SOC363: 9. Social Contexts Flashcards
1
Q
Social Contexts
A
! The study of social contexts:
! Social contexts are the layers of the social realities in which we are embedded.
! Specifically: memberships in social units shared with others.
2
Q
Social Contexts
A
-! E.g., students within a class within a university within a community within a nation…..
! How do you know what a social context is?” Members are:
“ Exposed to the same inputs.
broader and broader shared context depending on level
3
Q
Social Contexts
A
-“ Boundary definitions of the context are possible.
“ Membership contained by boundaries.
! Potential importance of social contexts :
4
Q
Social Contexts
A
-“ “Invisible causation” – bypasses consciousness
invisible - tracking own experience - not aware of the differences
we share experience so we don’t see the problems
just cause it’s a normal part of our life doesn’t mean it’s not affecting us
5
Q
Social Contexts
A
-hand: how social context intervenes to amplify
no longer studying individual differences
“ The invisible hand: amplifies or moderates the importance of individual-level factors
6
Q
Social Contexts
A
-“ Re-locates causation away from the individual to the social environment
“ The remote source of the problems we sense at the individual level
7
Q
Types of Social Contexts
A
Schools ! Classrooms ! Workplaces ! Communities ! Countries
8
Q
Types of Social Contexts
A
! Social Networks
! Neighbourhoods
! Df By Anshensel:
“ Clusters of people living in close proximity to one another in a particular geographical area
9
Q
Types of Social Contexts
A
More Elaborated df: a geographically defined and bounded area of a larger community, characterized by common physical and social resources, higher density of interaction, common economic and social interests, and a “place” identification.
10
Q
Social Contexts in the Stress Process
A
2 way classification of stressors:
Vertical – level of social context (starting at ind processing through layers to the macro level (national level)
11
Q
Social Contexts in the Stress Process
A
We have seen this before – Note the different layers of social context involved:
Ind => fam => work places => neighborhoods => communities => Regions => nation
12
Q
Social Contexts in the Stress Process
A
Aneshensel discusses three dimensions of neighborhoods and the prof adds a 4
Spatial:
The physical boundaries that define the neighbourhood, the “container” for social interaction among residents.
13
Q
Aneshensel: Four Dimensions of Neighbourhood
A
” E.g., Census tracts, community designations, residents’ definitions.
Spatial: Descriptor profile that makes it diff than other neighborhoods
14
Q
Aneshensel: Four Dimensions of Neighbourhood
A
! Structural
! The socioeconomic and more general social inequalities across neighbourhoods,
relating to advantage vs. disadvantage. Implies some internal homogeneity.
15
Q
Aneshensel: Four Dimensions of Neighbourhood
A
-" E.g., social class of the neighbourhood, level of segregation, low levels of public resources, high crime, income inequality, crowding, pollution.
16
Q
Aneshensel: Four Dimensions of Neighbourhood
A
Social – content of interaction in the neighborhood (shared expectations that come from living in a neighborhood)
! The content of the interaction within the neighbourhood, and accompanying norms, culture, and shared values.
“ E.g., Collective trust, collective efficacy, social cohesion.
17
Q
Aneshensel: Four Dimensions of Neighbourhood
A
-! Compositional (added):
! The sociodemographic differences in composition of neighbourhoods.
“ E.g., prevalence of a specific ethnic group, prevalence of family types, number of groups in neighbourhood, similarity of groups, age / gender distributions
18
Q
Aneshensel: Four Dimensions of Neighbourhood
A
** compositional: profile of neighborhood according to socio-demographic characteristics (ie. prevalence of an ethnic group, etc.)
19
Q
How Neighbourhood Matters (in General)
A
How does a neighbourhood influence an individual’s
mental health? Many answers possible. Some are:
proliferation of threat and insecurity (contextual stress)
absence of useful resources to cope in difficult circumstances.
20
Q
How Neighbourhood Matters (in General)
A
safe places from abuse, opportunities to interact with neghbourhood overcrowding
- Disadvantaged neighborhoods- contextual stress
21
Q
How Neighbourhood Matters (in General)
A
! Absence of control over interaction.
- Absence of control over interaction (cant control who you run into and when)
! Neighbourhood disorder
22
Q
How Neighbourhood Matters (in General)
A
- ! Stagnancy vs. change in social profile; upward vs. downward mobility.
