Youth

& Society
http://yas.sagepub.com/

Subjective Well-Being in Urban Adolescents: Interpersonal,

Individual, and Community Influences
Melissa L. Morgan, Elizabeth M. Vera, Rufus R. Gonzales, Wendy Conner, Kim
Bena Vacek and Laura Dick Coyle
Youth Society 2011 43: 609 originally published online 22 December 2009
DOI: 10.1177/0044118X09353517
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://yas.sagepub.com/content/43/2/609

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Youth & Society can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://yas.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://yas.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://yas.sagepub.com/content/43/2/609.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 27, 2011

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Dec 22, 2009
What is This?

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

Subjective Well-Being
in Urban Adolescents:
Interpersonal, Individual,
and Community
Influences

Youth & Society

43(2) 609634
2011 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0044118X09353517
http://yas.sagepub.com

Melissa L. Morgan1, Elizabeth M.Vera2,

Rufus R. Gonzales3, Wendy Conner2,
Kim Bena Vacek2 and Laura Dick Coyle2

Abstract
This study examined the relationship between subjective well-being criteria
(negative affect, positive affect, and subjective well-being) and individual, family,
friend, school, and neighborhood predictor variables in 159 ethnically diverse,
urban adolescents. Results indicated that negative affect was significantly
predicted by family variables, positive affect was significantly predicted by
individual, school, and friend variables, and satisfaction with life was significantly
predicted by individual and family variables. Limitations, directions for future
research, and clinical implications of these findings are discussed.
Keywords
subjective well-being, adolescence, youth
Recently, mainstream psychology has begun to shift its attention toward
wellness and positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Proponents of a strengths-based perspective call for practitioners to focus on
enhancing quality of life and promoting mental health in their clients, rather
than solely treating pathology (Smith, 2006). One construct in the area of
wellness to which significant scholarly contributions have been made is
1

University of California, Santa Barbara

Loyola University, Chicago
3
DePaul University, Chicago
2

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

610

Youth & Society 43(2)

subjective well-being (SWB). SWB entails the evaluation of ones own life
satisfaction (Robbins & Kliewer, 2000). Dieners (e.g., Diener, Suh, Lucas, &
Smith, 1999) tripartite model of SWB consists of both cognitive and affective
components. Cognitive evaluations of SWB are assessed through ones global
judgment of life satisfaction. Affective components (i.e., predominant moods
and emotions) are assessed by evaluations of the frequency with which one
experiences pleasant and unpleasant emotions. Thus, the model defines SWB
as consisting of three interrelated factors: global life satisfaction, positive
affect, and negative affect (Lightsey, 1996; Robbins & Kliewer, 2000).
The majority of research in the SWB field concerns potential predictors of
life satisfaction (Diener, 2000), which, according to Lent (2004), tend to fall
into one of three categories: demographic variables, personality/dispositional
variables, and acquirable skill sets or environmental variables. Many studies
have explored personality variables conceptually related to SWB such as selfesteem, optimism, hardiness, and agreeableness (Diener et al., 1999; Lightsey,
1996). Demographic factors such as income level, education, and marital status
have also been explored extensively (Oishi, Diener, Lucas, & Suh, 1999), but
it has generally been found that such variables tend to explain the least amount
of variance in SWB as a group (Lent, 2004). Despite these specific findings,
however, it has been suggested that the criteria on which life satisfaction is
assessed may be culturally dependent.
For example, Diener and his colleagues, in a variety of studies (e.g.,
Diener et al., 1999; Oishi et al., 1999), have found that in collectivist cultures, family well-being is a stronger predictor of life satisfaction than are
individual variables (e.g., self-esteem) whereas in individualistic cultures,
the opposite is true. The majority of this research has used cross-national
comparisons, however, and far less is known about the extent to which contextual influences on SWB may exist among diverse populations within the
United States (Edwards & Lopez, 2006).

SWB in Children and Adolescents

Previous SWB research with children and adolescent populations has found
correlations between SWB and social support, intelligence, parenting style,
gang involvement, and global self-concept (e.g., Ben-Zur, 2003; Henry, 2001).
In general, however, SWB research has focused primarily on college-aged
and adult populations. In particular, there is a dearth of research on SWB in
urban adolescent populations that are arguably more vulnerable to environmental risk factors that may compromise well-being (McCullough, Huebner,
& Laughlin, 2000). Therefore, study of SWB in the potentially more

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

611

Morgan et al.

vulnerable adolescent (as opposed to adult) population may be particularly

helpful in pinpointing risk factors and mechanisms which may promote SWB,
data which goes beyond the extant literature.
Although little is known about the successes and psychological wellness
of adolescents, urban youth have been the focus of many studies which document accounts of their vulnerabilities and lack of opportunities (Marsella,
1998). It has been argued that the plethora of struggles is due to the toxic
environments in which many urban adolescents, particularly youths of color,
reside. These environments increase their risk for a variety of mental health
issues (Garbarino, 2001). For example, over the past decade, researchers
have documented disturbing rates of teenage pregnancy (Coley, Kuta, &
Chase-Lansdale, 2000); affective and behavioral disorders (Salguero &
McCusker, 1996); and school dropout (Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2004)
of urban adolescents. Other research has found that urban environment and
poverty are related to the development of a restricted and pessimistic future
orientation (McCabe & Barnett, 2000), which is a predictor of decreased
SWB. Thus, to develop interventions that enhance SWB for this population,
it is important to determine which factors appear to be most relevant to SWB
in urban youth of color, since theories based on majority populations may not
be applicable (Sue & Constantine, 2003).

Perceived Social Support

Existing studies have shown that external psychological resources such
as social support play an important role in adolescent well-being (Edwards
& Lopez, 2006). For example, Edwards and Lopez found that for Latino
middle and high school students, perceived family support was the strongest
predictor of life satisfaction. This study is consistent with other research on
non-European adolescents, such as Asian youth, strongly identifying with and
having attachment to both nuclear and extended family (Sue & Sue, 1999).
Since family functions as a natural support system throughout the lifetime in
these cultures, examining social support in relationship to SWB is crucial. Peer,
family, and school environments have also been found to have different effects
on adolescent perception of social support (Caldwell, Silverman, Lefforge, &
Silver, 2004). For example, Suldo and Huber (2004) found that support from
parents was the strongest predictor of life satisfaction in a large sample of
adolescents, although the relationship decreased with increased age of the
adolescent. Similarly, other studies have found that negative perceptions
of support from school, peers, and parents have been related to a variety of
negative outcomes in adolescents (Farrington, Loeber, Elliott, Hawkins, &

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

612

Youth & Society 43(2)

Kandel, 1990). Therefore it seems important to separately investigate social

support coming from these different environments.

