The Role of Social Cohesion in Preventing Child Abuse Among Rural Chinese Left-Behind Children *

Abstract

Child abuse is a significant public health issue that can affect children’s physical and mental health. However, few studies have examined rural Chinese left-behind children. The role of social cohesion of rural Chinese communities in the prevention of child abuse remains understudied. The present study aims to investigate certain factors that could reduce child abuse problems, placing a special focus on the protective role of social cohesion, especially for left-behind rural children. Data were collected from a sample of 1,049 school-aged rural children from the largest middle school in China’s Henan Province. It was found that social cohesion directly affected physical abuse and emotional abuse; furthermore, social cohesion was more significantly associated with emotional abuse, whereas sexual abuse was a more significant issue for left-behind children than for those living with their parents. However, the moderating effect of the left-behind status on the association between social cohesion and physical abuse was not significant. Our findings suggest that social cohesion is an important factor for preventing emotional and sexual abuse. Thus, it is necessary to enhance social cohesion in rural Chinese communities with left-behind children to reduce their risk of experiencing child abuse.

Keywords

left-behind children rural China social cohesion child abuse protective factor

Introduction

Child abuse is a serious public health concern in both the West and the East. The global prevalence of child abuse was estimated to be 22.6% of physical abuse, 36.3% of emotional abuse and 12.7% of sexual abuse, respectively (Stoltenborgh et al., 2015). Similarly, a meta-analysis of 68 Chinese studies showed that 26.6% of children had suffered physical abuse, 19.6% experienced emotional abuse, 8.7% suffered sexual abuse, and 26.0% had been neglected (Fang et al., 2015). Exposure to abuse during childhood is harmful to children’s health and well-being (Hong et al., 2014; Reed et al., 2015). However, child abuse only began to be recognized as a social problem in China in the early 1990s (Qiao & Chan, 2005). Furthermore, a study conducted across four Chinese provinces indicated that 25.7% of middle school students had reported being abused at least once in the prior month (Chen et al., 2009). In recent times, child abuse in rural areas has attracted nationwide attention in China. In particular, left-behind children in rural areas tend to be more vulnerable to psychological maltreatment compared to their counterparts (Cheng et al., 2010; Han et al., 2015).

The advancement of urbanization and industrialization led to the flow of large numbers of rural workers into Chinese cities, which, in turn, resulted in the emergence of the population group known as the “left-behind” children. According to the national information management system of the ministry of civil affairs for left-behind children in rural areas, there were 6.97 million left-behind children in rural areas nationwide in 2018 (Ministry of Civil Affairs of People’s Republic of China, 2018). Henan has 699,000 rural left-behind children and accounts for 10.1% of the nationwide total; it is thus the top province that houses left-behind children (Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs, 2018). Moreover, large rural populations often flow into the city, which, destroys the connection and social communication shared among villagers, thus further weakening the social cohesion within village communities (Dong & Zhang, 2018). Neighborhood social cohesion is an important factor that influences child protection. Several studies have confirmed the impact of community social cohesion on child abuse (Cao & Maguire-Jack, 2016; Freisthler & Maguire-Jack, 2015; Maguire-Jack & Showalter, 2016), but few studies have focused on its impact on child abuse in the context of rural China and especially on the left-behind children.

Social Cohesion and Child Abuse

Neighborhood social cohesion, which is defined as the mutual trust shared between neighbors (Sampson et al., 1997), is related to local residents’ willingness to provide essential support to their neighbors (Cramm et al., 2013; Kawachi & Berkman, 2000). It is also fertile ground for exercising informal forms of social control that could help to curb violent behaviors within the community (Sampson et al., 1997).

Accumulating studies have identified the association between neighborhood social cohesion and child abuse. Maguire-Jack (2014) found that neighborhoods with high levels of social cohesion had the ability to prevent negative parenting practices. Conversely, communities with fewer interactions between familial networks, acquaintances, and neighborhood residents had higher levels of child abuse (Vinson et al., 1996). Guterman et al. (2009) also found that poorer perceptions of social cohesion were associated with higher levels of abuse. Furthermore, some studies have found that neighborhood social cohesion was associated with lower psychological aggression of parents to their children (Cao & Maguire-Jack, 2016). Collective efficacy (including social cohesion) was also found to be related to a lower frequency of physical abuse (Freisthler & Maguire-Jack, 2015) and lower incidence of sexual abuse (Molnar et al., 2016).

