Mothers And Mastery: The Consequences Of Perceived Neighborhood Disorder

http://spq.sagepub.com/Social Psychology Quarterly

http://spq.sagepub.com/content/70/4/340The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/019027250707000406

2007 70: 340Social Psychology QuarterlyC. André Christie-Mizell and Rebecca J. Erickson

Mothers And Mastery: The Consequences Of Perceived Neighborhood Disorder

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Sociological Association

can be found at:Social Psychology QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://spq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Dec 1, 2007Version of Record >>

at OhioLink on September 8, 2014spq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at OhioLink on September 8, 2014spq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://spq.sagepub.com/

http://spq.sagepub.com/content/70/4/340

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.asanet.org

http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://spq.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://spq.sagepub.com/content/70/4/340.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Can negative perceptions of one’s proxi-mate environment moderate the impactof social structure on one’s sense of mas-

tery or personal control? Working within asocial structure and personality framework(House 1981; McLeod and Lively 2003), weexamine this question by specifying the condi-tions under which objective neighborhood andsociodemographic characteristics influencemothers’ experience of mastery.1 Others haveconsistently shown that residents of neighbor-

hoods distinguished by high levels of econom-ic disadvantage, social disorder, and physicaldecay experience feelings of powerlessness ora lack of personal mastery over their lives(Geis and Ross 1998; Fischer 1973; Seeman1971, 1983). Geis and Ross (1998) furtherdemonstrated that perceptions of neighbor-hood disorder explain much of the effect thatsocial structures have on one’s sense of control(also see Sampson and Raudenbush 2004 andWilson 1996 on the role of perceived disor-der). Building on this tradition, we examineRoss and Mirowsky’s (2003:439) thesis thatperceived neighborhood disorder may alsomoderate or modify the effects of structuraland individual disadvantage on one’s sense ofpersonal control.

BACKGROUND

Neighborhoods influence mastery becausethey structure community members’ access toresources such as employment, education,social networks, safety, and other social ser-vices that facilitate successful role enactment(Booth and Crouter 2001; Brooks Gunn,Duncan, Klebanov, and Sealand 1993;Furstenberg et al. 1993; Wilson 1996).

Social Psychology Quarterly2007, Vol. 70, No. 4, 340–365

Mothers And Mastery:The Consequences Of Perceived Neighborhood Disorder*

C. ANDRÉ CHRISTIE-MIZELLKent State University

REBECCA J. ERICKSONUniversity of Akron

Using longitudinal data from a nationally representative sample of mothers, we specify theconditions under which the neighborhood context shapes the experience of mastery. In sodoing, we extend the work of others who have shown that neighborhood perceptions influ-ence one’s sense of personal control over and above the effects of sociodemographic andobjective neighborhood characteristics. Specifically, we demonstrate that the benefits tomastery generally afforded to mothers through marital status, household income, physicalhealth, and living in a higher-income neighborhood are diluted by perceptions of neigh-borhood disorder. These findings suggest the importance of including measures of proximalexperiences when attempting to link objective components of social structure with individ-ual and family-level outcomes. Providing further support for the emphasis placed on theseproximate mechanisms by the social structure and personality framework, our analysesindicate that failing to consider negative community perceptions suppresses the significantimpact that central city residence and race have on mothers’ sense of personal control.

340

* Direct correspondence to: C. André Christie-Mizell, Ph.D., Department of Sociology, Kent StateUniversity, P. O. Box 5190 Kent, OH 44242-0001;[email protected]. An earlier version of this paper waspresented at the 9th International Conference on SocialStress Research, Montréal, Canada (2004). We wish tothank Spencer Cahill and the anonymous reviewers atSocial Psychology Quarterly.

1 Mastery is defined as “the extent to which people seethemselves as being in control of the forces that impor-tantly affect their lives” (Pearlin et al. 1981:340). We usethe terms mastery, perceived control, and the sense ofcontrol interchangeably. Further, following Avison andCairney (2003) and Turner and Roszell (1994), weapproach terms such as perceived powerlessness, fatal-ism, self-efficacy, and mastery as overlapping constructs.For a discussion of some of the distinctions between theseterms, see Pearlin and Pioli (2003) and Ross and Sastry(1999).

at OhioLink on September 8, 2014spq.sagepub.comDownloaded from


MOTHERS AND MASTERY 341

Without access to such resources, the abilityto meet personal obligations and role expecta-tions may be diminished. Overtime, one’s fail-ure to meet such expectations can lead to alack of perceived control, which in turninhibits future productive behavior and maycompromise physical and psychological well-being (Ross and Mirowsky 1992; Ross andSastry 1999; Turner and Rozell 1994; Wilson1996).

Wilson, well-known for his scholarship onthe demographic shifts and declining econom-ic opportunities found in central city neigh-borhoods, has asserted that residents’ lack ofperceived control stems primarily from per-ceptions about the neighborhood (1996).Indeed, researchers have consistently foundthat perceived neighborhood disorder influ-ences individual psychosocial outcomes aboveand beyond objective indicators of neighbor-hood disadvantage and census tract location(Aneshensel and Sucoff 1996; Geis and Ross1998; Latkin and Curry 2003). These percep-tions do not just reflect a singular observationabout one aspect of the community (e.g., highrates of joblessness), but rather an all encom-passing assessment of neighborhood charac-teristics that restrict residents’ ability to fulfillmajor role obligations, such as making a liv-ing and caring for children. For the communi-ties in his study, Wilson described these nega-tive perceptions as including issues related toracial segregation, neighborhood turnover,safety, physical decay (e.g., run-down, aban-doned buildings), access to public transporta-tion and other services, supervision of chil-dren, apathetic neighbors, and unemployment.Wilson proposed that these perceptions wereimportant because they affected residents’sense of personal control and subsequentbehavior. For example, his analysis revealedthat the internalization of high levels of per-ceived neighborhood disorder led many unem-ployed individuals to give up on being able tofind employment of any sort (Wilson1996:76–79).

In exploring the social psychology of theindividual, Wilson did not abandon his origi-nal focus (see Wilson 1987) on the centralityof social structure for shaping the neighbor-hood context and the outcomes of residents.

Rather, he proposed that these neighborhoodperceptions both arise from and condition theimpact of structural factors (e.g., low income,low education, high crime rates). Parallel toarguments made by those working within thesocial structure and personality framework(House 1981; McLeod and Lively 2003;Schnittker and McLeod 2005), Wilson pro-posed that the totality of sociodemographicand neighborhood characteristics contributesto how individuals perceive their neighbor-hoods, and subsequently, how these percep-tions affect levels of perceived control or mas-tery. In addition to this proposed mediatingeffect, others have suggested that perceptionsof one’s proximal surroundings may also mod-erate the effects of neighborhood and socio-demographic resources on individual out-comes (Cutrona et al. 2000; Ross 2000; Rossand Mirowsky 2003; Sampson andRaudenbush 2004).

Neighborhood Context and Mastery

Early research conceptualized mastery asa stable personality trait (Bandura 1977;Pearlin and Schooler 1978; Rotter 1966).Though still acknowledging the relative stabil-ity of mastery, more recent research hasdemonstrated how structural factors, particu-larly those related to hierarchies of power,influence the development and maintenanceof the personal sense of mastery (Ali andAvison 1997; Cassidy and Davies 2003; Demo1992; Ross, Mirowsky, and Goldsteen 1990;Wheaton 1980). For example, prior studieshave established that high levels of incomeand education, along with high quality paidemployment, are associated with high levelsof mastery (Bird and Ross 1993; Pearlin et al.1981; Downey and Moen 1987). Researchershave also reported that African Americans andHispanic Americans tend to experience lowerlevels of mastery compared to their EuropeanAmerican counterparts (Mirowsky and Ross1983; Mizell 1999; Lewis, Ross, andMirowsky 1999). And, although the directeffect of gender on mastery has been some-what uncertain (e.g., Ross and Mirowsky1992; Bird and Ross 1993; Turner and Noh1988), married women with children do tend



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234838576_The_Social_Psychology_of_Health_Disparities?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-0fed70f2-64da-4ac3-a25e-4cf71ef49951&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MTU3MztBUzoxMzkyMTEwODg4NjMyMzJAMTQxMDIwMTkxODUzNg==

342 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY

to report lower levels of mastery than theirmale counterparts (Cassidy and Davies 2003).

The theoretical reasoning behind thesepatterns lies in structured social inequality.Since feelings of perceived control rely onaccess to such valued resources as education,employment, and income, those who havefewer opportunities to access these resourcesare at a disadvantage (Hughes and Demo1989; Mirowsky and Ross 1989; Rosenfield1989; Ross and Wu 1995). The consistent con-nection between structural disadvantage andpsychosocial resources has stimulatedresearch that seeks to identify particularmechanisms through which disadvantageaffects individual outcomes (Williams 1990;Link and Phelan 1995; Lachman and Weaver1998; Mirowsky and Ross 1986, 2003). Suchresearch has led to studies of how neighbor-hood characteristics affect psychosocialprocesses. Foremost among these investiga-tions has been the work of Ross and her col-leagues (e.g., Geis and Ross 1998; Ross2000a; Ross and Jang 2000; Ross andMirowsky 2001; Ross, Mirowsky, and Pribesh2002). As a group, these studies demonstratedthat Wilson (1996) was right to call for theinclusion of social psychological variables instudies of how life experiences within a decay-ing neighborhood environment contribute tothe reproduction of socioeconomic disadvan-tage. In particular, research has shown thatindividual perceptions of and reactions to thesurrounding neighborhood context constitutepart of the disadvantage faced by those livingin decaying neighborhoods.

Investigators examining the consequencesof living in disadvantaged neighborhoodshave increasingly sought to differentiate theeffects of actual versus perceived characteris-tics (Aneshensel and Sucoff 1996; Geis andRoss 1998; Latkin and Curry 2003; Stiffman,Hadley-Ives, Elze, Johnson, and Dore 1999).2

Consistent with developmental research onself-efficacy (Bandura 1982; Gecas 1989),perceptions of neighborhood characteristicstend to have a stronger association with indi-vidual and psychosocial outcomes than moreobjective characteristics (Latkin and Curry2003; Ross 2000a). For example, Geis andRoss (1998) found that characteristics of thegeographic location (e.g., urban vs. rural,poverty level) affected people’s sense of con-trol less than did the perceived breakdown ofsocial order in the surrounding neighborhood.Ross (2000a) further reported that the associ-ation between neighborhood economic disad-vantage and psychological distress was com-pletely mediated by perceived neighborhooddisorder. Such findings are supported by oth-ers who have shown that perceived neighbor-hood disorder influences individual well-being above and beyond objective indicatorsof neighborhood disadvantage (e.g., employ-ment rates) and sociodemographic character-istics such as race and household income(Aneshensel and Sucoff 1996; Latkin andCurry 2003).