Self-Esteem
For several decades, the literature has shown that self-esteem is correlated
with happiness (Wilson, 1967), and self-satisfaction has been shown to be the
highest predictor of life satisfaction (Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976).
More recently, self-esteem has been established as a significant contributing
factor to SWB (Diener, 1984) in Western samples (Lucas et al., 1996). Not
only has self-esteem been shown to be a direct influence on SWB, but also to
indirectly influence other factors, such as exercise, which have a direct influence on SWB (Elavsky et al., 2005). In adolescent populations, self-esteem
and SWB in adolescents, peer, family, and school contexts have been found
to be differentially related to adolescents view of the self (Caldwell et al.,
2004). For example, feeling good about oneself in the context of school (i.e.,
school self-esteem) has been found to be related to overall self-esteem, but
this relationship is moderated by race, whereas feeling good about oneself in
ones family (i.e., family self-esteem) has been found to be more predictive
of general self-esteem, regardless of race (Hare, 1979).

Neighborhood Conditions
True to developmental frameworks emphasizing the context in which an
individual exists (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), research has begun to show that an
accumulation of systemic factors, rather than only individual factors, affect
SWB (Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov, & Liaw, 1994; Rutter, 1989). Accordingly,
researchers have begun to look at external psychological resources that are
theoretically more distal as a part of the overall contribution to SWB (Meyers
& Miller, 2004). One external aspect which has been studied is the effect of
neighborhood environment.
Neighborhood environment literature dates back to sociologists study of
social disorganization theory as a model for understanding delinquency
behaviors among youth. This theory posits that maintenance of public order
in a neighborhood is correlated with factors such as poverty, residential instability, and ethnic heterogeneity (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Many
studies have investigated various aspects of neighborhoods to determine their
impact (Meyers & Miller, 2004). Neighborhood aspects such as availability
of parks and libraries, presence of role models, negative behavior of peers in
the neighborhood, competition among neighbors for scarce resources, and

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

613

Morgan et al.

neighbors evaluation of themselves relative to others have all been linked to

behaviors of individual residents (Jencks & Mayer, 1990).
Such neighborhood variables have been correlated with multiple specific
outcomes, for example, teen pregnancy rates (Hogan & Kitagawa, 1985);
IQ, verbal ability, and behavior problems (Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn, ChaseLansdale, & Gordon, 1997); physical health and child injury (Durkin,
Davidson, Kuhn, OConnor, & Barlow, 1994); adolescents overall mental
health (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000); and psychological well-being and
school problems (Meyers & Miller, 2004). Some results have varied by
gender, as in Ceballo, McLoyd, and Toyokawas (2004) study of African
American adolescents, where it was found that neighborhood factors affected
educational values among girls but not boys. For all residents, residing in a
low-income neighborhood has been related to poor neighborhood cohesion
and community disengagement, which can lead to decreased individual resilience (Brodsky, 1996). Neighborhood factors in general have yet to be
studied extensively in adolescent populations as correlates of SWB.

Sense of Community
Sense of community is a related construct thought to be comprised of four
dimensions: (a) needs fulfillment, or the belief that the community will meet
an individuals needs; (b) membership, or the feeling of belonging to a neighborhood; (c) influence, or the perception that one can make a difference in
the neighborhood; and (d) emotional connection, or the feeling of shared history and place among neighbors (McMillan & Chavis, 1986).
Correlates of sense of community found in the existing literature include
political participation, local action (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990), and SWB
(Davidson & Cotter, 1991). In a study in Italy, Prezza and Constantini (1998)
found that these correlations are even stronger when looking at a smaller
community, even if that community is a part of a larger urban area. Thus,
feelings about a specific neighborhood may affect SWB even more significantly. It is yet to be established how sense of community impacts SWB for
adolescents in the United States.
Studies have shown that residents perception of their community as disadvantaged leads to many negative consequences. Among these consequences
are that residents form fewer relationships with neighbors and community
values are less upheld (Kowaleski-Jones, 2000), resident life variables such as
the completion of high school, career plans, and family responsibility are also
negatively affected (Ge, Conger, & Elder, 2001), and residents may perceive
that they have poor chances of controlling their lives or succeeding (Wilson,

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

614

Youth & Society 43(2)

1991). In such environments, adolescents specifically are less likely to find

positive role models and/or are more likely to emulate behaviors that may
negatively affect their lives (i.e., early sexual activities, early pregnancies;
Wickrama, Conger, Wallace, & Elder, 1999). Meyers and Miller (2004) found
that when parents perceive their families as living in high-risk neighborhoods,
their children were significantly more likely to have psychological difficulties
and school problems, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or area of the country in
which they lived. Thus, sense of community may be particularly important to
understanding SWB in adolescents. To date, little research has been conducted
on how adolescents sense of community might affect their SWB.

Purpose of the Present Study

The current study examined the relationships between hope, optimism, selfesteem, social support, neighborhood perceptions, and subjective well-being
in ethnically diverse, urban adolescents. Predictor variables were selected
from among each of the identified categories of SWB factors (Lent, 2004):
demographic (gender), personality (self-esteem, optimism), and acquirable
skills/resources (hope, social support, neighborhood conditions, sense of
support). It was hypothesized that, in accordance with Bronfenbrenners ecological model (1979), more distal variables such as neighborhood and
community may have less of an impact on SWB than more proximal individual variables such as hope or self-esteem. However, because proponents
of ecological models of human development (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979;
Garbarino, 2001) believe that even the most distal factors trickle down and
affect the psychological functioning of children and families, it was important for the current examination of SWB in urban adolescents to be as
comprehensive as possible. Given that the majority of extant literature has
focused primarily on proximal individual predictors of SWB, this study was
designed to examine the relative importance of such factors in the context of
a more systemic conceptualization.

Research Questions
The following research questions were addressed: (a) Are there significant relationships between self-esteem, social support, hope, optimism, and
neighborhood as predictors of subjective well-being (as measured by positive
affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction)? (b) Do individual, family, friend,
school, and neighborhood variables significantly predict positive affect? (c) Do
individual, family, friend, school, and neighborhood variables significantly

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

615

Morgan et al.

predict negative affect? (d) Do individual, family, friend, school, and neighborhood variables significantly predict life satisfaction?