Why does social cohesion affect child abuse? One plausible explanation for this effect was that relations between parents within a neighborhood could provide a supportive environment that is conducive to healthy and positive parenting (Maguire-Jack & Showalter, 2016). Moreover, in communities with high levels of social cohesion and neighborhoods with high social control, parents may avoid engaging in abuse due to fear of retaliation from neighbors. Because of a collective agreement about appropriate abuse of children and parents scarcely dare act outside of those norms. Parents living in places with high social cohesion have a large number of supportive individuals on whom they can rely to meet their needs as well as their children’s need (Maguire-Jack & Showalter, 2016).

Rural China’s Left-Behind Children

With rapid economic development and modernization over the past four decades, the gap between people with urban and rural household registrations has been widening, and thus a large number of rural labor forces migrate to big cities for jobs. Migrant parents who travel to urban areas usually decide to keep their children in their rural hometowns; this situation can create a potentially vulnerable group of left-behind children in rural areas. The term “left-behind children” is usually used to refer to children who remain in rural Chinese villages while one or both of their parents migrate to urban areas for work purposes, although some literatures also define left-behind children as children who stay in cities due to their parents’ migrations between different urban areas (e.g., from smaller cities to major urban centers) (Duan et al., 2014). Left-behind children are usually cared for by a single parent, grandparents, or other relatives; most of these children may only live with their parents once a year during the Spring Festival. At other times, left-behind children only maintain contact with their parents through mobile phones or telephones (Cheng & Sun, 2015).

Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People’s Republic of China (2018) showed that the number of left-behind children with one or both parents absent reached 9.02 million in 2016, with rural China accounting for 6.97 million left-behind children. A recent meta-analysis has shown that the rates and severity of child neglect among left-behind children was significantly higher than those living with their parents in China (Wen et al., 2020). When rural-to-urban migrant parents leave their children at hometown for employment, which can provide better material conditions for children and families, majority of the left-behind children virtually live in a situation lacking parental involvement and protection, and they are more likely to suffer caregiver abuse (Zhao et al., 2015).

The Impact of Social Cohesion on Left-Behind Children’s Experience of Abuse

Previous studies on the abuse suffered by left-behind children have generally focused on child abuse inflicted by parents or caregivers (Chen & Chan, 2016). Studies suggest that left-behind children are adversely impacted by the migration of their parents and are at a greater risk of suffering accidental injuries (Shen et al., 2013), psychological abuse, and neglect (Cheng et al., 2010; Li et al., 2015) compared to their counterparts who live with their parents.

Parental migration changes family structures and childcare arrangements, and these conditions may affect left-behind children. Chan (2014) suggested that, in China, children living with a single parent were more vulnerable to experiencing abuse and suffering lifelong exposure to polyvictimization because they tended to endure great economic burdens and mental stresses with regard to childcare. Furthermore, Stith et al. (2009) found that the leading effective elements for creating the conditions for child abuse were parental factors that were independent of the children; these included parental anxiety and low family cohesion. Thus, single parenthood and poor parent–child relationships have been found to be risk factors for child abuse. Multigenerational co-residence is quite common in the rural areas of China, and many grandparents are the primary caregivers for their grandchildren (Zeng & Xie, 2014). Therefore, when parents are absent, grandparents usually serve as the main caregivers. However, no research has determined whether grandparents could serve as a risk factor for child abuse in rural China (Chen & Chan, 2016).

Social cohesion may give children added resilience against the harmful effects of parental abuse (Werner, 1993). Left-behind children tend to spend a great proportion of their lives in their hometowns, and they do not tend to rely on their parents or expect them to act as safe havens during times of need (Cheng & Sun, 2015). Under these conditions, social cohesion may act as a protective factor against child abuse by providing assistance to left-behind children who are in need of help. Furthermore, some research has reported that left-behind children had a higher prevalence of depression or anxiety than other children (Wang et al., 2011). Numerous studies have emphasized the important role of social cohesion in enhancing children’s resilience and mental health by reducing their anxiety and depression (Ikiz & Cakar, 2010). Therefore, social cohesion within the rural community is particularly important for left-behind children in comparison to their counterparts who live with their parents. Increasing overall social cohesion within the community will not only help left-behind children feel safer and help to lower the anxiety they experience in their daily lives but also enhance caregivers’ control over their own behaviors, all of which could influence left-behind children’s health and safety (Browning & Cagney, 2002).