Mothers and Mastery: Specifying the Role ofPerceived Neighborhood Disorder

Despite the increasing involvement offathers, women are still primarily responsiblefor the upbringing of children and the dailymaintenance of the home (Bird 1999; Friscoand Williams 2003; Lavee and Katz 2002;Simon, 1995). Mastery is one personal char-acteristic that enables mothers to attend ade-quately to these demands. If a mother experi-ences lowered mastery, the impact of her senseof ineffectiveness may spill over to other fam-ily members that depend on her—not onlythreatening her own psychological adjust-ment, but perhaps that of her children andother family members as well. Thus, an empir-ical examination of the conditions underwhich mothers’ feelings of mastery may becompromised (or strengthened) represents acritical substantive extension of prior researchon the role that perceived neighborhood disor-

2 One reasonable critique of this line of research hasbeen that perceived neighborhood disorder and the objec-tive characteristics of neighborhood disadvantage are con-founded. However, Sampson and Raudenbush (2004)address this contention directly. They found that whileobjective disorder (e.g., neighborhood unemploymentrates) is associated with perceived neighborhood disorder,

race and individual socioeconomic status are more strong-ly predictive of neighborhood perceptions.



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242550052_Seeing_Disorder_Neighborhood_Stigma_and_the_Social_Construction_of_Broken_Windows?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-0fed70f2-64da-4ac3-a25e-4cf71ef49951&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MTU3MztBUzoxMzkyMTEwODg4NjMyMzJAMTQxMDIwMTkxODUzNg==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230557429_Self-Efficacy_Mechanism_in_Human_Agency?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-0fed70f2-64da-4ac3-a25e-4cf71ef49951&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MTU3MztBUzoxMzkyMTEwODg4NjMyMzJAMTQxMDIwMTkxODUzNg==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234838360_The_Social_Psychology_of_Self-Efficacy?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-0fed70f2-64da-4ac3-a25e-4cf71ef49951&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MTU3MztBUzoxMzkyMTEwODg4NjMyMzJAMTQxMDIwMTkxODUzNg==


der might play in the stress process (Pearlin etal. 1981; Pearlin 1999).

The role expectations, conflict, and strainunique to motherhood put mothers at risk forexperiencing lower perceived control thanfathers and women without children (Cassidyand Davies 2003; Rosenfield 1989). Living inimpoverished environments and being a singleparent have also been shown to be highly con-sequential for mastery and other individualoutcomes (Avison 1995; Ross 2000a), as havedifferences in economic resources, employ-ment opportunities, health problems (Christie-Mizell, Steelman, and Stewart 2003), experi-ences of racial discrimination, and other fac-tors associated with race (Cutrona et al. 2000).Because neighborhoods characterized bysocial and economic disadvantage tend to bedisproportionately populated by female-head-ed households (Avison 1995; Massey andDenton 1993; Wilson 1996), comparing theexperiences of mothers who live in a widerange of community contexts (e.g., centralcity, rural, and suburban) is essential for theadequate specification of these relationships.

Summary and Hypotheses

In this paper, we investigate how objectiveneighborhood and individual characteristicsand perceptions of the proximate communityshape psychosocial adjustment by specifyingthe conditions affecting mothers’ experienceof personal mastery or sense of control. Sincemothers attempt to fulfill important roles andobligations within the context of the surround-ing neighborhood, expanding social scientificunderstanding of how this immediate contextaffects mothers’ sense of control may haveimplications for the health and well-being ofthe entire family. Building on previous work(Ross and Mirowsky 2001; Wilson 1996), wehypothesize that perceived neighborhood dis-order is negatively related to the mastery ofmothers, adjusting for the effects of objectiveneighborhood characteristics and sociodemo-graphic traits. This study extends previousresearch in this area by not only examining theextent to which perceived neighborhood disor-der mediates the effects of individual andcommunity disadvantage (Ross 2000a), but

also by testing a facet of Ross and Mirowsky’s(2003) structural amplification hypothesis(also see Ross 2001). Ross and Mirowsky pro-pose that “[s]tructural amplification existswhen conditions undermine the personalattributes that otherwise would moderate theirundesirable consequences.|.|.|. The mediator ofan undesirable effect is also a magnifier ofthat effect” (2003:438). In this case, the “con-dition” under consideration is perceivedneighborhood disorder. Perceptions of disor-der are traditionally modeled as mediating theeffect of objective social conditions (e.g.,urban residence, crime and unemploymentrates) on personal control. Because disadvan-taged individuals live in disadvantaged neigh-borhoods, researchers must also take the influ-ence of individual characteristics into account.Disadvantaged individual attributes includelow levels of education and family income,unemployment, minority status, poor health,and single parenthood (Mirowsky and Ross1989). In line with the amplification hypothe-sis, our primary goal is to examine how per-ceived neighborhood disorder may modify theimpact of these more structural sociodemo-graphic and contextual characteristics.

Support for the structural amplificationprocess would be found in cases where moth-ers’ mastery was significantly reduced (mod-erated/modified) as a result of including inter-actions in the model between objective neigh-borhood/sociodemographic characteristicsand perceived neighborhood disorder. Forexample, consider a mother who is unmarriedand living in poverty—both characteristicsthat would contribute to lowering her sense ofpersonal mastery (Cassidy and Davies 2003;Mirowsky and Ross 1989). High levels of per-ceived neighborhood disorder may moderateor amplify the already dampening effect hersingle status and socioeconomic disadvantageon mastery. Conversely, it is also conceivablethat high levels of perceived neighborhooddisorder might also moderate or dilute posi-tive structural conditions. For instance, if amother is married, has completed a collegeeducation, and has a stable family income, onewould expect that these factors would con-tribute to her sense of personal mastery. If,however, counter to the expectations that align



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271690475_Powerlessness_and_the_Amplification_of_Threat_Neighborhood_Disadvantage_Disorder_and_Mistrust?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-0fed70f2-64da-4ac3-a25e-4cf71ef49951&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MTU3MztBUzoxMzkyMTEwODg4NjMyMzJAMTQxMDIwMTkxODUzNg==


with her structural position she perceives highlevels of neighborhood disorder, these neigh-borhood perceptions might also dampen theotherwise positive effects of her marital statusand socioeconomic accomplishment. In thispaper, we test these two possibilities.

This study further contributes to the liter-ature on neighborhood context on individualfunctioning by moving beyond the usual focusof such research on urban populations. Thedata used for this project is nationally repre-sentative. Although Wilson’s research on theurban core helped to motivate this study, ruralresidence has also been shown to affect psy-chosocial adjustment and the parenting behav-ior of mothers (Amato and Zuo 1992; Congerand Conger 2002; Conger, Conger, Jewsbury,and Matthews 1999; Pinderhughes, Nix,Foster, and Jones 2001). Similar to those liv-ing in urban areas, residents of rural localeshave also experienced industry loss (e.g.,farming) and have had to deal with risingcrime rates, growth in the sale and use of illic-it drugs, and increasing rates of family disso-lution (Amato and Zuo 1992; Herz andMurray 2003). Therefore, an additional goalof this research is to assess whether theprocesses through which neighborhood con-text influences mastery differ among mothersin central city, suburban, and rural communi-ties.

Finally, in examining the proposed rela-tionships, we analyze longitudinal data thatinclude individual, family, and contextuallevel measures. These data allows us toresolve whether the effects of the neighbor-hood context on individuals are truly contex-tual effects or simply an artifact of individualand family disadvantage. Ross (2000a) refersto this conundrum as the “context vs. compo-sition dilemma” (also see Jencks and Mayer1990). Others (e.g., Ginther, Haveman, andWolfe 2000) point out that the use of such datamay, in part, help resolve issue of selectionbias. Without adjusting for individual andfamily level disadvantage, concluding thatcontextual effects exist solely based on aggre-gate-level neighborhood data may be incorrect(Robert 1998). It may be that what investiga-tors interpret as the impact of context on indi-vidual outcomes is instead the result of the

composition of the neighborhood or that dis-advantaged individuals and families inhabitdisadvantaged neighborhoods (Fischer 1976;Ross 2000b; Tittle 1989). Conversely, the useof individual or family level data can onlyspeak to the effects of individual/family char-acteristics and not to contextual effects.Robert (1998) convincingly argued that onlycontextual research that simultaneously exam-ines the impact of neighborhood factors andindividual/family characteristics can concludewhether it is neighborhood disadvantage, indi-vidual/family disadvantage, or both that influ-ence individual outcomes (Robert 1998:19).Through our use of individual, family, andcontextual level data, we are better able toavoid selection bias and assess the impact ofcontextual effects versus. those that are due tosociodemographic factors.

METHODS

Data and Sample

We used data from the NationalLongitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) (Centerfor Human Resource Research 1999). TheNLSY consists of a national sample of indi-viduals who were interviewed annually from1979 to 1994 and biennially thereafter. Theoriginal sample, ranging in age from 14 to 21,included an overrepresentation of AfricanAmerican, Hispanic, and economically disad-vantaged whites. With the exception of the ini-tial Time 1 measure of mastery from the 1979wave, we analyzed data collected in 1992.These represent the only two waves that con-tain measures of mastery. Also, because ques-tions about neighborhood perceptions wereadministered to mothers only, our study wasrestricted to women who reported having atleast one child for whom complete data wereavailable (n = 2,338).3

3 Approximately 19 percent (n = 580) of the motherseligible for this study had missing data on one or morevariables. We investigated whether group-specific meanimputation led to different results. Because the resultsusing complete cases did not differ from those using meansubstitution, only those for whom complete data wereavailable were included in the final analyses. Also, beforeproceeding with our complete case analyses, we estimat-ed a selection model (Heckman 1979), and the selection




The data were weighted to correct for theoversampling of racial minorities and low-income youth. All of the analyses presentedbelow are weighted, because neither the sam-ple size nor the findings differed between theweighted and unweighted analyses. The finalweighted sample included 313 AfricanAmericans (14%), 1,813 European Americans(81%), and 112 (5%) mothers who represent-ed a range of different Hispanic ethnic groups(e.g., Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans,Cuban Americans) or who simply identifiedas Hispanic, Chicano, or Latino. The mothersranged in age from 27 to 35 in 1992.Descriptive statistics and bivariate correla-tions for all variables are presented in Table 1.

Measures

Mastery. Mastery is our primary dependentvariable. In the National Longitudinal Surveyof Youth, different measures of mastery wereused in 1979 (Time 1) and 1992 (Time 2). TheTime 1 measure was a four-item scale basedon Rotter’s (1966) Locus of Control Scale.The respondent was presented with four setsof paired statements. For each pair of state-ments, the respondent selected which state-ment of the pair is closest to her self-beliefs.Then, in a second step, respondents wereasked to judge how close the selected state-ment was to her “true” opinion. The state-ments were: (1) “What happens to me is myown doing” versus “Sometimes I feel that Idon’t have enough control over the directionmy life is taking”; (2) “When I make plans, Iam almost certain that I can make them work”versus “It is not always wise to plan too farahead, because many things turn out to be amatter of good or bad fortune anyhow”; (3)“In my case, getting what I want has little ornothing to do with luck” versus “Many timeswe might as well decide what to do by flippinga coin”; and (4) “Many times I feel that I havelittle influence over the things that happen tome” versus “It is impossible for me to believethat chance or luck plays an important role inmy life.” We coded each item so that higher

scores indicated a greater sense of control andsummed the four items to create the Time 1mastery scale (4 = less control; 16 = greatercontrol).4

In 1992, the NLSY collected informationabout individuals’ perceptions of control usingthe seven-item Pearlin Mastery Scale (Pearlinet al. 1981). As with the Time 1 measure,items were coded and summed so that higherscores reflected a greater sense of control (4 =less control; 28 = greater control). The sevenitems of the scale include: (1) I have little con-trol over the bad things that happen to me; (2)There is really no way I can solve some of theproblems I have; (3) There is little I can do tochange many of the important things in mylife; (4) I often feel helpless in dealing withproblems of life; (5) Sometimes I feel that Iam being pushed around in life; (6) What hap-pens to me in the future mostly depends onme; and (7) I can do just about anything I real-ly set my mind to. The Cronbach’s alpha relia-bility for the Time 2 mastery scale was .78.