Method
Participants
Participants in the study were 159 English-speaking, culturally diverse, 7th and
8th graders at an urban elementary school in a large, Midwestern city. Fifty-six
percent of the students were male and 42.1% were female. They had a mean
age of 13.41 years (SD = 0.8, range = 12 to 16 years). The majority of the students self-identified as Latino/a (57.9%), with 17.6% identifying as Asian,
5.7% as Black, 5% as Mixed race or ethnicity, 3.1% as White, 2.5% as Other,
and 0.6% as Native American, and 7.5% did not report their race or ethnicity.
According to the public state records, the studys sample roughly reflects
the demographic profile of the school as a whole (68.4% Hispanics, 10.5%
Black, 9.7% White, 11.3% Asian American, and less than 1% Native American). Eighty-seven percent of the students enrolled in the school are from
low-income family (i.e., students who come from families whose incomes
qualified for free breakfast and lunch programs in school).

Procedure
Participants were recruited for the study through their school in combination
with a school-based outreach program aimed at enhancing decision-making
skills, career aspirations, and identity exploration. The program was designed to
support the students transition and adjustment through middle school years
and into high school, which is a prime time for specific risk situations to appear
for many urban students (e.g., school dropout, gang involvement). The outreach program is run through a collaboration between the researchers and the
7th- and 8th-grade teachers and school administration. Data are collected
through this program to tailor the focus of the outreach (e.g., anxiety about
entering high school might inform programming around this topic for a future
outreach session). The data gathered for the current study were collected
prior to the onset of any interventions.
All of the students in the 7th and 8th grades of the school were eligible for
participation in the outreach program and research component, and all present at school on the day of data collection chose to participate; therefore, the
sample is representative of the entire 7th- and 8th-grade population at the
school. Prior to the beginning of the program, parents and/or guardians of

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

616

Youth & Society 43(2)

the participants were sent letters describing the outreach program and
research component and asked to sign a written consent for their child to
participate in both components. Participant assents were worded similarly.
None of the parental consents prevented children from participating in either
component of the program. None of the assents indicated a refusal to participate in the study or the program.
The participants responded to the research survey approximately 1 week
prior to their participation in the outreach program in their home room
classes, during the school day, as was requested by the school administrators
and teachers. This was consistent with the structure of all of the subsequent
outreach program activities, which were also conducted during the school
day to maximize attendance. Average survey administration took 30 minutes.
Surveys were read aloud for students to control for varying reading abilities.
Research team members were present to answer any questions that participants had during the survey administration.

Instruments
Demographic questionnaire. The demographic questionnaire included questions on the students gender, age, and race.

Criterion Variables
Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). The PANAS is a 20-item scale
that measures positive and negative affect. Its two subscales, one for positive affect and one for negative affect, are each composed of 10 items
(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The PANAS can be administered with
different instructions which reflect different time frames (e.g., state vs. trait
versions). In the present study, participants were asked to indicate the degree
to which each of the items was generally experienced (reflecting the trait
version). Respondents are asked to indicate how often they feel certain emotions (e.g., interested or stressed) on a 5-point scale from never to all the
time. Total scores for each subscale range from 10 to 50, with higher scores
reflecting higher levels of trait PANAS positive affect (PA) or PANAS negative affect (NA).
The PANAS has been used in previous studies with samples of adolescents in the United States (Crocker, 1997). Testretest reliability coefficients
for a 7-month period (Lonigan, Phillips, & Hooe, 2003) were generally consistent to those found in adult samples, with coefficients ranging from .64 to

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

617

Morgan et al.

.77 for the PA scale and .53 to .66 for the NA scale. In the current study, the
internal reliability estimate was .83 for the PA scale and .81 for the NA scale.
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SLS). The SLS is a 5-item general measure
of satisfaction with the quality of ones life (e.g., I feel my life is close to
perfect; If I could live my life over, I would change nothing; Diener, Emmons,
Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Individuals were asked to respond to the items
using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Total scores are computed by summing the responses, resulting in possible
scores ranging from 5 to 35 with higher scores indicating greater life satisfaction. Internal consistency estimates for scores on this measure were initially
reported as .87, with testretest reliability estimates (2-month interval) of .82
(Diener et al., 1985). Numerous studies since the initial study have reported
reliability estimates which consistently range from .80 to .89, including
scores from individuals of various ages and ethnicities (Pavot & Diener,
1993). In the current study, the internal reliability estimate was .82.

Predictor Variables
Childrens Hope Scale (CHS). The CHS is a 6-item self-report measure
developed to examine ones ability to obtain future goals (e.g., believing that
one knows how to get what one wants in life; Snyder et al., 1997). Scores
range from 6 to 36, with higher scores indicating greater hopefulness. The
CHS was originally administered to several populations of children ranging
in age from 7 to 17, including a sample of White and Latino public school
children. Results for the sample in the original study indicated an internal
reliability estimate of .86. In further studies, internal consistency scores
ranged from .72 to .86, and 1 month testretest reliabilities ranged from .71
to .73 (Snyder et al., 1997). Results indicated an internal reliability estimate
of .86 for the current sample.
Hare Area-Specific Self-Esteem Scale. The Hare is a 10-item index measuring
respondents perceptions of their worth and importance among their peers,
their family, and in the school environment as well as giving a general composite score for self-esteem (Hare, 1979). Scores range from 10 to 40 with
higher scores indicating greater composite self-esteem. Each item consists of
a statement with which the participant can strongly disagree, disagree, agree,
or strongly agree. A sample item is My parents are proud of the kind of
person I am. Past reliability estimates of the original Hare scale in studies
for African American adolescents were .53 for the peer subscale, .60 to for the
home subscale, and .61 for the school subscale (Spencer, Dupree, Swanson,
Phillips, & Cunningham, 1996). In validity studies, three separate constructs

