Professional Documents
Culture Documents
92 Neighborhoods and Neighbors
92 Neighborhoods and Neighbors
92 Neighborhoods and Neighbors
NEIGHBORHOODS AND
NEIGHBORS: DO THEY
CONTRIBUTE TO PERSONAL
WELL-BEING?
Susan J. Farrell, Tim Aubry, and Daniel Coulombe
University of Ottawa
䡲
“Sense of Community” and “neighboring” are two important concepts that have received
research attention in community psychology ~MacMillan & Chavis, 1986; Sarason,
1974; Skjaeveland, Garling, & Maeland, 1996; Unger & Wandersman, 1985!. Sarason’s
~1974! seminal work on sense of community defined the concept as “the sense that
The research was supported by a grant from the Manitoba Mental Health Research Foundation. The first
author was a holder of a Social Science Humanities Research Council Graduate Scholarship during the
write-up of the paper. The second author was a holder of a Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation
Graduate Scholarship during the conducting of the study.
Correspondence to: Susan J. Farrell, Ph.D., Royal Ottawa Hospital, 1145 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada K1Z 7K4. E-mail: sfarrell@rohcg.on.ca
JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 32, No. 1, 9–25 (2004) © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jcop.10082
10 • Journal of Community Psychology, January 2004
one was part of a readily supportive network of relationships upon which one could
depend” ~p.1!. Individuals can experience sense of community in geographical terms
such as with neighbors or in relational terms such as with other sharing similar
interests ~e.g., professions, political organizations! ~Gusfield, 1975!. Neighboring has
been defined as the exchange of social support between persons living in close prox-
imity ~Kahn & Antonucci, 1980; Weiss, 1982!.
Although sense of community and neighboring have been shown to be related
closely ~Skjaeveland et al. 1996; Unger & Wandersman, 1985!, researchers usually have
differentiated them as two different aspects of an individual’s relationship to his0her
neighborhood and neighbors. Sense of community is a psychological variable refer-
ring to beliefs and attitudes about neighbors and the neighborhood ~McMillan &
Chavis, 1986!. In contrast, neighboring is a behavioral variable involving social inter-
action and the exchange of support between neighbors ~Unger & Wandersman, 1985!.
The intention of the present study was to examine sense of community and neigh-
boring as mediators of the relationship between neighborhood characteristics and the
psychological well-being of community residents.
SENSE OF COMMUNITY
MacMillan and Chavis ~1986! proposed four elements as being central to sense of
community: membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared
emotional connection. Based on this make-up, Glynn ~1986! found “that the neighbor-
hood remains a significant contributor to the development and maintenance of sense
of community” ~p.350!. Therefore it becomes important to consider elements of the
neighborhood that contribute to the development and maintenance of sense of
community.
Research to date has identified only a few neighborhood-level variables that are
associated with sense of community in residents. Weenig, Schmidt, and Midden ~1990!
found that residents of “high-rise” neighborhoods ~i.e., preponderance of apartments
of four or more stories! had a lower sense of community than residents in “low-rise”
neighborhoods. A plausible explanation for this finding is that living in high-rise
buildings fosters greater privacy, anonymity, and fewer opportunities for social inter-
actions with neighbors than single-family dwellings.
Wilson and Baldassare ~1996! examined sense of community for residents of a
suburban region and found that privacy in the home is an important factor contrib-
uting to the personal well-being of residents. They observed an overwhelming pref-
erence for single-family detached homes that offered residents the ability to regulate
privacy and unwanted interactions while creating opportunities for residents to engage
in local interactions with less stress. They further suggested that “larger, denser, and
more socially diverse urban communities are supposed to create more personal stress
and social conflict, which result in personal unhappiness and a decline in commu-
nity” ~p.30!.
Although the dimensions of privacy ~as provided by type of housing! and density
of housing have been considered, there has been no examination of how other
neighborhood-level characteristics such as the composition of the neighborhood con-
tributes to sense of community. Instead, most research has investigated the relation-
ship between sense of community and different types of neighborhood participation.
Participation in a variety of community organizations ~e.g., church groups, PTA,
civic groups and local political activities! has been shown to be related to sense of
Neighborhood and Neighbors • 11
community ~Davidson & Cotter, 1989; Florin & Wandersman, 1984; Wandersman &
Giamartino, 1980!. Chavis and Wandersman ~1990! examined the role of sense of
community in promoting local action. They demonstrated that greater sense of com-
munity was related to more participation in block associations, increased neighbor-
hood satisfaction, more positive social relations with neighbors, and increasing perceived
control over one’s immediate environment. They interpreted their findings as indic-
ative of the importance of sense of community in the promotion of neighborhood
development efforts.
