumulative stressor exposure may partially account for the well-documented, elevated risk of socioemotional difficulties accompanying poverty.

Characteristics of the physical environment that influence child development are discussed. Topics include behavioral toxicology, noise, crowding, housing and neighborhood quality, natural settings, schools, and day care settings. Socioemotional, cognitive, motivation, and psychophysiological outcomes in children and youths are reviewed. Necessary methodological and conceptual advances are introduced as well.

There are growing levels of chaos in the lives of American children, youth, and families. Increasingly, children grow up in households lacking in structure and routine, inundated by background stimulation from noise and crowding, and forced to contend with the frenetic pace of modern life. Although widespread, chaos does not occur randomly in the population. We document that low-income adolescents face higher levels of chaos than their more affluent counterparts and provide longitudinal evidence that some of the adverse effects of poverty on socioemotional adjustment are mediated by exposure to chaotic living conditions.