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

618

Youth & Society 43(2)

for peer, home, and school self-esteem have been found (Shoemaker, 1980).
Results of the present study indicated an internal reliability estimate for
general self-esteem of .75, .74 for the family subscale, .64 for the peer subscale, and .68 for the school subscale. The Hare is the only multidimensional
scale of self-esteem that exists in the literature, and as the authors of the
current study had used the Hare in previous research and found the reliability estimates to be better than those found in past research, it was determined
that the scale was appropriate for the current investigation.
Vaux Social Support Record (VSSR). The VSSR is an adaptation of Vauxs
(1986) Social Support Appraisals (SSA) 23-item scale that was designed to
assess the degree to which a person feels cared for, respected, and involved
(Vaux, 1986). The VSSR is a nine-item questionnaire consisting of three subscales that measure social support (a respondents perceptions of the
availability of emotional advice, guidance, and practical support) in family,
peer, and school contexts. Each of the items is evaluated on a 3-point scale
(not at all, some, a lot) with scores ranging from 0 to 2 (and total scores ranging from 0 to 18), with higher scores representing higher perceptions of
support and lower scores representing lower perceptions of social support.
Good internal consistency estimates for the total, family, and peer scales
were demonstrated by Vaux (1986) with older adolescent samples (mean a =
.90, .80, and .84, respectively) and community samples (mean a = .90, .81,
and .84, respectively). The development sample used for this measure
included students in Grades 1 through 6. The internal reliability estimate for
the current sample was .78.
Life Orientation Test (LOT). The LOT measures optimism or ones expectations about the potential to experience positive things in life (e.g., looking on
the bright side of things, expecting good things to come out of bad situations;
Scheier & Carver, 1985). Scores range from 0 to 32. The LOT includes four
negative and four positive items, such as I always look on the bright side of
things and If something can go wrong for me it will. Scores range from 0
to 32, and participants respond to a 5-point Likert-type scale with options
ranging from 0 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). Scheier and Carver
reported an internal consistency estimate of .76 and a testretest correlation of
.79 over a 4-week period for college students (Scheier & Carver, 1985). The
LOT has since been used in studies with seventh- and eight-grade adolescents,
with Cronbachs alphas of .78 and .76 reported (Mahon, Yarcheski & Yarcheski,
2004). The internal reliability estimate for the current sample was .53.
Sense of Community Index (SCI). The SCI measures psychological sense of
community or feeling that members have of belonging and being important
to each other (Long & Perkins, 2003). Responses are given on a 3-point

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

619

Morgan et al.

Likert-type scale (1 = not at all true to 3 = always true) to 12 items. The

initial internal reliability estimate was .80 for the entire scale (Perkins, Florin,
Rich, Wandersman, & Chavis, 1990). The current study yielded a reliability
estimate of .63 for sense of community in school and .71 for sense of community in neighborhood.
SCI scores have been found to be positively related to several variables,
including length of residence, satisfaction and informal social control, political participation and community involvement (Hughey, Speer, & Peterson,
1999), and well-being. It has been found to be applicable with adolescents
(Pretty, Conroy, Dugay, Fowler, & Williams, 1996).
Block Booster Environmental Inventory (BBEI). The Perceived Crime/
Delinquency Problems and Perceived Incivilities subscales of the Perception
of Block Problems Scale of the BBEI were used to measure perceived neighborhood problems (Perkins et al., 1990). The Perceived Crime/Delinquency
Problems subscale is a 7-item instrument in which respondents indicate the
degree to which they perceive crime and delinquency as problematic in their
neighborhood. The Perceived Incivilities subscale is a 6-item instrument in
which participants rate the degree to which they perceive incivilities in their
neighborhood as problematic. Both subscales have choices from 1 (a serious
problem on my block) to 3 (no problem at all on my block). Total scores for
the Perceived Incivilities subscale range from 6 to 18. For both subscales,
higher mean values represent greater levels of perceived problems in ones
neighborhood conditions. A coefficient alpha of .78 for the Perceived Crime/
Delinquency Problems subscale and .65 for Perceived Incivilities subscale
were reported in the initial study (Perkins et al., 1990). In the present study,
Cronbachs alpha was .84 for Perceived Crime/Delinquency and .64 for Incivilities subscales.

Results
The means and standard deviations for all variables, namely, individual (hope
and life orientation), family (self-esteem and social support), school (social
support, school self-esteem, and sense of community in school) friends (selfesteem with friends, social support with friends) and neighborhood (sense of
community in neighborhood and neighborhood conditions), are displayed in
Table 1. To address the first research question and determine the relationships
between the variables, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated (also
presented in Table 1). With regard to SWB criterion variables, positive affect
was positively correlated with satisfaction with life (r = .26 p < .01) but not
correlated with negative affect. Satisfaction with life was negatively

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

620

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

PA

NA

Hope

LOT

Hare

H FE

HHE

HSE

VSSR

VSS

VFS

VPS

SLS

SCIS

SCIN

NBC

Note: PA = PANAS Positive Affect; NA = PANAS Negative Affect; Hope = Childrens Hope Scale; LOT = Life Orientation Test; Hare = Hare Area-Specific Self-Esteem Schedule; HFE = Hare Friends; HHE = Hare Home; HSE = Hare School;VSSR = Vaux Social Support Record; SLS = Satisfaction with
Life Scale; SCI = Sense of Community Index; NBC = Neighborhood Block Conditions Scale; VSS = Vaux School Support;VFS = Vaux Family Support;
VPS = Vaux Peer Support; SCIS = Sense of Community Index - School; SCIN = Sense of Community Index Neighborhood
*p < .05. **p < .01.

PA
NA
.135
Hope .521** -.024
LOT
.316** -.186* .430**
Hare .325** -.367** .521** .370**
HFE
.195* -.243** .278** .243** .696**
HHE
.287** -.340** .448** .333** .825** .282**
HSE
.355** -.207* .520** .345** .667** .434** .382**
VSSR .408** .065
.430** .208* .269** .175*
.206* .336**
VSS
.176*
.120
.229** .035
.063
.123
-.017
.134
.712**
VFS
.294** -.197* .365** .296** .372** .123
.395** .354** .708** .241**
VPS
.401** .168* .336** .137
.144
.112
.071
.231** .774** .329** .352**
SLS
.264** -.330** .481** .480** .491** .350** .433** .422** .401** .200* .438** .226**
SCI S .440** .001
.357** .227** .246** .218*
.167
.284** .569** .353** .416** .476** .262**
SCI N .323** .064
.326** .195* .259** .188*
.245** .263** .429** .237** .330** .346** .156 .308**
NBC .025
.172* .019
.010 -.146 -.031
-.226** .030 -.151 -.088 -.155 -.068 -.025 -.083 -.156
M
32.98
25.96 23.19 20.83 28.39
8.86
13.22
8.94 11.53
3.20
4.44
3.83 23.81 15.00 13.15 21.82
SD
6.80
5.99
5.70
3.46
4.29
1.82
2.65
1.72
3.58
1.61
1.60
1.69
6.73 2.14
2.43 5.78

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Variables

621

Morgan et al.

