ChapterPDF Available

Neighborhood Sense of Community and Social Capital: A multi-level analysis

January 2002

In book: Psychological Sense of Community: Research, applications, and implications (pp.291-318)
Chapter: 15
Publisher: Springer-Plenum

Authors:

Vanderbilt University

In many ways, social capital (SC) is to political science, sociology, applied economics, and community development what sense of community (SOC) and empowerment have been to community psychology. SC is the norms, networks, and mutual trust of “civil society” facilitating cooperative action among citizens and institutions (Coleman, 1988) and has had considerable influence on political thinking and action over the past decade. It is generally observed and analyzed as a characteristic (or lack) of communities or societies, rather than individuals... We have four main goals for this chapter. One is to inform researchers and program planners in community development, urban policy, and social services that many concepts thoroughly studied by community psychologists (sense of community, collective efficacy/empowerment, citizen participation, neighboring) are part of SC. Our second goal is to introduce more community psychologists to SC. Third, to both audiences, we expect to show that residential neighborhood sense of community is at least as strongly related to other SC dimensions as are demographics and other widely studied community-focused cognitions (place attachment, community satisfaction, community confidence, and communitarianism -- or community values). In addition to those interdisciplinary aims, our fourth goal is to explore SOC and its relationships to SC using multi-level analysis. The relationship between SOC and SC -- whether they operate together, separately, or nested one within the other -- and on what level(s) they operate are critical to our understanding of both concepts.

Block and individual-level sense of community and other predictors of three social capital factors at two points in time: Hierarchical linear models

…

Figures - uploaded by Douglas D. Perkins

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Douglas D. Perkins

Content may be subject to copyright.

Perkins, D.D., & Long, D.A. (2002). Neighborhood sense of community

and social capital: A multi-level analysis. In A. Fisher, C. Sonn, &

B. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research,

applications, and implications (pp. 291-318). New York: Plenum.

Chapter 15

NEIGHBORHOOD SENSE OF COMMUNITY

AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

A Multi-Level Analysisi

Douglas D. Perkins and D. Adam Long

Vanderbilt University

INTRODUCTION

In many ways, social capital (SC) is to political science, sociology,

applied economics, and community development what sense of community

(SOC) and empowerment have been to community psychology. SC is the

norms, networks, and mutual trust of “civil society” facilitating cooperative

action among citizens and institutions (Coleman, 1988) and has had

considerable influence on political thinking and action over the past decade.

It is generally observed and analyzed as a characteristic (or lack) of

communities or societies, rather than individuals.

By contrast, SOC has been conceived of and measured by most

researchers as an individual-level construct. Some studies have examined it

at the group or community level (Buckner, 1988; Fisher & Sonn, 1999;

Kingston, Mitchell, Florin, & Stevenson, 1999; Perkins, Brown, & Taylor,

1996; Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman, & Chavis, 1990; Sampson, 1991).

A very few have used it in multi-level analyses (Brodsky, O’Campo, &

Aronson, 1999; Hyde, 1998; Kingston, et al., 1999; Perkins & Long, 2001;

Sampson, 1991). But we found no previous study that analyzed sense of

community at multiple levels simultaneously to see whether it operates

differently at each level.

We have four main goals for this chapter. One is to inform

researchers and program planners in community development, urban policy,

and social services that many concepts thoroughly studied by community

psychologists (sense of community, collective efficacy/empowerment,

292 Perkins and Long

citizen participation, neighboring) are part of SC. Our second goal is to

introduce more community psychologists to SC. Third, to both audiences, we

expect to show that residential neighborhood sense of community is at least

as strongly related to other SC dimensions as are demographics and other

widely studied community-focused cognitions (place attachment, community

satisfaction, community confidence, and communitarianism -- or community

values). In addition to those interdisciplinary aims, our fourth goal is to

explore SOC and its relationships to SC using multi-level analysis. The

relationship between SOC and SC -- whether they operate together,

separately, or nested one within the other -- and on what level(s) they operate

are critical to our understanding of both concepts.

Social Capital: Community-Focused Cognitions and

Behaviors

In observing that Americans are generally now “bowling alone”

rather than in the leagues so popular a generation ago, Putnam (2000) was

less concerned with the disappearance of recreational clubs, per se, than

what he saw as the loss of the glue that binds together the social fabric of our

local communities and, ultimately, our society. His obituary for the

American community may be exaggerated, but the importance of SC to the

functioning and quality of community life seems indisputable.

The bipartisan and multidisciplinary popularity of SC has led to

many different, and often vague, definitions. Until recently, psychologists

have largely ignored SC despite, or perhaps because of, its being little more

than a collection of more specific community-focused behaviors and

cognitions long studied by community psychologists. We, therefore, may be

skeptical of a term from outside the discipline which seems to cover ground

we feel we already know well, and for which there appears to be no clear,

precise, and agreed upon meaning. The only advantage we see in SC, as a

construct, is that it speaks to economists and policy makers and draws their

attention to non-economic assets (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). But that is

also the danger in SC: as with empowerment (Perkins, 1995), anti-

government neo-conservatives are co-opting SC to justify reducing public

spending on critical social services under the misguided assumption that the

overburdened private community service sector can suffice. As SC seems to

have strong appeal and staying power, the challenge to researchers is to try

to unpack the construct and make it as useful as possible while being fully

aware of the political ramifications: that is, what issues can SC address

directly and, where government intervention is required, how can SC be

turned into political clout?

Given the expanse of theory and research on SOC over more than a

quarter-century,ii it may provide the greatest contribution to understanding

SC. Yet much of the usage of the term SOC is also vague and

Sense of Community/Social Capital 293

counterproductive. The original subtitle of this chapter was “All the things

you are” to make the point that, similar to “community” and “empowerment”

(Perkins, 1995), both SC and SOC have meant, if not all things to all people,

then too much and too varied to too many.

While there is power in such ambiguity, SC would benefit

conceptually, empirically, and practically from a more precise definition. In

particular, it is important to measure and analyze the specific behavioral and

intrapsychic dimensions of SC separately to gain a clearer understanding of

what aspects of SC operate in what ways and under what conditions. There is

a critical need to dissect, examine, and understand, not only the differences

between various forms of SC, but also the many different factors and

processes that make up, and are related to, each form. Only with careful

attention to the construct and predictive validity of SC can we develop a

more psychological and complex, yet clearly defined, conception of SC.

Dimensions of Social Capital

Saegert and Winkel (1998) were among the first psychologists to

study SC, and found that it significantly predicted the successful

revitalization and maintenance of distressed inner-city housing. They

distinguish two measures of informal SC (neighboring and perceived pro-

social norms) and two formal factors (leadership activity and basic voluntary

participation). The emphasis on leadership is particularly important,

especially for maintaining the momentum and effectiveness of voluntary

organizations. Neighboring is the instrumental help we provide, or get from,

other community members (e.g., watching after a neighbor’s house or child;

Perkins, et al., 1990; 1996; Unger & Wandersman, 1985). Ordinary social

interaction with one’s neighbors, especially as it encourages more

community involvement, either formally or informally, may also be included

as a form of neighboring.

We appreciate, and generally agree with, the utility of Saegert and

Winkel’s (1998) and Putnam’s (2000) emphasis on behavioral definitions of

SC; but as long as the dimensions are analyzed separately, there may be

some added utility in considering possible intrapsychic dimensions or

predictors. Community psychologists have researched many attitudes,

emotions, and perceptions related to SC. The most exhaustive attention has

been paid to two constructs: empowerment (Perkins, et al., 1996; Saegert &

Winkel, 1996; Speer & Hughey, 1995) and SOC. Empowerment is about

perceived control. A primary benefit of SOC is social support from one’s

community. (Briggs (1998) identified social leverage (information) and other

forms of social support as key dimensions of SC. Thus, SC provides at least

three forms of social support: communal (SOC), instrumental (neighboring),

and informational. The fourth form of support, emotional, may also be

involved, depending on the quality of one’s relationships with community

294 Perkins and Long

members.) Control and social support are two of the strongest and most

consistent predictors of positive individual outcomes. The same may be true

of community-level outcomes as well.

Thus, we define SC in terms of four distinct components: (1) trust in

one’s neighbors (SOC) and (2) in the efficacy of organized collective action

(empowerment), (3) informal neighboring behavior, and (4) formal

participation in community organizations (see Figure 1). This four-part

definition adds the idea of formal and informal community “trust” to formal

and informal pro-social community behaviors (cf. Saegert & Winkel, 1998).

SOC and collective efficacy are the cognitive or intrapsychic components of

SC. Citizen participation in grassroots community organizations and

neighboring are the behavioral components of SC. Each dimension of SC is

consistently related to the others.

Cognition/Trust Social Behavior

Informal Sense of community

Neighboring

Formally

Organized

Collective efficacy Citizen participation

Figure 1. Four Dimensions Of Social Capital

Sense of community is a consistent and widely valued indicator of

quality of community life and a catalyst for both behavioral dimensions of

SC: organized participation and informal neighboring (Beckman, et al.,

1998; Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Hughey, Speer, & Peterson, 1999;

Perkins, et al., 1996; Wandersman & Giamartino, 1980). The link between

organized participation and SOC has been found at both the individual and

community levels of analysis (Brodsky, et al., 1999; Perkins, et al., 1996). It

makes sense that a group of residents must have at least some SOC to be

interested in organizing an association and working together to solve

common problems (Ahlbrandt, 1984). Chavis and Wandersman (1990) found

that, over time, SOC leads to greater self- and collective-efficacy and

neighboring, which all increase participation. Their results suggest that

participation, in turn, enhances SOC. SOC has also been related to

community satisfaction, collective efficacy, neighboring, communitarianism,

and informal social control, less fear of crime, litter and graffiti (Perkins, et

al., 1990) and better-maintained yards (Varady, 1986).

Interest in SOC has been international as have empirical findings on

its psychometric properties (Chipuer & Pretty, 1999: Australia) and its

relationship to participation and neighboring (Garcia, Giuliani, &

Wiesenfeld, 1999: Venezuela; Itzhaky, & York, 2000: Israel; Prezza, Amici,

Sense of Community/Social Capital 295

Roberti, & Tedeschi, 2001: Italy), type of common land (Li, 1998: Taiwan),

investment in home and community building processes (Garcia, et al., 1999:

Venezuela), community satisfaction and local friendships (Sampson, 1991:

U.K.); life satisfaction and loneliness (Prezza, et al., 2001: Italy), minority

community identity (Sonn & Fisher, 1998: Australia), and university

residence social climate and well-being (Pretty, 1990; Pretty, Conroy,

Dugay, Fowler, & Williams, 1996: Canada).