- Stagnancy vs change in social profile= Amount of residential turnover
stagnancy: turnover in neighbourhood
23
Q
How Neighbourhood Matters (in General)
A
! Available leisure resources
Social comparison – neighbors as a reference point
you compare own life to neighbours - if you see theres isn’t ok then compare to your own, you might think your life is ok
24
Q
How Neighbourhood Matters (in General)
A
! Clarity of norms- Clarity of norms in the neighborhood= how much consensus there is about appropriate behavior
25
An Overall Model: Neighbourhoods in the Stress Process
A heuristic model to understand the possibilities:
26
An Overall Model: Neighbourhoods in the Stress Process
- Ways in which neighborhoods at the ind level act as predictors of mental health
neighbourhood stressors: physical disorder, built environ
- neighbourhood resources: public services, institutional resources, collective efficacy, trust, green space
27
An Overall Model: Neighbourhoods in the Stress Process
- we need to understand the back and forth
| - If you are the victim of a crime in a poor and rich neighborhood= different consequences on mental health
28
An Overall Model: Neighbourhoods in the Stress Process
-individual efforts indirect effects to neighbourhood stressors - life events, chronic stress, work stress
- individual resources: personal resources, social resources
resources affect mental health
29
An Overall Model: Neighbourhoods in the Stress Process
Neighbourhood stressors and neighbourhood resources, cross levels
neighbourhood stressors and resources cross over to individual level
30
Including….
The direct impact of contextual stressors and resources
on individuals, bypassing their individual risk factors.
! Aneshensel on the “cross-level” effect:
! Impacts everyone in the neighbourhood, not just those with individual level disadvantage.
31
Including….
Direct impact- bypassing all other issues in their individual risk at the ind level (changes in mental health that had to do with place they lived, worked , etc! everyone subjected to it)
32
Including….
! The interaction of the contextual and the individual:
| - Contextual resources may help buffer.... having close friends in the neighborhood
33
Including….
-Interaction of the contextual and the individual:
! Contextual threat may multiply the effect of individual stressors. - May multiply – ie going through the process of divorce and neighborhood could multiply problems
34
Including….
-! Contextual resources may replace the absence of individual resources - Contextual may replace! context may be able to help
35
Main Pathway
emphasis is on pathways connecting the neighbourhood level to the individual.
Emphasis on perceived neighbourhood disorder (Ross
and Mirowsky) as the link: the perception of physical
and social signs of the absence of social control.
36
Main Pathway
What is neighborhood disorder: physical and social signs of the absence of control
- Less trust
- More isolated
37
Main Pathway
-! Weaker social control implies threat and insecurity.
! People stay inside more; know less about neighbours;
trust them less; are more isolated when difficulties arise.
38
Main Pathway
- Higher levels of neighborhood disorder in poorer neighborhoods
typical perceived problems of neighbourhood disorder
39
Neighbourhood Disorder
Grafitti, noise, vandalism, abandoned buildings, run down property, crime, substance use, hanging out on streets, rubbish
40
Turner: Disorder and Personal Victimization
-
41
Turner: Disorder and Personal Victimization
-
42
Turner: Disorder and Personal Victimization
! What is disorder a sign of in neighbourhoods?
! Previous research suggests more negative stressful life events, and more chronic stress of various types, at the individual level.
43
Turner: Disorder and Personal Victimization
higher risk of divorce
stress proliferation argument
" Part of the stress proliferation argument.
! Reduced social support, due to weaker social ties
absent of social support and crime
44
Turner: Disorder and Personal Victimization
-" Residential turnover high; trust is low
" Increased stress on parents translates to poorer parenting and less parental support.
stress in parents life affects how they parent children
45
Turner: Disorder and Personal Victimization
-! Victimization a natural extension of the presence of
disorder, due to the absence of social control and
withdrawal of residents indoors… making the external
environment less regulated and more threatening.
46
Data and Measures
-! National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence…
! Sample is 2,039 children aged 10-17.
! Important Measures:
47
Data and Measures
Neighbourhood Disorder:
" Witnessed drug sales, witnessed arrest, presence of gangs, police raids, prohibited to
play outside, physical decay, gangs at school, students bring knife or gun to school.
48
Data and Measures
Neighborhood disorder => personal victimization => how this translates into mental health (US)
Some of the measures they include in the study
49
Data and Measures
! Victimization:
" Property crime, peer-based victimization (inc.bullying), maltreatment, sexual victimization, witness family violence, witness community violence.
Victimization in some sense is a natural extension of the process of disorders in neighborhood
50
Data and Measures
! Distress:
" Anger/aggression, anxiety, depression, dissociation, post-traumatic stress from the
Trauma Symptoms Checklist for Children
51
Data and Measures
```
-! Family support:
" Four items reported by the child
! Other life events.
" 9 non-violent stressful events
Mental health = measured through distress
Childs view of support from the family
```
52
Victimization Higher in Disordered Neighbourhoods
Differences in Rates of Victimization in High vs.