Glynn ~1981! found several characteristics of individuals that held positive rela-
tionships with sense of community. These included the number of years married,
number of children living at home, stability ~e.g., number of years! in the community,
number of neighbors one is able to identify, and satisfaction with the community.
Additionally, Buckner ~1988! found that the number of years lived in the neighbor-
hood and level of education were significant predictors of sense of community. Rob-
inson and Wilkinson ~1995! also found that neighborhood cohesion was related positively
to number of years in neighborhood and home ownership, whereas it was related
negatively to income and education.
Some empirical findings have shown that psychological benefits may accrue from
experiencing a higher sense of community. Riger and Lavrakas ~1981! indicated that
sense of community can be an explanatory tool for individual well-being. In studying
the town of Seaside, Florida ~a town designed to examine the impact of town design
and philosophy!, feelings of membership, need fulfillment, and shared emotional
connections with neighbors were shown to be associated with individual health. A link
between sense of community and sense of well-being makes intuitive sense, yet few
studies have addressed such a relationship.
Bachrach and Zautra ~1985! demonstrated the psychological benefits of having a
strong sense of community in the investigation of the coping responses of residents in
a rural community in the context of a proposed hazardous-waste facility. Findings
revealed that a stronger sense of community led to increased problem-focused coping,
which in turn contributed significantly to the degree of individuals’ community involve-
ment. Davidson and Cotter ~1991! demonstrated a link between sense of community
and general happiness.
Prezza and Constantini ~1998! examined sense of community, self-esteem, life
satisfaction, and perceived social support of residents living in three Italian localities:
a small town in Viterbo, Italy ~1693 inhabitants!, a small seaside city in Aquila, Italy
~21,101 inhabitants! and in a larger city, Naples ~52,434 inhabitants!. They found that
sense of community and life satisfaction were higher for residents of the small town
than in the small or large cities, and that sense of community was related only to life
satisfaction for residents of the small town and the small city. A later study comparing
a large town, a small town, and a city found sense of community related to life
satisfaction and loneliness in all three locales ~Prezza, Amicci, Roberti, & Tedeschi,
2001!.
Review of the relatively few empirical studies to date shows that sense of commu-
nity is an important variable for consideration in investigations focusing on neighbor-
hood issues. Hill ~1996! concluded that “psychological sense of community is an
aggregate variable, and is most useful when studied at the community level of mea-
surement” ~p.433!. It is also a positive resource for individuals and neighborhoods,
stimulating community development efforts and positive relations between neighbors
and promoting personal well-being.
12 • Journal of Community Psychology, January 2004
NEIGHBORING
RATIONALE
The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between neighbor-
hood characteristics and personal well-being as mediated by sense of community and
neighboring. To date, few studies have been conducted to examine the relationship
between types of neighborhoods and sense of well-being. Brown ~1995! observed that
“little is understood about the neighborhood contextual effects on human behavior
and affective states” ~p.541!. Adams ~1992! investigated the influence of urban versus
suburban neighborhoods on psychological health ~as measured by perceived quality of
life and self-efficacy!. Results revealed that people living in the suburbs were no more
likely to express greater satisfaction with their neighborhood, the quality of their lives,
or experience greater self-efficacy than those living in the city. Although it is impor-
tant to examine qualitative differences between suburban and urban neighborhoods,
looking only at differences between suburban and urban areas ~which may encompass
a variety of neighborhoods within each area! does not provide information about the
effect of a specific neighborhood on the self-efficacy of its residents. Brown ~1995!
commented that a limitation of such types of analyses is the restricted scope of
neighborhood conditions investigated.
The present study examined the relationship between the characteristics of dif-
ferent neighborhood areas ~with set physical boundaries and relatively homogeneous
populations! with personal well-being. In the proposed model ~see Figure 1!, sense of
community and neighboring behavior were hypothesized as mediators. Therefore, it
was predicted that neighborhood characteristics would be related to sense of commu-
nity and neighboring behavior. In turn, sense of community and neighboring behav-
ior were expected to be associated positively with sense of well-being.
METHOD
Data collected in the study formed part of a mail survey completed by residents living
in Winnipeg, Canada, in 1989 that focused on their beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral
intentions regarding having persons with psychiatric disabilities as neighbors ~Aubry,
Tefft, & Currie, 1995a, 1995b!.