The Present Study

The adverse consequences of child abuse on adult health and mental health problems in the long term have been well established in previous studies (Edwards et al., 2003; Norman et al., 2012), and it is important to go further to explore how to prevent child abuse. Over the past two decades, substantial evidence has revealed that social cohesion is identified as a protective factor for preventing child abuse (Freisthler & Maguire-Jack, 2015; Guterman et al., 2009; Sampson et al., 1997). Recent research has begun to emerge on child abuse among left-behind children (Otake et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2019). Against the backdrop of rural-to-urban mass migration and social cohesion concern in contemporary rural Chinese communities, the association between social cohesion and child abuse deserved more academic attention. This study aims to explore the role of children’s left-behind status on the association between social cohesion and child abuse. This study hypothesizes that children in rural communities that have high levels of social cohesion are more likely to report a lower level of abuse and that children’s left-behind status could moderate the impact of social cohesion on child abuse.

Methods

Participants and Procedures

The data used in this study were based on a cross-sectional survey on mental health that was administered to school-aged children in rural China in October 2019. The survey participants attended the largest middle school with over 4,000 students located in Xincai County, Henan Province, Central China, and they came from different villages near Xincai County. Nineteen from 66 classes were randomly selected from Grades 7 to 9 to serve as survey participants, and there were 50 to 70 students in each class. We first conducted a pilot survey with 24 adolescents from three grades to identify problems with questionnaire design and test fieldwork logistics. The survey questionnaire was administered in a classroom setting, and participants took about 30 minutes to complete it anonymously. Students could quit the survey at any time if they felt uncomfortable about the questions. Before our survey, we have asked each headmaster to get oral consent from the student’s parent or guardian. Informed consent from each student was obtained before participating in this study. This research was approved by the research ethics committee of a well-known university in China.

A total of 1,124 school-aged children completed the questionnaires. After deleting missing data on all items of each measure and same responses to all questions completed within 5 minutes, the final sample for our analysis consisted of 1,049 cases.

Measures

Left-Behind Children

One item was used to classify the respondents’ current left-behind status: “Are currently being left in a rural hometown to study, whereas your parents move to cities for work over six consecutive months?” The respondents could answer yes or no to this question.

Social Cohesion

This study assessed social cohesion based on five items from the neighborhood cohesion scale, which was developed to measure trust and reciprocity between neighbors (Sampson et al., 1997). The respondents were asked how strongly they agreed with statements such as the following: “People around here are willing to help their neighbors” and “People in this neighborhood can be trusted.” The responses ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (always), with higher scores indicating a higher level of social cohesion in the participants’ communities. These items have been used in diverse cultural contexts and have demonstrated high validity in several previous studies (Sampson, 2012). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for social cohesion in our sample was 0.83.

Childhood Abuse

Child abuse was measured using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form (CTQ-SF), which was developed by Bernstein et al. (2003). This scale included three dimensions that were associated with child abuse: physical abuse (e.g., “People in my family hit me so hard that it left me with bruises or marks”), emotional abuse (e.g., “I thought that my parents wished I had never been born”), and sexual abuse (e.g., “Someone tried to touch me in a sexual way, or tried to make me touch them”). The responses ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always), with higher scores indicating that the participants were experiencing a higher level of abuse. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the total score of the Chinese CTQ-SF was 0.70 in our sample, and the internal consistency coefficients for three subscales were 0.63, 0.64, and 0.74, respectively, which is acceptable despite being lower than previous studies (Li et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2018). Tietjen et al. (2010) proposed that the cutoff scores of CTQ-SF scores for identifying participants with a history of child maltreatment should be as follows: emotional abuse ≥ 9, physical abuse ≥ 8, and sexual abuse ≥ 6, respectively, in the Western societies. These have shown good sensitivity (89%) and specificity (97%). These cut-off scores have also been adopted to estimate the prevalence of child maltreatment in the Chinese context in both clinical samples and among the general population (Li et al., 2014, 2015, 2017; Wu et al., 2018).

