The Ecology of Youth Collective Socialization

Background and Purpose: Collective socialization (CS) is a set of neighborhood social processes that can act as a protective factor for youth. For example, neighborhoods develop and communicate norms about positive and negative behavior and aspirations that influence teen behavior. Collective socialization creates trust and social cohesion reflecting positive attributes of a neighborhood. Research emphasizes collective socialization as a neighborhood level influence. However, other theoretical models suggest that collective socialization also exists at peer and school levels which also influence adolescent outcomes. The current study extends collective socialization by examining how all 3 levels—peer, school, and neighborhood—influence adolescent well-being and school misbehavior. We hypothesize that CS at all levels is related to these outcomes and that the more proximal levels will have the strongest relationship to outcomes. We also hypothesize that both positive and negative CS is related to these outcomes.

Methods: A sample of 20,749 middle and high school students across 67 school sites completed the School Success Profile (SSP), a self-report questionnaire that assesses four social environment domains—neighborhood, school, family, and peers—and health and well-being. Boys (49.4%) and girls (50.6%) are equally represented in the sample. The majority (3 in 4) of youth participants are in middle school (6th-8th grade) and the sample is ethnically diverse (43.9% Black, 38.8% White, 9.9% Hispanic, 2.8% Multiracial, 4.6% Other). Fifty-six percent of participants report receiving free or reduced price lunches, a proxy measure for SES. Finally, 32.2% of youth report living in one-parent households. Participants completed the survey in the school classroom, with instruction given by research staff.

Results: Using Mplus, structural equation models were estimated predicting adolescents' health and well-being (model 1) and school misbehavior (model 2). Data were clustered by school ID. Model fit indices for both dependent variables improved with the inclusion of the moderating factors (gender and socio-economic status); range of .902 - .953 (CFI), .942 - .971 (TLI), .029 - .025 (RMSEA), indicating that the models were close to an ideal fit. School peers and friends were negatively related to health (positively related to school misbehavior), and were partially mediated through personal susceptibility to peer pressure. Boys and lower SES evidenced a stronger mediating relationship from friends to health and misbehavior through peer pressure. Neighborhood adults had a positive association with health and well-being, especially for lower SES adolescents, and a negative association with school misbehavior, but only for higher SES adolescents.

Conclusions and Implications: Results suggest that collective socialization exists at peer, school, and neighborhood levels. Further, CS has an influence on positive and negative behavior outcomes. However, proximal influences were not strong across all cases. Differences in collective socialization by income level and gender suggest several areas for targeting interventions to support the healthy development of young people. Implications of study findings for social work practice and future research are discussed.