Social Transitions
Social Redefinition
The recognition that one’s individual status has changed
Shapes different aspects of adolescent development:
Identity
Autonomy
Intimacy
Sexuality
Achievement
Elongation of Adolescence
When does it start?
puberty
When does it end?
Graduating from high school and marriage
More people are going to college and delaying marriage
emerging adulthood
Adolescence as a Social Invention
Inventionist Perspective:
Adolescence didn’t exist until the 1800s
Biological Destiny Perspective:
Protectionist Perspective:
Origins of Adolescence
Adolescence first gained a foothold in the middle class in the late 1800s.
A lengthy period during which youth prepared for adulthood.
Youth need guidance and supervision from adults.
Youth remained economically dependent on adults.
Changes in Status
Interpersonal Status
Political Status
Economic Status
Legal Status
Emerging Adulthood
a developmental period between the ages of 18 and 25.
Five critical features:
identity exploration
instability in work, relationships, and living arrangements
Focus on oneself as an independent person
a feeling of being between adolescence and adulthood
a sense that life holds many possibilities.
Is emerging adulthood universal?
In other countries, maybe not
not for all economic groups in the U.S.
Low-income youth are at risk:
Dropping out of school.
Engaging in risky behavior.
Having children at an early age.
Process of Social Redefinition
It isn’t a single event but a series of events that occur over time.
Common practices in the process of social redefinition:
The real or symbolic separation of young people from their parents.
summer camps
extrusion
The accentuation of physical and social differences between males and females.
The passing on of cultural, historical, and practical information.
Variations in Social Transitions
Clarity: the explicitness of the social transition process.
Variations in Clarity
Contemporary societies: no ritual, but different cultures have some
Traditional cultures: social redefinition is clearly identified and recognized
Previous eras: more disorderly because of the need for kids to drop out of school, due to low income
Continuity: the degree to which this process of social transition is a gradual process or a sudden, rough process.
Contemporary societies
Worker, parent, citizen.
Traditional cultures
Margaret Mead
Previous eras
Work, parent, leaving home.
The Transition into Adulthood by Poor and Minority Youth
Special problems in transition to adulthood.
The effects of poverty on the transition to adulthood
Poor schools/education and school dropout
Unemployment
Out-of-wedlock pregnancy
Lack of role models
Living in Violent and Poor Neighborhoods
Unique contribution of neighborhood poverty on youth outcomes
Impact of neighborhoods:
More likely to be teenage mothers
Involvement in criminal activity
Poor academic competence
Tulsa inner-city youth
90% witnessed a violent act
30% witnessed a shooting
Only 26% reported “always” feeling safe
Pittsburgh, PA inner-city youth (Loeber study)
20% of men witnessed (in person) a homicide by 18 years old
Socioeconomic Status (SES) can shape:
financial capital: money in a family
human capital: availability, involvement, and motivation of important people in teens’ lives.
Social capital: access and connection to community resources (ex., medical and mental health care).
Poverty
Current Statistics:
The poverty threshold for a two-parent family with 2 children is $32,150.
Currently, 36.8 million Americans live below this poverty line.
13.7% of children (10 million) are being raised in poverty.
22.3% of African American children.
25.9% of Native American children.
27.3% of Latino/Hispanic American children.
Ramifications of living in poverty
frequently changing jobs, housing situations, and schools.
Low-quality schools and medical care.
Income and racial discrimination.
Physical health problems (ex., obesity, diabetes).
Social, emotional, and mental health problems.
Academic problems.
How do neighborhoods influence adolescent development?
What is collective efficacy?
The extent to which neighbors trust each other, share common values, and can count on each other to monitor youth activities.
Outcomes of high-level neighborhood risk:
These outcomes are probabilistic, not deterministic.
The presence of protective factors can decrease these risks.
Poor education, physical health, and mental health systems.
Greater acceptance of antisocial behavior (ex. sign of strength)
Affiliation with deviant peers.
Poor interpersonal relationships inside and outside families.
Negative, hostile, and disengaged parenting.
Poor or few community resources (ex., transportation, employment opportunities).
Criss et al. (2017) study:
Research Goals:
Examine the link between neighborhood risk (ex., violence and danger) and adolescent antisocial behavior.
Investigate whether this association was moderated by parent and peer relationships and characteristics.
Moderators are variables that tell us when or under what conditions two variables are related. In other words, the link between the independent and dependent variables will likely be different under high and low levels of the moderator variable.
Sample:
206 adolescents and parents living in Tulsa and Stillwater, OK.
Mage = 13.37 years, 51% female.
Teen ethnicity: 29.6% European American, 32% African American, 19.4% Latino American, 19% other ethnic groups.
83.3% biological mothers as primary caregivers
Median household annual income = $40,000; 26.5% families are below the poverty line.
38.7% headed by single parents.
Measures:
Neighborhood violence (adolescent reports)
Neighborhood danger (parent reports)
Adolescent antisocial behavior (parent and adolescent reports)
Moderators:
Parent prosocial behavior (parent reports)
Peer prosocial behavior (adolescent reports)
Parent emotion regulation (parent reports)
Peer adolescent regulation (adolescent reports)
Parent-adolescent relationship quality (observer ratings)
Peer-adolescent relationship quality (adolescent reports)
Results:
Research Goal #1:
High levels of neighborhood violence and neighborhood danger were significantly related to high levels of adolescent and antisocial behavior.
Research Goal #2:
Parent-Adolescent (but not Peer-Adolescent) Relationship Quality served as a protective factor in violent neighborhoods.
Findings indicated that neighborhood violence was positively and significantly related to adolescent antisocial behavior under low levels of parent-adolescent relationship quality.
This association was reduced under high levels of parent-adolescent relationship quality.
Peer (but not Parent) Emotion Regulation and Prosocial behavior served as protective factors:
Results showed that neighborhood violence was positively and significantly related to adolescent antisocial behavior under low levels of peer emotion regulation and low levels of peer prosocial behavior
This association was reduced under high levels of peer emotion regulation and high levels of peer prosocial behavior.
Conclusions
Living in a violent and dangerous neighborhood was related to high levels of teen antisocial behavior.
Having warm and responsive relationships with parents (but not peers) served as a protective factor for teens living in violent and dangerous neighborhoods.
Having a highly prosocial and emotionally regulated friend (but not parent) served as a protective factor for teens living in violent and dangerous neighborhoods.