Low Disorder Neighbourhoods:
Low disorder neighborhoods vs high disorder neighbourhoods
53
Victimization Higher in Disordered Neighbourhoods
Rates higher for all kinds of victimization…
| huge dif in victimization between low and high disorder
54
Victimization Higher in Disordered Neighbourhoods
- Any property victimization (twice the rate in high neighborhoods)
- Peer victimization
- Sexual victimization
55
Decoding the Effect of Disorder: Follow the Pathways
Community disorder has a huge impact (.64) on the number of past year victimizations
victimization is most powerful mediator
loss of support also important
56
Decoding the Effect of Disorder: Follow the Pathways
Important Pathways….. ==> Explain effect of disorder
And then the number of past year victimizations translates further into higher levels of distress
Community disorder has a negative impact on family social support (-.38)
57
Decoding the Effect of Disorder: Follow the Pathways
Decrease in family support increases distress (inverse)
SO... 2 results...
Higher victimization rates BUT also less family support at the same time
58
The Social-Ecological Model
Is a specific elaboration of the structural model which
focuses on “person-environment” fit, i.e., the contingencies
in meaning defined by the multi-level combination of
context and person.
59
The Social-Ecological Model
Specific model of the structural mode, discussed
- ie. is there a fit between your skills and the context of the university?
- fit of the person to the env
60
The Social-Ecological Model
! Thus: it means something different to be poor in a poor
neighbourhood than to be poor in a rich neighbourhood.
Which is worse…..
61
The Social-Ecological Model
! Two models (Wheaton and Clarke, 2003):
" Compound Advantage: highest returns to mental health occur if you are personally advantaged, and you live around others who are advantaged.
62
The Social-Ecological Model
-" Compound Disadvantage: worst consequences for those who are personally disadvantaged and live around those equally disadvantaged.
63
The Social-Ecological Model
multiplicative model of how layers of social reality
combine
thinks there’s a good fit between context and own skills
64
What Compound Disadvantage Looks Like
- The effect of the early childhood disadvantage on externalizing problems
- Effect of childhood neighborhood problems according to parents level of education on externalizing problems of ppl
65
What Compound Disadvantage Looks Like
Bottom line! percent of kids living with a parent with a college degree (living in a disadvantaged neighborhood has no effects at all on externalizing problems in
adulthood IF their parents have a university education (in a disadvantaged neighborhood)
66
What Compound Disadvantage Looks Like
- Middle line– proff doesn’t discuss it
- Top: parents with less than a high school education (ind disadvantage in the context of the neighborhood! it is those kids living in a disadvantaged neighborhoods who have parents with less than high school education who are most effected)
67
What Compound Disadvantage Looks Like
Compound disadvantage – occurs at the ind level and the neighborhood level
o Neighbourhood disadvantage only matters for those with
personal disadvantage
68
What Compound Disadvantage Looks Like
-o Parental education nullifies the effect of neighbourhood disadvantage on children.
with parents education, disadvantage is gone
it’s kids with disadvantaged parents more at risk with prblems
69
Wheaton and Clarke (2003) Expanded
! Cross-level effects are at the core of understanding
the impact of neighbourhoods.
Cross level effects: Where we get most interested in the relevance of social context
70
Wheaton and Clarke (2003) Expanded
! The concept of person - environment fit is central
to understanding who is at risk.
! Stop focusing on the present, and focus on the
entire life history:
71
Wheaton and Clarke (2003) Expanded
-! Life is a series of linked trajectories, shifting due to changes in experience and exposure, enfranchising the concept of longterm causation over lives.
! Past neighbourhoods may matter even more than current
neighbourhoods (where you grew up), depending on timing…
72
Hypotheses for the Effects of Past Contexts
- These 2 hypotheses= Effect of childhood neighborhood on adult mental health
• Contextual continuity hypothesis: ppl’s neighbourhood has stable quality
same neighbourhood characteristics over life
73
Hypotheses for the Effects of Past Contexts
Contextual: suggests ppls neighborhoods have stable characteristics as they grow up... they tend to live in the same kinds of neighborhoods (start in a disadvantaged neighborhood and end up in early adulthood in a disadvantaged neighborhood....