Perceived neighborhood disorder wasmeasured using eight items that gauge moth-ers’ perceptions of both the physical and socialdisarray of their proximate community. Theseitems were administered in the NLSY for thefirst time in 1992. Respondents were asked touse a three-point scale to judge the extent towhich each of the following was a problem inher neighborhood (1 = minor problem; 3 =major problem): (1) people do not respectrules/law; (2) there is too much crime and vio-lence; (3) there are too many abandoned orrun-down buildings; (4) enough police protec-tion is provided; (5) public transportation isadequate; (6) parents supervise their children;

estimator was not significant, indicating that those whowere missing did not differ significantly from those in thesample.

4 The internal consistency of this four-item Rotter scaleis low (Cronbach’s alpha = . 40). Our decision to use themeasure is reinforced by a positive and significant corre-lation between the Rotter and Pearlin scales. We also fol-low the lead of others who have used the NLSY data inthis way (e.g., Lewis, Ross, and Mirowsky 1999). In thata Time 1 measure is intended to control for the effects ofomitted variables or specification error, we examinedwhether estimations of Time 2 mastery that did notinclude the Rotter scale were substantially the same. Ouranalyses indicated that the only difference was that signif-icant variables had larger effect sizes. This result supportsour use of the Rotter scale in that it accounts for a degreeof specification error.



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270746272_Establishing_a_Sense_of_Personal_Control_in_the_Transition_to_Adulthood?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-0fed70f2-64da-4ac3-a25e-4cf71ef49951&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MTU3MztBUzoxMzkyMTEwODg4NjMyMzJAMTQxMDIwMTkxODUzNg==


Tabl

e 1.

Mea

ns, S

tand

ard

Dev

iati

ons,

and

Int

errc

orel

atio

ns A

mon

g V

aria

bles

(N

=2,

238)

.

.(1)

.(2)

.(3)

.(4)

.(5)

.(6)

.(7)

.(8)

.(9)

.(10

).(

11)

.(12

).(

13)

.(14

).(

15)

.(16

).(

17)

.(18

).(

19)

(20)

01M

aste

ry (

T2)

02M

aste

ry (

T1)

.19*

**03

Afr

ican

00

—A

mer

ican

00

—(1

= y

es)a

–.01

–.09

***

04H

ispa

nic

00—

Am

eric

an

00—

(1 =

yes

)a–.

03–.

04–.

09**

*05

Age

–.05

*.1

8***

–.02

–.03

06M

arri

ed

00—

(1 =

yes

)b.0

2.0

1–.

23**

*–.

03.0

5*07

Num

ber

of

00—

Chi

ldre

n–.

11**

*–.

05*

.09*

**.0

6***

.21*

**.2

3***

08P

resc

hool

00

—C

hild

ren

00—

(1 =

yes

).0

6**

.03

–.07

***

–.01

–.26

***

.03

–.22

***

09Y

ears

of

00—

Edu

cati

on.1

9***

.23*

**–.

08**

*–.

09**

*.0

4*.0

3***

–.31

***

.27*

**10

Hou

seho

ld

00—

Inco

mec

.17*

**.1

2***

–.23

***

–.04

*.0

8***

.55*

**–.

05*

.13*

**.4

0***

11E

mpl

oyed

00

—(1

= y

es)

.11

.09*

**–.

05**

–.03

.01

–.03

–.31

***

.02

.22*

**.2

3***

12H

ealt

h 00

—L

imit

atio

ns

00—

(1 =

yes

)–.

04–.

02*

–.01

–.01

.00

–.01

–.02

–.02

.00

–.02

.05*

13C

entr

al C

ity

00—

Res

iden

ce

00—

(1 =

yes

)d.0

4*.0

0.2

3***

.07*

*–.

05*

–.16

***

–.07

**.0

1.0

1–.

09**

*–.

01–.

0114

Rur

al

00—

Res

iden

ce

00—

(1 =

yes

)d–.

04–.

05*

–.07

***

–.07

***

–.01

.06*

*.0

6**

–.04

–.13

***

–.10

***

–.02

–.03

–.20

***

15%

Min

orit

y 00

—R

esid

ents

.01

–.03

.39*

**.1

3***

–.01

–.12

***

.02

–.04

–.01

–.04

*–.

04–.

03.2

4***

–.20

***

(Con

tinu

ed o

n ne

xt p

age)




Tabl

e 1.

(C

onti

nued

) .(1)

.(2)

.(3)

.(4)

.(5)

.(6)

.(7)

.(8)

.(9)

.(10

).(

11)

.(12

).(

13)

.(14

).(

15)

.(16

).(

17)

.(18

).(

19)

(20)

16%

Nei

ghbo

r-00

—ho

od

00—

Turn

over

.06*

*.0

5*.0

3.1

0***

.03

–.09

***

–.07

**.0

2.0

9***

.00

–.01

–.01

.02

–.26

***

.28*

**17

Une

mpl

oy-

00—

men

t R

atec –

.06*

*–.

04–.

02.0

8***

–.01

.03

.07*

*–.

09**

*–.

14**

*–.

14**

*–.

10**

*.0

2–.

05*

.37*

**–.

02–.

18**

*18

% P

oor

00—

Mot

her-

00—

Hea

ded

00—

Hom

esc

–.08

***

–.08

***

.14*

**.0

5*–.

01–.

03.1

5***

–.14

–.20

***

–.22

***

–.08

***

–.01

–.02

.27*

**.2

4***

–.16

***

.48*

**19

Ser

ious

Cri

me

00—

Rat

ec–.

06**

*–.

04*

–.21

***

–.13

***

.00

.12*

**.0

3.0

1–.

09**

*–.

01.0

0–.

03.1

8***

–.40

***

.48*

**.5

2***

.12*

**.0

4*20

Perc

eive

d 00

—N

eigh

bor-

00—

hood

00

—D

isor

der

–.19

***

–.13

***

.24*

**.0

6**

–.02

–.20

***

.03

–.09

–.20

***

–.32

***

–.12

***

.00

.18*

**.0

2.1

5***

–.03

.12*

**.1

2***

.04*

Mea

n22

.13

11.4

8.1

4.0

531

.14

.63

1.46

.73

13.3

63.

40.7

5.0

5.1

0.2

5.2

0.3

8.0

7.2

62.

1911

.19

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

3.15

2.39

.46

.38

2.23

.45

1.23

.45

2.30

.83

.44

.20

.35

.42

.15

.09

.76

.11

.37

3.78

aO

mit

ted

cate

gory

is

Eur

opea

n A

mer

ican

s.b

Om

itte

d ca

tego

ries

are

“ne

ver

mar

ried

and

“fo

rmer

ly m

arri

ed.”

cL

ogge

d.d

Om

itte

d ca

tego

ry i

s su

burb

an r

esid

ence

.*p

≤.0

5p;

**p

≤.0

1; *

**p

≤.0

01




(7) people care about what goes on with theirneighbors/neighborhood; and (8) too manypeople cannot find jobs. The final summatedscale had an alpha reliability of .85 (8 = lessdisorder; 24 = greater disorder). The results ofthe factor analysis displayed in Table 2 showthat our main outcome measure, mastery atTime 2 (Mastery T2), and PerceivedNeighborhood Disorder measure differentunderlying concepts.

Objective neighborhood characteristics. Inresearch on the impact of neighborhoods,scholars have noted the importance of severalfacets of community life that are particularlyinfluential on the outcomes of women andtheir children (Christie-Mizell, Steelman, andStewart 2003; Cutrona et al. 2000; Duncanand Brooks-Gunn 1997; Wilson 1996; Masseyand Denton 1993). In terms of objectiveneighborhood conditions, our study accountedfor facets of the neighborhood that priorresearch has linked to disorder, includinglocation, percentage of minority residents,turnover, unemployment rates, percentage ofpoor mother-headed households, and crimerates. The location of residence (e.g., central

city versus rural) has important implicationsfor mothers’ adjustments by way of access toservices, schools, and public transportation(Christie-Mizell, Steelman, and Stewart,2003; Duncan 1997; Wilson, 1996).Neighborhood location captured respondents’proximity to a standard metropolitan statisti-cal area (SMSA). SMSAs are typically com-posed of population sizes of 50,000 or more(U.S. Census Bureau, 1995). Those who livewithin the SMSA are urban dwellers. Urbandensity is further divisible into the area thatcomprises the heart or core of an SMSA, oftenreferred to as the inner or central city and the“outer ring” areas or suburbs. Those living insuburbs do not reside in the core of the metro-politan area but are still inside the SMSA.Residents outside SMSAs live in rural com-munities. Although the effects of living in theinner city have constituted the traditionalfocus of neighborhood research, rural resi-dence has also been shown to affect psychoso-cial adjustment and the parenting behavior ofmothers (Amato and Zuo 1992; Conger andConger 2002; Conger, Conger, Jewsbury, andMatthews 1999; Pinderhughes, Nix, Foster,and Jones 2001). In this paper, we use a set of

Table 2. Factor Loadings for Mastery and Perceived Neighborhood Disorder (N = 2,238).

PerceivedNeighborhood

Mastery Disorder

Mastery Items1. There is really no way I can solve some of the problems I have.* .68 .002. Sometimes I feel that I am being pushed around in life.* .64 –.083. I have little control over the bad things that happen to me.* .73 –.044. I can do just about anything I really set my mind to. .55 .085. I often feel helpless in dealing with problems of life.* .73 –.046. What happens to me in the future mostly depends on me. .52 .077. There is little I can do to change many of the important things in my life.* .70 –.02

Perceived Neighborhood Disorder Items1. People do not respect rules/law. .02 .802. There is too much crime and violence. .06 .793. There are too many abandoned or run-down buildings. .04 .684. Not enough police protection. –.01 .735. Not enough public transportation. –.11 .396. Parents do not supervise their children. .02 .777. People do not care what goes on with their neighbors/neighborhood. –.03 .668. Too many people cannot find jobs. –.05 .70

Cronbach’s Alpha .78 .85

1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly agree. Response categories for perceived neighborhood dis-order items: 1 = big problem; 2 = somewhat of a problem; 3 = not a problem.* Reverse coded.




dummy variables to compare the experiencesof those living in central cities (10%) and ruralcommunities (25%) to those who reside in theomitted category, suburban areas (65%). Wemeasure neighborhood location in 1992, and itis the residence for which all the other contex-tual variables (discussed below) are matched.

The other neighborhood variables used inthis study were constructed using county levelcensus data made available to us through acontract with the Bureau of Labor Statistics,the federal agency that oversees the collectionof the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.These restricted data made it possible for us tolink each respondent’s neighborhood locationwith objective features of their place of resi-dence from the County and City Data Book(CCDB) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Allinformation used from the CCDB is takenprior to 1992; however, the exact year wasdependent on available information.

The models presented below include thepercentage of racial minorities, which mea-sures the proportion of residents in a givenneighborhood who are non-white. The racialcomposition of neighborhoods has been asso-ciated with both experiences of discriminationand economic opportunities, which haveimplications for the adjustment of mothers(Cutrona et al. 2000; Wilson 1996; Masseyand Denton 1993). On average, the communi-ties in our study are composed of 19% minor-ity residents. This variable was derived from1990 census data.