Data Analysis

This study’s analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 software. First, descriptive statistics (including the mean, the standard deviation, and the Cronbach’s alpha for each variable and zero-order correlations) were performed. Second, multiple regressions were adopted to examine the moderating effect of left-behind status on the association between social cohesion and child abuse. Next, the 5,000 times bootstrapping method was used for estimating the indirect effects with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The direct and indirect effects of social cohesion on child abuse and neglect were shown using parameter estimates and then bias-corrected 95% CIs. A CI that did not include zero suggested that the direct and indirect effect was significant at the 0.05 level. In our study, age, gender, single child status, and the father’s education were controlled in the examination of the direct and indirect effects (Wu et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019).

Results

The characteristics of the sample were presented in Table 1, which consists of the means, standard deviations, and range of scores for social cohesion and child abuse (physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse). The average age of the respondents was 13.11 years (SD = 0.92). Males accounted for 49.0% of the whole sample. Regarding their father’s education, the respondents’ responses were as follows: primary school or below (42.2%), junior school (42.7%), high school or an equivalent level of education (12.4%), and tertiary education (2.7%). Most of them (94.4%) were not the single child in their families. Left-behind children made up 70.1% of total respondents. Most of them lived with their grandparents on the father’s side (68.9) when their parents were absent, 11.1% lived with their grandparents on the mother’s side, 9.7% lived with their relatives, and 10.5% lived with others. Left-behind children accounted for 70.1% of the total sample, and no significant class differences in child abuse were found in our sample. A moderate social cohesion level was observed in the rural community (M = 13.09, SD = 4.01; range from 0–20). The prevalences of physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse were as follows, respectively: 15%, 30.3%, and 17.5%. Emotional abuse was the most common type of child abuse.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of the Sample.

	Total Sample (n = 1,049)
Age	13.11 (.92)
Gender
Boys	49.0
Girls	51.0
Education of father
Primary or below	42.2
Junior school	42.7
High school or equivalent	12.4
Tertiary education	2.7
Single child
Yes	5.6
No	94.4
Left-behind status
Yes	70.1
No	24.9
Living arrangements of left-behind children
Grandparents on father’s side	68.9
Grandparents on mother’s side	11.1
Relatives	9.7
Others	10.3
Social cohesion (0–20)	13.09 (4.01)
Physical abuse (5–19)	6.05 (1.98)
Emotional abuse (5–21)	7.59 (2.82)
Sexual abuse (5–21)	5.45 (1.42)

As presented in Table 2, zero-order correlations indicated that for left-behind children, social cohesion was negatively associated with physical abuse (r = –.18, p < .01), emotional abuse (r = –.32, p < .01), and sexual abuse (r = –.11, p < .01). For rural children living with their parents, social cohesion was, once again, negatively associated with physical abuse (r = –.19, p < .01) and emotional abuse (r = –.17, p < .01), but it was not associated with sexual abuse (r = .01, p > .05).

Table 2.

Zero-Order Correlations Among Social Cohesion and Child Abuse for Left-Behind Children and Their Counterparts.

	Physical Abuse	Emotional Abuse	Sexual Abuse	Social Cohesion
Physical abuse	1.00	.47**	.27**	–.18**
Emotional abuse	.49**	1.00	.24**	–.32**
Sexual abuse	.43**	.31**	1.00	–.11**
Social cohesion	–.19**	–.17**	.01	1.00

Note. **p < .01.

The correlations below the diagonal are for rural children living with their parents and the correlations above the diagonal are for left-behind children.

As presented in Table 3, the moderating effect of left-behind status on the association between social cohesion and child abuse were examined while controlling for the participants’ age, gender, single child status, and father’s education. We found that social cohesion had a direct association with physical abuse (β = –0.087, p < .01, 95% CI [–0.148, –0.026]) as well as emotional abuse (β = –0.126, p < .01, 95% CI [–0.214, –0.038]). In other words, higher reported levels of social cohesion were associated with lower levels of physical and emotional abuse. However, the association between social cohesion and sexual abuse was not significant. Left-behind status had a moderating impact on the relationship between social cohesion and emotional abuse (β = –0.104, p < .05, 95% CI [–0.020, –0.007]) (see Figure 1) and sexual abuse (β = –0.042, p < .05, 95% CI [–0.091, 0.000]) (Figure 2). Specifically, the association between social cohesion and emotional and sexual abuse was much stronger for left-behind children compared to their rural counterparts who lived with their parents.