Study Sample
The population universe of the study involved all households ~excluding nursing
homes, temporary shelters, apartment units, vacant homes, and households serving
exclusively as businesses! located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The latter types of resi-
dences were excluded since the original study focused on public responses to having
persons with psychiatric disabilities as neighbors. It was expected that the issue would
14 • Journal of Community Psychology, January 2004
Measures
Social-Demographic Characteristics. Measures of age, sex, marital status, employment sta-
tus, education, income, length of neighborhood residency, and number of children in
the household were adapted from social-demographic items in the Winnipeg Area
Study ~Statistics Canada, 1986!.
Frequency (%)
Characteristic (N ⫽ 345)
Sex
Male 45.0
Female 55.0
Age
18–29 16.1
30– 44 42.1
45– 59 22.1
60–74 14.5
Over 74 5.2
Educational Attainment
Grade School or Less 8.1
Some High School 18.7
High-School Graduate 40.7
Some post secondary 12.1
Post-secondary degree 20.5
Marital Status
Single 13.4
Married 71.1
Common Law 4.0
Separated or Divorced 6.3
Widowed 5.2
Home Ownership
Own 87.1
Rent 12.9
Number of Persons in Household
1 12.8
2 31.5
3 19.6
4 22.9
5 9.8
6 or more 3.3
The presence of these beliefs was measured by asking respondents how much they
agree or disagree with belief statements operationalizing them. Statements were writ-
ten to operationalize each belief. For example, concerning safety of the neighbor-
hood, respondents will be presented with the statement, “This neighborhood is a safe
place to live in,” with possible responses ranging on a five-point continuum from
“Strongly Disagree” ~1! to “Strongly Agree” ~5!. The final measure consisted of 14
items. The internal consistency ~a coefficient! of the measure for the present study
was 0.72.
version of the GHQ was used. Questions ask about current or recent difficulties,
functioning levels, and0or well-being with respect to a number of areas ~e.g., sleep,
decision making, feelings of happiness!. Individual items are scored from 1 to 4
depending on the frequency of the indicator. Again, individual items were used in
model testing. The GHQ has been shown to correlate highly with more comprehen-
sive psychiatric interviews. Its a coefficient has been reported as consistently high,
ranging from 0.82 to 0.90 ~Goldberg, 1978!. The internal consistency ~a coefficient! in
the present study was 0.78.
Neighboring Behavior. A measure of past neighboring behavior was created for the
study. Scales used in previous studies to measure neighboring activities were consulted
in developing individual items ~Ahlbrandt, 1984; Riger & Lavrakas, 1981; Unger &
Wandersman, 1982!. In line with the definition of neighboring proposed by Unger
and Wandersman ~1985!, the 12 items in the measure involved activities that exchanged
emotional, instrumental, or informational support with neighbors. Respondents were
asked about the frequency that they engaged in these different activities with possible
responses ranging from “Never” ~1! to “Very Often” ~4!. The internal consistency ~a
coefficient! for the scale was 0.93.
Procedure
Data was collected using mail survey procedures specified by the Total Design Method
~Dillman, 1978!. Each mailing packet consisted of a cover letter on university statio-
nery, a questionnaire booklet, and a self-addressed stamped return envelope. Each
questionnaire booklet was numbered and a list matching numbers with addresses was
kept in order to track and follow up non-respondents.
The initial mailing to sampled households was sent out on the same day. A
postcard follow up was sent to all households one week after the initial mailing. A
second mailing that included a replacement questionnaire was made to households
who had not responded three weeks after the first mailing. Finally, a replacement
questionnaire was sent by courier to those who still had not responded seven weeks
after the initial mailing. Couriers either hand delivered the final mailing if someone
was home or left it in the mailbox if no one was home.
RESULTS
Data screening involved analysis of missing data and assessment of normality. The
assumption of multivariate normality was evaluated through SPSS ~Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences! and AMOS ~Analysis of Moments Structures! 4.01.
The hypothesized model is presented in Figure 1. Circles and ellipses represent
latent variables and rectangles represent observed variables ~indicators!. Each direct
effect of a variable on another is represented by a single-headed arrow, and any
covariance between pairs of exogenous variables are represented by curved double-
headed arrows. According to this model, socio-economic status, family composition,
and stability of neighborhoods influence both the neighboring behavior and sense of
community among residents, thus increasing their sense of well-being.