Neighborhood turnover has been linked tothe social psychological and economic well-being of residents, including mothers and theirchildren (Fischer 2002; Massey and Denton1993; Wilson 1987, 1996). Changes in neigh-borhood population are particularly problem-atic in communities where the most affluentresidents leave and are not replaced by otherswho are economically stable. This populationshift results in a depleted tax base, yieldinghigher poverty levels, rampant unemployment,substandard housing, and elevated rates ofcrime and violence (Massey and Denton 1993;Wilson 1996). To operationalize neighbor-hood turnover, we linked each respondent’sarea of residence to figures from Census data(U.S. Census Bureau 2000) which indicate the

percentage of persons five years and older liv-ing in different houses between 1985 and1990. These figures are given in five-yearincrements (e.g., 1980–1985; 1985–1990;1990–1995, etc.). We selected the period1985–1990 because it precedes the 1992 mea-surement of mastery, our dependent variableof interest. The average proportion of turnoverin our sample is approximately 38 percent.

We further accounted for the unemploy-ment rate (logged) associated with eachrespondent’s place of residence. Employmentfigures for a given residential area have impli-cations not only for whether mothers seekingemployment will be able to provide for theirfamilies, but also for the number of other res-idents who may be struggling economically.These residents also, deplete the tax base thatcontributes to public services, schools, themaintenance of law enforcement, and otherimportant factors that allow mothers to pro-vide quality home lives for their children(Duncan and Brooks-Gunn 1997; Wilson1996; McLoyd 1990). Unemployment rates inthese data and according to official nationalstatistics are skewed, reaching higher than50% in some impoverished urban areas butless than 2% in other affluent areas (U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics 2005). Therefore,we took the natural logarithm of the neighbor-hood unemployment rates to correct for skew-ness. We used 1990 census data to ascertainunemployment rates, and the mean averagelogged unemployment rate is .07.

The models we developed for this studyalso included the percentage of poor mother-headed households. Neighborhoods character-ized by a high proportion of impoverishedmother-headed households have been linkedto high levels of disorder and poor outcomesfor both mothers and their children(Pinderhughes et al. 2001; Duncan andBrooks-Gunn 1997; Wilson 1987, 1996).Parenting in this context makes it difficult toachieve efficacy in many of the daily activities(e.g., providing nurturance and cognitive stim-ulation for children) associated with mother-hood (Pinderhughes et al. 2001). Similar toneighborhood rates of unemployment, the pro-portion of impoverished mother-headedhouseholds is skewed and varies greatly by




neighborhood location. The logged percentageof poor mother-headed households is .26 andwas measured in 1989 (County and City DataBook; U.S. Census Bureau 2000).

Finally, the serious crime rate was includ-ed as an objective indicator of the neighbor-hood context. By generating uncertainty, fear,and mistrust, high crime rates and the atten-dant lack of safety interfere with the amountand type of social control that mothers are ableto exert over their children. The feeling ofneighborhood insecurity can compromiseboth the personal sense of mastery and otheraspects of individual well-being (Ross 2000a;Ross and Mirowsky 2001; Ross, Mirowsky,and Pribesh 2001). The federal governmentidentifies serious crimes as murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, rob-bery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson (U.S.Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2003). Therate of serious crime in a community is deter-mined by the number of these events thatoccur for every 100,000 residents. Becauseserious crimes are relatively rare events, wetook the natural logarithm of the variable toreduce skewness and to prompt homogeneityof error variances (Messner and Sampson1991; Morenoff, Sampson, and Raudenbush2001). The mean average logged serious crimerate is .05 and was measured at the countylevel in 1991 (County and City Data Book;U.S. Census Bureau 2000).

Sociodemographic factors. Race was mea-sured using dummy variables to representAfrican Americans (14%), EuropeanAmericans (81%), and Hispanic Americans(5%). In all analyses, the omitted category wasEuropean American. Age, with a mean of31.14, was measured in years. Family struc-ture variables included marital status, numberof children, and a dummy variable indicatingthe presence of at least one preschool child inthe home. Family structure has been shown tobe an especially important sociodemographicfactor that affects exposure to stressors andpsychological adjustment (Avison 1995; Ross2000a). While divorced and single-parentfamilies are known to be exposed to higherlevels of stress, it remains unclear how this

process occurs or how family structure mayinfluence the way in which exposure to neigh-borhood stressors are experienced. As a result,marital status was measured using dummyvariables. In each analysis, the effects of mar-riage (1 = yes; 63%) are compared to all oth-ers: never married (19%) and formerly mar-ried (i.e., divorced, separated, or widowed;18%). Number of children refers to the num-ber of dependent children living in the homereported by each mother in 1992. The meannumber of children was 1.46, with a range ofone to seven children. Those mothers whoindicated that they had at least one child whohad not yet begun elementary school and wasunder the age of six were coded 1 for the pres-ence of preschool children. The vast majority(73%) of these relatively young mothers has atleast one preschool child.

Finally, the level of socioeconomicresources available to each mother was mea-sured in a number of different ways. Becauseone primary goal of this study was to investi-gate which social structural characteristics anddemographic resources might modify theimpact of perceived neighborhood disorder onmothers’ feelings of mastery, a range ofresource variables were used (Turner andRoszell 1994). An individual’s level of educa-tion has been shown to be positively associat-ed with feelings of mastery and negativelyassociated with perceived neighborhood dis-order (Geis and Ross 1998). Years of educa-tion was measured in 1992 by asking eachrespondent to indicate the number of years ofschooling they had completed. On average,the women in this study had completed a littlemore than one year of post-high school educa-tion (mean = 13.36). Household income wasmeasured in dollars and logged in the regres-sion analyses to correct for skewness (mean =3.40). Household income was reported byGeis and Ross (1998) to be negatively relatedto both powerlessness and perceived neighbor-hood disorder. Paid employment has also beenassociated with higher levels of mastery(Cassidy and Davies 2003). Those who wereemployed in the paid labor force, a reported75% of the sample, were coded 1 and com-pared to all others. The National LongitudinalSurvey of Youth data include the average num-



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244959865_A_New_Look_at_Urban_Alienation_The_Effect_of_Neighborhood_Disorder_on_Perceived_Powerlessness?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-0fed70f2-64da-4ac3-a25e-4cf71ef49951&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MTU3MztBUzoxMzkyMTEwODg4NjMyMzJAMTQxMDIwMTkxODUzNg==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244959865_A_New_Look_at_Urban_Alienation_The_Effect_of_Neighborhood_Disorder_on_Perceived_Powerlessness?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-0fed70f2-64da-4ac3-a25e-4cf71ef49951&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MTU3MztBUzoxMzkyMTEwODg4NjMyMzJAMTQxMDIwMTkxODUzNg==


ber of weekly work hours. However, since pre-liminary sensitivity analyses showed that dif-ferences in our sample only appeared betweenthose who were employed, regardless of thenumber of hours worked, and all others, weelected to use a dummy variable representingpaid employment. Similar to effects of educa-tion, income, and employment, physicalhealth has been viewed as a resource that mayinfluence both economic and psychologicalwell-being (Becker 1964; Mirowsky and Ross1989, 2003). Perceptions that one lives in ahigh risk, disordered environment can exacer-bate feelings of vulnerability and lack of con-trol already brought on by physical disabilitiesthat impede one’s ability to engage in laborforce activity and to manage family routines(Lachman and Weaver 1998; Turner and Noh1988). Respondents were coded as 1 for pres-ence of physical health limitations if theyanswered yes (5%) to a single question thatprobed whether they have health problems thatinterfere with their ability to engage in physi-cal activity or work.

Analytic Strategy

We estimated a series of six regressionmodels that examined the relationshipbetween mastery, sociodemographic factors,objective neighborhood characteristics, andperceived neighborhood disorder.5 We alsoinvestigated the extent to which perceived dis-order mediates and/or moderates objectivefeatures of the neighborhood, family charac-teristics, and individual attributes. Table 3shows six progressive adjustment models withmastery predicted by selected variables.Models 1–3 add race and age, family struc-

ture, and socioeconomic resources to themodel successively. We build the model in thisway to assess how these individual and family-level variables operate to shape mastery with-out accounting for the neighborhood context.In models 4 and 5, we add only the objectiveindicators of neighborhood quality followedby perceived neighborhood disorder. Thesetwo models appraise how the neighborhoodfactors alone shape mastery and represent onestep in assessing whether perceived disorderpotentially mediates objective characteristics.Model 6 is our final model and includes allvariables in the model. With the exceptions ofmodels 4 and 5 in which we regressed masteryat Time 2 (T2) on the objective neighborhoodcharacteristics and perceived neighborhooddisorder, each estimated model controls formastery at Time 1 (T1). Accounting for priorlevels of mastery increases confidence that theeffects of current factors (e.g., perceivedneighborhood disorder) accurately reflect theimpact of those variables rather than simplycapturing the effect of earlier mastery (Raoand Miller 1971; Parcel and Menaghan 1993).

RESULTS

Direct and Mediating Effects

In Table 3-Model 1, prior mastery is relat-ed to increased levels of current mastery,while age is negatively related to mastery. Thesecond model adds family structure to the esti-mation of mastery. For the mothers in oursample, marriage is associated with highermastery. Further, having a large family is asso-ciated with lower levels of mastery. In thismodel, mastery at Time 1 and age are slightlyreduced in effect size, but remain significantpredictors of mastery at Time 2. In Table 3-Model 3, socioeconomic resources wereadded to the equation. Education and house-hold income are positively related to mastery.The addition of the socioeconomic resourcesmediates the impact of the family structurevariables. Marriage and family size no longerare significantly related of mastery once edu-cation and income are included in the model.

The next step in our analysis was to assessthe impact of objective neighborhood charac-teristics and perceptions of neighborhood dis-

5 The data used for this study are hierarchical, whereinindividual respondents are nested within neighborhoods.The analyses of nested data violate the assumptions ofordinary least squares (OLS) regression and may in somecases require the use of statistical modeling techniquesthat adjust for the correlated error and group specificerror variances associated with nested data (Blalock 1984;Bryk and Raudenbush 1992). In our nationally respresen-tative sample, a majority of the census tracts that we uti-lize have only one respondent residing in it. Under theseconditions, hierarchical linear modeling can result inunreliable estimates of variance within tract and should beavoided (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992). Therefore, we uti-lized OLS regression.




Tabl

e 3.

Mas

tery

(T

2) R

egre

ssed

on

Mas

tery

(T

1), D

epre

ssio

n, S

ocio

dem

ogra

phic

Fac

tors

, Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d C

hara

cter

isti

cs, a

nd P

erce

ived

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d D

isor

der

(N =

2,2

38).

Mod

el 1

Mod

el 2

Mod

el 3

Mod

el 4

Mod

el 5

Mod

el 6

Inde

pend

ent V

aria

bles

.b.S

E.b

.SE

.b.S

E.b

.SE

.b.S

E.b

.SE

—M

aste

ry (

T1)

.264

***

.028

.254

***

.028

.213

***

.028

.195

**.0

28So

ciod

emog

raph

ic F

acto

rsR

ace

and

Age

—A

fric

an A

mer

ican

(1

= y

es)a

.024

.190

.241

.198

.319

.196

.459

*.2

16—

His

pani

c A

mer

ican

(1

= y

es)a

–..3

16.2

89–.

