Social Disadvantage, Severe Child Abuse, and Biological Profiles in Adulthood

Abstract

Guided by the stress process model and the life course perspective, we hypothesize: (a) that childhood abuse is concentrated, in terms of type and intensity, among socially disadvantaged individuals, and (b) that experiencing serious abuse contributes to poor biological profiles in multiple body systems in adulthood. Data come from the Biomarker Subsample of Midlife in the US. We used latent class analysis to identify distinct profiles of childhood abuse, each reflecting a combination of type and severity. Results indicate that disadvantaged groups, women and those from disadvantaged families, are at greater risk of experiencing more severe and multiple types of abuse. Those with more severe and multifaceted childhood abuse show greater physiological dysregulation. Childhood abuse experiences partially accounted for the social status differences in physiological profiles. Our findings underscore that differential exposure to serious childhood stressors play a significant role in gender and class inequalities in adult health.

Lifetime trauma, perceived control, and all-cause mortality: Results from the Midlife in the United States Study.

“…The measure of lifetime trauma utilized in this study also has various limitations, including its retrospective nature and the assessment of childhood abuse and other traumatic experiences occurring many years apart. However, evidence supports the validity and cross-time stability of retrospective reports of childhood abuse (Hardt & Rutter, 2004; Yancura & Aldwin, 2009), including in the MIDUS survey (Lee et al, 2017). As noted, the measure of cumulative trauma exposure is similar to measures in several health-related investigations (Krause et al, 2004; Puterman et al, 2016; Turner & Lloyd, 1995) but reflects a broader conceptualization and less precision than in others that have utilized structured clinical interviews (Hendrickson et al, 2013).…”

“…Sociodemographic covariates included gender and race (White vs. minority race/ethnicity). We controlled for parental education (highest level achieved by either parent, measured on a 12-point scale from “no school/some grade school” to “advanced graduate/professional degree”) given that lower family SES is associated with greater odds of various ACEs (Lee, Coe, & Ryff, 2017). Similarly, we adjusted for adult SES as a potential confounder.…”

The Effects of Gender and Family Wealth on Sexual Abuse of Adolescents

“…Few studies have focused on family affluence and sexual abuse in adolescence. Some have found a higher risk of sexual abuse reported by the least affluent adolescents [10,11], whereas one study reported no significant difference in childhood sexual abuse rates between non-poor and poor families [15]. The difference in these findings could stem from differences in the research methodology, as Oshima et al’s data [15] come from childhood sexual abuse reports to the child protective services.…”

“…In addition, studies amongst older adolescents also state higher prevalence because of higher rates of dating violence and peer assault [5,6]. All the studies mentioned above report girls experiencing sexual abuse at higher rates than boys, with girls experiencing three to five times the rate of sexual abuse, compared to boys [10,11,12].…”

“…Sedlak et al [11] report that children from families with low SES were twice as likely to experience sexual abuse and three times as likely to be endangered than children from families with higher SES. In their recent study, Lee et al [10] report a higher risk of severe and multiple types of abuse including sexual abuse for children experiencing poverty during childhood. This also affects overall health in adult years, especially for women.…”