Collective efficacy, or trust in the effectiveness of organized

community action, is closest to the concept of empowerment among all the

social capital dimensions and their predictors. Some definitions of individual

psychological empowerment are little different from traditional theories of

self-efficacy or locus of control. In order to distinguish it from those

concepts, we argue that a necessary component of empowerment, even at the

individual level, should be its connection to collective action and

organizational and community levels of empowerment. Empowerment is

thought both to lead to participation in community organizations and to

result from it. Perceived efficacy of collective action is important for

maintaining participation in a community organization (Florin &

Wandersman, 1984; Perkins, et al., 1990; 1996) and may be important for

initiating it.

Note that our definition of collective efficacy differs importantly

from that of Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls (1997). They define it as

“social cohesion among neighbors combined with their willingness to

intervene on behalf of the common good” (p. 918) and operationalize it as a

combination of SOC and informal social control (ISC).iii We do not adopt

this definition because (1) we think it conceptually sound to separate the

intrapsychic and more general SOC from the narrower, more behavioral ISC

and (2) collective efficacy should be an appraisal of group behavior that is,

as the term suggests, both collectively organized and efficacious. ISC is, by

definition, unorganized and is undemocratic, unrelated to formal

participation (Perkins, et al., 1990), and inconsistently effective in reducing

crime (Perkins, Wandersman, Rich, & Taylor, 1993).

Neighboring behavior is informal mutual assistance and information

sharing among neighbors. In a stress and coping framework, it can be

considered a form of local “instrumental social support.” Some researchers

include non-instrumental social contact as neighboring (e.g., Brown &

Perkins, 2001). All forms of neighboring allow residents to become better

acquainted and discuss shared problems (Unger & Wandersman, 1985).

Prezza, et al. (2001) found that women, long-term residents, those with more

children, those living with a spouse, those with less education, and members

of community groups had more neighboring relationships. Unger and

Wandersman (1983), using a similar survey measure of neighboring to that

used in the present study, found that greater neighboring prior to organizing

a block may facilitate subsequent efforts towards forming a block

296 Perkins and Long

association. In turn, they found that once a block organized, association

members engaged in more social interaction, which may lead to more

neighboring. Perkins, et al. (1996) found that neighboring was, generally, the

strongest single predictor of participation in community organizations in

three cities, cross-sectionally and one year later, at both the individual and

block levels of analysis.

It is surprising that, despite the important role of neighboring to the

quality of community life, so few studies have related neighboring to other

community-focused behaviors and cognitions. Brown and Werner (1985)

found neighboring to be related to community satisfaction. In Time-1 of the

present data, controlling for demographics, block-level neighboring was

related to participation, sense of community, communitarianism, block

satisfaction, and informal social control (Perkins, et al., 1990).

Citizen participation in block, neighborhood, and building (tenant or

co-op) associations, faith-based community service or advocacy committees

and coalitions, school-based associations, and other grassroots community

organizations are examples of formal social capital behavior. These

organizations address a wide variety of local needs, from housing, planning

and traffic issues to cleaning up residential property, vacant lots, and parks to

youth and recreation programs and block parties to crime prevention.

Research on civic participation has been a staple of sociology and

political science from their beginning (or even longer: Tocqueville, 1935/

1969). But the emphasis in much of the research has been on demographic

predictors. For example, replicating their own 1958 study, Hyman and

Wright (1971) found that greater resources (income), investment in the

community (home ownership, length of residence) and skills and knowledge

(education) motivate or permit greater participation. More recently, poor and

middle-class mothers’ participation in block clubs, neighborhood or tenant

groups, and other community organizations was associated with greater

education and income, but not with age, employment, marital status, number

of children, or tenure in neighborhood (Rankin & Quane, 2000).

The psychological research on participation generally controls for

these demographic differences, but goes beyond them to find that

participants, and their organizations and communities, have a greater sense

of collective efficacy or empowerment (Florin & Wandersman, 1984;

Perkins, et al., 1996; Saegert & Winkel, 1996; Speer & Hughey, 1995), SOC

(Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Perkins & Long, 2001), neighboring

(Perkins, et al., 1996; Unger & Wandersman, 1985), community satisfaction

(Perkins, et al., 1990), and other positive community attachments and

organizational activities (Perkins, et al., 1996).

Psychological Predictors of Social Capital

Place attachment is an important construct in its relationship to SOC

Sense of Community/Social Capital 297

and SC, but one that is often overlooked by community psychologists. It

refers to emotional bonding, developed over time from behavioral, affective,

and cognitive ties to a particular socio-physical environment (Brown &

Perkins, 1992). These bonds are integral to individual and community

aspects of self-identity and provide a source of stability and change for

individuals and communities alike. Place attachments are a resource that

individuals (especially women, minorities, lower-income people, and elders)

and communities can draw on to help revitalize all aspects of home and

neighborhood environments (Brown & Perkins, 2001; Saegert, 1989).

Politically, place attachment may motivate residents to participate in

community organizations (Saegert, 1989). Participation, at both the

individual and community levels, also leads to greater community

attachment (Zhao, 1996). Socially, place attachment can help bring residents

together to address social problems as well as environmental threats (Brown

& Perkins, 1992). Economically, where residents, through their history in,

and attachments to, a place discover what is unique about their community,

they can preserve or develop places and events that generate tourism and

other business opportunities. Those who feel no particular attachment to the

place they live invest little time, energy, or money in it and are more likely to

move (Vinsel, Brown, Altman, & Foss, 1980).

Place attachment and SOC are closely related. The Sense of

Community Index includes four items measuring attachment to place (one’s

block; in the present analyses, these items were removed to create a new

place attachment scale). The two constructs were combined with block

satisfaction and knowing one’s neighbors in an analysis of participation in

neighborhood improvement organizations (Perkins, et al., 1996). In all three

cities studied, that combination was significantly correlated with

participation at the individual and block levels, both cross-sectionally and

over a one-year lag. In multivariate analyses, however, it was a significant

predictor in two cities and only at the individual level.

Cuba and Hummon (1993) identify three loci of place identity --

home, community, and region -- and find that formal organizational

participation, not sense of community, is key to community identity.

Puddifoot (1996) argues that psychological theory supports the analysis of

“community identity,” based on a combination of place identity or

attachment, SOC, and community satisfaction. Pretty (this volume) expands

on that argument, suggesting that SOC and place attachment are part of the

same overarching self-in-community psychological framework with

emotional, cognitive, spiritual, and behavioral dimensions all contributing to

the development of individuals’ community identity.

Despite these connections, we view place attachment as distinct

from SOC because the former is a spatially-oriented emotional construct

(Brown & Perkins, 1992) and the latter is more of a socially-oriented

cognitive construct. Furthermore, keeping the concepts separate allows us to

298 Perkins and Long

consider how one may lead to the other or whether different community

changes might affect place and social attachments differently. For example,

there is intriguing evidence that SOC may be encouraged by “New Urbanist”

planned communities that minimize the impact of automobile traffic and

emphasize walkable, mixed residential/commercial space (Nasar & Julian,

1995; Plas & Lewis, 1996). But more research is needed to determine

whether SOC gains are due to increased social interaction in private and

public outdoor spaces, increased place attachment, both, or neither (people

attracted to New Urbanist communities may be predisposed to more SOC).

Community Satisfaction is also related to place: Brown and Werner’s

(1985) research showing that block satisfaction and neighboring behaviors

are related also found such community ties to be stronger on cul-de-sacs than

through streets. Perkins, et al. (1990) found block satisfaction to be higher on

blocks with more attached homes as well as SOC, collective efficacy, and

neighboring and (surprisingly) fewer trees, gardens and shrubs as well as less

criminal victimization, disorder, and fear. Block satisfaction was also the

strongest predictor of block association (BA) participation in their

multivariate analyses. It remains to be seen whether that relationship was as

strong at Time 2 and in a multilevel analysis at both times.

Chavis and Wandersman (1990) also found block satisfaction to be

associated with BA participation, neighboring, collective efficacy, and SOC.

Using data from the same Nashville project, Florin and Wandersman (1984)

found perceived community problems and community dissatisfaction to load

as one factor and so combined them into “encoding strategies,” which was

modestly associated with individual BA participation. But satisfaction is

very different than a lack of perceived problems. In fact, Perkins, et al.

(1990) found that two of the strongest predictors of participation were

community satisfaction and more perceived disorder (again, a physical

environmental concern). Residents who are very attached to their community

may have high satisfaction, but because they care about it so much, they are

also the most critical of community problems.

Communitarianism is the value placed on one’s community and on

working collectively to improve it (Perkins, et al., 1990). This is the original

meaning before Etzioni (1993) politicized the term as a compromise position

among competing ideologies of autonomous individualism vs. communal

socialism and Liberalism vs. Conservativism. If residents participate more in

communities they value, a communitarian climate should encourage greater

collective participation. Florin and Wandersman (1984) used the cognitive

social learning concept of “subjective stimulus values” to encompass a

variety of constructs, including communitarianism, self-efficacy, collective

efficacy, and SOC. This composite predicted individual participation in BAs

far better than any other variable they considered. At the block level of

analysis, Perkins, et al. (1990) found communitarianism alone to be related

to blocks with more minorities, less income, more home owners,

Sense of Community/Social Capital 299

neighboring, collective efficacy, and to various features of the block physical

environment, but only marginally to SOC, and not significantly to

participation in BAs.

Community Confidence is another vital cognition, especially in older

neighborhoods that may be deteriorating and considered “transitional” due to

changes in local businesses or residential demography (income, tenure, racial

composition; Ahlbrandt 1984; Varady, 1986). As residents perceive their

neighborhood declining, if they still have confidence in its future, they may

stay and upgrade their own property and pressure neighbors and the city to

do likewise. A lack of community confidence, however, may spell

commercial and residential disinvestment and flight and may explain why

many urban policies and revitalization projects have failed (Varady, 1986).

As other, more objective, development indicators -- such as building permits,

residential stability, higher owner occupancy and property values -- are

slower to appear, confidence is considered by many to be a benchmark

indicator of a community’s capacity to revitalize.

Varady (1986) examined the impact of a major federal “urban

homesteading” program on neighborhood confidence and property

upgrading. Program spillover effects on neighbors’ upgrading and

confidence were negligible. Nor were home improvements related to

confidence at the individual/household level, a result confirmed in a more

recent study (Brown & Perkins, 2001). But neighborhoods in better physical

condition had residents who were more confident about the future of the

neighborhood (Varady, 1986). Confidence was also associated with

neighboring, SOC, and resident decisions to move or stay.

MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF SENSE OF COMMUNITY

Almost all studies of SOC, other community cognitions, or social

capital behaviors (as opposed to organizations), while targeting the block,

neighborhood, or vaguely defined community level, have analyzed

individual level data. There is no doubt that we need more and better data

collected at the community level (Fisher & Sonn, 1999; Puddifoot, 1996;

Shinn, 1990; Theodori, 2000). But another approach to more ecologically

valid research is multi-level analysis. Social scientists have long aggregated

individual perceptions to the group level to create contextual or social

climate variables. With the advent of multi-level analytic statistical

programs, this practice is becoming even more common. Yet psychologists’

individualistic bias has made us slower to respond to these powerful new

techniques. The criteria for validating aggregate individual perceptions as

group climate variables are clear and simple, however (Shinn, 1990).

Climate variables must (1) exhibit adequate inter-rater agreement among

members of the same group, (2) show reliable differentiation, or variance,

between groups, and (3) correlate significantly with other variables at the

300 Perkins and Long

group or individual level.

There have been just a few recent multilevel studies of SOC.

Brodsky, et al. (1999) used multilevel analysis to identify individual- and

community-level predictors of individual SOC, but they only compared three

communities and do not report the extent to which SOC varies at the

community level. Kingston, et al. (1999) show that perceptions of

neighborhood climate (SOC) vary at the community level. But possibly due

to (a) low neighborhood-level variance, (b) low statistical power at that level,

and (c) using dichotomous predictors, they fail to find a significant

correlation between SOC and either neighborhood organization or the

boundedness of the neighborhood by arterial streets. Their results show the

importance of an adequate sample size at the group as well as individual

level in multi-level analysis. Sampson (1991) used a British nation-wide

sample in finding that neighborhood-level social cohesion increases

individuals’ community satisfaction (independent of personal

characteristics).

A multi-level study by Hyde (1998) made, we believe, another

important advance by analyzing SOC and place attachment separately. She

found significant neighborhood-level variance in both. She also found that

both resident perceptions of disorder and independently assessed disorder

predicted SOC and place attachment, suggesting that physical and social

conditions of place influence community attachments. Similarly, using the

present data, Perkins and Long (2001) found that between 9% and 30% of

variance in individual-level SOC was due to block-level differences and that

SOC was predicted by place attachment and other community-focused

cognitions and behaviors at both the block and individual levels.

None of the above, however, has considered SOC at multiple levels

simultaneously. Multi-level analysis is critical to determine how, and how

much, SC is manifested at the community level vs. the individual level. This

could lead to better targeted interventions to encourage the right form of SC

for a given community or a particular group of its individual members. In

addition, it can identify differences in SC dimensions among individuals

with different social attitudes and demographic profiles living in

communities with different levels of social cohesion and place attachment.

(For example, what does it mean to have a strong SOC in a community

where that is not shared versus one where it is?) And it can address the

critical question of whether, controlling for individual and/or community

demographics, individuals engage in more or less formal SC in communities

with more informal cohesion. That is, do communities with more SOC

encourage, not only neighboring, but also more collective efficacy and

voluntarism, or does it tend to replace and thus lessen the formal forms of

SC?

We aim to unpack the broadly defined and loosely understood

concept by examining the construct validity of the various dimensions of SC

Sense of Community/Social Capital 301

and other variables that are related to SOC and how they are inter-related.

We will present a new analysis of one of the major studies of SOC, blocks,

and block associations (Perkins, et al., 1990).

Community Cognitions and Social Capital: Reanalyzing the

Block Booster Data

The present data were collected as part of the Block Booster Project,

a two-year (1985-86), multimethod, action study of the social effects,

organizational dynamics, and viability of urban residential BAs (Chavis,

Florin, Rich, Wandersman, & Perkins, 1987). The purposes of the Project

were to: (1) examine the role of BAs in community development and crime

control and (2) develop an intervention process and set of training materials

to help voluntary associations maintain and strengthen themselves.

Clustered, resident survey data from 47 street blocks (the homes fronting on

the same street between two cross streets or a cross street and dead end) in

five neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens, New York, permit comparisons

over two points in time (T1 n = 1,081, T2 n = 638, panel = 438) using

multilevel analyses (HLM) of the constructs as both individual psychological

and community climate phenomena. (For details of the site selection,

sampling, and survey methods, see Perkins, et al., 1990.)

Measures

The following scales were confirmed in principal components

analyses (PCA) as distinct and coherent constructs. All predictors were

standardized. To reduce skewness, variables were transformed using either

the square root (number of children, neighboring, participation) or the

exponential method (length of residence, SOC, place attachment,

communitarianism, collective efficacy). This was not done in previous

publications of these data (Perkins, et al., 1990; 1993; 1996). All four SC

dimension scales (Sense of Community, Collective Efficacy, Participation,

and Neighboring), items, and reliabilities are displayed in Appendix A. Most

items were dichotomous, which lowered the internal consistency of all

scales, we recommend Likert response scales be used in future. (More

information on the creation of scales and their descriptive statistics is

available from the authors.)

Brief Sense of Community Index (BSCI) is a new eight-item scale

adapted in part from the 12-item Sense of Community Index (SCI; Perkins,

et al., 1990).iv PCAs confirmed SOC as distinct from neighboring behavior,

informal social control, block satisfaction, and communitarianism. But a

PCA of the SCI alone failed to confirm McMillan and Chavis’ (1986)

dimensions of emotional connection, group membership, needs fulfillment,

and influence. One or two factors, which cut across their framework, is, we

302 Perkins and Long

argue, a separate construct, that is, place attachment. After removing four

place attachment items, we added three face-valid SOC items to a second

PCA. Three of the original items failed to load cleanly on a single factor and

were removed. The remaining eight items form the new BSCI and were

included in a third PCA resulting in three subscales, confirmed across two

surveys: social connections, mutual concern, and community values (Perkins

& Long, 2001). Only the total scale was used here.

Place attachment (α (Time 1) = .65, n = 903; α (Time 2) = .63, n =

480) is the mean of four items removed from the SCI (true/false): I think my

block is a good place for me to live; I feel at home on this block; it is very

important to me to live on this particular block; I expect to live on this block

for a long time.

Communitarianism (α = .56, n = 1,053; .62, n = 624) is the value

placed on one’s community and on working collectively to improve it.

Unlike Perkins, et al. (1990), it was measured using the mean of just two

items: the importance to the respondent of what their block is like and the

importance of neighbors working together rather than alone to improve block

conditions (not important, somewhat important, very important).

Community (block) satisfaction (α = .36, n = 946; .39, n = 613) was

measured here using the mean of just two items: satisfaction with the block

as a place to live (satisfied/dissatisfied) and, compared to adjacent blocks,

whether the block is a better or worse place to live or about the same as other

blocks in the area. Using the same data, the satisfaction scale by Perkins, et

al. (1990) combined these items with the following two.

Block confidence (α = .62 n = 923; .63, n = 567) was measured using

the mean of two items: “In the past two years, have the general conditions on

your block gotten worse, stayed about the same, or improved” and “in the

next two years, do you feel that general conditions on your block will get

worse, stay about the same, or improve.”

Demographic variables. The present analyses included the following

control variables: sex, age, income level, education, race, length of

residence, home ownership, and number of children in household.

In order to examine the relationship of SOC, relative to other

community-focused cognitions and demographics, to SC, all the above were

used to predict each of the other three dimensions of SC (see Appendix A):

Collective efficacy was measured here using the mean of six items:

whether it is “not likely, somewhat likely, or very likely” the respondent’s

BA (or a hypothetical association on unorganized blocks) can accomplish

improvement of physical conditions, the persuasion of city officials to

provide better services, getting people on the block to help each other more,

a reduction in crime, getting people to know each other better, and getting

information to residents about where to go for needed services.

Participation in BA activities was a sum of eight items coded zero to

one (all but one item were yes/no): membership and participation in a BA,

Sense of Community/Social Capital 303

whether the respondent had attended, spoken in, served as member or officer

in a BA meeting, or done work for the organization outside a meeting in the

past year, and monthly hours working for the BA outside of meetings.

Neighboring behavior was measured using the mean of five items

indicating how many neighbors (none, one or two, or several) asked: to

watch their home while they were away, to loan food or a tool, to help in an

emergency, to offer advice on a personal problem, and to discuss a block

problem. (This differs from the scale by Perkins, et al. (1990) who used

block aggregates only, including neighboring received as well as given.)

Individual and Block-Level Bivariate Correlations

Table 1 presents individual and block mean level bivariate

correlations at both time points for the four dimensions of SC (collective

efficacy, participation, neighboring, SOC), the other four informal

community cognitions (place attachment, communitarianism, block

satisfaction, block confidence), and eight demographics (number of children,

age, education, white ethnicity, income, sex, resident tenure, home

ownership). Below the diagonal are individual-level coefficients, above the

diagonal are block mean aggregated coefficients; these cells display cross-

sectional coefficients at both time points as follows: T1/T2. On the diagonal

are displayed the T1 by T2 correlations for the respective variables (for data

available at both time points); each cell on the diagonal displays coefficients

as follows: individual-level/block-level. Coefficients are displayed only if

significant at p < .05 for individual-level correlations and p < .10 for block-

level correlations. (It is common to relax the significance criterion when

analyzing group data, which tend to be more stable than individual-level data

(Kenny & LaVoie, 1985).