166

.290

–.07

0.2

86–.

045

.291

—A

ge–.

112*

**.0

29–.

080*

**.0

30–.

115*

**.0

30–.

109*

**.0

30Fa

mil

y St

ruct

ure

—M

arri

ed (

1 =

yes

)b.3

46*

.144

–.20

7.1

72–.

184

.172

—N

umbe

r of

Chi

ldre

n–.

259*

**.0

59–.

104

.062

–.11

0.0

62—

Pre

scho

ol C

hild

ren

(1 =

yes

).1

08.1

53–.

135

.156

–.17

7.1

55So

cioe

cono

mic

Res

ourc

es—

Yea

rs o

f E

duca

tion

.125

***

.033

.105

**.0

33—

Hou

seho

ld I

ncom

ec.5

27**

*.1

10.3

98**

*.1

13—

Em

ploy

ed (

1 =

yes

).2

53.1

61.2

06.1

60—

Phy

sica

l H

ealt

h L

imit

atio

ns (

1 =

yes

)–.

463

.301

–.46

7.2

99O

bjec

tive

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d C

hara

cter

isti

cs—

Cen

tral

Cit

y R

esid

ence

(1 =

yes

)d.4

14.2

26.7

41**

*.2

24.6

19**

.221

—R

ural

Res

iden

ce(1

= y

es)d

.202

.184

.241

.180

.279

.176

—%

Min

orit

y R

esid

ents

–.66

6.6

18–.

117

.608

–.51

1.6

26—

% N

eigh

borh

ood

Turn

over

.356

.421

.185

.413

.382

.406

—U

nem

ploy

men

t R

atec

–.13

7.1

12–.

038

.110

–.01

6.1

09—

% P

oor

Mot

her-

Hea

ded

Hou

seho

ldsc

–2.4

01*

1.01

5–2

.221

*.9

96–.

460

.999

—S

erio

us C

rim

e R

atec

–.58

3*.2

72–.

624*

.267

–.40

3.2

62N

eigh

borh

ood

Perc

epti

ons

—Pe

rcei

ved

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d D

isor

der

–.18

6***

.019

–.13

9***

.020

Con

stan

t22

.619

21.7

5320

.007

24.4

5326

.221

23.5

98A

djus

ted

R2

.040

.049

.079

.009

.048

.098

aC

ompa

red

to E

urop

ean

Am

eric

ans.

bC

ompa

red

to “

neve

r m

arri

ed a

nd “

form

erly

mar

ried

.”c

Log

ged.

dC

ompa

red

to s

ubur

ban

resi

denc

e.*

p ≤

.05;

**p

≤.0

1; *

**p

≤.0

01




order on mastery. In Table 3-Model 4, weentered objective neighborhood characteris-tics into the model. Both the percentage ofpoor mother-headed households and the seri-ous crime rate are negatively related to mas-tery. In the next equation (Model 5), we addedperceived neighborhood disorder. As expect-ed, perceived neighborhood disorder is nega-tively related to the mastery experienced bymothers. Higher percentages of poor mother-headed households and higher serious crimerates in a mother’s community continued to beassociated with lower levels of mastery in thisanalysis. Importantly, in this equation, thoseliving in the central city reported higher levelsof mastery than those living in the suburbs.This result suggests that failing to include per-ceptions of one’s proximate surroundings sup-pressed the effect of central city residence onmothers’ mastery. This finding thus lends fur-ther empirical support to the critical role thatproximal experiences play in advancing socialscientific understanding of the individual-society relationship (House 1981; McLeodand Lively 2004).

With regard to main effects, Table 3-Model 6 represents our final model. In thisequation, mastery at Time 2 was regressed onall predictors simultaneously. Controlling forall other variables, including mastery at Time1, perceived neighborhood disorder continuesto be associated with lower levels of mastery.As in earlier models, age is also related tolower levels of mastery. In the final model,education, income, and central city residence(compared to living in the suburbs) remainsignificant, positive predictors of mastery.One notable difference in this full model isthat being African American, which was notsignificant in any of the previous models, isnow positively associated with mastery.

Together, the results showing that centralcity residence [Models 5 (b = .741, p = .001)and 6 (b = –.619, p = .01)] and being AfricanAmerican (Model 6: b = .459, p = .05) are pos-itively related to levels of mastery amongmothers represent a set of “suppressor effects”(Cohen and Cohen 2003). We estimated auxil-iary models, not shown here, which verifiedthat the multivariate effects of central city res-idence and race are significant only when per-

ceived neighborhood disorder is included inthe model. This pattern represents statisticalsuppression, and is explained by the fact thatperceived neighborhood disorder is greateramong central city residents (r = .18, p = .001;see Table 1) and African Americans (r = .24, p= .001; see Table 1). Therefore, the inclusionof perceived neighborhood disorder in ourmultivariate model produces significant, posi-tive relationships for central city residence andAfrican American mothers in the prediction ofmastery.

One aim of this research was to testwhether perceived neighborhood disordermediated the effects of objective neighbor-hood characteristics and sociodemographicfactors on mastery. With respect to our com-munity-level measures, Table 3-Models 4–5suggests that mediation does not occur. Bothpoor mother-head households and the seriouscrime remain significant across models.However, in supplementary models (notshown), we progressively entered each blockof variables (i.e., race and age, family struc-ture, socioeconomic resources, and neighbor-hood characteristics) found in Table 3. Withineach block, we entered variables one at a time.Regardless of the order in which measureswere introduced into the model, neighborhoodperceptions did not mediate the impact of anyof the other variables in model. For perceivedneighborhood disorder to mediate the effectsof variables in the model, there must exist amultivariate relationship between perceivedneighborhood disorder and those variables(Baron and Kenny 1986). We thus estimated amodel predicting perceived neighborhood dis-order (not shown). Mastery at Time 1, educa-tion, income, employment, and percent neigh-borhood turnover were inversely related toperceived disorder, while being AfricanAmerican, never married, central city resi-dence, the percentage of minority residents inthe community, and the neighborhood unem-ployment rate were positively associated withhigher levels of perceived disorder. The resultsof this additional model are available uponrequest.




Moderating Effects of Perceived Disorder

The primary goal of this study was toinvestigate the possible moderating effects ofperceived neighborhood disorder on maternalmastery. To test the possibility that percep-tions of disorder exacerbate or amplify (Rossand Mirowsky 2003) the effects of sociode-mographic and objective neighborhood char-acteristics, we estimated interactions witheach sociodemographic factor and objectiveneighborhood characteristic.6 Only significantinteractions are presented and describedbelow.7

As shown in Table 4, marriage, householdincome, physical health limitations, and thepercentage of poor female-headed householdin the community interacted significantly withperceptions of neighborhood disorder. Thefindings shown in Table 4-Model 1 indicate asignificant interaction between marriage andperceived neighborhood disorder. As illustrat-ed in Figure 1, at low levels of perceived dis-order, those who are married have significant-ly higher levels of mastery than their unmar-ried counterparts. This finding is consistentwith the others who note the protective effectof marriage for the development of such psy-chosocial resources as mastery (e.g., Avison1995). In considering whether perceivedneighborhood disorder serves as a conditionthat amplifies the negative impact on masteryof never being married, Figure 1 shows thatrather than amplifying ill effects, perceptionsof disorder dilute the protective benefitsderived from marriage. At high levels of per-ceived neighborhood disorder, the advantagessecured through marriage disappear. As nega-tive perceptions of the community increase,levels of mastery decrease for both marriedand unmarried mothers, but more dramatical-ly for those who are married.

Figure 1. Interaction Between Perceived Neighborhood Disorder and Marital Status.

6 All continuous independent variable are centered orrescaled to zero means and then used in interactions (seeAiken and West 1991.). When two continuous variablesare significant in interactions, this centering permits aninterpretation of the unstandardized coefficient as theeffect of one specific variable at the mean level of theother variable. When a dummy variable and a continuousvariable are significant in interactions, the effect of theunstandardized coefficient represents the effects of theinteraction at the mean level of the continuous variableand for the category of the dummy variable coded 1.

7 The suppressor effects for central city residence andrace might also suggest that there may be significantinteractions between central city residence and perceivedneighborhood disorder, as well as between AfricanAmerican and perceived neighborhood disorder (Cohenand Cohen 2003). We tested these two possibilities. Theinteractions were not significant.



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234021289_Multiple_Regression_Testing_And_Interpreting_Interactions?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-0fed70f2-64da-4ac3-a25e-4cf71ef49951&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MTU3MztBUzoxMzkyMTEwODg4NjMyMzJAMTQxMDIwMTkxODUzNg==


A similar result is found for householdincome. As shown in Table 4-Model 2 andFigure 2, increasing perceptions of neighbor-hood disorder dilute the benefits to masterygained through having higher householdincome. At all levels of perceived neighbor-hood disorder, high-income mothers havemore perceived control over their lives com-pared to low-income mothers. Although bothhigh and low-income mothers experience adecrease in mastery as perceptions of neigh-borhood disorder rise, the rate of decline issignificantly greater among high-incomemothers.

We also found a significant interactionbetween physical health limitations and per-ceived neighborhood disorder (Table 4-Model3 and Figure 3). As perceived neighborhooddisorder increases, mothers who report healthproblems that limit their physical activityexperience a more significant decrease inmastery than their healthier counterparts. Thisfinding is consistent with the amplificationhypothesis. When perceived neighborhooddisorder is relatively low, mastery is relativelyhigh for all mothers regardless of health.Additionally, when perceived disorderincreases, mastery declines for all respon-

Table 4. Mastery (T2) Regressed on Selected Variables and Interactions (N = 2,238).

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Independent Variables .b .SE .b .SE .b .SE .b .SE

—Mastery (T1) .193*** .028 .194*** .028 .194*** .028 .193*** .028Sociodemographic FactorsRace and Age—African American (1 = yes)a .421 .217 .423 .216 .461* .216 .452* .216—Hispanic American (1 = yes)a –.046 .291 –.031 .291 –.048 .291 –.038 .291—Age –.106*** .030 –.110*** .030 –.107*** .030 –.109*** .030Family Structure—Married (1 = yes)b .729 .470 –.202 .172 –.173 .172 –.171 .172—Number of Children –.123* .062 –.116 .062 –.106 .062 –.106 .062—Preschool Children (1 = yes) –.185 .155 –.194 .155 –.168 .155 –.180 .155Socioeconomic Resources—Years of Education .104** .033 .100** .033 .107** .033 .107** .033—Household Income (logged) .394*** .113 1.051*** .274 .392*** .113 .394*** .113—Employed (1 = yes) .224 .160 .231 .160 .207 .160 .226 .160—Physical Health Limitations (1 = yes) –.451 .298 –.456 .298 1.613 1.068 –.450 .299Objective Neighborhood Characteristics—Central City Residence(1 = yes)d .629** .221 .640** .221 .608** .221 .637** .221—Rural Residence(1 = yes)d .268 .176 .289 .176 .277 .176 .285 .176—% Minority Residents –.557 .626 –.590 .626 –.523 .625 –.625 .628—% Neighborhood Turnover .409 .406 .421 .405 .385 .405 .420 .406—Unemployment Rate (logged) –.003 .109 –.013 .109 –.019 .109 –.037 .109—% Poor Mother-Headed Households -.491 .998 –.471 .997 –.505 .998 –5.577* 2.746—Serious Crime Rate (logged) –.387 .262 –.398 .262 –.412 .262 –.437 .262Neighborhood Peceptions and Interactions—Perceived Neighborhood Disorder –.098*** .028 .033 .069 –.131*** .021 –.264*** .066——X Married (1 = yes) –.080* .038——X Household Income (logged) –.055** .021——X Physical Health Limitations (1 = yes) –.185* .091——X % Poor Mother-Headed Households .457* .228

Constant 23.077 21.654 23.453 25.094

Adjusted R2 .108 .110 .108 .107

a Compared to European Americans.b Compared to “never married and “formerly married.”c Logged.d Compared to suburban residence.* p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001




Figure 3. Interaction Between Perceived Neighborhood Disorder and Health Limitations.