correlated with negative affect (r = .33, p < .001). Positive affect correlated
with all of the predictor variables except neighborhood block conditions, satisfaction with life correlated with all predictor variables except sense of
community and neighborhood block conditions. Negative affect negatively
correlated with all self-esteem variables, and perceived social support from
family, and positively correlated with social support from friends and neighborhood block conditions (see Table 1).
To test equality of means based on the reported ethnicity of the students, a
oneway ANOVA was run. The results from the ANOVA showed significant
differences among ethnic groups for the criterion variable of negative affect
(F = 2.4, p = .04) and predictor variables of optimism (F = 2.28, p = .05) and
self-esteem derived from friends (F = 2.81. p = .02). Tukeys HSD tests
revealed that significant differences for negative affect were between African
Americans and Asian Americans (p = .05), significant differences for optimism were between African Americans and Latino/as (p = .02), and
significant differences for self-esteem derived from friends were between
African Americans and Asian Americans (p = .02). Another oneway ANOVA
revealed gender differences on four of the variables: negative affect (F =
9.81, p = .002), social support in school (F = 6.79, p = .010), social support
by friends (F = 18.74, p = .000) and overall social support (F = 10.33, p =
.002). For each of these variables, girls had higher scores than boys.
To address the second research question, multiple hierarchical regression
analyses were conducted to examine whether neighborhood variables significantly predicted SWB above and beyond other variables. Life satisfaction,
positive affect, and negative affect were each examined separately. For each
regression with the exception of negative affect, the individual variables of
optimism and hope were entered first, family social support and self-esteem
second, school social support and self-esteem third, friend social support and
self-esteem fourth, and the neighborhood variables of sense of community
and neighborhood conditions fifth. Gender was added as a predictor variable
to the negative affect regression equation because of the gender difference
noted in previous ANOVAS. The variance explained by each model was
examined, and the significance of changes in explained variance with subsequent models was determined.
To determine the adequacy of our sample size, a power analysis was calculated for the hierarchical multiple regression analyses for the test of unique
contributions of the family variables to the SWB criteria (Cohen & Cohen,
1983). The power analysis indicated that a sample of 130 yields a power of
.80 when alpha is set at .05, and the incremental contributions of the family

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

622

Youth & Society 43(2)

variables to the overall SWB criteria is assumed to be .08 based on prior

research.

Predictors of Life Satisfaction

In the first hierarchical regression equation, optimism and hope accounted
for 31% of the variance in life satisfaction. The addition of family variables
increased the variance by 9% and raised the level of explained variance
to 40%, F change(2, 107) = .00. There was no significant change in the explanation of variance after the addition of school variables, variance = 43%,
F change(3, 102) = .28, friend variables, variance = 44%, F change(2, 100) =
.23, or neighborhood variables, variance = 46%, F change(2, 98) = .19. These
variables did not account for a significant amount of incremental variance in
the life satisfaction variable. See Table 2 for a summary of these results.

Predictors of Positive Affect

In the second hierarchical regression equation, predictor variables of positive
affect were examined. Hope and optimism accounted for 33% of the variance
in positive affect. The addition of family variables in the second model was
not significant, variance = 35%, F change(2, 107) = .34, but the third model,
which added school variables, increased the variance by 6% and raised the
level of explained variance to 41%, F change(3, 104) = .02. The addition of
friend variables increased the variance by 4%, raising the level of explained
variance to 45%, F change(2, 102) = .03. The fifth model, which added
neighborhood variables, did not significantly account for additional variance,
variance = 45%, F change(2, 100) = .41. Table 3 summarizes these results.

Predictors of Negative Affect

The third hierarchical regression equation examined predictor variables for
negative affect. Gender explained 6% of the variance for negative affect, a
statistically significant amount, F(1, 112)= 7.5. Hope and optimism did not
account for a significant amount of the variance (3%), F change(2, 110) =
1.52, The addition of family variables was significant, adding 11%, and
accounting for 19% of the variance, F change(2, 108) = 6.73. None of the
remaining additionsschool, variance = 24%, F change(3, 105) = .075;
friends, variance = 27%, F change(2, 103), = .128; or neighborhood, variance =
31%, F change(2, 101) = .063accounted for a significant amount of the
incremental variance. See Table 4 for a summary of these results.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

623

Morgan et al.

Table 2. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Life Satisfaction

(N = 159)
Variable

SEB

Step 1
LOT
0.74
.17
Hope
0.29
.10
Step 2
LOT
0.59
.16
Hope
0.07
.11
Hare home
0.44
.25
Vaux family
1.17
.42
Step 3
LOT
0.56
.16
Hope
-0.03
.12
Hare home
0.43
.25
Vaux family
1.10
.43
Vaux school
0.14
.34
Hare school
0.60
.34
SCIS
0.13
.26
Step 4
LOT
0.56
.17
Hope
-0.06
.12
Hare home
0.43
.25
Vaux family
1.05
.43
Vaux school
0.08
.34
Hare school
0.47
.36
SCIS
-0.01
.27
Hare friends
0.32
.30
Vaux friends
0.44
.34
Step 5
LOT
.55
.17
Hope
-.06
.12
Hare home
.53
.26
Vaux family
1.10
.43
Vaux school
.15
.34
Hare school
.54
.36
SCIS
-.02
.27
Hare friends
.29
.30
Vaux friends
.56
.34
SCIN
-.35
.23
NBC
.09
.06

Beta
.39**
.26*
.31**
.06
.18
.27
.29**
-.03
.17
.25*
.03
.16
.04
.30**
-.05
.17
2.44*
.02
.13
-.01
.09
.11
.29**
-.05
.21
.25**
.04
.14
-.01
.08
.14
-.12
.08

Note: Step 1: R2 = .31, DR2 = .31; Step 2: R2 = .40, DR2 = .10; Step 3: R2 = .42, DR2 = .02; Step 4:
R2 = .44, DR2 = .02; Step 5: R2 = .46, DR2 = .02.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

624

Youth & Society 43(2)

Table 3. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting PANAS Positive

Affect (N = 159)
Variable

SEB

Step 1
LOT
.29
.16
Hope
.54
.10
Step 2
LOT
.25
.16
Hope
.47
.11
Hare home
.33
.25
Vaux family
.06
.40
Step 3
LOT
.22
.16
Hope
.37
.12
Hare home
.36
.24
Vaux family
-.20
.40
Vaux school
-.07
.33
Hare school
.28
.33
SCIS
.75
.26
Step 4
LOT
.29
.16
Hope
.30
.12
Hare home
.38
.24
Vaux family
-.34
.40
Vaux school
-.13
.32
Hare school
.21
.34
SCIS
.53
.26
Hare friends
.12
.29
Vaux friends
.87
.33
Step 5
LOT
.27
.16
Hope
.28
.12
Hare home
.42
.25
Vaux family
-.37
.40
Vaux school
-.14
.32
Hare school
.14
.34
SCIS
.52
.26
Hare friends
.14
.29
Vaux friends
.84
.34
SCIN
.23
.22
NBC
.08
.08

