Internalizing Symptoms, Externalizing Symptoms, Collective Efficacy and Community Context

Background: Collective efficacy is the process by which social cohesion is activated as informal social control in communities. Social cohesion refers to perceptions of trust, solidarity, and shared values in the community. Informal social control relates to the willingness of neighbors to intervene in various social problems that might be occurring within the community.

A key limitation of collective efficacy research is that it primarily focuses on one type of community: neighborhood. In the present study, we test collective efficacy in three community contexts: neighborhood, family, and school as predictors of internalizing and externalizing symptoms using Poisson regression.

We hypothesize that social cohesion in the neighborhood, family, and school will be associated with fewer internalizing and externalizing symptoms. We expect informal social control in the family and school to be associated with fewer internalizing and externalizing symptoms, but neighborhood informal social control will not.

Method: Data for this study were drawn from the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing study (n = 3,444). Study participants included 3,444 adolescents who were aged between 13 and 18 years old (51.3% boys, 49.1% Black).

Internalizing (α = 0.828) and externalizing (α = 0.906) symptoms were measured using the Child Behavior Checklist. Neighborhood social cohesion (α = 0.714) and informal social control (α = 0.842) were measured using the ten collective efficacy items developed by Sampson and colleagues. Family social cohesion was measured by combining three items that reflect how connected parents are to youths’ broader social networks (α = 0.733). Family informal social control was measured using a three-item parental monitoring scale (α = 0.746). School social cohesion was measured using four items reflecting school connectedness (α = 0.729), and school informal social control was measured using four items reflecting teachers’ ability to care for and control students (α = 0.721). Poisson regression was conducted to test collective efficacy in the neighborhood, family, and school as predictors of youth internalizing and externalizing symptoms.

Results:

Internalizing. Social cohesion in the neighborhood (OR = 0.970, SE = 0.005), family (OR = 0.0.973; SE = 0.003) and school (OR = 0.932; SE = 0.006) were all associated with fewer internalizing symptoms. Informal social control was not significantly associated with internalizing symptoms in any community setting.

Externalizing. Social cohesion in the neighborhood (OR = 0.972, SE = 0.004), family (OR = 0.0.982; SE = 0.002) and school (OR = 0.941; SE = 0.004) were all associated with fewer externalizing symptoms. Informal social control in the family (OR = 0.968, SE = 0.006) and school (OR = 0.984, SE = 0.005). Neighborhood informal social control was not significantly associated with externalizing symptoms.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that it is important for interventions to leverage social processes in multiple community contexts. The positive impact of social cohesion highlights the need to promote inclusive environments for youth. The findings pertaining to informal social control suggest that watchful, caring adults can affect externalizing symptoms, but other factors may influence internalizing symptoms.