74
Hypotheses for the Effects of Past Contexts
and that is the reason for mental health)! ppl end up in similar neighborhoods that they start out in.. So if they start in disadvantage, they end up in disadvantage
75
A Hierarchical Panel Model of Mental Health in Early Adulthood
--• Mental health continuity hypothesis: living in childhood neighbourhood of disadvantaged - leads to immediate shift then persists into adulthood
trajectory of poor mental health
76
A Hierarchical Panel Model of Mental Health in Early Adulthood
-Mental health continuity: Living in a childhood neighbourhood that is disadvantaged leads to immediate shifts in childhood mental health at the time (when kids are 6-11 years old) and that, that is a stable difference that persists into adulthood! doesn’t matter where they grow up, matters that when youn,g a mental disorder sets the projectory for where they will end up
77
Hypotheses for the Effects of Past Contexts
Stress hypothesis: Looks at stress proliferation from the neighbourhood
78
Hypotheses for the Effects of Past Contexts
```
Neighborhood disadvantage (left)! childhood stressors ! bottom right = adult mental health
- Death of loved ones and families and friends, violence, losses of relationships
```
79
A Hierarchical Panel Model of Mental Health in Early Adulthood
deaths of loved ones, violence, and losses of relationship
80
A Hierarchical Panel Model of Mental Health in Early Adulthood
```
Contextual continuity hypothesis
• Mental health continuity hypothesis
• Life course stress hypothesis
• Stress proliferation as contextual
spillover
```
81
Hypotheses for the Effects of Past Contexts
-• Ambient chronic stress hypothesis
• Like neighbourhood disorder
Ambient chronic stress: Neighbourhood disorder and the characteristic at the neighborhood level that persist
82
A Hierarchical Panel Model of Mental Health in Early Adulthood
Childhood neighborhood disadvantage is related to a range of neighborhood devt including disorder and that, that is a stable characteristic of the neighborhoods they grow up in
83
Results: The Effects of Childhood Neighborhood Disadvantage, Controls and
Mediators, on Early Adult Externalizing Problems in 1987
strong positive increase of disadvantage at less than highschool
less as education increases
supports the chart on slide 16
mediators that stand for diff hypothesis
as we put on mediators, the effect of neighbourhood disadvantage drops on externalizing problems
spillover from neighbourhood disadvantage to stress problems
important part of effect of neighbourhood disadvantage on these problems is neighbourhood disorder and problems
once full model is applied, then we have explained how neighbourhood disadvantage leads to adult externalizing problems
neighbourhoods create ambient stress which affects children over their lives
84
Results: The Effects of Childhood Neighborhood Disadvantage, Controls and
Mediators, on Early Adult Externalizing Problems in 1987
- Upper level- you're looking at the effects of neighborhood disadvantage on early adult externalizing problems, which we can refer to as anger and aggressive behavior BUT stratified by level of parental education
- For education less than high school the effect was .303 (strong positive increase)
85
Results: The Effects of Childhood Neighborhood Disadvantage, Controls and Mediators, on Early Adult Externalizing Problems in 1987
- For parents at high school= .174 (almost half of the above but still significant)
- College- .001= nothing there
CORRESPONDS TO GRAPH ON SLIDE 16 (top, middle, bottom)
- ** perfect combination of context and individual lives
- Putting in variables/mediators that stand for the diff hypotheses
86
Results: The Effects of Childhood Neighborhood Disadvantage, Controls and Mediators, on Early Adult Externalizing Problems in 1987
- Looking at how the effect of parental education and neighborhood disadvantage changes as you add in these variables
- So the more the mediator explains the reasons , the more that remaining effect drops and gets smaller
- Child MH 76 and 81! those are the child measures of mental health change in outcome and early adolescents
87
Results: The Effects of Childhood Neighborhood Disadvantage, Controls and Mediators, on Early Adult Externalizing Problems in 1987
- When you look at the sizes of the effects for neighborhood disadvantage for kids whose parents had less than high school, that .297 and .245 indicates that there is some effect on early changes in mental health but there's still a large component left to be explained at that point (same thing with kids with high school education)
Next two columns added stress and neighborhood problems! testing the life course stress hypothesis and then the ambient chronic stress hypothesis
88
Results: The Effects of Childhood Neighborhood Disadvantage, Controls and Mediators, on Early Adult Externalizing Problems in 1987
Indirectly, There is a spillover of neighborhood disadvantage to the greater exposure of stress in ppls lives AND then separately in the next column of neighborhood problems, there is actually an even bigger drop/ strong change in the remaining effect of neighborhood disadvantage which basically means that part of the effect of neighborhood disadvantage is through the introduction of neighborhood threat and disorder that is causes even more of an effect than stress in this problem (has caused disorder to go up even more than life events)
89
What Explains the Effect of Neighbourhood
| Dsiadvantage over Time?
- Chronic stress in individual lives follows people..