18 • Journal of Community Psychology, January 2004
Model Estimation
Using AMOS 4.01, the independence model that states that variables are uncorrelated
between each other was rejected ~x 2 ⫽ 4076.41, df ⫽ 435, p ⬍ .001!. The plausibility
of the proposed model ~shown in Figure 1! was assessed similarly. The analysis showed
that this model is not supported by the available data ~Comparative Fit Index @CFI# ⫽
.78, Tucher-Lewis Index @TLI# ⫽ .77, Root Mean Square Error Approximation @RMSEA# ⫽
.07!. In order to locate possible sources for misfit, modification indices were exam-
ined. A modification was applied only if a theoretical ground existed to explain it.
Furthermore, direct effects that were nonsignificant were considered for removal.
Again, this was done only on the basis of theoretical considerations. Modifications
were performed one at a time.
One modification index pointed to a covariance between the error terms of
variables neigh10 and neigh12. These items are “invited a neighbor in your home”
and “talked to a neighbor about personal issues”, which often are co-existing activities.
Therefore, in addition to measuring neighboring behavior, these items seem to mea-
sure the propensity of an individual to develop personal relationships with neighbors.
Similarly, another modification index revealed a covariance between the error terms
of neigh6 and neigh10 that were items related to “going to a social event” and
“inviting a neighbor in your home”, both relating to the propensity to engage in social
activities with neighbors. Finally, the covariance between the error terms of neigh7
and neigh8, which were items related to “sharing information about home repairs and
care” and “discussing neighborhood issues related to the propensity to share infor-
mation related to the care and maintenance of the neighborhood” both related to the
care of property, either personal or communal. All items in the neighboring behavior
scale were used in the final model. One item in the sense of community scale, “there
is a feeling in this neighborhood that people should not get too friendly with each
other”, was removed due to its insignificant contribution to the construct. Seven items
of the General Health Questionnaire ~related to coping, feeling happy, and decision
making! were removed from the final model due to their insignificant contribution to
the construct of well-being. The listing of items for each measure is shown in Table 2.
The final model is shown in Figure 2. The overall difference between the observed
and implied covariance matrices was still significant ~x 2 ⫽ 742.98, df ⫽ 401, p ⬍ .001!,
but the overall fit was improved considerably with respect to the initial model ~CFI ⫽
.91 TLI ⫽ .90, RMSEA ⫽ .05!. Basically, this model does not rule out the idea that the
stability of a neighborhood ~mainly the marital status and mobility of residents! influ-
ences both their neighboring behavior ~PNeighbeh,Stab ⫽ 0.406, p ⬍ .01! and their sense
of community ~PSencomm,Stab ⫽ 0.184, p ⬍ .01!, which in turn increases their sense of
well-being ~PSenwell, Sencomm ⫽ 0.114, p ⬍ .01!. There was no direct effect of neighboring
behavior on individuals’ sense of well-being. However, an indirect effect between
these constructs via the sense of community was evidenced ~PSencomm,Neighbeh ⫽ 0.263,
p ⬍ .01!. The family composition and socio-economic status do not have similar
influences and were removed from the model.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present study was to test the relationship between neighborhood
characteristics and personal well-being as mediated by sense of community and neigh-
boring behavior. The present study examined the relationship between the characteristics
Neighborhood and Neighbors • 19
Neighboring Behavior
NBR1 Lent things to a neighbor, such as books, magazines, dishes, tools, 14.20
recipes, or food
NBR2 Had a conversation with a neighbor when seeing them on the 12.02
street
NBR3 Helped a neighbor by looking after their home while they were 1.00
away and taking care of such things as watering plants, gathering
mail, or feeding pets
NBR4 Told a neighbor about your dentist, family doctor, or other 12.91
professional services you use
NBR5 Offered a ride to a neighbor when they needed it 12.69
NBR6 Gone with a neighbor on a social outing such as shopping, to a 12.61
movie, concert, or other similar kind of event
NBR7 Shared information with a neighbor about such things as home 12.04
repairs and lawn care
NBR8 Discussed neighborhood issues and problems with a neighbor 11.57
NR9 Informed a neighbour about a neighborhood event 12.56
NBR10 Invited a neighbor to your home for coffee or similar kinds of 13.62
socializing
NBR11 Assisted a neighbor with a household task such as a minor repair 12.05
or moving furniture
NBR12 Talked with a neighbor about their personal issues such as family 11.48
concerns, work problems, or health
Sense of Community
SOFCOM1 Compared to other neighborhoods, I view my neighborhood as a 1.00
safe place for the people living in it
SOFCOM2 I like to think of myself as similar to the people who live in this 8.44