Figure 2. Interaction Between Perceived Neighborhood Disorder And Household Income (Logged).




dents. However, the ill effects of perceiveddisorder for mastery are amplified amongthose with physical health limitations.

The percentage of mother-headed house-holds below the poverty line located in thecommunity was the only objective neighbor-hood characteristic moderated by perceivedneighborhood disorder (Table 4-Model 4 andFigure 4). At low levels of perceived disorder,mothers who resided in a neighborhood with alow proportion of impoverished mother-headedhousehold are advantaged with higher levels ofmastery. However, increasing perceptions ofdisorder dilute the beneficial effect gained byliving in a more advantaged neighborhood. Tobe sure, mothers in neighborhoods with lowand high percentages of poor mother-headedhousehold experience decreased levels of mas-tery as perceived neighborhood increases.

DISCUSSION

Do mothers’ perceptions of neighborhooddisorder moderate the effects of social struc-ture on their sense of mastery? We examinedthis question using nationally representative,longitudinal data that allowed us to identify

the conditions under which women with chil-dren are at greatest risk for a reduced sense ofcontrol. As others have observed, self-efficacyis a critical psychosocial resource underlyingmental and physical health as well as the suc-cessful performance of social roles (Avison1995; Gecas 1989; Geis and Ross 1998;Wilson 1996). Our results support those ofothers who have shown that perceived neigh-borhood disorder is significantly and nega-tively related to mastery. The results presentedhere extend this area of study by further spec-ifying the conditions under which perceptionsof disorder moderate the effects of sociode-mographic factors and objective neighbor-hood characteristics. As a group, these resultsreaffirm the sociological tradition of connect-ing self-efficacy to social structure (Gecas1989) and provide a new avenue for empha-sizing the role that proximate experiences playin linking individual outcomes to more macro-structural phenomena (House 1981; McLeodand Lively 2003). In particular, our resultsindicate that perceived neighborhood disordersignificantly modified the impact of maritalstatus, household income, physical health, and

Figure 4. Interaction Between Perceived Neighborhood Disorder and Percentage of Mother-headed Households(logged).

Low % Mother-headed Households

High % Mother-headed Households




the percent of poor mother-headed householdson mothers’ mastery.

At low levels of perceived neighborhooddisorder, married women with children expe-rience higher levels of mastery. However,when negative community perceptions arehigh, the protective effects of marriage arediluted to the point of no significance. Thispattern suggests that marriage may shieldmothers from the harmful effects of perceivedneighborhood disorder except at high levels ofsuch perceived disorder. This finding adds tothe evidence about the role of marriage inshaping mastery for women with children.While the marital relationship has the poten-tial to provide social support that aids in psy-chological adjustment, related research sug-gests that married mothers experience lessmastery compared to others when family andsocial stressors are high and socioeconomicstrain is present (Cassidy and Davies 2003).Having controlled for individual, family, andcommunity socioeconomic status, our find-ings indicate that perceived neighborhood dis-order may be one of the proximate stressorsthat put women with children at risk for nega-tive self-evaluations. With specific regard tosocioeconomic resources, both high and low-income mothers experience significantlylower levels of mastery at high levels of per-ceived neighborhood disorder. This result sug-gests that the positive impact of economicresources can be diluted by negative percep-tions of one’s proximate environment. Theusual advantages associated with high incomeare not effective in maintaining mastery formothers who perceive that high levels of phys-ical and social disarray characterize theirneighborhoods.

The effects of a mother’s health status onmastery, another individual resource whichaffects self-evaluation (Mirowsky and Ross1989, 2003) are also qualified by neighbor-hood perceptions. While rising negative com-munity perceptions are harmful for the senseof control experienced by all mothers, therisks are amplified for women with health lim-itations when perceived neighborhood disor-der is high. The maternal role is one thatrequires the ability and energy to care for oth-ers as well as engage in paid and/or household

labor. Hence, for mothers with physical healthlimitations, high levels of neighborhood disor-der make an already tough situation more dif-ficult to manage.

Similar to the patterns detected for mari-tal status and income, when perceived disor-der is low, mothers who reside in areas withlow percentages of impoverished mother-headed households are better off in terms ofmastery compared to those residing in areaswith a high incidence of poor mother-headhomes. However, at higher levels of perceiveddisorder, the advantages afforded mothers liv-ing in communities with low proportions ofeconomically disadvantaged households arediluted. Perceived neighborhood disorder isdirectly associated with maternal mastery asan ever-present stressor that erodes confi-dence in being able to accomplish importanttasks. In addition to its direct effects, percep-tions of disorder indirectly impact mastery byreducing the benefits gained by living in amore advantaged community. This latter find-ing provides evidence to support the largebody of literature indicating that lowered mas-tery is due to structured inequality (Cassidyand Davies 2003). This result is particularlyimportant because it indicates that the magni-tude or nature of such structured inequalitymay not be evidenced by main effects, butrather through social psychological processes,wherein key personal evaluations are modi-fied by indicators of inequality.

In sum, these interaction results suggestthat perceived neighborhood disorder mayindeed operate as a condition modifying theeffect on mastery of particular structural andsociodemographic indicators (Ross andMirowsky 2003). Consistent with the structur-al amplification hypothesis, high levels of per-ceived neighborhood disorder had a moredeleterious effect on feelings of personal con-trol among those experiencing physical healthlimitations compared to those who did nothave health problems. The results of interac-tions between perceived neighborhood disor-der and marital status, household income, andpercentage of poor mother-headed householdsin the community suggest that the moderatingimpact of perceived disorder includes notmerely amplification but also dilution. Not




only may perceived disorder amplify the illeffects of structural disadvantage, but it mayalso dilute the benefits and protections afford-ed to those with more advantaged structuralpositions. For our nationally representativesample of mothers, the advantages gainedthrough marriage, household income, and liv-ing in a census tract with fewer impoverishedmother-headed households are not effective inmaintaining mastery for mothers who per-ceive that high levels of physical and socialdisarray characterize their neighborhoods. Assuch, explicitly theorizing conditions underwhich structural dilution may occur is a criti-cal task facing future research concerning theeffects of perceived neighborhood disorder.

Our study also uncovers noteworthy find-ings concerning central city residence andrace. The “true” effects of living in the innercity and being African American were sup-pressed until we included perceived neighbor-hood disorder in our estimation of mastery. Infact, we find that both central city residents(compared to suburbanites) and AfricanAmerican mothers (compared to EuropeanAmerican mothers) experience higher levelsof mastery. With regard to living in the urbancore, recall that our measure of perceivedneighborhood disorder accounts for whethermothers identify their communities as safe,resource-rich, and orderly. By parceling outthis aspect of the neighborhood context, ourresearch reveals that central cities actuallyallow mothers to feel more efficacious. Urbanareas give mothers access to such resources ascommunity centers, convenient public trans-portation, and other social services that mightboost their feelings of role efficacy(Furstenberg et al. 1993; Booth and Crouter2001). In terms of the mastery of AfricanAmerican mothers, race only became signifi-cant once we accounted for perceived neigh-borhood disorder. Given that most researchindicates a negative association between statusas a racial minority and mastery (Mirowskyand Ross 1989; Mizell 1999), this findingsuggests that researchers need to incorporateindividual and family-level (e.g., education,household income, and employment status) aswell as subjective (e.g., perceived neighbor-hood disorder) factors when evaluating differ-

ences in psychological processes by race andethnicity.

This study explored how perceived neigh-borhood disorder influences the mastery ofmothers. Disentangling the impact of theneighborhood context on maternal outcomesis important to the degree that neighborhoodseither promote or inhibit the successful enact-ment of roles (Christie-Mizell, Steelman, andStewart 2003; Pinderhughes et al. 2001). Ourresults, however, are limited in some respects.First, we do not have comparable data formen. Since prior research indicates that theprocess that shapes mastery varies by gender,it is conceivable that perceived neighborhooddisorder might affect men differently com-pared to women. The data also do not allow acomparison of mothers to women withoutchildren. Second, our measures of neighbor-hood characteristics (e.g., for central city resi-dence) rely on county level data. Such mea-sures are relatively crude and may overesti-mate each mother’s own conception of theboundaries of her neighborhood (Corcoran1995; Ellwood 1987). Certainly, other re-search has indicated that individuals tend tosee their neighborhoods as just including theblock or two of housing that immediately bor-ders their residence and not necessarily at thecounty or census tract level (Ginther,Haveman, and Wolfe 2000; Corcoran 1995).Therefore, researchers in this area should con-tinue to seek to employ more refined measuresof objective neighborhood characteristics toensure that effects attributed to perceived dis-order are not in fact a result of crude censusdata.

Third, our data do not include measures ofrole identity or the extent to which the moth-ers in our sample feel they are adequately ful-filling the maternal role. Other research hasclearly linked role identity and role satisfac-tion to individual motivations and the sense ofmastery (Simon 1995, 1997). Furthermore,other research (see Avison 1995) has includedmore complete measures of social support andlifetime adversity, the effects of which cannotbe fully explored with these data. Fourth, notethat we explained only a little more than 10%of the variance in maternal mastery. Ex-plaining such a low proportion of variance is




one indication that there is more work to do inunderstanding the factors that shape masteryamong mothers.

Direction of Effects between Mastery andPerceived Neighborhood Disorder

One last concern raised by our results isthat we cannot completely rule out reverse orreciprocal effects. It may be plausible that amother’s mastery influences how she per-ceives her neighborhood (rather than thereverse) or that mastery and perceived disor-der simultaneously influence each other. Weare unable to explore these possibilitiesbecause of when our measures of mastery andperceived neighborhood disorder appear in theNational Longitudinal Survey of Youth data.Specifically, we lack a Time 1 measure of per-ceived neighborhood disorder, which wouldbe necessary as an instrumental variable toestimate the standard types of models used totease out bidirectional effects (Kessler andGreenberg 1981). Nevertheless, our confi-dence in these findings is enhanced by our useof a Time 1 measure of mastery, theoreticalreasoning accompanied by empirical supportin other research, and additional analyses. Inthe current analysis, our use of a Time 1 mea-sure of mastery reduces specification error inour model and strengthens our certainty in therelationship between perceived neighborhooddisorder and mastery. The estimation of mod-els with Time 1 measures can provide a fairlyrobust test of effects in the model by account-ing for prior levels of the dependent variable,which, by definition, includes the effects ofomitted variables (Christie-Mizell 2004; Raoand Miller 1971). In other words, our Time 1measure of mastery increases our confidencethat the effects of current factors (e.g., per-ceived disorder) reflect accurately the impactof those variables rather than simply capturingthe effect of earlier mastery. Further, existingtheoretical reasoning, such as the amplifica-tion hypothesis used here, purports that neigh-borhood perceptions, as an extension of objec-tive neighborhood characteristics, impactfacets of the self (e.g., mastery or powerless-ness) and individual well-being (e.g., mentalhealth) rather than the reverse (Christie-

Mizell, Steelman, and Stewart 2003; Ross andMirowsky 2003). Numerous studies have alsosupported hypotheses proposing that neigh-borhood perceptions influence self and otherindividual outcomes (Aneshensel and Sucoff1996; Geis and Ross 1998; Latkin and Curry2003; Ross 2000a, 2000b; Ross, Mirowsky,and Pribesh 2001). Nonetheless, we also per-formed two additional analyses to help ustease out the directional relationship betweenpersonal mastery and perceived neighborhooddisorder.