Interestingly, there is virtually no correlation between collective

efficacy and neighboring. Otherwise, the correlations among the four

dimensions of SC are significant, suggesting some internal consistency to the

overarching construct. Participation in BAs (individual r = .68, block-level r

= .87) and SOC (individual r = .58, block r = .77) were both highly

correlated between T1 and T2. The correlations between T1 and T2 for the

other SC scales (collective efficacy and neighboring) and other predictors

were also significant, with block confidence being the least stable. The five

substantive predictors (SOC, place attachment, communitarianism, block

satisfaction, block confidence) also showed some intercorrelation. As

expected, the relationship between SOC and place attachment was strongest

(individual r = .40(T1), .51(T2); block r = .73(T1), .63(T2)). However,

communitarianism was not significantly related to block satisfaction,

confidence, or (at the block level) place attachment. SOC was the only

predictor to correlate significantly with all the other community cognitions at

both levels.

cial Capital 304 304

Table 1. Individual- and Block-level Time-1 and Time-2 Psychological Correlates of Social Capital Variables with Sense of Community and Other Predictors: Individual Level

Correlations Below Diagonal; Block Level Correlations Above

DEPENDENT

VARIABLES: DEMOGRAPHICS: INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Collective Efficacy .27/.28 .29/ns .38/ns -.36/ns -.31/ns .34/.49 ns/.55 .52/.38 ns/.36 ns/.26

2. Participation .19/.25 .68/.87 .39/.59 ns/-.25 ns/-.23 ns/.21 .54/.54 .25/ns .34/.23

3. Neighboring .07/ns .32/.37

.38/.56 .36/.38 .38/.34 .47/.63 .39/.39 .29/ns ns/.32 ns/.35

4. Children .09/ns .07/ns .10/ns -.46 -.44 -.27 .26 -.44/-.36 -.35/-.21 .42/.31 ns/-.22 -.28/ns

5. Age ns/.21 .12/ns -.28 -.23 .26 .50/.50 .34/.27

6. Education -.11/ns .06/ns -.22 .40 .36 -.49/-.28

7. White Ethnicity -.13/ns -.07/-.14 -.24 .10 .10 .36 -.24 .-45/-.27 ns/.36 -.59/-.39 .26/ns .31/ns

8. Income .13/ns .15/ns .34 .15 -.24 -.29/-.23 .28/ns

9. Sex ns/.13 -.06 -.18

10. Length-Residence .21/.13 .24/.24 -.12/-.16 .45/.42 -.10/ns .14/.13 .83/.68 .47/.55 .52/.26 .59/.34 ns/.29

11. Homeowner .26/.24 .30/.25 .09/ns .21/.23 -.13/ns .20/.13 .42/.47

.83/.85 .36/.22 .25/ns

12. Sense-Community .26/.42 .36/.33 .42/.37 .13/.17 .08/ns .23/.17 .24/.22

.58/.77 .73/.63 ns/.29 .37/.49 .29/.28

13. Place Attachment .12/.33 .15/.14 .18/.19 .20/.27 -.16/-.12 .07/ns .19/.16 .16/.15 .40/.51 .37/.50 .31/.65 .43/.47

14. Communitarian .30/.37 .14/.19 .16/.20 .06/.10 .13/.15 -.12/-.08 -.17/-.14 -.08/-.10 ns/.12 .09/.09 .09/.16 .27/.36 .17/.23 .33/.50

15. Block Satisfaction ns/.14 ns/.11 ns/.11 .07/ns -.06/ns .17/.29 .23/.37 .23/.45 .39/.34

16. Block Confidence .16/.28 .17/.14 .09/.13 .09/ns .12/ns .27/.24 .27/.31 .31/.28 .26/.20

Sense of Community/So

Note: For the highlighted diagonal cells, correlations are Time-1 by Time-2 for the respective variable, and are arranged as follows: Individual-evel / Block-

level (significant coefficients at p < .05 appear in boldfaced type on diagonal). For demographics, autocorrelations were not possible and intercorrelations are only at

one point in time, as they were asked only at T1 or T2. For the off-diagonal cells, correlations are arranged as follows: Time-1 / Time-2. All coefficients printed are

statistically significant at p < .05 or better at the individual level or p < .10 or better, block level; empty cells denote no significant correlation at T1 or T2.

Sense of Community/Social Capital 305

Of all the predictors, none showed greater or more reliable (i.e.,

significant at both T1 and T2) correlations with all three dependent variables

than did SOC (individual-level r = .26 to .42; block-level r = .34 to .63).

Like SOC, place attachment, communitarianism, and block confidence

showed significant and reliable correlations to all three dimensions of SC at

the individual level. Due to the much smaller n of blocks than individuals,

several of the corresponding block-level correlations, although larger, were

nonsignificant at either T1 or T2. Curiously, block satisfaction correlated

significantly with the three dimensions of SC at T2, but not at T1. This is

particularly surprising given the finding by Perkins, et al. (1990) that block

satisfaction was one of the strongest block-level predictors of participation at

T1, albeit moreso in multivariate than bivariate analyses. Both variables

were computed differently in the present analysis, however. (In Perkins, et

al. (1990), participation included items from a BA member survey and

satisfaction included block confidence items.)

Among demographics, home ownership and residential stability

were the strongest correlates of SC -- both were significantly related to

participation, neighboring, and SOC, but not to collective efficacy. Other

demographic effects were less consistent. Nonwhite residents and blocks

showed more collective efficacy at T1 (only), but more participation at T2.

In contrast, individual older residents participated more at T1, but felt more

collective efficacy at T2. Individuals and blocks with more children and

(unexpectedly) less education felt more collective efficacy at T1.

Multilevel Models Predicting Social Capital Dimensions

In a series of HLMs, SOC and four other community-focused

cognitions (place attachment, communitarianism, block satisfaction, and

community confidence), at block and individual levels, and individual-level

demographics were tested for their ability to predict collective efficacy,

informal neighboring, and formally organized citizen participation. Each of

the three dependent variables was predicted cross-sectionally at two points in

time, about a year apart, see Table 2).v

Collective Efficacy Time 1. In the HLM predicting collective

efficacy at T1, about six percent (p < .001) of the total variance in

individuals’ sense of the efficacy of BAs was due to block differences. The

only significant block-level predictors were SOC and communitarianism. At

the individual level, communitarianism, SOC, block confidence, block

satisfaction, and education were significant. Surprisingly, block satisfaction

and education were associated with less collective efficacy. The model

explains approximately 50% of block differences in collective efficacy and

306 Perkins and Long

13% of individual variance. In testing for random effects among the

individual-level substantive predictors, SOC was significant (p < .01),

indicating that the slope of the relationship between efficacy and SOC varies

across blocks. In an effort to explain that variation, we tested for significant

cross-level interactions with SOC, but none were found.

Collective Efficacy Time 2. At T2, just over 7% (p < .01) of the total

variance in individual collective efficacy occurred at the block level. SOC

and communitarianism were again significant block-level predictors, but this

time, so too is block confidence. At the individual level, SOC,

communitarianism, block confidence, minority status, and length of

residence were significant. Surprisingly, newer residents showed greater

collective efficacy. The model explains 99% of block differences in efficacy

and 25% of individual variance. There were no random effects.

Table 2. Block and individual-level sense of community and other predictors of three social

capital factors at two points in time: Hierarchical linear models

Collective Efficacy Participation Neighboring

Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2

Block Level: Approx. df 44 40 42 57 42 58

% total variance at block level 5.7*** 7.3** 30.5*** 40.0*** 3.0** 7.2***

% block variance explained 49.4 99.0 40.0 45.4 82.0 95.0

Intercept 13.80*** 12.81*** 1.01*** 0.77*** 1.15*** 1.12***

Sense of Community 1.23* 2.21** 1.36*** 1.32*** 0.17* 0.29***

Place Attachment -0.96** -0.93***

Communitarianism 2.71*** 1.98* 0.11#

Block Satisfaction -0.45# -0.17*

Block Confidence 2.62*** 0.80** 0.56** 0.14* 0.14#

Individual level: Approx. df 1,022 303 996 555 1,060 625

% individual variance explained 13.0 25.2 20.6 16.4 20.9 15.9

Children 0.09*** 0.05*

Age 0.10** -0.09***

Education -0.31* 0.07* 0.09** 0.06***

White Ethnicity -0.53*

Income 0.08*

Length of Residence -0.58* 0.12*** 0.07** 0.10***

Home Owner 0.13*** 0.18*** 0.08*** 0.08**

Sense of Community 0.87*** 1.84*** 0.24*** 0.20*** 0.22*** 0.16***

Place Attachment

Communitarianism 1.23*** 1.14*** 0.06* 0.12** 0.05*

Block Satisfaction -0.46* -0.04*

Block Confidence 0.86*** 0.83**

Note: Fixed effects unstandardized coefficients. #p<.10, *p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001.

Participation Time 1. In the HLM predicting T1 participation, about

31% (p < .001) of the total variance in individuals’ participation in BAs is

due to block differences. Significant block-level predictors include SOC,

place attachment, block satisfaction, and block confidence. Unlike the

Sense of Community/Social Capital 307

bivariate correlations, which were modestly positive or nonsignificant, in the

HLM, block-level place attachment and satisfaction were associated with

less participation. At the individual level, SOC, communitarianism, number

of children, age, education, income, resident tenure, and home ownership

were significant. The model explains 40% of block differences in

participation and 21% of individual variance.

In testing for random effects, individual-level SOC was significant

(p < .01), with four significant cross-level interactions emerging. On blocks

with more children, more educated residents, more long-term residents, and

low communitarianism, the positive relation between SOC and participation

was stronger than elsewhere.

Participation Time 2. In the HLM predicting participation at T2,

40% (p < .001) of the total variance in individuals’ participation in BAs was

due to block differences. Significant block-level predictors again included

SOC, place attachment, and block confidence, but block satisfaction was

nonsignificant at T2. Block-level place attachment was again associated with

less participation. At the individual level, SOC, communitarianism,

education, and home ownership were significant. The model explains

approximately 45% of block differences in participation and 16% of

individual variance.

In testing for random effects, individual-level communitarianism

emerged as significant (p < .05). Four significant cross-level interactions

were identified to help explain the variation in slopes across blocks.

Communitarianism and participation were virtually unrelated on most blocks

(even marginally negatively related on some). However, on blocks with few

children, blocks with younger residents, blocks with more ethnic minority

residents, and those with more long-term residents, the relation between

communitarianism and participation was positive and much stronger.

Neighboring Time 1. In the HLM predicting neighboring at T1, three

percent (p < .01) of the total variance in individuals’ neighboring behavior is

due to block differences. Significant block-level predictors included SOC,

communitarianism, block satisfaction and block confidence. Surprisingly, in

the multivariate context, higher block-level satisfaction was associated with

less neighboring. At the individual level, SOC, block satisfaction, number of

children, education, resident tenure, and home ownership were significant.

Like at the block level, block satisfaction was associated with less

neighboring. The model explains 82% of block differences in neighboring

and 21% of individual variance. None of the random effects were significant.

Neighboring Time 2. In the HLM predicting neighboring at T2,

about seven percent (p < .001) of the total variance in individuals’ informal

neighboring behaviors is due to block differences. Significant block-level

predictors included SOC and block confidence. At the individual level, SOC,

communitarianism, age, length of residence, and home ownership were

significant. Neighboring behaviors decrease with age. The model explains

308 Perkins and Long

95% of block differences in neighboring and 16% of individual variance. No

random effects were significant.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents a new, multi-level analysis of the original

Sense of Community Index data (Chavis, et al., 1987; Perkins, et al., 1990).

The BSCI used in the present analyses is shorter than previous scales and has

adequate psychometric properties (Perkins & Long, 2001). The data and

analyses we present meet the three criteria for validly deriving contextual or

social climate variables from group-aggregated individual responses.