Figure 1.

The moderating effect of left-behind status on the association between social cohesion and emotional abuse.

Figure 2.

The moderating effect of left-behind status on the association between social cohesion and sexual abuse.

Discussion

Based on a representative sample from Henan Province in central China, this study attempted to examine the relationships between social cohesion and child abuse and then the moderating role of left-behind status in the above association.

Our study found that emotional abuse was the most prevalent type of abuse experienced by rural children in China; this finding is consistent with previous studies (Li et al., 2015). Emotional abuse among school-aged children in rural areas may be related to the low educational levels, limited financial resources, and high life stress faced by their caregivers, as well as their tendency to use verbal attacks and other emotional abuse in their communications with the children (Wang et al., 2018). Wang et al. (2018) showed that left-behind children in rural areas spent less time with their parents, communicated less with their parents and lacked their parents’ care. Compared to children whose parents were available for them, they had to face and solve difficulties in their lives independently, and they lacked the necessary comfort and support from their parents.

In our study, social cohesion was negatively associated with physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse among left-behind children in rural areas. These findings were consistent with previous studies (Maguire-Jack & Showalter, 2016). One explanation for these results could be attributed to the following tendency: members from a highly socially cohesive village may be able to use assistance from neighbors more efficiently during times of need, which, in turn, could help to prevent the abusive behaviors that characterize families living in poverty (McDonell, 2010). Another interpretation of these results can be attributed to the following factor: the constraints that a highly cohesive rural community places on its members because of the members’ accountability to each other (Yonas et al., 2010). For children living with their parents, social cohesion was negatively associated with physical abuse and emotional abuse; however, it was not significantly associated with sexual abuse. One plausible explanation for this result is that children who were not left behind were adequately protected by their parents, so social cohesion had no significant protective effect on their vulnerability to sexual abuse. For left-behind children, they may receive less care from their caregivers and faced increased risks of being sexually abused when they lived in the poor living environments of rural areas (Qiao et al., 2010).

Our findings indicated that social cohesion had a direct effect on physical abuse and emotional abuse; this is consistent with previous findings (Cao & Maguire-Jack, 2016). We thus suggest that increasing social cohesion may be one way to protect children from abuse. However, we also found that the direct effect of social cohesion on child sexual abuse was not significant. One plausible reason for this result was that the relationship between social cohesion and sexual abuse was not significant among children who were not left behind.

Moreover, our study revealed that the association between social cohesion and emotional and sexual abuse was more significant in the case of left-behind children compared to their rural counterparts. For left-behind children, the absence of a parent also translated into lack of a protective shield against emotional and sexual abuse. Thus, social cohesion plays a greater role in protecting them from emotional and sexual abuse by providing them with a supportive psychological environment and also by providing informal social control that helped to influence caregiver behaviors within the community. However, our study also found that the moderating effect of left-behind status was not significant on the relationship between social cohesion and physical abuse. Wang et al. (2018) found that, regarding physical abuse, there was no significant difference between left-behind children and children who were not left behind. Another plausible explanation for this result could be that since physical abuse involves relatively explicit acts of violence, neighbors may be likely to intervene against the physical abuse whether the children are left behind or not.

This study had several limitations that should be noted. First, this study adopted a cross-sectional design, which limited the causal analysis between independent variables and dependent variables, as all the variables were measured at one point in time during the survey. In future studies, a longitudinal design should be used for testing the role of social cohesion in preventing child abuse among left-behind children. Second, this study did not consider the differences between children from single-parent and two-parent migrant households, and the relationships between left-behind children and their caregivers were not evaluated during the parents’ absence. Therefore, future research should focus on the differences within the group of left-behind children. Third, all the variables were measured based on a self-report approach, which is subject to social desirability and contains common method variance. Studies should adopt multiple approaches for collecting data to improve the validity of survey research in the future.

