Citation

O'Neal EE, Plumert JM. J. Inj. Violence Res. 2019; 11(2): e1093.

Affiliation

Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. Email: elizabeth-oneal@uiowa.edu.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences)

DOI

10.5249/jivr.v11i2.1093

PMID

31056535

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Children from low-income families experience a disproportionate number of unintentional injuries compared to their middle-income peers. Parents are well positioned to teach children about avoiding injury, yet little is known about parent-child safety conversations in low-income families. This study examined to what extent mother-child safety conversations differ between low- and middle-income families.

METHODS: Mothers and their 8- to 10-year-old children from low- and middle-income families discussed and rated the safety of photos showing another child engaged in potentially dangerous activities.

RESULTS: Dyads disagreed over safety ratings on a third of trials, and both middle- and low-income mothers were highly successful in resolving disagreements in their favor. Middle-income mothers justified their ratings by referring to almost twice as many dangerous features than outcomes, whereas low-income mothers generated roughly equal numbers of dangerous features and outcomes. Middle-income children did not differ in their references to dangerous features and outcomes, but low-income children focused heavily on dangerous outcomes relative to dangerous features.

CONCLUSIONS: Describing how middle- and low-income families discuss safety is a first step in understanding whether similarities and differences contribute to how middle- and low-income children evaluate and navigate potentially dangerous situations.

Language: en