DİLARA ALTAN

 Concerns about the context of human behavior is increased accordingly Developmental and Social psychologists have conducted research that takes into account environmental and personal differences. For example: Cronbach argued that ecological perspective is important to understand the adolescents' behavior and this point of view has brought a new perspective to contemporary work. This study was carried out starting from idea of ecological perspective.

 That research examined the effect of social context which include family, peer group, school and neighborhood on adolescences’ depression, academic achievement, delinquency, substance abuse. Article report a cross-national study of adolescent sample in the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Research has been made considering the problem behavior theory (Problem behavior theory is include alcohol use, substance abuse, criminal violations so on (Jessor&Jessor, 1997). Problem behavior theory has been revised based on the context protective factors and context risk factors.

1. Model protection: ıt is about the contextual model and it includes parental involvement, friends participation in school clubs and community organizations. 2. Control protection: ıt is about regulations and sanctions for violations. It includes measures of parent sanctions for misbehavior and disapproval from neighbors for problem behavior 3. Support protection: ıt is about expressed interests and support from others. It includes measures of teacher interest in students and family closeness.

1. Model risk: Social models who have problematic behaviors such as friends who smoke or neighborhood model for drinking alcohol. 2. Opportunity risk: It is about availability of alcohol or cigarettes in home. 3. Vulnerability risk: It is about promoting problem behavior and it includes measures of tension in the family and stress at school

The aim of the this study is to explore the account that protection and risk in four social context provides of variation in adolescent problem behavior.

 According to the Research data which collected from Add Health Study of U.S adolescents in Add Health study of U.S. adolescents in Grades 7 through 12 demonstrated that connectedness is negatively associated with violent behavior cigarette use alcohol use, marijuana use at younger ages (Resnick et al., 1997). In the same study, greater access to substance in the family context was associated with higher levels of use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. Greater social regulation or control in the three contexts of family, peer group, and school was associated with lower levels of delinquency and drug use among 7th- grade students.

 Barber and Olsen (1997) reported that lower levels of monitoring in the family context and higher levels of models for problem behavior in the peer context were associated with higher levels of delinquency among 8th graders (especially among girls). Work reported by Patterson and his colleagues (e.g., Patterson & Yoeger, 1997; Reid & Patterson, 1989) also indicated that poor parental monitoring is associated with the development of antisocial and delinquent behavior in childhood and adolescence

 7th-, 8th-, and 9th-grade adolescents in the United States (n = 1,596) and the People’s Republic of China (n = 1,739) participate in the study.  Adolescent Healt and Development Questionnaire (AHDQ) was administered to sample of adolescent in U.S and China. AHDQ assess the problem behaviors.  Multiple Problem behavior index (MPBI) assess the three different type of problem behavior a) Delinquent behavior b) Cigarette smoking c) Problem drinking

Contextual measures of protection Model protection: A-3 item scale of model protection and it occurs two parts Family (questions about parent involvement) Peers (questions about social behaviors in school clubs and family activities) Control protection: Occurs four parts. Family (10 items about parental rules) Peers (3 scales assess perceived friends’ controls against social violations) School ( 7 items about institutional control anainst students’ misbehavior) Neighborhood (6 items scale about neighbor’s smoking, drinking) Support protection: Occurs four parts. Family (four items about family’s approach to child’s problem) Peers (include two items which are about peer’s approcah child’s problem) School ( include four items about teacher’s approach to child’s problem) neighborhood (include three items which are about neighbour’s approach to child’s problem)

Contextual measures of risk Model risk: Single item is appropriate for measuring for all four context. (example: does anyone in your close family smoke cigarettes? This question can be apply four context) Opportunity Risk: it measured two context Family (availability of cigaretes at home) Neighborhood (gangs activity in neighborhood) Vulnerability risk: It was assessed three context Family (six item scale of lack of familty closeness and tension at home) Peers (single item measure of felt stress in one’s social life School (single item measure of felt stress at school)

Measurement of individual-level protection and risk Only controls protection and vulnerability risk were measured at individual level because others which are model, support and opportunity are not logically applicable at the level of describing person. Individual-level controls protection was measured by a 13 item scale. Items about intolerance of devians and negative health affects. Individual- level vulnerability risk was assessed 19 items in the scale which are about depression, changes for succes in life, expectations from school and self esteem.

 Each context was shown to make a significant contribution to the account of variation in adolescent problem behavior in samples from the United States and China  The theoretical conceptualization of social contexts as constituted of protective factors and risk factors that have both main and interactive or moderator effects on problem behavior was also supported  individual-level psychosocial measures; each context, as measured, was shown to contribute unique variance beyond that of the other three contexts; measures of protection in each social context were shown to moderate the impact of individual- level risk; and measures of protection in each social context were shown to moderate the impact of risk in two or more of the other three contexts  In U.S family context have a significant effect than the school and neighborhood also In China peer and school context were most efficient than the neighborhood.

 There is a small significance between individual-level risk and protection theoritically.  Controls protection is the most consistent moderator of individual-level risk, as well as of risk in each of the other contexts. Support protection played a much more limited role as compared with controls protection.  models protection, yielded no moderator effects that were significant in both samples  problem behavior was less prevalent in the Chinese sample than in the U.S. sample  Problem behavior is more common in boys than girls in China and U.S On the other hand; older students tend to have more problematic behavior than younger.  Model risk in family context is significant for younger students. In the peer context, the interaction of controls protection with models risk is significant for older students

As understood the role of protective factors is reducing problematic behaviors and protective factors try to improve positive behaviors. In contrast of protective factors, risk factors increase the problematic behavior. Problematic models can affect the teenager’s behavior negatively and extreme opportunities increase these behaviors and vulnerability revealed. Individual or contextual risks can prevent through community programs or school arrangements. Report can be requested from the family to be able to have more information about adolencents.

Limitations;  Measurement of individual- level protection (controls protection) and of individual-level risk (vulnerability risk) in these analyses was relatively limited.  In the study there are four context (family,peer,school,neighborhood) but also media has a big impact but media has not been taken to context.  The focus on early adolescence and the cross-sectional nature of the data are also important limitations.

Costa, F. M., Jessor, R., Turbin, M. S., Dong, Q., Zhang, H., & Wang, C. (2005). The role of social contexts in adolescence: Context protection and context risk in the United States and China. Applied developmental science, 9(2),

Thanks for Listening