Despite these limitations, this study has provided some valuable insights to inform our understanding of the association between social cohesion and child abuse in rural China; furthermore, it has identified the role of left-behind status in moderating the impact of social cohesion on child abuse. This study thus generated important implications for rural child abuse prevention and intervention programs as well as for the protection of left-behind children in rural China. Since social cohesion can protect children from child abuse, service providers and policymakers should support programs that build neighborhood social cohesion as an important part of the rural child protection system. Additionally, considering that social cohesion plays an important role in protecting left-behind children from emotional and sexual abuse, protection programs aimed at left-behind children should mobilize community members and resources to protect these children.

Table 3.

Multiple Regressions on Child Abuse.

	B	SE	β	Bias-Corrected 95% CI		ΔR²
				Lower Upper
Physical abuse
Direct effect	–.154**	.031	–.087**	–.148	–.026
Moderating effect of left-behind status	–.083	.035	–.011	–.080	.057
Emotional abuse
Direct effect	–.196**	.044	–.126**	–.214	–.038
Moderating effect of left-behind status	–.420*	.051	–.104*	–.020	–.007	.01
Sexual abuse
Direct effect	–.006	.022	–.008	–.044	.042
Moderating effect of left-behind status	–.076*	.029	–.042*	–.091	.000	.01

Note. Age, gender, single child status, and father’s education was controlled for.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) declare receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research has been supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities and the Research Funds of Renmin University of China (20XNL014).

ORCID iD

Huiping Zhang

Note

Author Biographies

Huiping Zhang is professor in Center for Studies of Sociological Theory and Method, and the School of Sociology and Population studies at Renmin University of China. She received a PhD degree in family study at the University of Hong Kong. Her research focuses on child and family studies, and mental health. Her research interests include gender study and public health.

Aijia Ma is a MSW student in Department of Social Work and Social Policy, and the School of Sociology and Population studies at Renmin University of China. She received a bachelor degree from Capital Normal University. Her research interests include left-behind children and mental health.

Yali Li is a MSW student in Department of Social Work and Social Policy, and the School of Sociology and Population studies at Renmin University of China. She received a bachelor degree from Renmin University. Her research interests focus on disadvantaged child and family studies.

References

Bernstein

D. P.

, Stein

J. A.

, Newcomb

M. D.

, Walker

, Pogge

, Ahluvalia

, & Desmond

(2003). Development and validation of a brief screening version of the childhood trauma questionnaire. Child Abuse & Neglect , 27(2), 169–190.

Browning

C. R.

, & Cagney

K. A.

(2002). Neighborhood structural disadvantage, collective efficacy, and self-rated physical health in an urban setting. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 43, 383–399.

Cao

, & Maguire-Jack

(2016). Interactions with community members and institutions: Preventive pathways for child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect , 62, 111–121.

Chan

K. L.

(2014). Child victims and poly-victims in China: Are they more at-risk of family violence? Child Abuse and Neglect , 38(11), 1832–1839.

Chen

, & Chan

(2016). Parental absence, child victimization, and psychological well-being in rural China. Child Abuse & Neglect , 59, 45–54.

Chen

, Wang

, & Wang

(2009). Shyness-sensitivity and social, school, and psychological adjustment in rural migrant and urban Children in China. Child Development , 80(5), 1499–1513.

Cheng

, Da

, Cao

, Li

, Feng

, & Jiang

(2010). A comparative study on psychological abuse and neglect and emotional and behavioral problems of left-behind children and non-left-behind children in rural areas. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology , 18(2), 250–253.

Cheng

, & Sun

(2015). Depression and anxiety among left-behind children in China: A systematic review. Child: Care, Health and Development , 7, 515–523.

Cramm

J. M.

, Van Dijk

H. M.

, Nieboer

A. P.

(2013). The importance of neighborhood social cohesion and social capital for the well-being of older adults in the community. The Gerontologist , 53, 142–152.

10.

Dong

Y. S.

, & Zhang

L. Y.

(2018). Endogenous and exogenous: Alienation and reconstruction of rural social order. Academia Bimestrie , 04, 101–107.

11.

