Intergenerational Exchange and Collective Efficacy: A Reciprocal Relationship for Strengthening Communities

Background: Collective efficacy (CE) includes two interrelated components, social cohesion and informal social control, wherein neighbors support prosocial behavior and intervene in problems. Research indicates that engaging youth and adults to intervene in community problems enhances CE, increasing ability to influence their environment and promote community wellbeing. Intergenerational exchange, the process where people of different ages engage in bidirectional relationships, is thought to influence CE. While prior research suggests intergenerational exchange promotes social cohesion and addresses age gaps, little empirical research has investigated how intergenerational exchange may contribute to CE, and how community characteristics might affect these processes. Drawing on data from a clinical trial of a community-based intervention that uses consensus organizing to facilitate CE and strengthen intergenerational social ties, we explore: How, if at all, does intergenerational exchange contribute to CE? How does neighborhood context shape the nature of intergenerational exchange and its relationship to CE?

Methods: The study uses a qualitative, 6-Step thematic analysis (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Data sources included participant interviews (n = 15) and session observations (3-hour sessions; n = 41) across 5 Pittsburgh neighborhoods. Codes were generated iteratively through open coding, code refinement, and application. All data were doubly coded by research assistants (with > 80% inter-rater reliability) using Dedoose. After codes were discussed and finalized, data were analyzed through a series of matrices of themes within and across neighborhoods. Findings were then placed in the context of neighborhood characteristics to understand the relationship between themes and context. We used member checking to authenticate findings.

Findings: The relationship between CE and intergenerational exchange is reciprocal. Intergenerational exchange contributes to CE in the following ways: (1) bridging generational gaps (i.e., sharing perspectives encourages mutual understanding, strengthening trust and collaboration); (2) empowering through dialogue (i.e., when youth are heard in meaningful discussions, they gain confidence and feel more capable of contributing to change); and, (3) sharing experiences (i.e., talking about common challenges, e.g., racial profiling, fosters solidarity and a united purpose). CE promotes intergenerational exchange in the following ways: (1) fostering inclusive community dialogue and youth voice (i.e., when communities feel strong and connected, they create space for youth to speak and be heard, promoting belonging and intergenerational understanding); (2) building relationships through purposeful action (i.e., working together builds mutual respect and deepens intergenerational ties, reinforcing exchange and collective action); and, (3) developing shared norms and social control among youth and adults (i.e., a shared commitment to community well-being encourages intergenerational collaboration and validates everyone’s contributions). Neighborhood problems, along with participant and group characteristics (e.g., facilitator style, ethnoracial identity, proportion of youth represented) shaped the quality of intergenerational exchange and CE across communities.

Discussion: These findings highlight the mutually reinforcing relationship between intergenerational exchange and CE, and this relationship depends on community, participant, and facilitator characteristics. Future research should explore whether these dynamics persist beyond formal intervention and how they continue or shift over time. Future practice should identify community conditions, demographic composition, and other contextual factors that shape intergenerational trust, communication, and collective engagement.