Protective Factors for Deviance: A Comparison of Rural and Urban Youth

Biggar, Raymond W.; Chen, Jing; Richard, Tayler A.

doi:10.1080/01639625.2016.1185861

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With weakened familial structures, informal social controls are decreased, leading to increased violent behavior (Bouffard & Muftic, 2006). This is not to say that urban and rural environments exhibit the exact same social pressures, as past research has shown they do not (Biggar et al, 2016; Jiang et al, 2016; Lyerly & Skipper, 1981).…”

Section: The Link Between Low Ses and Delinquent Behavior Across Urbamentioning

confidence: 88%

“…In a similar vein, populations in rural environments tend to be more homogenous and generally maintain similar beliefs concerning behavior and the importance of said beliefs (Lyerly & Skipper, 1981). The maintenance of similar beliefs allows for informal social controls such as neighbors, families, churches, and schools to be more effective, hence acting as a buffer against delinquent behavior (Biggar, Forsyth, Chen, & Richard, 2016; Lyerly & Skipper, 1981). Contrary to rural areas, low-SES urban environments tend to exhibit lower levels of informal social controls, have higher population heterogeneity and residential mobility, and report fewer social bonds among community members (Agnew et al, 2008; Lyerly & Skipper, 1981).…”

Section: The Link Between Low Ses and Delinquent Behavior Across Urbamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect of Socioeconomic Status on Delinquency Across Urban and Rural Contexts

Connolly

Lewis

Boisvert

2017

Criminal Justice Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An extensive line of research has demonstrated that low socioeconomic status (SES) is a risk factor for adolescent delinquent behavior. The possibility that low SES affects adolescent’s risk for engaging in delinquent behavior has garnered a significant amount of empirical and public attention, given its implications for delinquency prevention. However, few studies have examined the association between low SES and delinquent behavior across urban and rural contexts in the United States. Moreover, much is unknown about the strength of the association between low SES and delinquency across urban and rural context after controlling for common genetic liabilities that often cluster within different levels of SES. The present study aimed to address these existing gaps in the literature by conducting a genetically informed analysis of sibling pairs from a nationally representative sample of U.S. youth. The results revealed that shared environmental factors accounted for 17% of the population variation in adolescent delinquent behavior among adolescents growing up in urban contexts, and 3% of this family-wide environmental effect was accounted for by SES. No evidence of a family-wide environmental effect on population variation in delinquent behavior was found among adolescents from rural contexts. Findings from the present study suggest that the association between low SES and delinquency in urban contexts in the United States may be a true environmental effect and highlight the utility of using genetically informed research designs to better understand the extent to which social contexts influence adolescent delinquent behavior.

show abstract

Section: The Link Between Low Ses and Delinquent Behavior Across Urbamentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: The Link Between Low Ses and Delinquent Behavior Across Urbamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Socioeconomic Status on Delinquency Across Urban and Rural Contexts

Connolly

Lewis

Boisvert

2017

Criminal Justice Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Parents reported their marital status (single (never married), married, widowed, divorced, separated) as well as whether they were receiving assistance such as welfare (yes or no). Recent data show that risk and protective factors for youth violence vary by community type (rural, suburban or urban) and, therefore, urbanicity was included as a control variable 16 17…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the protective effects of social capital and social support on the perpetration of violence among a national sample of adolescents

Schober

2022

Inj Prev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMillions of children witness violence and are victims of violence each year. Previous research suggests that this is a risk factor for perpetrating violence. There is a paucity of studies that examine factors that protect violence-exposed youth from perpetrating violence.MethodsThis study used a panel design to measure the effects of exposure to violence on the perpetration of violence. It examined the protective effects of social support and school social capital on the risk of exposure to violence, using multivariate logistic regression modelling. The sample was weighted to reflect a national population.ResultsThe median age of the sample was 15. When considering risk factors only, those who ‘saw someone shoot or stab another person’ were at 4.77 times (95% CI 3.19 to 7.13) greater risk for perpetrating interpersonal violence. In the full model (risk and protective factors, (N=8375)), those with lower school social capital were at 2.43 (95% CI 1.15 to 5.15) to 2.91 (95% CI 1.02 to 8.29) times greater risk of perpetrating violence compared with those with the highest school social capital; adding the protective factors into the model reduced the odds of perpetrating violence from 4.77 times to 3.47 times (95% CI 1.97 to 6.11) (p<0.001).ConclusionOn a national level, the protective effects of school social capital could translate to a substantial reduction of violence. School-wide policies and programmes that reach all adolescents in a school and promote social capital should be pursued as a strategy to prevent the perpetration of interpersonal violence.

show abstract

“…A central focus of research on rural families has been geared to explaining how family structure, stability, parental education, and household income influence developmental outcomes and pathways (e.g., Miller et al, 2013), and several investigations have examined how interpersonal interactions and family processes can help promote positive well-being and self-views as well as mitigate risk among rural adolescents and youth (Biggar et al, 2016;Brody et al, 2005;Raffaelli et al, 2016). Mirroring the broader literature, studies have noted that high levels of parental support and responsiveness during early developmental stages have benefits that continue to be seen as rural children transition through adolescence and into adulthood (Smokowski et al, 2017).…”

Section: Familymentioning

confidence: 99%

Rural youth development: Theoretical perspectives, challenges, and protective processes.

Cooper¹,

Murry²,

Inniss-Thompson³

et al. 2023

APA Handbook of Adolescent and Young Adult Development.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protective Factors for Deviance: A Comparison of Rural and Urban Youth

Cited by 10 publications

References 47 publications

The Effect of Socioeconomic Status on Delinquency Across Urban and Rural Contexts

The Effect of Socioeconomic Status on Delinquency Across Urban and Rural Contexts

Examining the protective effects of social capital and social support on the perpetration of violence among a national sample of adolescents

Rural youth development: Theoretical perspectives, challenges, and protective processes.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About