Beta
.16
.49**
.14
.43**
.13
.02
.12
.33**
.15
-.05
-.02
.08
.25**
.16
.27**
.15
-.08
-.03
.06
.17
.04
.23*
.15
.26*
.17
-.09
-.04
.04
.17*
.04
.22
.09
.07

Note: Step 1: R2 = .33, DR2 = .33**; Step 2: R2 = .35, DR2 = .02; Step 3: R2 = .41, DR2 = .06*;
Step 4: R2 = .45, DR2 = .04*; Step 5: R2 = .45, DR2 = .01.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

625

Morgan et al.
Table 4. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Predictors of PANAS
negative affect (N = 159)
Variable

SEB

Step 1
2.96
1.62
Gender
Step 2
Hope
0.01
0.11
LOT
-0.31
0.18
Step 3
0.24
0.12
Hope
LOT
-0.17
0.17
Hare home
-0.72
0.26
Vaux family
-0.70
0.43
Step 4
0.30
0.13
Hope
LOT
-0.08
0.17
Hare home
-0.68
0.26
Vaux family
-0.71
0.43
Vaux school
0.43
0.35
SCIS
0.13
0.27
Hare school
-0.85
0.36
Step 5
0.26
0.13
Hope
LOT
-0.02
0.17
Hare home
-0.60
0.26
Vaux family
-0.87
0.44
Vaux school
0.4
0.35
SCIS
0.09
0.28
Hare school
-0.68
0.37
Hare friends
-0.52
0.31
Vaux friends
0.48
0.36
Step 6
Hope
0.22
0.12
LOT
-0.05
0.17
Hare home
-0.52
0.27
Vaux family
-0.92
0.43
Vaux school
0.42
0.35
SCIS
0.08
0.28
Hare school
-0.80
0.37
Hare friends
-0.51
0.31
Vaux friends
0.39
0.36
NBC
0.14
0.09
SCIN
0.44
0.24

Beta
.25
.01
-.18
.23*
-.10
-.32**
-.18
.30*
-.05
-.30*
-.18
.11
.05
-.25*
.25*
-.01
-.26
-.22*
.12
.03
-.20
-.16
.13
.22
-.03
-.23
-.23
.11
.03
-.24*
-.16
.11
.14
.18

Note: Step 1: R2 = .06, DR2 = .06**; Step 2: R2 = .09, DR2 = .03; Step 3: R2 = .19, DR2 = .10**;
Step 4: R2 = .24, DR2 = .05*; Step 5: R2 = .27, DR2 = .03; Step 6: R2 = .31, DR2 = .05*.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

626

Youth & Society 43(2)

Overall, hierarchical regression results indicated that the individual variables of hope and optimism significantly predicted life satisfaction and
positive affect. Family-derived self-esteem and social support significantly
predicted life satisfaction and negative affect. School-derived self-esteem,
social support, and sense of community significantly predicted positive
affect. Friend-derived self-esteem and social support significantly predicted
positive affect, and neighborhood variables did not significantly predict any
of the criterion variables for SWB.

Discussion
Findings of the current study confirmed most predictors as significant in
explaining variance in the SWB variables. Individual, family, school, and
friend variables were each significant in determining SWB for culturally
diverse, urban adolescents. The study did not find support for neighborhood
variables (i.e., sense of community, neighborhood block conditions) as significant predictors of life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect
overall. This is in contrast to some of the literature which found that sense
of community and perceived neighborhood conditions affect individual
behavior and dispositions. Given that neighborhood variables are the most
distal variables in relationship to the adolescent, it may be that the effect on
their lives is minimal in comparison to more immediate personal, social, and
support variables. It is also possible that urban adolescents may become
desensitized to effects of their neighborhood. Furthermore, this finding supports the idea that in urban, low-income neighborhoods, being disconnected
from community (i.e., not perceiving the negativity in ones environment)
may serve a protective function (Brodsky, 1996). There was some indication in the present study that this may vary by gender (i.e., boys are affected
more negatively by poor neighborhood environment), but this area is in
need of further research.
Family variables were significant in the prediction of overall life satisfaction and negative affect. This is consistent with past findings of the importance
of family variables to life satisfaction in adolescent populations (Suldo &
Huber, 2004) and Latino/a populations, specifically (Edwards & Lopez, 2006).
The fact that the addition of variables beyond individual and family had no
significant effect highlights the importance of individual resources such as
hope and optimism and family above and beyond other variables. If a family
is having a negative impact on the adolescent, this is likely much more salient
and identifiable to the adolescent himself or herself than if the family is
having a positive impact, which could be attributed to other variables such as
individual variables or friends.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

627

Morgan et al.

School and friend variables significantly predicted only positive affect.

Variables such as school and friends may affect the adolescents more day-today mood (i.e., a positive experience at school makes him or her temporarily
happy) but not necessarily affect overall life satisfaction like the more immediate family variables. This is consistent with existing research findings for
Latino/a samples. For example, Holleran and Waller (2003) used ethnographic interviews of Chicano/as from a barrio in a large Southwestern city,
ranging in age from 13 to 18 years old. Their data revealed a central theme of
familismo (the importance of family) in the protection of adolescents and
young adults from racist environments, gang activity, and high-risk behaviors such as violence and drop-out. Narratives described the family as an
oasis from hostile and unfulfilling environments as well as a source of
strength. Peer support was also found to affect constructs related to SWB,
such as resilience, but was not described as central (Holleran & Waller,
2003). Although the relationship needs to be clarified, it may be that the place
of family in a childs life, particularly if the child is Latino/a, provides an
overall source of positive affect, whereas peer variables, although important,
are not as important as the role of family in predicting SWB.
It is interesting that positive affect and negative affect had no relationship
with one another in this study, which has been found to be the case in other
studies (Emmon & Diener, 1985; Lent, 2004). This may imply that infrequent
negative affect is not an automatic indication of frequent positive affect. In
other words, adolescents who do not report feeling sad or frustrated are not
necessarily happy and might still benefit from SWB promotion interventions.
However, it is also important to keep in mind developmental differences
that may affect the fluctuation of mood states in adolescents. For example,
frequency of emotional states may be more influenced by day-to-day events
that are more dynamic and inconsistent for youth of this age. Thus longitudinal
research on the stability of negative and positive affect in urban adolescents
of color would be very valuable.
The overall findings of this study contribute to the literature in that there
have not been studies to date looking at the three components of the tripartite
model of subjective well-being in relationship to individual, family, school,
friend, and neighborhood variables in adolescents, as is consistent with ecological theories of development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). It is important to
include positive and negative affect in studies of SWB, as the current results
indicate that these components may be affected more by distal variables such
as school and friends, whereas overall life satisfaction may be more affected
by more immediate variables such as individual and family.
Several clinical implications can be derived from this study. Pinpointing
the types of variables that may impact certain types of affect allows them to