The initial ancillary analysis included theestimation of an equation for perceived neigh-borhood disorder, including mastery Time 1and 2, all of the covariates found in our finalmodel for mastery (see Table 3-Model 6), anda Time 1 measure of perceived neighborhooddisorder. While our data do not include a mea-sure of perceived neighborhood disorder priorto 1992, the data do include measures of thisvariable in each wave subsequent to 1992.Therefore, we used a perceived disorder fromthe 1992 wave as our Time 1 measure and the1994 version of this variable as our Time 2measure. In this model (N = 2,145), neitherthe Time 1 (b = –.037; SE = .026) or Time 2 (b= –.035; SE = .020) measure of personal mas-tery was significant. Further, neither measureof mastery moderated the effects of thesociodemographic factors or objective neigh-borhood characteristics on perceived neigh-borhood disorder. This latter finding helps usexclude the possibility that mastery mightmoderate the effects of our social structuralvariables on perceived neighborhood disorder.Although using different waves than the cur-rent study, this model provided additional sup-port that we correctly specified the relation-ship between mastery and perceived neighbor-hood disorder and that mastery does not mod-ify the effects of other variables in our modelon neighborhood perceptions.

Our second auxiliary model required acalculation of model that would allow us tosimulate the estimation of reciprocal effectsbetween mastery and perceived neighborhooddisorder. As mentioned earlier, the NationalLongitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) datalacks a Time 1 measure of perceived disorderneeded as an instrumental variable, meaning




that in the reciprocal model it is expected tohave a direct effect on perceived neighbor-hood disorder Time 2, but not on MasteryTime 2 (see Kessler and Greenberg, 1981).Therefore, for each respondent in our analysis,we created a 1990 predicted value for per-ceived neighborhood disorder using thecovariates from the 1990 wave of the NLSYHowever, these are the same independent vari-ables found in our final model of mastery (SeeTable 3-Model 6). This measure of perceiveddisorder had a mean of 11.056, which com-pares favorably to the same variable in the1992 (mean = 11.16; see Table 1) and laterwaves of the data.

To estimate a reciprocal model betweenmastery and perceived neighborhood disorder,we omitted the cross-lagged effects (i.e., mas-tery Time 1 on perceived neighborhood disor-der Time 2 and perceived neighborhood disor-der Time 1 on mastery Time 2) from themodel. This model with the same N (2,238) asour main analysis included all control vari-ables used in this study. We did not find bidi-rectional effects. While perceived neighbor-hood disorder influenced mastery (b = –.265,SE = .037, p = .001), mastery did not have adirect effect on perceived neighborhood disor-der (b = –.157, SE = .125, not significant).Admittedly, using a predicted value as aninstrumental variable in reciprocal pathways isneither conventional nor optimal. However,similar to the first supplementary model ofperceived disorder mentioned above, thismodel also adds support to our case for speci-fying that perceived neighborhood disordershould decrease mastery and not vice-versa.Detailed information on the additional analy-ses reported here are available upon request.

In the future, researchers should continueto explore how the neighborhood context,including perceived neighborhood disorder,influences mastery. In addition to findingsthat confirm the effects of community percep-tions on mastery, our results demonstrate thatthe effects of marital status, householdincome, physical health limitations, and thepercentage of poor mother-headed householdsin the community were moderated by per-ceived neighborhood disorder. These findingshelp to explicate the processes that shape

mothers’ mastery, and since mastery is mostoften conceptualized as an important protec-tive factor against distress and mental healthproblems (Pearlin et al. 1981), this study con-tributes to the larger body of work on psycho-logical distress and gender. Lastly, we findsupport for the often-noted idea that levels ofmastery are tied to structured inequality.Unlike men or women without children, moth-ers may be susceptible to this type of inequal-ity in distinctive ways. Our research showsthat focusing on the standard indicators (e.g.,marital status, education, and income) of mas-tery in conjunction with the neighborhoodcontext sheds light on the unique ways inwhich social structure and proximate experi-ences combine to shape one’s sense of person-al control.

REFERENCES

Aiken, Leona S. and Stephen G. West. 1991. MultipleRegression: Testing and InterpretingIInteractions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ali, Jennifer and William R. Avison. 1997. “Employ-ment Transitions and Psychological Distress:The Contrasting Experience of Single and Mar-ried Mothers.” Journal of Health and SocialBehavior 38:345–62.

Amato, Paul R. and Jiping Zuo. 1992. “Rural Poverty,Urban Poverty, and Psychological Well Being.”The Sociological Quarterly 33:229–240.

Aneshensel, Carol S. 1992. “Social Stress: Theory andResearch,” Annual Review of Sociology18:15–39.

Aneshensel, Carol S. and Clea A. Sucoff. 1996. “TheNeighborhood Context of Adolescent MentalHealth. Journal of Health and Social Behavior37: 293–310.

Avison, William R. 1995. “Roles and Resources: TheEffects of Family Structure and Employment onWomen’s Psychosocial Resources and Psycho-logical Distress.” Research in Community andMental Health 8:233–256.

Avison, William R. and John Cairney. 2003. “SocialStructure, Stress, and Personal Control.” Pp.127–164 in Personal Control in Social and LifeCourse Contexts, edited by Steven H. Zarit,Leonard I. Pearlin, and K. Warner Schaie. NewYork: Springer Publishing Co.

Avison, William R. and R. Jay Turner. 1988. “StressfulLife Events and Depressive Symptoms:Disaggregating the Effects of Acute Stressorsand Chronic Strains.” Journal of Health andSocial Behavior 29: 253–264.

Bandura, Albert. 1977. “Self-efficacy: Toward a




Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.”Psychological Review 84:191–215.

Bandura, Albert. 1982. “Self-efficacy Mechanism inHuman Agency.” American Psychologist37:122–147.

Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. “TheModerator-Mediator Variable Distinction inSocial Psychological Research: Conceptual,Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51: 1173–1182.

Becker, Gary S. 1964. Human Capital: A Theoreticaland Empirical Analysis, with Special Referenceto Education. New York: Columbia UniversityPress.

Bird, Chloe. 1997. “Gender Differences in the Socialand Economic Burdens of Parenting anPsychological Distress.” Journal of Marriageand the Family 59:809–823.

———. 1999. “Gender, Household Labor, andPsychological Distress: The Impact of theAmount and Division of Housework.” Journalof Health and Social Behavior 40:32–45.

Bird, Chloe E. and Catherine E. Ross. 1993.“Houseworkers and Paid Workers: Qualities ofthe Work and Effects on Personal Control.”Journal of Marriage and the Family55:913–925.

Blalock, Hubert M. 1984. “Contextual-EffectsModels: Theoretical and MethodologicalIssues.” Annual Review of Sociology 10:353–372.

Booth, Alan and Ann C. Crouter. 2001. Does it take aVillage?: Community Effects on Children,Adolescents, and Families. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, Greg J. Duncan, Pamela KatoKlebanov, and Naomi Sealand. 1993. “DoNeighborhoods Influence Child and AdolescentDevelopment,” American Journal of Sociology99:353–95.

Bryk, Anthony S. and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1992.Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications andData Analysis Methods. Newbury Park, CA.:Sage.

Cassidy, Gale L. and Lorraine Davies. 2003.“Explaining Gender Differences in MasteryAmong Married Parents.” Social PsychologyQuarterly 66: 48–61. Center for HumanResource Research. 1999. NLSY79 User’sGuide: A Guide to the 1979–1998 NationalLongitudinal Survey of Youth Data. Columbus,OH: The Ohio State University.

Christie-Mizell, C. André. 2004. “The Immediate andLong-Term Effects of Family Income on Childand Adolescent Bullying.” Sociological Focus37:25–41

Christie-Mizell, C. André, Lala Carr Steelman, andJennifer Stewart. 2003. “Seeing TheirSurroundings: The Effects of Neighborhood

Setting and Race on Maternal Stress Levels.”Social Science Research 32:402–428.

Cohen, Jacob and Patricia Cohen. 2003. AppliedMultiple Regression/Correlation Analysis forthe Behavioral Sciences, 3d edition. Mahwah,N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.

Conger, Rand D. and Katherine J. Conger. 2002.“Resilience in Midwestern Families: SelectedFindings from the First Decade of a Prospective,Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Marriage andthe Family 64: 316–73.

Conger, Rand D., Katherine Jewsbury Conger, andLisa S. Matthews. 1999. “Pathways ofEconomic Influence on AdolescentAdjustment.” American Journal of CommunityPsychology 27: 519–41.

Corcoran, Mary. 1995. “Rags to Rags: Poverty andMobility in the United States.” Annual Reviewof Sociology 21:237–67.

Crane, Jonathan. 1991. “The Epidemic Theory ofGhettos and Neighborhood Effects on DroppingOut and Teenage Childbearing.” AmericanJournal of Sociology 96:1226–59.

Cutrona, Carolyn E., Daniel W. Russell, Robert M.Hessling, P. Adama Brown, and Velma Murry.2000. “Direct and Moderating Effects ofCommunity Context on the Psychological Well-Being of African American Women.” Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology79:1088–1101.

Demo, David. H. 1992. “The Self-Concept Over Time:Research Issues and Directions.” Annual Reviewof Sociology 18:303–26.

Downey, Geraldine and Phyllis Moen. 1987. “PersonalEfficacy, Income, and Family Transitions: ALongitudinal Study of Women Heading House-holds.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior28: 320–33.

Duncan, Greg and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 1997. TheConsequences of Growing Up Poor. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

Ellwood, David T. 1987. Understanding Dependency:Choices, Confidence or Culture? Washington,DC: U. S. Department of Health and HumanServices.

Fischer, Claude. 1973. “Urban Malaise.” Social Forces52:21–25.

———. 2002. “Ever-More Rooted Americans.” City& Community 1:175–193.

Frisco, M. L. and K. Williams. 2003. “PerceivedHousework Equity, Marital Happiness, andDivorce in Dual-earner Households.” Journal ofFamily Issues 24:51–73.

Furstenberg, Frank F., Alisa Belzer, Colleen Davis,Judith A. Levine, Kristine Morrow, and MaryWashington. 1993. “How Families Mange Riskand Opportunity in Dangerous Neighborhoods.Pp. 231–38 in Sociology and the Public Agenda,edited by William Julius Wilson. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.




Gecas, Viktor. 1989. “The Social Psychology of Self-Efficacy.” Annual Review of Sociology15:291–316.