! Also: proliferation of life event exposures over
time…
- What this says is that there is a spillover of stress (stress proliferation hypothesis)
90
What Explains the Effect of Neighbourhood
| Dsiadvantage over Time?
The way in which neighborhoods produce differences in ambient stress in ppls lives is important long term to their mental health as they grow
91
Other Examples of Neighbourhood Effects
O’Campo et al., (1997) : Effects of Neighbourhoods on Low Birth Weight:
" Usual predictors: African – American, Single- Parent status, and Low education.
92
Other Examples of Neighbourhood Effects
But neighbourhood conditions intervene:
" Neighbourhood average income explains the effect of race --- thus more of an effect of place and context than individual behavior
Average income of neighborhood => more of an effect of place and context! places the issue away from the ind- to the importance of the social context.
93
Other Examples of Neighbourhood Effects
Suggests that if you could equalize income in neighborhoods, then it would have indirect effects on a number of health outcomes
"Marital status helps specifically in low income neighbourhoods, not in upper income neighbourhoods.
- Martial status helps in lower income neighborhoods but not upper income neighborhoods (replacement approach)
94
Other Examples of Neighbourhood Effects
Community groups matter:
" The disadvantage of lower education disappears in highly organized neighbourhoods
- Community groups matter- voluntary and politically organized groups where info is passed- reflects the importance of social capital **
95
Other Examples
-Sampson et al. (1997): Collective Efficacy and Crime
! Collective efficacy:
social cohesion among neighbors combined with their
willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good.
! Neighbourhood disadvantage lowers collective efficacy, which lowers social control, and increases interpersonal violence.
96
Other Examples
Studies crime
Collective efficacy – when lower, lowers social control and increases violence
Disadvantage and how it grows after we control for collective efficacy
97
Other Examples
effect of disadvantage before and after efficacy
perceived violence: drops after increasing efficacy
feeling like they can’t count on neighbours = high risk of danger
ppl feel powerless in disadvantaged neighbourhood to avoid victimization
98
Other Examples
Table (Chicago neighborhood study) shows this pattern –
Perceived neighborhood violence was .277
BUT once controlled it goes to .171 => the reason the concentrated disadvantage works to increase risk is that ppl have a feeling that they cannot count on their neighbors (that there is no watching out for each other) and therefore that leads to a higher risk of violence in the neighborhood
99
Other Examples
Violent victimization personally – .258 to .085! basically says that ppl feel powerless in disadvantaged neighborhoods to avoid situations
100
Other Examples
Das-Munchi et al. (2010), British Medical Journal,
Ethnic Density and Mental Health (in Britain).
! Protective Effect Hypothesis across ethnic groups.
! Main Results
101
Other Examples
! The 'ethnic density hypothesis' is a proposition that members of ethnic minority groups may have better mental health when they live in areas with higher proportions of people of the same ethnicity
102
Other Examples
Each 10% increase in own group density in a neighborhood – leads to a reduced risk of a range of common mental disorders for all ethnic minority groups combined
- Benefits of living around ppl of your own origin
103
Other Examples: Young and Wheaton (2013) – Structural Equivalence and Mental Health
Alternative models of neighbourhood effects on mental health outcomes? … beyond structural disadvantage.
! Young and Wheaton. 2013. “The Impact of Neighborhood Composition on Work-Family Conflict and Distress.”
104
Other Examples: Young and Wheaton (2013) – Structural Equivalence and Mental Health
Focus on compositional features of the neighbourhood, where:
! Defining neighbourhood composition: The shared understanding of available psychosocial resources and shared assumptions about collective identity that continually define expectations of daily life.
105
Other Examples: Young and Wheaton (2013) – Structural Equivalence and Mental Health
! Emphasis on the resources available through shared
| studied the effects of neighborhood own group similarity for an ind and how that affects them (compositional diff)
106
Other Examples :
| Young and Wheaton (2013) – Structural Equivalence and Mental Health
- The more ppl you identify with, the more you feel that there is access to shared resources and understandings
more ppl you identify with, more you feel these is access to shared understandings + resources
helpful implicitly for social support
107
Composition vs. Structure
Focuses on social composition of neighbourhood residents
relative to the individual => Beyond structural disadvantage and perceived disorder
Instead, similarities among residents’ social and demographic features may be beneficial
108
Composition vs. Structure
Composition – because its really just focusing on demographic similarities (they controlled for disadvantage of neighborhoods as well)
109
Main Argument
Benefits of social similarities are twofold:
! By setting norms and behaviors that create expectations for “normal operations”.
By increasing the perception of available sense of support (Pearlin 1999).
110
Main Argument
However, these benefits may only occur when the similarity of the demographic profile reaches a threshold defined by prevalence.