Duan

Chengrong

, Lv

Lidan

, & Wang

Zongping.

(2014). Research on left-Behind children’s home education and school education. Peking University Education Review , 12(3), 14–29.

12.

Edwards

V. J.

, Holden

G. W.

, Felitti

V. J.

, & Anda

R. F.

(2003). Relationship between multiple forms of childhood maltreatment and adult mental health in community respondents: Results from the adverse childhood experiences study. The American Journal of Psychiatry , 160(8), 1453–1460.

13.

Fang

, Fry

D. A.

, Ji

, Finkelhor

, Chen

, Lannen

, & Dunne

M. P.

(2015). The burden of child maltreatment in China: A systematic review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization , 93(3), 176–185C.

14.

Freisthler

, & Maguire-Jack

(2015). Understanding the interplay between neighborhood structural factors, social processes, and alcohol outlets on child physical abuse. Child Maltreatment , 20(4), 268–277.

15.

Guterman

N. B.

, Lee

S. J.

, Taylor

C. A.

, & Rathouz

P. J.

(2009). Parental perceptions of neighborhood processes, stress, personal control, and risk for physical child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect , 33, 897–906.

16.

Han

, Qin

, Ma

, Pan

, & Jiao

(2015). Current situation and influencing factors of child neglect among 403 students aged 9–11 years old in rural areas. Chinese Journal of Child Health Care , 23, 292–294.

17.

Hong

J. S.

, Kral

M. J.

, & Sterzing

P. R.

(2014). Pathways from bullying perpetration, victimization, and bully victimization to suicidality among school-aged youth: A review of the potential mediators and a call for further investigation. Trauma, Violence & Abuse , 16(4), 379–390.

18.

Ikiz

F. E.

, & Cakar

F. S.

(2010). Perceived social support and self-esteem in adolescence. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 5(5), 2338–2342.

19.

Kawachi

, & Berkman

(Eds.). (2000). Social cohesion, social capital, and health. In Social epidemiology (pp. 174–190). Oxford University Press.

20.

X. B.

, Bo

Q. J.

, Zhang

G. P.

, Zheng

, Wang

Z. M.

, Li

A. N.

, & Wang

C. Y.

(2017). Effect of childhood trauma on cognitive functions in a sample of Chinese patients with schizophrenia. Comprehensive Psychiatry , 76, 147–152.

21.

, Li

, Liu

, Zhang

, Tang

, & Wang

(2015). Childhood trauma associates with clinical features of schizophrenia in a sample of Chinese inpatients. Psychiatry Research , 228(3), 702–707.

22.

, Wang

, Hou

, Wang

, Liu

, & Wang

(2014). Effects of childhood trauma on personality in a sample of Chinese adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect , 38(4), 788–796.

23.

, Zhong

, Chen

, Zhong

, & Pan

(2015). Identifying risk factors for child neglect in rural areas of western China. Child: Care, Health and Development , 41(6), 895–902.

24.

Maguire-Jack

(2014). Multilevel investigation into the community context of child maltreatment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma , 23(3), 229–248.

25.

Maguire-Jack

, & Showalter

(2016). The protective effect of neighborhood social cohesion in child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect , 52, 29–37.

26.

McDonell

J. R.

(2010). Neighborhood and families. In Ajzenstadt

, & Gal

(Eds.), Children, gender and families in Mediterranean welfare states: Vol. 2. Children, gender and families in Mediterranean welfare states (pp. 55–73). Springer.

27.

Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (2018). Chart: Data on rural left-behind children in 2018 . Retrieved March 9, 2020, from http://www.mca.gov.cn/article/gk/tjtb/201809/20180900010882.shtml

28.

Molnar

B. E.

, Goerge

R. M.

, Gilsanz

, Hill

, Subramanian

S. V.

, Holton

J. K.

, Duncan

D. T.

, Beatriz

E. D.

, & Beardslee

W. R.

(2016). Neighborhood-level social processes and substantiated cases of child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect , 51, 41–53.

29.

Norman

R. E.

, Byambaa

, De

, Butchart

, Scott

, & Vos

(2012). The long-term health consequences of child physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS Medicine , 9(11), e1001349.

30.