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

628

Youth & Society 43(2)

be more easily addressed in therapy. Preventive work with adolescents, focusing on building positive expectations for the future, goal-setting, and problem
solving may help to increase overall SWB. Similarly, preventive psychoeducation and cohesion-building activities for families, which would create
a positive family impact on affective behaviors, could be instrumental to
increasing the overall SWB of adolescents, as indicated by previous research
(Larson, 2000). Friend and school environments can be addressed through
peer-based programs targeting communication, relationships, and coping.
Working with teachers and school officials to enhance school support for
adolescents is also critical. According to the findings of this study, it is more
important to focus on these aspects of an adolescents life rather than their
broader environment.

Limitations and Areas of Future Research

Several limitations should be taken into account in the interpretation of these
results. First of all, the size of the sample was limited and not equally representative of each race and ethnicity, or of gender. Therefore, any possibility for
comparisons and/or contrasts between subgroups is quite limited. Future areas
of study would include a larger sample and more equal ethnic representation,
which would allow for closer examination of ethnic and gender differences.
Similarly, a second limitation is that the results are not necessarily generalizable to urban adolescents in other settings as all participants attended the same
school. Third, all data were collected by self-report, which increases the possibility of different interpretations of questions by different individuals. Fourth,
all of the participants did not necessarily live in the same neighborhood, and
therefore any comparisons of neighborhood perceptions could not be made. A
future study might focus on one specific neighborhood environment and therefore gain more detailed and specific information about perceptions. Fifth,
scores on some of the instruments did not demonstrate strong reliability (i.e.,
measures of optimism, sense of community in school, neighborhood incivilities, and peer self-esteem scores all demonstrated reliability estimates below
.70), which would result in an underestimation of the true relationships that
may exist between the studys variables. Finally, the current data provided a
snapshot of adolescents views at a given time. It would be interesting to conduct a more longitudinal study to better gauge the consistency of adolescents
perceptions of each of the variables over time, which may help in better understanding how protective factors can be increased in the lives of adolescents.
More positively focused research is needed to inform professionals in the
field about adolescent competencies and resources that both foster healthy

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

629

Morgan et al.

developmental outcomes and prevent a host of mental health problems in

urban youths (Larson, 2000). Such a shift would reflect an acknowledgment
that even youth who do not exhibit diagnosable problems may not necessarily grow up to become happy, adjusted, or productive adults (Larson, 2000).

Conclusion
The current study served to highlight the importance of more immediate
aspects of an urban adolescents world such as family and school to SWB, in
contrast to more distal variables such as neighborhood. In addition, differences in predictors of each component of SWB were illuminated. This is one
of few studies to examine multiple contextual predictors of SWB simultaneously in this population. Future research is needed to more clearly understand
the differences that culture may bring to bear on the understanding of subjective well-being in adolescents.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors declared no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article.

References
Ben-Zur, H. (2003). Happy adolescents: The link between subjective well-being, internal resources, and parental factors. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 32, 67-79.
Brodsky, A. E. (1996). Resilient single mothers in risky neighborhoods: Negative psychological sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 347-363.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Klebanov, P. K., & Liaw, F. (1994). The learning, physical, and
emotional environment of the home in the context of poverty: The Infant Health
and Development Program. Children and Youth Services Review, 17, 251-276.
Caldwell, R. M., Silverman, J., Lefforge, N., & Silver, N. C. (2004). Adjudicated
Mexican American adolescents: The effects of familial emotional support on
self-esteem, emotional well-being, and delinquency. American Journal of Family
Therapy, 32, 55-69.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life.
New York: Russell Sage.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

630

Youth & Society 43(2)

Ceballo, R., McLoyd, V., & Toyokawa, T. (2004). The influence of neighborhood
quality on adolescents educational values and school effort. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 716-739.
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.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for
the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coley, R. L., Kuta, A. M., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2000). An insider view: Knowledge and opinions of welfare from African American girls in poverty. Journal of
Social Issues, 56, 707-726.
Crocker, P. R. E. (1997). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Positive and Negative
Affect Schedule (PANAS) with a youth sport sample. Journal of Sports and Exercise Psychology, 19, 91-97.
Davidson, W.B. & Cotter, P.R. (1991). The relationship between sense of community and
subjective well-being: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 19(3), 246-253.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for
a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34-43.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with
life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being:
Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302.
Durkin, M. S., Davidson, L. L., Kuhn, L., OConnor, P., & Barlow, B. (1994). Low
income neighborhoods and the risk of severe pediatric injury: A small-area analysis in Northern Manhattan. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 587-592.
Edwards, L. M., & Lopez, S. (2006). Perceived family support, acculturation, and life
satisfaction in Mexican American youth: A mixed methods exploration. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 53, 279-287.
Elavsky, S., McAuley, E., Motl, R., Konopack, J., Marquez, D., Hu, L., et al. (2005).
Long-term quality of life in older adults: Efficacy, esteem, and affective influences. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 30(2), 138-145.
Emmons, R.A. & Diener, E. (1985). Personality correlates of subjective well-being.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(1), 89-97.
Farrington, D., Loeber, R., Elliott, D. S., Hawkins, J. D., & Kandel, D. (1990).
Advancing knowledge about the onset of delinquency and crime. In B. Lahey
& A. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in Clinical Child Psychology (pp. 283-342).
New York: Plenum.
Garbarino, J. (2001). An ecological perspective on the effects of violence on children.
Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 361-378.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

631

Morgan et al.