Drawing upon social networks literature…
111
Main Argument
Structural equivalence refers to the specificity of the similarity of social and demographic features across individuals in a given context—the “jointly occupied position or status/role set” (Burt 1978).
Level of specificity – we use structural equivalence for specificity
112
Main Argument
The percentage of families who are similar to the structure you are in
! The more similar statuses/role sets, the more “equivalent” the actors are.
113
Main Argument
! Greater structural equivalence reflects more social homogeneity in values, attitudes and behaviors.
! But…. There is a threshold of salience that matters, related to the prevalence of similar others.
-don’t report work-family conflict until it’s above level of those around you
114
Hypotheses
How does this structural equivalent intervene in lives?
How structural equivalent intervenes:
- Reduces the perception that there is conflict
- And then if there is conflict, it reduces the consequences of it on mental health
115
Hypotheses
-! Hypothesis 1: Respondents in neighbourhoods with
more structurally equivalent residents relative to
themselves beyond some threshold will perceive
less WFC, compared to those in more
heterogeneous neighbourhoods.
WFC - work-family conflict
116
Hypotheses
-! Hypothesis 2: Respondents in neighbourhoods with
more structurally equivalent residents relative to
themselves beyond some threshold will experience
less distress because of perceived WFC, compared
to those in more heterogeneous neighbourhoods
reduces perception of conflict and consequences of it
117
Conceptual Model
```
Direct arrow (red) towards conflict! we expect higher similarity to ppl who have immigrated! The less work family conflict ppl will report because they will see the standards to other ppls lives (the norms will be clear)
expect higher similarity = less WFC - see standards and clear norms for normal level
```
118
Conceptual Model
Second red arrow suggests the more ppl that are socially similar to you in a neighborhood- this acts as an implicit social support- and that will reduce the consequences for mental health outcomes
implicit social support + reduces consequences of WFC
assumptions that we have support
119
Salience
The specificity argument:
! Level of similarity of others matters because there is a
threshold to social comparison processes.
How many things need to be in place for ppl to realize there is a similarity within their lives?
120
Salience
! Data from the 1995 Toronto Study of Intact
Families.
- Eg did a study – intact families(3 levels of similarities)
! All married with children 9-16.-
121
Salience
-! Levels of similarity:
! % Husband-Wife Families in Neighbourhood
! % Husband-Wife Families with Kids
! % Husband-Wife Families with Kids 6-14.
122
Results for Work-Family Conflict among Women
Figure 1: Perceived Work-Family Conflict by Percentage of Residents with Similar Family Structure (Intact Family Data, Toronto, 1995, N=630 Mothers)
Solid black and grey line are the first two measures
123
Results for Work-Family Conflict among Women
The only one that reduces the reporting of work family conflict is the last measure- you get up to a threshold in which a number of things are similar to the ind’s life-and then suddenly it has relevance
124
Results for Distress
Figure 2: Percentage of Residents with Similar Family Status by Work-Family Conflict on Distress (Intact Family Data, Toronto, 1995, N=630 Mothers)
125
Results for Distress
Same thing for reducing the consequences over family conflict
Only situation in which changes in the levels of similarity of whose around you, completely created an immunity in terms of mental health consequences to problems of work family conflict
126
Results for Distress
Comparison of Low vs High households families with kids 6-14 (high percentage of same family structure)- created an immunity
Context works somewhat through the cognition of the individual then – thresholds
127
Main Conclusion
Results support the specificity hypothesis:
! Neighbourhood social composition matters. The increased
similarity across family structure, age, ethnicity, and
occupation seems to be beneficial for perceived levels and
the distressing consequences of WFC for mothers.
128
Problems with Evidence
Main criticism of neighbourhood studies is the
issue of selection (always and again):
ppl congregate around demographics
hard to demonstrate processes beyond selection
129
Problems with Evidence
! Is it something about the neighbourhood or the kind of people who move into that neighbourhood?
! Educational and income profile; racial segregation; ethnic
enclaves; young families; young unmarrieds.
! How can one demonstrate unique effects of place,
over and above these selection effects?
130
Problems with Evidence
Answer: use designs that control for selection or the usual
alternative hypotheses about individual differences.
! Problem doesn’t occur with experiments.
ppl are randomly assigned to neighbourhoods
131
Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn: Moving to Opportunity
! Better evidence because this is designed as an experiment.
What happens as a result of this experimental intervention to kids and families from poor neighborhoods
Random assignments to control groups! means all of the differences are scattered
132
Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn: Moving to Opportunity
-! Experiments implicitly control for all alternative hypotheses that could account for findings through random assignment to groups.