Otake

, Liu

, & Luo

(2017). Involvement in bullying among left-behind children in provincial Chinese cities: The role of perceived emotional support. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma , 28(8), 943–957. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2017.1410749

31.

Qiao

, & Chan

(2005). Child abuse in China: A yet-to-be-acknowledge “social problem” in the Chinese Mainland. Child & Family Social Work , 10, 21–27.

32.

Qiao

, Li

, Qiao

, Li

, & Zhang

(2010). Situation and influencing factors of maltreatment in childhood of 290 youngsters. Chinese Journal of Child Health Care , 18, 33–35.

33.

Reed

, Nugent

, & Cooper

(2015). Testing a path model of relationships between gender, age, and bullying victimization and violent behavior, substance abuse, depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts in adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review , 55, 128–137.

34.

Sampson

R. J.

(2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect . The University of Chicago Press.

35.

Sampson

R. J.

, Raudenbush

S. W.

, & Earles

(1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science , 277(5328), 918–924.

36.

Shen

, Wang

, Yang

, Du

, Xiang

, & Stallones

(2013). Agricultural exposures and farm-related injuries among adolescents in rural China. Injury Prevention , 19(3), 214–217.

37.

Stith

S. M.

, Liu

, Davies

L. C.

, Boykin

E. L.

, Alder

M. C.

, Harris

J. M.

, & Dees

(2009). Risk factors in child maltreatment: A meta-analytic review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 14(1), 13–29.

38.

Stoltenborgh

, Bakermans Kranenburg

M. J.

, Alink

L. R.

, & Van Ijzendoorn

M. H.

(2015). The prevalence of child maltreatment across the globe: Review of a series of meta-analyses. Child Abuse Review , 24(1), 37–50.

39.

Tietjen

G. E.

, Brandes

J. L.

, Peterlin

B. L.

, Eloff

, Dafer

R. M.

, Stein

M. R.

, Drexler

, Martin

V. T.

, Hutchinson

, Aurora

, Recober

, Herial

N. A.

, Utley

, White

, & Khuder

S. A.

(2010). Childhood maltreatment and migraine (part I). Prevalence and adult revictimization: A multicenter headache clinic survey. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain , 50(1), 20–31.

40.

Vinson

, Bladry

, & Hargreaves

(1996). Neighbourhoods, networks, and child abuse. British Journal of Social Work , 26, 523–543.

41.

Wang

, Chen

, Sun

, Yang

, Sun

, Cao

, & Han

(2011) Research on children’s depression and the influence of left-behind status in rural area. Chinese Journal of School Health , 32, 1445–1447.

42.

Wang

, Huo

, Zhang

, & Liu

(2018). A comparative study on the mental health, abuse experience and its relationship between left-behind and un-left-behind children in rural areas. China Journal of Special Education , 1, 58–64.

43.

Wen

Y. J.

, Hou

W. P.

, Zheng

, Zhao

X. X.

, Wang

X. Q.

, Bo

Q. J.

, Pao

, Tang

Y. L.

, Tan

, Li

X. B.

, & Wang

C. Y.

(2020). The neglect of left-behind children in China: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020916837

44.

Werner

E. E.

(1993). Risk, resilience, and recovery: Perspectives from the Kauai Longitudinal Study. Development and Psychopathology , 5(4), 503–515.

45.

, Chi

, Lin

, & Du

(2018). Child maltreatment and adult depressive symptoms: Roles of self-compassion and gratitude. Child Abuse & Neglect , 80, 62–69.

46.

Yonas

M. A.

, Lewis

, Thompson

, Newton

, English

, & Dubowitz

(2010). Perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy moderate the impact of maltreatment on aggression. Child Maltreatment , 15, 37–47.

47.

Zhang

, Zhou

, & Cao

(2019). Bullying victimization among left-behind children in rural China: Prevalence and associated risk factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence . https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519843287

48.

Zhao

, Liu

, & Wang

(2015). Parent–child cohesion, friend companionship and left-behind children’s emotional adaptation in rural China. Child Abuse & Neglect , 48, 190–199.

49.

Zeng

, & Xie

(2014). The effects of grandparents on children’s schooling: Evidence from rural China. Demography , 51(2), 599–617.