neighborhood
SOFCOM4 If I had an emergency, even people I do not know in this 8.24
neighborhood would be willing to help
SOFCOM5 If the people in my neighborhood were planning something, I’d 7.84
think of it as something “we” were doing rather than “they” were
doing
SOFCOM6 I would be willing to work together with others on something to 6.17
improve my neighborhood
SOFCOM7 I think I agree with most people in my neighborhood about what 7.31
is important in life
SOFCOM8 If I needed advice about something, I could go to someone in my 8.44
neighborhood
SOFCOM9 I plan to remain a resident of this neighborhood for a number of 7.71
years
SOFCOM12 I think that “every man for himself is a good description of how ⫺7.05
people act in this neighborhood
SOFCOM13 If there was a serious problem in this neighborhood, the people 8.04
here could get together and solve it
Sense of Well-being
GHQ7 Felt you couldn’t overcome your difficulties 9.55
GHQ8 Lost much sleep over worry 7.99
GHQ9 Been feeling unhappy and depressed 9.19
GHQ10 Been losing confidence in yourself 1.00
20 • Journal of Community Psychology, January 2004
of different neighborhood areas ~with set physical boundaries and relatively homo-
geneous populations! with personal well-being. Using the neighborhood, rather than
the town or city ~which is expected to contain heterogeneous neighborhoods!, as the
unit of analysis allowed for a more fine-grained investigation involving smaller clusters
of residential units than have been examined in previous research.
while increasing their sense of community and promoting their personal well-being
~Hughley, Speer, & Peterson, 1999!. Therefore, it is the psychological response rather
than behavioral reactions to neighbors that directly influence residents’ well-being.
The extent of neighboring among neighbors does contribute to sense of community.
Our findings provide further evidence of the importance of having a sense of
community even when it is defined from the standpoint of neighbors and the
neighborhood.
Finding ways of increasing the sense of community of residents in neighborhoods
remains an elusive goal. Consistent with previous research, our results are indicative of
the importance of facilitating contact between neighbors as one way of helping to
achieve this goal. At the neighborhood level, our findings suggest that city planners
need to find ways of increasing the stability of population in neighborhoods. They
also need to find ways to facilitate increased opportunities for neighbors to interact
with each other, thus increasing their sense of community. Consistent with previous
research, fostering sense of community may include adaptation to physical features of
neighborhoods such as proximity of homes and location of recreational facilities
~Appleyard & Lintell, 1972; Caplow & Forman, 1950; Schacter & Back, 1950!. In
addition, developing neighborhoods that have mixed housing from the standpoint of
owned versus rented and a heterogeneous population in terms of age and marital
status should be considered. Furthermore, it would make sense for planners to work
towards making neighborhoods as attractive as possible for residents to remain living
in them.
REFERENCES
Adams, R.E. ~1992!. Is happiness a home in the suburbs? The influence of urban versus
suburban neighborhoods on psychological health. Journal of Community Psychology, 20,
353–371.
Ahlbrandt, R.S. ~1984!. Neighborhoods, people and community. New York: Plenum Press.
Appleyard, D., & Lintell, M. ~1972!. Environmental quality of city streets: The resident’s view-
point. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 38, 84 –101.
Aubry, T., Tefft, B., & Currie, R.F. ~1995a!. Predicting intentions of community residents toward
neighbours with psychiatric disabilities. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 18, 51– 66.
Aubry, T., Tefft, B., & Currie, R.F. ~1995b!. Public attitudes and intentions regarding tenants of
community mental health residences who are neighbours. Community Mental Health Jour-
nal, 31, 39– 52.
Bachrach, K.M., & Zautra, A.J. ~1985!. Coping with a community stressor: The threat of a
hazardous waste facility. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 26, 127–141.
Brown, V. ~1995!. The effects of poverty environments on elders’ subjective well-being: A con-
ceptual model. The Gerontologist, 35, 541– 548.
Buckner, J.C. ~1988!. The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 771–791.
Caplow, T., & Forman, R. ~1950!. Neighborhood interaction in a homogeneous community.
American Sociological Review, 15, 357–366.
Chavis, D.M., & Wandersman, A. ~1990!. Sense of community in the urban environment: A
catalyst for participation and community development. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 18, 55–81.
Currie, R. ~1989!. Selected findings from the 1989 Winnipeg Area Study ~Research report No. 26!.
Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba, Department of Sociology, Winnipeg Area Study.
Davidson, W.B., & Cotter, P.R. ~1989!. Sense of community and political participation. Journal of
Community Psychology, 17, 119–125.