3 randomly assigned groups:
! Families with children living in public housing in poor urban neighbourhoods (at least 40% poverty rate) given
133
Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn: Moving to Opportunity
(1) True experimental group: given vouchers to move to a (“better”) lower poverty neighborhood (had to meet a standard) (Experimental)
134
Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn: Moving to Opportunity
(2) Given vouchers to move, but no standard on where to move (they could move wherever they wanted – section 8 group)
(3) No vouchers given
A lot of ppl chose not to use the vouchers- 60% did not move (40% did move)
135
Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn: Moving to Opportunity
So comparisons take into account sub-groups that actually moved. (Treatment on Treated (TOT) vs. Intention to Treat (ITT).
136
Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn: Moving to Opportunity
-ITT- got vouchers decided not to move
TOT- got vouchers and then did move
So you can see whether just giving vouchers had an effect
137
Progressive Intervention Design
Two Experimental Groups:
Move anywhere Section 8 vouchers
Some choose to move (TOT)
Some choose to stay put (ITT)
138
Progressive Intervention Design
Move to Opportunity (lower poverty neighbourhoods)
Some choose to move (TOT)
Some choose to stay put (ITT)
139
Results of Treatment as Expected…
-Experimental Group end up in neighbourhoods with highest family incomes and smallest % poor, lower disorder , greater satisfaction. Section 8 about ½ the improvement
140
Results of Treatment as Expected…
Experimental group in particular ends up in neighborhoods with highest family incomes
both experimental and control improved in median avg income
141
Results of Treatment as Expected…
-Experimental -Average income in the new neighborhood is $23 277
Section 8- $17 922
In place control- $14 808
142
Progressive Intervention Design
-Experimental group 34%- fraction poor
More satisfaction in experimental group
section 8 is middle between experimental and terminal group
greater satisfaction in experimental group
143
Outcomes: The Target of the Study
-! Parents’ mental health:
! Depression
! Anxiety / Distress
! Child mental health:
144
Outcomes: The Target of the Study
```
-! Behavior problems:
" Depressive
" Anxious, fearful
" Dependency
" Headstrong
" Anti-social
```
145
Effects on Parents
Effects on parental mental health in main
experimental treatment group evident:
! NOT due to changes in economic status of
family…
146
Effects on Parents
lower level of depressive symptoms and distress/anxiety
within experimental - TOT group had greater improvement
but ITT group also decrease in distress and depression
just knowing you could move to a better place has a positive effect on mental health
no significance diff betw section and 8 and control
147
Effects on Parents
Effects on parental health as a result of being in the experimental group
Negative numbers are compared to the control group
The only observed improvement in mental health among the parents happened as a result of the experimental group
Experimental group – distinguished between intent to treat and treatment on treated
148
Effects on Parents
=Even amongst ppl who never moved from their neighborhood, they still improved in mental health (by being given the voucher and given a choice- improved even though they never moved)
149
Effects on Parents
Bottom of table shows there were no changes in household income**** important because a common hypothesis is that if you just fix the economics, give them more
150
Effects on Parents
leverage, then it will fix the problem BUT this study doesn’t say that! saying that something else is going on – ie. potential for opportunities/diff in expectations, not
necessarily anything to do with economics-
No effects due to changes in employment, welfare receipt, or income.
151
Effects on Parents
-no changes due to economic income
common hypothesis that income increases leads to greater mental health
may be more about expectations and potential for greater lives
152
Effects on Children
-Typical of results overall:
Only boys benefitted (25% reduction in problems)
! Effects on TOT group much stronger than ITT group.
153
Effects on Children
same results, but see effect on boys
girls protected from neighbourhood
they are less exposed to improvements
as girls get older and go out more, the effects on girls show up
154
Effects on Children
! With children, neighbourhood effects gendered:
! Boys exposed more; girls in the house more.
! Program effects purely one of social context; not economic well- being.
155
Effects on Children
- explanation: girls protected in the house more at this age and would have less access to improvements in the neighborhood that the boys would ( in a sense, the girls
didn’t get the treatment)
- BUT in some later articles, the effects on girls are significant
! More resources, lower threat, change in expectations….
156
Social Contexts Occur in Many Forms: The Effects of First Grade Classrooms (Milkie and Warner)
-Why focus on first grade?
| ! Long-term effect of performance, attitudes, and values formed in first grade: it is a key moment in the life course.
157
Social Contexts Occur in Many Forms: The Effects of First Grade Classrooms (Milkie and Warner)
- If scarce resources-low expectations
- Teacher respect- spills over to the children at some point
- Bureucratization: A lot of paperwork – required by the teacher
158
Social Contexts Occur in Many Forms: The Effects of First Grade Classrooms (Milkie and Warner)
-! What is the social context?