Although, for all variables, block-level variances were less than individual-

level variances, the significance of all six HLM unconditional models, and

the many significant block-level predictors (between two and four out of five

in each model), confirm the existence of: (1) substantial within-block

agreement as to community-focused attitudes and behaviors, (2) significant

block differentiation in those variables (and in half the models, significant

block-level variation in slopes), and (3) predictable relations with other

block-level constructs (above diagonal, Table 1), as well as predictable

effects on individual-level SC outcomes in our HLM models. The variable

showing the most block-level variance was participation, which is not

surprising given that the sample included blocks with BAs of varying

activity, and about a third of the blocks had no BA. What is more noteworthy

is that at T2, SOC was as much a block level variable (30%; Perkins & Long,

2001) as participation was at T1.

Strong evidence was shown for our four-component definition of

SC. Each dimension was significantly correlated with at least two other

dimensions at the individual and block-aggregate levels. The only exception

was the nonsignificant link between collective efficacy and neighboring.

This is not surprising given that efficacy is the formal-intrapsychic

dimension and neighboring is the informal-behavioral dimension. The fact

that SOC (informal-intrapsychic) and participation (formal-behavioral) are

so highly correlated, particularly at the block level, is perhaps more

impressive. SOC emerged as the strongest and most consistent predictor (at

both levels) of the other three dimensions of SC. In fact, it was the only

individual-level predictor, including demographics, that was significant in all

six models and the only block-level predictor that was significant in all six.

Living on a block with higher mean SOC and (whether block SOC is high or

low) having higher individual SOC relative to one’s neighbors was related to

more collective efficacy, more neighboring, and more participation in block

organizations.

Our findings that SOC positively relates to neighboring and

participation in grassroots community organizations corroborate numerous

other studies (Beckman, et al., 1998; Brodsky, et al., 1999; Brown &

Sense of Community/Social Capital 309

Werner, 1985; Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Hughey, et al., 1999; Itzhaky

& York, 2000; Perkins, et al., 1996; Prezza, et al., 2001; Wandersman &

Giamartino, 1980). What is new, in addition to finding the effects to be

significant at both the individual and community levels simultaneously, are

the cross-level interaction effects at T1: SOC and participation being most

closely linked on blocks with more children, more educated residents, more

long-term residents, and low communitarianism may help community

organizers and leaders target their organizing strategies accordingly. (The T2

cross-level interaction, in which communitarianism and participation were

slightly negatively related on blocks with more new residents but had a

clearly positive slope on more residentially stable blocks, may be due to

communitarians feeling alienated or frustrated on blocks with high turnover).

The link between SOC and collective efficacy (Perkins, et al., 1990)

had not been well established. Thus, the significance of SOC at both levels

and time points represents a major contribution to the literature. There are a

number of publications that deal with SOC and empowerment. But with very

few exceptions (e.g., Itzhaky & York, 2000; Speer, 2000), most of those are

either non-empirical or use both constructs as either independent or

dependent variables, rather than relating the two, which is surprising given

the prominence of both empowerment and SOC in community psychology.

Several other reliable effects (i.e., present at T1 and T2) were noted,

especially for community confidence, a construct that has been largely

ignored by psychologists. Individual and block mean communitarianism and

individual confidence in the block’s future related positively to perceptions

of collective efficacy. Individual resident tenure, home ownership, and a

block climate of community confidence related to higher rates of

neighboring. More confidence and less place attachment at the block level,

as well as individual home ownership and more education, related to higher

participation.

The negative coefficients for block-level place attachment should be

discounted as suppression effects as the bivariate correlations were modest,

but positive. Place attachment was strongly correlated with SOC at both

levels. It likely would be less so if the measures did not derive from items

taken from the same scale, as was necessary here. Place attachment is clearly

an important construct independent of SOC (Brown & Perkins, 1992; Cuba

& Hummon, 1993; Hyde, 1998; Li, 1998; Manzo & Perkins, 2001). Even

discounting the negative suppression effects, however, one of our most

surprising multivariate findings is that place attachment was largely

unrelated to collective efficacy, participation, and neighboring at both the

block and individual levels. It is not surprising that social attachments would

be more closely related to SC than are place attachments. In light of all the

evidence that place issues are critical to community participation and

development (Manzo & Perkins, 2001), however, place attachment deserves

further scrutiny in this context with a stronger measure than we had available

310 Perkins and Long

to us.

The following effects were significant (p < .01), but were less

reliable (i.e., appearing at just one time-point). Higher block-mean

community confidence related to higher individual perceptions of collective

efficacy. Greater resident tenure, more children in the home, and age were

associated with higher rates of participation in organizations. Neighboring

behaviors decreased with age, but increased with education. The correlations

with race suggest the possibility that nonwhite residents and blocks felt more

collective efficacy at T1, which may have resulted in higher participation at

T2. But the racial difference in efficacy was no longer significant at T2,

which may imply a degree of disappointment or frustration with their

organizations.

Collective efficacy has been shown in past research to be related to

organizational participation, both as an effect (Schultz, Israel, Zimmerman,

& Checkoway, 1995) and as a cause (Perkins, et al., 1996). Thus, policies

encouraging collective efficacy will have a positive impact on behavioral

dimensions of SC. In this study, individual perceptions of

communitarianism, SOC, and confidence in the future of the block were

strongly associated with increased collective efficacy. Living on a block with

high average SOC and communitarianism was related to higher individual

perceptions of collective efficacy. Although less reliable findings, collective

efficacy was also shown to increase with higher block mean confidence in

the future of the block, but decrease with individual education, length of

residence, and the proportion of white residents living on the block. This

may be due to longer-term, white, and more educated residents having more

personal ties to power and thus not needing as much formal collective

efficacy.

Like Rankin and Quane (2000), we also found a positive association

between greater education and participation in grassroots organizations.

However, where Rankin and Quane found no relation between participation

and number of children, age, employment status or tenure in the

neighborhood, we found that participation was greater among older, better

off (i.e., higher income), more tenured residents, and those with more

children. Our finding for age and participation is supported in another recent

study (Prezza, et al., 2001). Also like Prezza, et al., we found that

neighboring behavior increased with education and number of children in the

household. Unlike Prezza, et al., we found no relation between neighboring

behavior and sex. Controlling for other predictors, younger residents

engaged in more neighboring which, coupled with the above age-

participation link, suggests a possible developmental strategy for community

organizing: facilitate neighboring among young families (e.g., semi-

formalized baby-sitting co-ops), and later, as residents grow older and have

more time, they may participate in more formal organizations.

There are some constraints on the generalizability of the present

Sense of Community/Social Capital 311

findings. Comparisons between organized and non-organized blocks (not

reported) suggest that there may be unique social processes occurring on the

two types of blocks. The data are now 15 years old and social capital and

political processes may have changed. There are some important cultural,

political and economic differences between the neighborhoods selected for

this study. It may be questionable, therefore, to draw conclusions about the

entire sample (across all three neighborhoods) based on block and

individual-level data. It would be even more questionable to infer anything

about communities unlike those represented here. Some of the exceptional

features of the sample include: (a) two out of three areas being low-income

or working-class and minority yet with a large proportion of homeowners,

(b) all neighborhoods experiencing increasing rates of reported crime while

city-wide rates were holding steady or declining, and (c) a housing density

and architectural style that is more crowded and “urban” than most suburban

areas but less so than most of the rest of New York City or other large inner-

city residential areas. The sample is not unique, however. Each of these

characteristics describes the growing “inner ring” of poor and working-class

neighborhoods that are surrounding the gentrifying city cores throughout the

U.S. and other countries. The inhabitants of these ring neighborhoods have

either moved up and out of poorer inner-city areas or have been forced out of

neighborhoods with rapidly increasing housing costs.

Possibly the greatest concern with the present data is the relatively

weak internal consistency of the predictor scales due to a combination of few

items per scale and limited response options (dichotomous for many items).

SOC’s being most consistently related to the other SC dimensions may be

partly due to its having the most items (thus more variance) and highest α.

But given that its α is substantially higher than only block satisfaction, we

doubt that is the only explanation. With better scales, the already impressive

results would likely have been even stronger.

Puddifoot (1996) and others recommend the use of qualitative

methods. Clearly, the ideal study combines both qualitative and quantitative

methods. But as valuable as ethnographic data are, they have their own

reliability and validity limitations, including the fact that they generally

represent a small sample of individuals. New, truly community-level (not

aggregated individual-level) measures of sense of community and other

social capital constructs are needed (Shinn, 1990). They could be used in

multilevel analyses and provide descriptive or comparative context in

qualitative studies.

Our task was to search for more sharply defined and ecologically

valid conceptual, psychometric, and analytical “needles” in the haystack of

research and vague rhetoric on SC and SOC. We believe the dimensions and

predictors, measures, and multi-level analyses used here, while not perfect,

can only enhance the construct validity of SC and SOC. Both concepts

clearly have individual and community-level (not to mention organizational)

312 Perkins and Long

properties. Multi-level analysis gives us a sense of how much each concept

operates at the community, as well as individual, level and how they operate

at different levels simultaneously. The fact that SOC was such a strong and

consistent predictor at both levels suggests, not only that people with SOC

are more likely to help their neighbors, to join a BA, and to be empowered

by it, but that blocks with more SOC enjoy those same results even for

residents who may not share that SOC, but who get involved for more selfish

reasons. In future studies, we plan to use the other SC dimensions

(collective efficacy, neighboring, and participation) and other community-

focused cognitions, at the individual and block levels, to predict the BSCI

and its subscales. We hope the needles we have identified will help

researchers and community leaders and organizers knit tighter, more

politically effective neighborhood social fabrics.

NOTES

i Collection of the data reported was funded by the Ford Foundation (Co-Principal

Investigators: David Chavis, Paul Florin, Richard Rich, and Abe Wandersman). We thank

Chavis, Adrian Fisher, David McMillan, and Chris Sonn for their comments on the study that

developed the Brief Sense of Community Index (Perkins & Long, 2001) and Fisher and Jo

Lippe for editorial assistance with this chapter.

ii A PsycINFO search of “sense of community” found 398 publications through November,

2001, starting with a 1930 article. Sarason’s 1974 book was the 15th record and thus

something of a watershed. The 398 do not include works referring to “social cohesion,”

“community spirit” or other near synonyms.

iii ISC is the degree to which residents spontaneously regulate everyday public behaviors and

physical conditions within the bounds of their community. Although SOC and ISC are highly

correlated at both the block (r = .65; Perkins, et al., 1990) and neighborhood (r = .80;

Sampson et al., 1997) levels, other studies have generally treated them as separate constructs.

