Abstract
There is no reason to suppose that neighborhood effects based on residents’ trust vary according to administrative boundaries. We examined the relationship between neighborhood trust and cooperative behaviors using the spatial Durbin model which assumed that people are influenced by closer neighbors regardless of administrative boundaries, comparing the results with those of the multilevel model. We used data from 476 residents in Arakawa Ward, Tokyo, Japan. For each respondent, we assigned a unique ‘neighborhood trust’ value weighted by the inverse distance between the respondent and all other respondents as an independent variable. The dependent variables were perceived neighbors’ cooperative behaviors and respondents’ own cooperative behaviors. The spatial Durbin model showed that spatially weighted neighborhood trust was positively associated with cooperative behaviors. Meanwhile, the multilevel models did not show the statistically significant effect of neighborhood trust. We concluded that the spatial model might model the neighborhood effects in society more precisely.
Highlights
In the fields of neighborhood research such as social psychology, public health, and criminology, researchers have studied the effects of ‘place’ as the source of social/environmental influences on people’s behaviors, well-being, and quality of life
Respondents’ trust, as well as neighborhood trust weighted by the inverse distance, had statistically significant positive associations with perceived neighbors’ cooperative behaviors
The spatial Durbin model analyses showed that 67.9 neighborhood trust had positive associations with perceived 32.1 neighbors’/respondents’ cooperative behaviors
Summary
In the fields of neighborhood research such as social psychology, public health, and criminology, researchers have studied the effects of ‘place’ as the source of social/environmental influences on people’s behaviors, well-being, and quality of life. The previous studies have demonstrated that the amount of social capital/cohesion (Sampson et al, 2002; Kawachi et al, 2013), economic situation (Robert, 1999; Ross, 2000), welfare policy (Gnanasekaran et al, 2008), and quality of social milieu (Jia et al, 2009) vary among states or municipalities and that they explain a certain level of variance in the health and safety of residents in different areas In these studies, geographical boundaries such as states, counties, municipalities, school districts, and police districts are used to define the sources of neighborhood effects on residents (Sampson et al, 2002; Takagi, 2013). We sought to bring the perspective of spatial analysis to neighborhood research in the psychology field
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