Ge, X., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. (2001). The relation between puberty and
psychological distress in adolescent boys. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
11(1), 49-70.
Hare, B. (1979). Racial and socioeconomic variation in preadolescent area-specific
and general self-esteem. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1, 31-51.
Harvard Civil Rights Project. (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are
being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights
Project at Harvard University.
Henry, D. B. (2001). Classroom context and the development of aggression: The role
of normative processes. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology research, 6
(pp. 193-227). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Hogan, D. P., & Kitagawa, E. M. (1985). The impact of social status, family structure, and neighborhood on the fertility of Black adolescents. American Journal of
Sociology, 90, 825-855.
Holleran, L. K., & Waller, M. A. (2003). Sources of resilience among Chicano/a
youth: Forging identities in the Borderlands. Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 20, 335-350.
Hughey, J., Speer, P. W., & Peterson, N. A. (1999). Sense of community organizations:
Structure and evidence of validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 97-113.
Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor
neighborhood. In L. E. Lynn & M. F. H. McGeary (Eds.), Inner-city poverty in the
United States (pp. 111-186). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Klebanov, P. K., Brooks-Gunn, J., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Gordon, R. (1997). Are
neighborhood effects on young children mediated by features of the home environment? In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.). Neighborhood
Poverty, Vol. 1, Contexts and Consequences for Children (pp. 146-173). New York:
Russell Sage.
Kowaleski-Jones, L. (2000). Staying out of trouble: Community resources and problem behavior among high-risk adolescents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62,
449-464.
Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American
Psychologist, 55, 170-183.
Lent, R. (2004). Toward a unifying theoretical and practical perspective on well-being
and psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 482-509.
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects
of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 309-337.
Lightsey, O. R. (1996). The role of psychological resources in well-being: A reply.
The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 699-705.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

632

Youth & Society 43(2)

Long, D. A., & Perkins, D. D. (2003). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Sense of
Community Index and development of a brief SCI. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 279-296.
Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., & Hooe, E. (2003). Relations of positive and negative
affectivity to anxiety and depression in children: Evidence from a latent variable
longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 465-481.
Mahon, N.E., Yarcheski, A. & Yarcheski, T.J. ( 2004). Social support and positive
health practices in early adolescents: A test of mediating variables. Clinical Nursing Research, 3(3), 216-236.
Marsella, A. J. (1998). Urbanization, mental health, and social deviancy: A review of
issues and research. American Psychologist, 53, 624-634.
McCabe, K., & Barnett, D. (2000). The relationship between family factors and future
orientation of urban, African American sixth graders. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 9, 491-508.
McCullough, G., Huebner, E. S., & Laughlin, J. E. (2000). Life events, self-concept,
and adolescents positive subjective well-being. Psychology in the Schools, 37,
281-290.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and
theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.
Meyers, S. A., & Miller, C. (2004). Direct, moderated, and cumulative relations
between neighborhood characteristics and adolescent outcomes. Adolescences,
39(153), 121-144.
Oishi, S., Diener, E., Lucas, R. E, & Suh, E. M. (1999). Cross-cultural variations in
predictors of life satisfaction: Perspectives from needs and values. Personality &
Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 980-990.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164-172.
Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. (1990). Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime
and community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 83-115.
Pretty, G. 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, 365-381.
Prezza, M., & Constantini, S. (1998). Sense of community and life satisfaction: Investigation in three different territorial contexts. Journal of Community & Applied
Social Psychology, 8, 181-194.
Robbins, S., & Kliewer, W. (2000). Advances in theory and research on subjective
well-being. In S. Brown & R. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology
(pp. 310-345). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

633

Morgan et al.

Rutter, M. (1989). Pathways from childhood to adult life. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Applied Disciplines, 30, 23-51.
Salguero, C., & McCusker, W. (1996). Symptom expression in inner-city Latinas:
Psychopathology or help seeking? In B. J. Leadbeater, N. Way, & Niobe (Eds.),
Urban girls: Resisting stereotypes, creating identities (pp. 328-336). New York:
New York University Press.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and
implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 5, 219-247.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
Shoemaker, A. L. (1980). Construct validity of area specific self-esteem: The Hare
Self-Esteem Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40, 495-501.
Smith, E. (2006). The strengths-based counseling model. The Counseling Psychologist,
34, 13-79.
Snyder, C. R., Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L., Danovsky, M., et al.
(1997). The development and validation of the Childrens Hope Scale. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, 22, 399-421.
Spencer, M. B., Dupree, D., Swanson, D., Phillips, D., & Cunningham, M. (1996).
Parental monitoring and adolescents sense of responsibility for their own learning: An examination of sex differences. Journal of Negro Education, 65(1), 30-43.
Sue, D. W., & Constantine, M. (2003). Optimal human functioning in people of color
in the United States. In B. Walsh (Ed.), Counseling psychology and optimal human
functioning (pp. 151-169). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, S. (1999). Counseling the culturally different. New York: Wiley.
Suldo, S. S., & Huber, E. S. (2004). The role of life satisfaction in the relationship
between authoritative parenting dimensions and adolescent problem behavior.
Social Indicators Research, 66, 165-195.
Vaux, A. (1986). Social support: Theory, research, and intervention. New York:
Praeger.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Wickrama, K. A. S., Conger, R. D., Wallace, L. E., & Elder, G. H. (1999). The intergenerational transmission of health-risk behaviors: Adolescent lifestyles and gender moderating effects. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40, 258-272.
Wilson, W. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 294-306.
Wilson, W. J. (1991). Studying inner-city social dislocations: The challenge of public
agenda research. American Sociological Review, 56, 1-14.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014

634

Youth & Society 43(2)

Bios
Melissa L. Morgan, PhD, is currently an assistant professor at the University of
California, Santa Barbara. She does research in the areas of subjective well-being, and
cross-cultural and immigrant resilience. Her publications include chapters on prevention in the Oxford Handbook of Counselling Psychology and Handbook for Social
Justice in Counseling Psychology as well as articles on subjective well-being in
the Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology Journal and The Counseling
Psychologist
Elizabeth M. Vera is a Professor in the Counseling Psychology program at Loyola
University Chicago. She teaches courses in adolescent development and prevention/
advocacy. Dr. Vera's scholarship focuses on urban youth development, social justice
issues in psychology, and prevention.
Rufus R. Gonzales is a licensed psychologist in the state of Illinois and the Training
Coordinator at DePaul University Counseling Services. His clinical and research
interests include students of color, LGBT identified students, and resilience.
Wendy Conner is the Mental Well Being Services Manager at PACE, an LGBT
mental health charity in London. Her research interests include the psychology of
oppression and mental health issues for marginalized populations. She completed her
MA at Boston College in 2002.
Kim Bena Vacek is a doctoral candidate in Counseling Psychology at Loyola University Chicago. Her research interests include prevention, resiliency, and well being in
diverse adolescent populations.
Laura Dick Coyle is an advanced doctoral student in Counseling Psychology at
Loyola University Chicago. Her research interests include urban youth development
and the effects of stress on well-being.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 26, 2014