There is also a methodological/conceptual problem with ISC in that it is often thought of as a

behavior but typically measured as a cognition (e.g., prediction of how neighbors would act in

hypothetical situations, e.g., youths painting graffiti). Clearly more work needs to be done

measuring actual ISC behaviors and comparing them to perceived ISC. Given the high

correlations between measures of SOC and ISC, Sampson may be justified in combining the

two, but should perhaps add neighboring items and call it “informal collective efficacy.”

vi The SCI is often incorrectly cited. It was developed in 1985 by Chavis and colleagues for

use with the present dataset and published in the appendix of Perkins, et al. (1990). Although

it was ostensibly based on McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) theory, their four dimensions have

not been found in the SCI factor structure in these and other data. Furthermore, McMillan had

nothing to do with creating the SCI and has challenged its validity. Chavis, Hogge, McMillan,

and Wandersman (1986) used a 46-item scale (including component scale items) called the

Sense of Community Profile, which is much broader than the SCI and includes many other

constructs, such as participation and neighboring behaviors, collective efficacy, community

satisfaction, perceived block conditions, and even demographics, such as home ownership and

length of residence.

v Each procedure began with an “unconditional” model indicating the amount of variance in

the dependent variable due to differences in groups (blocks). In step two, demographic control

variables (income, age, race, sex, education, children, home ownership, length of residence)

Sense of Community/Social Capital 313

were added at the individual level. (Sex was not a significant predictor in any model.) In step

three, all nonsignificant demographics were removed and the five cognitive predictors were

added at both the block and individual (block-mean centered) levels. (Cognitive predictors at

the individual level are each deviations from the mean of one’s block so as to be independent

of their block-level counterparts.) In multi-level analysis, degrees of freedom are more limited

both within groups and across groups. Therefore, in step four, all remaining nonsignificant

(block-level p > .10; individual-level p > .05) predictors were trimmed to produce the most

parsimonious model (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). As this increases the risk of Type-I errors,

each step-four model was compared with the corresponding step-three model and the

correlations in Table 1. In step five, each remaining individual-level cognitive predictor was

tested, one-by-one, for a significant random effect, which would indicate a cross-level

interaction. First, block-level demographic variables were modeled in interaction with the

significant random individual-level predictor. Second, all nonsignificant (at p < .10)

interactional demographics were trimmed before modeling the five block-level cognitive

predictors. Third, any nonsignificant block-level interactional predictors were trimmed from

the model. Interpretation of cross-level interactions used a strategy exemplified by Watson,

Chemers, and Preiser (2001) in which the relation between the individual-level interactional

predictor and the outcome variable was compared differentially between high and low (one

SD above and below the mean) status on the block-level interactional predictor.

REFERENCES

Ahlbrandt, R. S. (1984). Neighborhoods, people and community. New York: Plenum.

Beckman, P. J., Barnwell, D., Horn, E., Hanson, M. J., Gutierrez, S., & Lieber, J. (1998).

Communities, families, and inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13,

125-150.

Briggs, X. S. (1998). Brown kids in white suburbs: Housing mobility and the many faces of

social capital. Housing Policy Debate, 9, 177-221.

Brodsky, A. E., O’Campo, P. J., & Aronson, R. E. (1999). PSOC in community context:

Multi-Level correlates of a measure of psychological sense of community in low-

income, urban neighborhoods. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 659-679.

Brown, B. B., & Perkins, D. D. (1992). Disruptions in place attachment. In I. Altman and S.

Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 279-304). New York: Plenum.

Brown, B. B., & Perkins, D. D. (2001). Neighborhood revitalization and disorder: An

intervention evaluation. Final Report to the National Institute of Justice. Salt Lake

City: University of Utah.

Brown, B. B., & Werner, C. M. (1985). Social cohesiveness, territoriality, and holiday

decorations: The influence of cul-de-sacs. Environment and Behavior, 17, 539-565.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbusch, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and

data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Buckner, J. C. (1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 771-791.

Chavis, D. M., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Perkins, D. D. (1987). The role of

block associations in crime control and community development: The Block Booster

Project. (Final Report to Ford Foundation). New York: Citizens Committee for New

York City.

Chavis, D. M., Hogge, J., McMillan, D., & Wandersman, A. (1986). Sense of community

through Brunswik’s Lens. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 24-40.

Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment: A

catalyst for participation and community development. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 18, 55-82.

Chipuer, H. M., & Pretty, G. M. H. (1999). A review of the sense of community index:

314 Perkins and Long

Current uses, factor structure, reliability, and further development. Journal of

Community Psychology, 27, 643-658.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of

Sociology, 94, S95-S120.

Cuba, L., & Hummon, D. M. (1993). A place to call home: Identification with dwelling,

community, and region. Sociological Quarterly, 34, 111-131.

Etzioni, A. (1993). Spirit of community: Rights, responsibilities, and the communitarian

agenda. New York: Crown.

Fisher, A. T., & Sonn, C. C. (1999). Aspiration to community: Community responses to

rejection. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 715-725.

Florin, P., & Wandersman, A. (1984). Cognitive social learning and participation in

community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 689-

708.

Garcia, I., Giuliani, F., & Wiesenfeld, E. (1999). Community and sense of community: The

case of an urban barrio in Caracas. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 727-740.

Hughey, J., Speer, P. W., & Peterson, N. A. (1999). Sense of community in community

organizations: Structure and evidence of validity. Journal of Community

Psychology, 27, 97-113.

Hyde, M. M. (1998). Local sentiments in urban neighborhoods: Multilevel models of sense of

community and attachment to place. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University

of Maryland-Baltimore County.

Hyman, H., & Wright, C. (1971). Trends in voluntary association memberships of American

adults: Replication based on secondary analysis of national sample surveys.

American Sociological Review, 36, 191-206.

Itzhaky, H., & York, A. S. (2000). Sociopolitical control and empowerment: An extended

replication. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 407-415.

Kenny, D. A., & Lavoie, L. (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 339-348.

Kingston, S., Mitchell, R., Florin, P., & Stevenson, J. (1999). Sense of community in

neighborhoods as a multi-level construct. Journal of Community Psychology, 27,

681-694.

Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path

toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Chicago: ACTA.

Li, C. (1998). The contribution of common land to sense of community. In J. Sanford & B. R.

Connell (Eds.), People, places and public policy. (pp. 57-70). Edmond, OK:

Environmental Design Research Association.

Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2001, July). Neighborhoods as common ground: The

importance of place attachment to community participation and development. Paper

presented to the Environmental Design Research Association, Edinburgh, Scotland.

McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory.

Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.

Nasar, J. L. & Julian, D. A. (1995). The psychological sense of community in the

neighborhood. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61, 178-184.

Perkins, D. D. (1995). Speaking truth to power: Empowerment ideology as social intervention

and policy. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 765-794.

Perkins, D. D., Brown, B. B., & Taylor, R. B. (1996). The ecology of empowerment:

Predicting participation in community organizations. Journal of Social Issues, 52,

85-110.

Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Participation

and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and

community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 83-115.

Perkins, D. D. & Long, D. A. (2001). Neighborhood sense of community and social capital:

“All the things you are.” Paper presented at the Biennial Conference on Community

Research & Action, Atlanta, June.

Sense of Community/Social Capital 315

Perkins, D. D., Wandersman, A., Rich, R. C., & Taylor, R. B. (1993). The physical

environment of street crime: Defensible space, territoriality and incivilities. Journal

of Environmental Psychology, 13, 29-49.

Plas, J. M., & Lewis, S. E. (1996). Environmental factors and sense of community in a

planned town. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 109-143.

Podolefsky, A. (1983). Case studies in community crime prevention. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Pretty, G. (1990). Relating psychological sense of community to social climate characteristics.

Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 16-65.

Pretty, G. M. H., Conroy, C., Dugay, J., Fowler, K., & Williams, D. (1996). Sense of

community and its relevance to adolescents of all ages. Journal of Community

Psychology, 24, 365-379.

Prezza, M., Amici, M., Roberti, T., & Tedeschi, G. (2001). Sense of community referred to

the whole town: Its relations with neighboring, loneliness, life satisfaction, and area

of residence. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 29-52.

Puddifoot, J.E. (1996). Some initial considerations in the measurement of community identity.

Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 327-336

Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New

York: Simon & Schuster.

Rankin, B. H., & Quane, J. M. (2000). Neighborhood poverty and the social isolation of inner-

city African American families. Social Forces, 79, 139-164.

Saegert, S. (1989). Unlikely leaders, extreme circumstances: Older Black women building

community households. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 295-316.

Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (1996). Paths to community empowerment: Organizing at home.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 517-550.

Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (1998). Social capital and the revitalization of New York City’s

distressed inner city housing. Housing Policy Debate, 9, 17-60.

Sampson, R.J. (1991). Linking the micro- and macrolevel dimensions of community social

organization. Social Forces, 70, 43-64.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A

multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-926.

Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community

psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schultz, A. J., Israel, B. A., Zimmerman, M. A., & Checkoway, B. N. (1995). Empowerment

as a multi-level construct: Perceived control at the individual, organizational and

community levels. Health Education Research: Theory & Practice, 10, 309-327.

Shinn, M. (1990). Mixing and matching: Levels of conceptualization, measurement, and

statistical analysis in community research. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L.

Jason (Eds.), Researching community psychology: Integrating theories and methods

(pp. 111-126). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sonn, C. C., & Fisher, A. T. (1998). Sense of community: Community resilient responses to

oppression and change. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 457-472.

Speer, P. W. (2000). Intrapersonal and interactional empowerment: Implications for theory.

Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 51-61.

Speer, P. W., & Hughey, J. (1995). Community organizing: An ecological route to

empowerment and power. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 729-

748.

Theodori, G. L. (2000). Levels of analysis and conceptual clarification in community

attachment and satisfaction research: Connections to community development.

Journal of the Community Development Society, 31, 35-58.

Tocqueville, A. de (1935/1969). Democracy in America. (G. Lawrence, Trans.; J.P. Mayer,

Ed.). New York: Doubleday.

Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1983). Neighboring and its role in block organizations.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 291-300.

Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1985). The importance of neighbors: The social, cognitive,

316 Perkins and Long

and affective components of neighboring. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 13, 139-170.

Varady, D. P. (1986). Neighborhood confidence: A critical factor in neighborhood

revitalization? Environment and Behavior, 18, 480-501.

Vinsel, A., Brown, B. B., Altman, I., & Foss, C. (1980). Privacy regulation, territorial

displays, and the effectiveness of individual functioning. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 39, 1104-1115.

