CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 329Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesHealth disparities and outcomesFamily Dynamics and Relationships

Housing Crowding Effects on Children’s Wellbeing

Open access
Solari, Claudia D., Mare, Robert D.·2012·Social Science Research
DOI 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.09.012PMC PMC3805127
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The degree to which children grow up in crowded housing is a neglected but potentially important aspect of social inequality. Poor living conditions can serve as a mechanism of social stratification, affecting children's wellbeing and resulting in the intergenerational transmission of social inequality. This paper reports an investigation of housing crowding on children's academic achievement, behavior, and health in the US and Los Angeles, a city with atypically high levels of crowding. We use data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics' Child Development Supplement and the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey to explore the effect of living in a crowded home on an array of child wellbeing indicators. We find that several dimensions of children's wellbeing suffer when exposed to crowded living conditions, particularly in Los Angeles, even after controlling for socioeconomic status. The negative effects on children raised in crowded homes can persist throughout life, affecting their future socioeconomic status and adult wellbeing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.09.012

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Moving in with others, an indicator of significant housing hardship, is strongly associated with worse reading and applied problems scores even when all other material hardship types were controlled for.

    “Consistent with the prior literature on housing hardship [33,34], moving in with others, an indicator of significant housing hardship, is strongly associated with worse reading and applied problems scores even when all other material hardship types were controlled for.”

    From Poverty, Material Hardship, and Children’s Outcomes: A Nuanced Understanding of Material Hardship in Childhood (2022) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Regression Analysis reports lower reading and math scores associated with housing crowding, and the Dependent Variables section identifies Applied Problems as the math test. But the paper measures crowding rather than moving in with others, and its models control for demographics and socioeconomic status—not all other types of material hardship. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Caldwell BM Bradley RH 1984 Manual for the Home observation for the Measurement of the Environment Little Rock, AK University of Arkansas Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Solari, C. D., & Mare, R. D.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Solari, Claudia D.
Venue
Social Science Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-03
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
464-476
ISSN
0049-089X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.09.012
PMC
PMC3805127
OpenAlex
W2050471053
Cited by
329
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
11.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Social Science Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • Russell Sage Foundation
  • Sage Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (2r24hd050924-06)
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • California Center for Population Research, University of California, Los Angeles
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24 HD-050924, R24HD041022, T32HD007168)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
household crowding, crowded housing, child well-being, academic performance, child behavior, child health, social inequality, intergenerational transmission, socioeconomic status, living conditions, Los Angeles

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review