Davidson, W.B., & Cotter, P.R. ~1991!. The relationship between sense of community and
subjective well-being: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 246 –253.
Dillman, D. ~1978!. Mail and telephone surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley-
Interscience.
Festinger, L., Schacter, S., & Back, K. ~1950!. Social pressures in informal groups. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Florin, P.R., & Wandersman, A. ~1984!. Cognitive social learning and participation in commu-
nity development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 689–708.
Glynn, T.J. ~1981!. Psychological sense of community: Measurement and application. Human
Relations, 34, 789–818.
24 • Journal of Community Psychology, January 2004
Glynn, T.J. ~1986!. Neighborhood and sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology,
14, 341–352.
Goldberg, D. ~1978!. Manual for the General Health Questionnaire. London: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Gusfield, J.R. ~1975!. The community: A critical response. New York: Harper Colophon Books.
Hamm, B., Currie, R.F., & Fords, D. ~1988!. A dynamic typology of urban neighborhoods: The
case of Winnipeg. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 25, 439– 455.
Hill, J.L. ~1996!. Psychological sense of community: Suggestions for future research. Journal of
Community Psychology, 24, 431– 438.
Hughley, J., Speer, P.W., & Peterson, A. ~1999!. Sense of community in community organiza-
tions: Structure and evidence of validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 97–113.
Kahn, R.L., & Antonucci, T. ~1980!. Convoys over the life cycle: Attachment, roles and social
support. In P.B. Bates & O. Brin ~Eds.!, Lifespan development and behaviour, vol. 3.
Boston, MA: Lexington.
McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. ~1986!. Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal
of Community Psychology, 14, 6 –23.
Prezza, M., Amici, M., Roberti, T., & Tedeschi, G. ~2001!. Sense of community referred to the
whole town: Its relations with neighboring, loneliness, life satisfaction and area of resi-
dence. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 29– 52.
Prezza, M., & Costantini, S. ~1998!. Sense of community and life satisfaction: Investigation in
three different territorial contexts. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 8,
181–194.
Putnam, R. ~2000!. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of american community. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Riger, S., & Lavrakas, P. ~1981!. Community ties: Patterns of attachment and social interaction
in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 55– 66.
Robinson, D., & Wilkinson, D. ~1995!. Sense of community in a remote mining town:
Validating a neighborhood cohesion scale. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23,
137–148.
Royal, M.A., & Rossi, R.J. ~1996!. Individual-level correlates of sense of community: Findings
from workplace and school. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 395– 416.
Sarason, S.B. ~1974!. The psychological sense of community: Prospects for community psychol-
ogy. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Skjaeveland, O., Garling, T., & Maeland, J.G. ~1996!. A multidimensional measure of neighbor-
ing. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 413– 435.
Statistics Canada ~1988!. 1986 Census Special Tabulations by Neighbourhood, Statistics Canada
for Winnipeg Neighbourhoods. Ottawa, Canada: Author.
Statistics Canada ~2003a!. Statistics Canada 2001 Community Profiles: Municipal Components
for Winnipeg. Retrieved dataset from the Morisset library, University of Ottawa.
Statistics Canada ~2003b!. Statistics Canada 2001 Community Profiles: Municipal Components
for Winnipeg. Retrieved from http:00www12.statscan.ca0english0placesearchform1.cfm
Unger, D.G., & Wandersman, A. ~1982!. Neighboring in an urban environment. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 493– 509.
Unger, D.G., & Wandersman, A. ~1985!. The importance of neighbors: The social, cognitive and
affective components of neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 139–169.
Wandersman, A., & Giamartino, G. A. ~1980!. Community and individual difference character-
istics as influences of initial participation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8,
217–228.
Neighborhood and Neighbors • 25
Weenig, M.W.H., Schmidt, T., & Midden, C.J.H. ~1990!. Social dimensions of neighborhoods
and the effectiveness of information programs. Environment and Behavior, 22, 27– 54.
Weiss, R.S. ~1982!. Relationship of social support and psychological well-being. In H.G. Schul-
berg & S.M. Killilea ~Eds.!, The modern practice of community mental health ~pp. 148–
162!. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Wiesenfeld, E. ~1996!. The concept of “we”: A community social psychology myth? Journal of
Community Psychology, 24, 337–345.
Wilson, G., & Baldassare, M. ~1996!. Overall “sense of community” in a suburban region: The
effects of localism, privacy, and urbanization. Environment and Behavior, 28~1!, 27– 43.