Wandersman, A., & Giamartino, G. A. (1980). Community and individual difference

characteristics as influences on initial participation. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 8, 217-228.

Watson, C. B., Chemers, M. M., & Preiser, N. (2001). Collective efficacy: A multilevel

analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1057-1068.

Zhao, L. (1996). Community attachment in rural Iowa: Multilevel test of a theoretical model

with intervening variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State

University.

Sense of Community/Social Capital 317

APPENDIX A: Social Capital Survey Scales

Brief Sense of Community Index (overall scale α Time 1 (T1) = .65, n =

713; α Time 2 (T2) = .74, n = 422):

Social Connections Subscale (α = .55 (T1), .50 (T2)):

Instructions for items 1-5: “I am going to read some things that people might

say about their block. For each one, please indicate whether it is mostly true

or mostly false about your block” (coded 1 = “false”, 2 = “true”; Note: Likert

scale recommended for future research).

1. Very few of my neighbors know me. (Reverse)

2. I have almost no influence over what this block is like. (Reverse)

3. I can recognize most of the people who live on my block.

Mutual Concern Subscale (α = .50 (T1), .64 (T2)):

4. My neighbors and I want the same things from the block.

5. If there is a problem on this block people who live here can get it

solved.

6. In general, would you say that people on your block watch after each

other and help out when they can, or do they pretty much go their own

way? (coded 1 = “go own way”, 2 = “a little of both”, 3 = “watch after”)

Community Values Subscale (Face-valid SOC; α = .51 (T1), .61 (T2):

7. Would you say that it is very important, somewhat important or not

important to you to feel a sense of community with the people on your

block? (coded 1= “not”, 2= “somewhat ”, 3= “very”)

8. Some people say they feel like they have a sense of community with the

people on their block; others don’t feel that way. How about you; would

you say that you feel a strong sense of community with others on your

block, very little sense of community or something in between? (coded

1 = “very little”, 2 = “in between”, 3 = “strong”)

Collective Efficacy Scale (α (T1) = .82, n = 918; α (T2) = .82, n = 270):

“The following are things a block association might try to do. For each

one, indicate whether you think it is very likely, somewhat likely, or not

likely that the association on your block can accomplish that goal”

(coded 1 = “not likely” to 3 = “very likely”).

1. Improve physical conditions on the block like cleanliness or housing

upkeep.

2. Persuade the city to provide better services to people on the block.

3. Get people on the block to help each other more.

4. Reduce crime on the block.

5. Get people who live on the block to know each other better.

6. Get information to residents about where to go for services they need.

Citizen Participation Scale (α (T1) = .78, n = 384; α (T2) = .80, n = 184):

1. Are you currently a member of the block association?

318 Perkins and Long

2. Have you ever taken part in an activity sponsored by the block

association?

3. Thinking about work you might do for the block association outside of

meetings, how many hours would you say you give to the association

each month, if any?

“We would like to know what kinds of things people have done in the

association. In the past year have you:”

4. Attended a meeting,

5. Spoken up during a meeting,

6. Done work for the organization outside of meetings,

7. Served as a member of a committee,

8. Served as an officer or as a committee chair?

Note: Each item was coded 1 for participation and 0 for no participation

(#3 was recoded to match this scale, from 0 = “none” to 1 = “8 or more

hours”).

Neighboring Behavior Scale (α (T1) = .78, n = 1,037; α (T2) = .77, n =

615):

“The following is a short list of things neighbors might do for each other.

Please indicate how many times in the past year, you have been asked to

do each one for a neighbor on this block” (coded 0 = “none”, 1-7 = “exact

number”, and 8 = “eight or more”).

1. Watch a neighbor’s home while they were away.

2. Loan a neighbor some food or a tool.

3. Help a neighbor in an emergency.

4. Offer a neighbor advice on a personal problem.

5. Discuss a problem on the block with a neighbor.

Public value co-creation and sense of belonging: Evidence from local government annual reports

Article

Apr 2025
Int Publ Manag J

Cómo afrontar una catástrofe Percepción de riesgo y factores psicosociales de la adaptación Edición preparada por

Chapter

Full-text available

Mar 2025

Catastrofes, conducta colectiva pro activa y antisocial: estado de la cuestion y comentarios al caso chileno

The role of antenatal 250304 110657

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025

INTRODUCTION Antenatal education programs aim to prepare expectant mothers for childbirth and early parenthood. This meta-analysis assessed the impact of these programs on maternal psychological outcomes and birth experiences, focusing on childbirth self-efficacy, fear of childbirth, and maternal and neonatal outcomes, including rates of vaginal delivery, cesarean section, Apgar scores, and birth weight. METHODS A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library until July 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antenatal education to standard care were included. Data were synthesized using meta-analysis with standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS Forty studies were reviewed, with 31 eligible for meta-analysis. Among 1116 pregnant women, antenatal education significantly increased childbirth self-efficacy (SMD=2.00; 95% CI: 1.06-2.95, p<0.0001) and decreased fear of childbirth (SMD=-1.26; 95% CI:-1.79-0.74, p<0.00001). Maternal outcomes showed higher vaginal delivery rates (RR=1.10; 95% CI: 1.04-1.16, p=0.0004) and lower cesarean rates (RR=0.80; 95% CI: 0.70-0.92, p=0.001). No significant differences were found in episiotomy rates, Apgar scores, or birth weight. CONCLUSIONS Antenatal education improves maternal psychological outcomes and promotes vaginal delivery. However, high heterogeneity and potential bias in the studies limit generalizability. More research is needed on long-term impacts and effectiveness in low-resource settings.

The role of antenatal education on maternal self-efficacy, fear of childbirth, and birth outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025

Hammad Ali Fadlalmola

INTRODUCTION Antenatal education programs aim to prepare expectant mothers for childbirth and early parenthood. This meta-analysis assessed the impact of these programs on maternal psychological outcomes and birth experiences, focusing on childbirth self-efficacy, fear of childbirth, and maternal and neonatal outcomes, including rates of vaginal delivery, cesarean section, Apgar scores, and birth weight. METHODS A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library until July 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antenatal education to standard care were included. Data were synthesized using meta-analysis with standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS Forty studies were reviewed, with 31 eligible for meta-analysis. Among 1116 pregnant women, antenatal education significantly increased childbirth self-efficacy (SMD=2.00; 95% CI: 1.06–2.95, p<0.0001) and decreased fear of childbirth (SMD= -1.26; 95% CI: -1.79 – -0.74, p<0.00001). Maternal outcomes showed higher vaginal delivery rates (RR=1.10; 95% CI: 1.04–1.16, p=0.0004) and lower cesarean rates (RR=0.80; 95% CI: 0.70–0.92, p=0.001). No significant differences were found in episiotomy rates, Apgar scores, or birth weight. CONCLUSIONS Antenatal education improves maternal psychological outcomes and promotes vaginal delivery. However, high heterogeneity and potential bias in the studies limit generalizability. More research is needed on long-term impacts and effectiveness in low-resource settings.

Verification of the determinants of pro-environmental behavior: Toward the spread of decentralized social Infrastructure

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2025

How Does Sense of Belonging Bridge the Linkage Between Customer Engagement and Word of Mouth in Online Nonprofit Communities?

Article

Apr 2025

Öz Liderliğin Yenilikçilik Üzerindeki Etkisi ve Kolektif Yeterliliğin Aracı Rolü

Article

Mar 2025

Liderlik izleyenleri etkileme ile ilgili bir kavram iken öz liderlik kavramı kişinin kendisini etkileyerek kendi performansını artırması olarak ifade edilir. Yenilikçilik, bireysel ve grup düzeyinde fikir üreterek yenilik oluşturmayı amaçlar. Kolektif yeterlilik, ortak bir amacı gerçekleştirmek için üyelerin inançla, birlikte hareket etmesini gerektirir. Öz liderlik bireysel, yenilikçilik bireysel ve grup olarak, kolektif yeterlilik ise bireylerin grup olarak birlikte hareket etmelerini gerektiren kavramlardır. Bu çalışmada kolektif yeterliliğin öz liderlik ile yenilikçilik ilişkisinde aracı etki gösterip göstermediği incelenmiştir. Araştırmada öncelikle literatür taraması yapılmıştır. Anket tekniğinden yararlanılarak Kahramanmaraş’ta faaliyetlerini sürdüren 555 esnaf ve sanatkâr işletme sahibinden veriler toplanmıştır. Veriler SPSS kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Analiz kapsamında hipotezleri doğrulayabilmek için hiyerarşik regresyon ve process makro analizleri yapılmıştır. Doğrudan etki analiz bulgularına göre; öz liderliğin yenilikçilik üzerinde anlamlı etkisi olduğu, öz liderliğin kolektif yeterlilik üzerinde anlamlı etkisi olduğu, kolektif yeterliliğin yenilikçilik üzerinde anlamlı etkiye sahip olduğu, öz liderlik ve kolektif yeterliliğin birlikte yenilikçilik üzerinde anlamlı etkisi olduğu ve etki düzeyinin anlamlı olmak üzere azaldığı (β=.485 ten β=.444’e; düzeltilmiş R2 .243’ten .255’e) görülmüştür. Dolaylı etki analizinde ise; öz liderliğin kolektif yeterlilikle birlikte yenilikçilik üzerindeki dolaylı etkisinin de (β = 0,670; güven aralığı değerleri: 0,0216, 0,1148) anlamlı olduğu sunucu elde edilmiştir. Hem doğrudan etki hem de dolaylı etki bulgularının birlikte değerlendirilmesi sonucu kolektif yeterliliğin öz liderlik ile yenilikçilik ilişkisinde aracı etkiye sahip olduğu görülmektedir.