Geis, Karlyn J. and Catherine E. Ross. 1998. “A NewLook at Urban Alienation: The Effect ofNeighborhood Disorder on Perceived Power-lessness,” Social Psychology Quarterly61:232–46.

Ginther, Donna, Robert Haveman, and Barbara Wolfe.2000. “Neighborhood Attributes as Determi-nants of Children’s Outcomes: How Robust arethe Relationships?” Journal of Human Re-sources 35:603–642.

Heckman, James J. 1979. Sample selection bias as aspecification error. Econometrica 47:931–959.

Herz, Denise C. and Rebecca Murray. 2003.“Exploring Arrestee Drug Use in RuralNebraska.” Journal of Drug Issues 33:99–117.

Hughes, Michael and David H. Demo. 1989. “Self-Perceptions of Black Americans: Self-esteemand Personal Efficacy.” American Journal ofSociology 95: 132–59.

Jencks, Christopher and Susan E. Mayer. 1990. “TheSocial Consequences of Growing Up in a PoorNeighborhood.” Pp. 111–86 in Inner-CityPoverty in the United States, edited by LaurenceE. Lynn Jr. and Michael G. H. McGeary.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Kessler, Ronald C. and David F. Greenberg. 1981.Linear Panel Analysis: Models of QuantitativeChange. New York: Academic Press.

Klebanov, Pamela K., Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and GregJ. Duncan. 1994. “Does Neighborhood andFamily Poverty Affect Mothers’ Parenting,Mental Health, and Social Support?” Journal ofMarriage and the Family 56: 441–455.

Lachman, Margie E. and Suzanne L. Weaver. 1998.“The Sense of Control as a Moderator of SocialClass Differences in Health and Well-Being.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology74: 763–73.

Latkin, Carol A. and Aaron D. Curry. 2003. “StressfulNeighborhoods and Depression: A ProspectiveStudy of the Impact of Neighborhood Disorder.”Journal of Health and Social Behavior 44:34–44.

Lavee, Y., & R. Katz. 2002. “Division of Labor,Perceived Fairness, and Marital Quality: TheEffect of Gender Ideology. Journal of Marriageand the Family 64:27–39.

Lewis, Susan K, Catherine E. Ross, and JohnMirowsky. 1999. “Establishing a Sense ofPersonal Control in the Transition toAdulthood.” Social Forces 77: 1573–99.

Link, Bruce G. and Jo C. Phelan. 1995. “SocialConditions as Fundamental Causes of Disease.”Journal of Health and Social Behavior (ExtraIssue): 80–94.

Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton. 1993.American Apartheid: Segregation and the

Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

McLeod, Jane D. and Kathryn J. Lively. 2003. “SocialStructure and Personality.” Pp. 77–102 inHandbook of Social Psychology, edited by JohnDeLamater. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Mirowsky, John and Catherine E. Ross. 1983. “TheMultidimensionality of Psychopathology in aCommunity Sample.” American Journal ofCommunity Psychology 11:573–91.

———. 1986. “Social Patterns of Distress. AnnualReview of Sociology 12:23–45.

———. 1989. Social Causes of PsychologicalDistress. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

———. 2003. Education, Social Status, and Health.New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Mizell, C. André. 1999. “African American Men’sPersonal Sense of Mastery: The Consequencesof the Adolescent Environment, Self-Conceptand Adult Achievement.” Journal of BlackPsychology 25:210–230.

Messner, Steven F. and Robert J. Sampson. 1991. “TheSex Ratio, Family Disruption, and Rates ofViolent Crime: The Paradox of DemographicStructure.” Social Forces 69:693–713.

Morenoff, Jeffrey D., Robert J. Sampson, and StephenW. Raudenbush. 2001. “NeighborhoodInequality, Collective Efficacy, and the SpatialDynamics of Urban Violence.” Criminology39:517–559.

Pearlin, Leonard I. 1999. “The Stress ProcessRevisited: Reflections on Concepts and TheirInterrelationships.” Pp. 395–416 in Handbookof Sociology of Mental Health, edited by CarolS. Aneshensel and Jo C. Phelan. New York:Kluwer Academic/Plenum

Pearlin, Leonard I., Morton A. Lieberman, ElizabethG. Menaghan, and Joseph T. Mullan. 1981.“The Stress Process.” Journal of Health andSocial Behavior 22: 337–89.

Pearlin, Leonard I. and Mark F. Pioli. 2003. “PersonalControl: Some Conceptual Turf and FutureDirections.” Pp. 1–21 in Personal Control inSocial and Life Course Contexts, edited bySteven H. Zarit, Leonard I. Pearlin, and K.Warner Schaie. New York: Springer.

Pearlin, Leonard I. and Carmi Schooler. 1978. “TheStructure of Coping.” Journal of Health andSocial Behavior 19: 2–22.

Pinderhughes, Ellen E., Robert Nix, E. Michael Foster,and Damon Jones. 2001. “Parenting in Context:Impact of Neighborhood Poverty, ResidentialStability, Public Services, Social Networks, andDanger on Parental Behaviors.” Journal ofMarriage and Family 63:941–53.

Robert, Stephanie A. 1998. “Community-LevelSocioeconomic Status Effects on Adult Health.”Journal of Health and Social Behavior39:18–37.




Rosenfield, Sarah. 1989. “The Effects of Women’sEmployment: Personal Control and SexDifferences in Mental Health.” Journal ofHealth and Social Behavior 30:77–91.

Ross, Catherine E. 2000a. “NeighborhoodDisadvantage and Adult Depression.” Journal ofHealth and Social Behavior 41:177–187.

Ross, Catherine E. 2000b. “Walking, Exercising, andSmoking: Does Neighborhood Matter?”SocialScience & Medicine 51:265–274.

Ross, Catherine E. and John Mirowsky. 1992.“Households, Employment, and the SenseofControl.” Social Psychology Quarterly55:217–35.

———. 2001. “Neighborhood Disadvantage,Disorder, and Health.” American Journal ofCommunity Psychology 28:401–20.

———. 2003. “Social Structure and PsychologicalFunctioning.” Pp. 411–447 in Handbook ofSocial Psychology, edited by John DeLamater.New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Ross, Catherine E., John Mirowsky, and KarenGoldsteen. 1990. “The Impact of the Family onHealth.” Journal of Marriage and the Family52:1059–78.

Ross, Catherine E. and Sung Joon Jang. 2000.“Neighborhood Disorder, Fear, and Mistrust:The Buffering Role of Social Ties withNeighbors.” American Journal of CommunityPsychology 28:401–420.

Ross, Catherine E., John Mirowsky, and ShanaPribesh. 2001. “Powerlessness and theAmplification of Threat: NeighborhoodDisadvantage, Disorder, and Mistrust.”American Sociological Review 66: 568–591.

Ross, Catherine E. and Jaya Sastry. 1999. “The Senseof Personal Control: Social-Structural Causesand Emotional Consequences.” Pp. 369–394 inHandbook of the Sociology of Mental Healthedited by Carol S. Aneshensel and Jo C. Phelan.New York: Plenum Press.

Ross, Catherine E. and Marieke Van Willigen. 1997.“Education and the Subjective Quality of Life.”Journal of Health and Social Behavior38:275–297.

Ross, Catherine E. and Chia-Ling Wu. 1995. “TheLinks Between Education and Health.”American Sociological Review 60:719–45.

Rotter, Julian B. 1966. “Generalized Expectancies forInternal versus External Control ofReinforcement.” Psychological Monographs80:1–28.

Sampson, Robert J. 2001. “How Do CommunitiesUndergird or Undermine Human Development?Relevant Contexts and Social Mechanisms.”Pp.3–30 in Does It Take a Village?: CommunityEffects on Children, Adolescents, and Families,edited by Alan Booth and Ann C. Crouter.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Thomas

Gannon-Rowley. 2002. “Assessing Neighbor-hood Effects’: Social Processes and NewDirections in Research.” Annual Review ofSociology 28:443–478.

Sampson, Robert J. and Stephen W. Raudenbush.2004. “Seeing Disorder: Neighborhood Stigmaand the Social Construction of “BrokenWindows.” Social Psychology Quarterly67:319–342.

Schnittker, Jason and Jane D. McLeod. 2005. “TheSocial Psychology of Health Disparities.”Annual Review of Sociology 31:75–103.

Seeman, Melvin. 1971. “The Urban Alienations: SomeDubious Theses from Marx to Marcuse.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology19:135–43.

———. 1983. “Alienation Motifs in ContemporaryTheorizing: The Hidden Continuity of ClassicThemes.” Social Psychology Quarterly46:171–84.

———. 1995. “Gender, Multiple Roles, RoleMeaning, and Mental Health.” Journal of Healthand Social Behavior 36:182–94.

———. 1997. “The Meaning Individuals Attach toRole Identities and Their Implications forMental Health.” Journal of Health and SocialBehavior 38:256–74.

Stiffman, Arlene R., Eric Hadley-Ives, Diane Elze,Sharon Johnson, and Peter Dore. 1999. Impactof Environment on Adolescent Mental Healthand Behavior: Structural Equation Modeling.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 69:73–86.

Taylor, John and Jay R. Turner. 2001. “A LongitudinalStudy of the Role and Significance of Matteringto Others for Depressive Symptoms.” Journal ofHealth and Social Behavior 42:310–325.

Turner, R. Jay and Donald A. Lloyd. 1999. “The StressProcess and the Social Distribution ofDepression.” Journal of Health and SocialBehavior 40: 374–404.

Turner, R. Jay and Samuel Noh. 1988. “PhysicalDisability and Depression: A LongitudinalStudy.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior29:23–37.

Turner, R. Jay and Patricia Roszell. 1994.“Psychosocial Resources and the Stress Process.Pp. 179–210 in Stress and Mental Health:Contemporary Issues and Prospects for theFuture, edited by William R. Avison and Ian H.Gotlib. New York: Plenum.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2005. Local AreaUnemployment Rates. Washington, D. C.: U. S.Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1995. Current PopulationReports, Series PC80-1-A. Washington, D. C.:U. S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2003. Crime inthe United States. Washington, D. C.: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Wheaton, Blair. 1980. “The Sociogenesis of




C. André Christie-Mizell is Associate Professor of Sociology at Kent State University. His researchinterests include social structure and personality, mental health, family, and race. He is currentlyworking on several projects. One study examines how family roles impact gender differences in alco-hol consumption, and another project examines race differences in the effects of corporal punishmenton child depression.

Rebecca J. Erickson is Professor of Sociology at the University of Akron. Her research focuses onthe experience and management of emotion in the context of work and family life. She is currentlyexamining the effects of the emotional context of nursing care and how this dimension of nurses’occupational experience may influence the retention and well-being of registered nurses.

Psychological Disorder: An AttributionalTheory.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior21:100–24.

Wheaton, Blair and Philippa Clarke. 2003. “SpaceMeets Time: Integrating Temporal andContextual Influences on Mental Health in EarlyAdulthood.” American Sociological Review68:680–706.

Williams, David R. 1990. “Socioeconomic

Differentials in Health: A Review andRedirection.” Social Psychology Quarterly53:81–99.

Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvan-taged: The Inner City, the Underclass andPublic Policy. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

———. 1996. When Work Disappears: The World ofthe New Urban Poor. New York: Knopf.



Mothers And Mastery: The Consequences Of Perceived Neighborhood Disorder

Documents

Transcript of Mothers And Mastery: The Consequences Of Perceived Neighborhood Disorder