! A shared environment with other children and (usually) a
“home-room” or constant teacher.
! A “viral” situation for the spread of stress contagion. - ripe for stress proliferation
159
Social Contexts Occur in Many Forms: The Effects of First Grade Classrooms (Milkie and Warner)
" Intense, daily, stable exposures at a vulnerable life moment and age.
! Could this really matter that much?
! Education the basic sorting institution for social inequality in the future.
160
Relevant Features of Classrooms: The Transfer of Stress (Stress Crossover..)
Material resources.
! If scarce, out of date, like neighbourhood disorder –
communicates low expectations.
kids can sense this
161
Relevant Features of Classrooms: The Transfer of Stress (Stress Crossover..)
! Teacher respect from colleagues
! Part of what they feel as workers, “spillover” if there is a
problem
teachers can feel pressure, demand, mistrust, does it affect children
162
Relevant Features of Classrooms: The Transfer of Stress (Stress Crossover..)
! Bureaucratization of schools (distractions)
| paperwork required, taking time away from teaching
163
Relevant Features of Classrooms: The Transfer of Stress (Stress Crossover..)
! Academic standards of the school
| ! The impact of fellow students and expectations
164
The Role of Schools in Social Inequality
! Resources in schools in poor neighbourhoods often
a problem.
! Higher turnover in staff. - Bc of problems in school- higher turnover by staff
165
The Role of Schools in Social Inequality
-! Lower expectations among students
! Schools as a multiplier of social inequality
! Thus: negative conditions could affect poor and minorities
more.
affect more because there are no other choices
166
Data
! National study of over 20, 000 starting in
kindergarten in 1200 schools in 1999.
! This study looks at this sample a year later, in Grade One.
167
Data
Measures:
! Absence of 19 material resources
! Teacher perceptions of low respect from colleagues
! Teacher report of low standards at the school
! Excessive routine paperwork
168
Data
! Number of students below grade level reading
! Concentrate on child mental health outcomes
! Also learning outcomes (obviously overlap anyway)
169
Externalizing Problems: The Effects of Classroom Context ……
Main message is highlighted
Effects of learning env on child externalizing problems (aggression, conduct, impulse, anger) – 5/6 features in the classroom that each independently add to externalizing problems in grade 1 children
170
Externalizing Problems: The Effects of Classroom Context ……
-the only thing that doesn’t matter is number of peers below level in reading, but everything else does
own understanding of conditions get through to children
net positive effect
teacher feels low respect
171
Externalizing Problems: The Effects of Classroom Context ……
Lack of classroom resources has a net positive effect on externalizing problems in children (.035)
Teacher feels low respect- also has an effect (don’t usually control who the teacher of your child will be)
172
Externalizing Problems: The Effects of Classroom Context ……
Only thing that doesn’t matter is the number of kids in the classroom that are below the level of reading
- BUT everything else matters(cumulative effect in the classroom)
173
Internalizing Problems: The Effects of Classroom Context ……
2 main things matter, absence of materials and teachers sense of respect
Fewer classroom effects
174
Internalizing Problems: The Effects of Classroom Context ……
Two main things matter => lack of classroom resources and the teacher feels low respect from colleagues
- Other things don’t matter as much for internalizing problems
175
Main Findings… and Implications
! Material resources directly related to child mental
health.
! Children know / sense the lack of investment.
buildings
176
Main Findings… and Implications
Kozol (2005):
! Teacher’s place in the local hierarchy important
! The context of problem behavior
! The context of low standards
children must go each morning into morbid-looking
177
Future of Research on Social Contexts
- - Pathway in life is important (history of past neighborhoods)
- Comparing the effects of neighborhoods to schools in ppls life
- What matters more! the neighborhood, the family or the school??
178
Future of Research on Social Contexts
-- Level of context – some things occur at the larger neighborhood more naturally... and some things occur more locally in small social units
179
Future of Research on Social Contexts
! Life histories of social contexts important.
! New kinds of measures of contexts:
! Psychological climates
! Networks
180
Future of Research on Social Contexts
0! Attitudes, values, norms
! Better methods for dealing with selection.
! Comparative approaches to different contexts:
! neighbourhoods vs. work contexts.
! Level of context at which effects occur an
important policy issue.
181
Future of Research on Social Contexts
route and pathway - how these match up with where you end up
map profile of social context
we can’t attribute causation when selection is possible
specify where it occurs more specifically
182
Future of Research on Social Contexts
-