Collective actions and crisis adaptation of a rural tourism community

Article

Mar 2025
J Sustain Tourism

Towards a Sense of Community: Belonging, Participation, and Spaces of Encounter in Dutch Urban Fringes

Thesis

Full-text available

Nov 2023

Francesca Ranalli

This research explores how a Sense of Community (SoC) emerges through the process of citizen participation and the characteristics of space. During her PhD, Francesca developed and applied a theoretical framework based on her original definition of SoC. She combines three dimensions of Sense of Community, a perceived, a social, and a spatial one, and applies it to the study of the Dutch urban fringes. The framework is designed for action-oriented research around participation, focusing on the redeveloped and newly built neighbourhoods of the city of Almere. Recent studies and policies have pointed to the tendency of localism and marginalization of communities in urban fringes. The study shows how methods and tools of participatory practices and urban design help develop place attachment and SoC, especially in the absence of historical community roots, more typical of core cities and historical satellite towns. First, she tested the framework in a pilot case study in Kerckebosch Zeist, The Netherlands, using a mix of qualitative methods, engaging residents through walk-along discussions, interviews, and mental maps. Following those designed methods, she conducted fieldwork in the city of Almere, The Netherlands, focusing on the neighbourhood of Almere Poort, one of those undergoing the most rapid transformation today. As one of the main cities in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and amongst the fastest-growing cities in Europe, the extensive development of Almere draws on a polynuclear urban structure of the various neighbourhoods. In this context, Almere Poort represents a shift from the classic top-down approach of suburban expansion to one more led to participatory planning. The fieldwork included walk-along discussions, semi-structured interviews, and art-based and design methods with children, teenagers, and intergenerational groups. The analysis shows the important role that intergenerational spaces of encounter play in facilitating Sense of Community. It also shows that different participatory approaches interact with the specific design features of each neighbourhood and in turn lead to distinct community ties. The research found that neighbourhood centres target the social inclusion of specific age groups, such as the elderly and families with financial problems, while excluding other groups, such as young people and middle-aged adults. The thesis brings forward also a methodological contribution to engaged urban research: co-design and art-based methods help include different age groups in the planning of public spaces and, in turn, to develop place attachment, a necessary condition for the Sense of Community.

Characteristics of geographic environments that support the health and wellbeing of young people with disability: A scoping review

Article

Feb 2025

Sense of community: A definition and theory [Special Issue: Psychological Sense of Community, I: Theory and Concepts]

Article

Full-text available

Jan 1986

Disruptions in Place Attachment

Chapter

Full-text available

Jan 1992

A study of disruptions in psychological processes can provide unique insight into their predisruption functioning as well as the disruptions themselves and their consequences. Place attachment processes normally reflect the behavioral, cognitive, and emotional embeddedness individuals experience in their sociophysical environments. An examination of disruptions in place attachments demonstrate how fundamental they are to the experience and meaning of everyday life. After the development of secure place attachments, the loss of normal attachments creates a stressful period of disruption followed by a postdisruption phase of coping with lost attachments and creating new ones. These three phases of the disruption process are examined with respect to disruptions due to burglaries, voluntary relocations, and disasters, with special attention to the Buffalo Creek, West Virginia, flood and the Yungay, Peru, landslide. Underlying the diversity of disruptions, dialectic themes of stability-change and individuality-communality provide a coherent framework for understanding the temporal phases of attachment and its disruption.

Sense of community in community organizations: Structure and evidence of validity

Article

Jan 1999
J COMMUNITY PSYCHOL

A framework for measuring psychological sense of community for community organizations was presented, and an instrument to measure community organization sense of community was developed. The framework consisted of four components: Relationship to the Organization, Organization as Mediator, Influence of the Community Organization, and Bond to the Community. Two studies examined the dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the instrument. Study 1 (n = 218) was conducted with participants from three community organizations, and it identified four factors, matching the framework, with alpha coefficients from .61 to .85. Study 2 (n = 1,676) was conducted with participants from five community organizations. Study 2 participants were 48% African American, 42% White, 6% Latino/Hispanic, and 3% Other. Also for the Study 2 sample, 69% were female; 31% were male. Study 2 confirmed three factors for the Community Organization Sense of Community scale (COSOC): Relationship to the Organization, Organization as Mediator, Bond to the Community; alpha coefficients ranged from .82 to .87. In three subsamples of Study 2, convergent validity of the instrument was explored by correlating total COSOC scores and subscale scores with two other measures of sense of community, political participation, community involvement, community organization involvement, and perceived safety. The patterns of correlation among the variables indicated, with one exception: strong support for validity of the instrument. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for development of sense of community in community organizations, and community participation. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

A review of the sense of community index: Current uses, factor structure, reliability, and further development

Article

Nov 1999
J COMMUNITY PSYCHOL

The short form of the Sense of Community Index (SCI) (Chavis, Hogge, McMillan, & Wandersman, 1986) was assessed in terms of the four dimensions of psychological sense of community (PSC) proposed by McMillan and Chavis (1986). Four sets of data were used. They measured PSC in the neighborhood for adults and adolescents, and workplace PSC for adults, using true/false and three-point response formats. Reliabilities for the total SCI scores ranged from .64 to .69. Most subscale reliabilities were below acceptable levels, ranging from a low of .16 to a high of .72. Factor analyses showed some support for the existence of the four dimensions of the McMillan and Chavis PSC model in the SCI. However, they were not consistent across data sets. Further work to develop the SCI as a measure representative of the PSC model is outlined, with implications for adult and adolescent populations. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sense of community referred to the whole town: Its relations with neighboring, loneliness, life satisfaction, and area of residence

Article

Jan 2001
J COMMUNITY PSYCHOL

The aim was to explore the relationships between sense of community and various factors with respect to a fairly broad area (town, city, or large quarter of a metropolis). Degree of neighboring, life satisfaction, loneliness, and area of residence were also considered. Subjects included 630 men and women, aged 20-65 years, with different educational levels. They were individually administered a sociodemographic questionnaire, the Italian Sense of Community Scale, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, the University of California Loneliness Scale, and a Neighborhood Relations Scale. The subjects all live in Central Italy. They were divided into six groups as follows: one group living in a quarter of Rome, three groups living in three different areas of Grottaferrata (a hill town near Rome) and two groups living in two areas of Spoleto (the historical center and a working class suburb), a town in the Umbria region. Multiple regression analysis revealed the following: Neighborhood relations are stronger for women, for members of large families, for those with less education, for those living in the community for many years and for members of groups or associations. The strongest predictor of sense of community is neighborhood relations, although years of residence, being married, group participation, and area of residence are also significant factors. Sense of community is related to life satisfaction and loneliness in both the large and small town and in the city. Moreover, although sense of community is strongly associated with area of residence in Spoleto, this is not true for Grottaferrata. Overall, the results confirm the usefulness of conceptualizing the sense of community construct separately }}}{{{� Journal of Community Psychology, January 2001 }}}{{{from degree of neighboring. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Neighborhoods, People, and Community

Book

Jan 1984

Roger S. Ahlbrandt

1 A Community Focus.- Concept of Community.- The Research Context.- The Survey.- What Follows.- 2 The Community of Action.- Discussion of the Research Findings.- Personal Network.- Role of Place.- Socioeconomic Constraints.- Discussion.- Appendix A. Analysis of Various Aspects of Community by the Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Residents.- Utilization of Neighborhood Facilities.- Neighboring.- Organizational Involvement.- Kin in Neighborhood.- Friends in Neighborhood.- Work in Neighborhood.- Primary Social Relationships.- Intimate Ties.- 3 Attitudes about Neighborhoods.- Affective Sentiments.- Analysis.- Discussion of Results.- Quality of Life.- Social Fabric.- Respondent Characteristics.- Conclusion.- Appendix B. Description of the Independent Variables.- Quality of Life Variables.- Social Fabric Variables.- Respondent Characteristics.- 4 Religion, Life Cycle, and Race.- Reasons for Moving to the Neighborhood.- Things Liked Best about the Neighborhood.- Things Liked Least about the Neighborhood.- Planning to Remain in the Neighborhood.- Additional Analysis.- Conclusion.- 5 The Impact of Neighborhood Support Systems on the Individual.- The Model.- Description of the Variables.- Happiness and Life Satisfaction.- Health.- Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics.- Social Support System.- Neighborhood Attributes.- Satisfaction with Housing and Neighborhood.- Results.- Discussion.- 6 Neighborhood Social Fabric.- Internal and External Ties.- Relationships among the Variables.- Discussion.- Relationship to Neighborhood Attitudes.- Neighborhood Attachment.- Satisfaction.- Relationship to Life Happiness and Life Satisfaction.- Discussion.- 7 Social Fabric and Neighborhood Change.- The Model.- Analysis.- Lower-Income Neighborhoods.- Discussion.- 8 The Neighborhood Context.- Neighborhood Classification.- Affective Sentiments.- Use of Neighborhood Facilities.- Neighboring.- Social Supports.- Organizational Involvement.- Life Happiness.- Discussion.- 9 The Implications of Income.- High-Income Neighborhoods.- Discussion.- Middle-Income Neighborhoods.- Discussion.- Moderate-Income Neighborhoods.- Primary Ties.- Affective Sentiments.- Neighboring.- Participation.- Happiness and Life Satisfaction.- Use of Neighborhood Facilities.- Characteristics of Residents.- Discussion.- Lower-Income Neighborhoods.- Conclusion.- 10 The Neighborhood and Beyond.- Discussion.- Policy Implications.- Appendix C. Survey Questionnaire.

Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital

Article

Jan 2000

J.S. Coleman

Linking the Micro- and Macrolevel Dimensions of Community Social Organisation

Article

Jan 2001

R.J. Sampson

Trends in Voluntary Association Memberships of American Adults: Replication Based on Secondary Analysis of National Sample Surveys

Article

Apr 1971

A small but noteworthy increase in the percentage of American adults who belong to voluntary associations has occurred since the mid-1950's (the date of an earlier study of this topic by the authors), as documented through several replications of national sample surveys. These same replications also confirm a major generalization of the earlier study that such membership is less common than had been assumed; indeed, voluntary association membership is not characteristic of the majority of American adults. Data from the replications confirm the previously demonstrated relationship between membership and major socioeconomic characteristics; but subgroup trends suggest that during the more recent period there has been a sharper growth in associational membership among the lower status groups. Although the findings are not completely consistent, there also seems to have been a sharper growth in association memberships on the part of Negroes. All of these findings, like those in the earlier study which has been replicated, are based on secondary analysis of national sample surveys. These social trends should be systematically measured and documented in the future by additional replications and new primary surveys.

Neighborhood Poverty and the Social Isolation of Inner-City African American Families

Article

Sep 2000

Although social isolation has been posited as a critical structural mechanism linking neighborhood disadvantage to the reduced life chances of inner-city residents, there have been few empirical tests of this proposition. We examine the relative importance of neighborhood poverty and individual and family characteristics on social-network composition and community organizational participation of inner-city Chicago African American families. The results of the multilevel analysis indicate that, while most of the variation in isolation outcomes is due to individual-level respondent characteristics, social-network composition and some forms of organizational participation are affected by neighborhood poverty. Implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Neighborhood Sense of Community and Social Capital: A multi-level analysis

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Unlocking the Democratic Potential of Urban Planner–Librarian Collaborations

Local Government-Sponsored Community DevelopmentExploring Relationships between Perceptions of Empow...

An Introduction to Citizen Participation, Voluntary Organizations, and Community Development: Insigh...

Social Capital, Race, and the Future of Inner-City Neighborhoods