Differences In Social Participation Research Articles

Participation in Social Activities among Adolescents with an Autism Spectrum Disorder

BackgroundLittle is known about patterns of participation in social activities among adolescents with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The objectives were to report nationally representative (U.S.) estimates of participation in social activities among adolescents with an ASD, to compare these estimates to other groups of adolescents with disabilities, and examine correlates of limited social participation.Methods and FindingsWe analyzed data from wave 1 of the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2, a large cohort study of adolescents enrolled in special education. Three comparison groups included adolescents with learning disabilities, mental retardation, and speech/language impairments. Adolescents with an ASD were significantly more likely never to see friends out of school (43.3%), never to get called by friends (54.4%), and never to be invited to social activities (50.4%) when compared with adolescents from all the other groups. Correlates of limited social participation included low family income and having impairments in conversational ability, social communication, and functional cognitive skills.ConclusionsCompared with prior research, our study significantly expands inquiry in this area by broadening the range of social participation indicators examined, increasing the external validity of findings, focusing on the under-studied developmental stage of adolescence, and taking an ecological approach that included many potential correlates of social participation. There were notable differences in social participation by income, a dimension of social context seldom examined in research on ASDs.

Formal and informal social participation of the ‘young-old’ in The Netherlands in 1992 and 2002

ABSTRACTThe study compares the formal and informal social participation of 60–69 year olds in The Netherlands in 1992 and 2002, and examines which attributes of the two cohorts favour social participation. Using data from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam, it was found that cohort differences in formal participation (as members of organisations, in volunteer work and in religious organisations) and in informal participation (having a large social network, and in cultural and recreational activities) associated with cohort differences in individual characteristics (level of education, health, employment status and marital status). Descriptive analyses showed an increase between 1992 and 2002 in all forms of participation except religious involvement. The 2002 cohort members were more educated and more engaged in employment, but in worse health and had a higher prevalence of divorce than the 1992 cohort members. Logistic regression analyses showed that the positive effect on social participation of the recent cohort's higher educational level was suppressed by the negative effect of their worse health. Being divorced had mixed effects on formal and informal participation, but the difference in the number of divorcees did not explain cohort differences in social participation. Interaction effects showed that the influence of sex and health on volunteer work and religious involvement changed over time. The paper concludes with a discussion of the prospects for higher levels of formal and informal social participation among future cohorts of young-older people.

European Civil Society and Participation: Introduction to Special CINEFOGO Issue

This article introduces the six contributions included in the special issue of the Journal of Civil Society devoted to the results of the CINEFOGO (Civil Society and New Forms of Governance in Europe) Network of Excellence's work package on ‘Differences in Social Participation and Civic Cultures across Europe’, organized by the Research Institute for Nonprofit Organizations at the WU Wien (Vienna University of Economics and Business).

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AMONG SMALL-GROUP PARTICIPANTS: CREATING COMMUNITY OR SELF-ABSORPTION?

Small support groups are a relatively new form of voluntary association appearing in the American landscape. Examining the larger implications of the “small group movement” for civic life has led some to see an overall positive effect on wider community activities, while others have viewed small-group participants as self-absorbed and withdrawing from participation in civic activities. Using a national sample of small-group participants, we examine the effects on civic engagement stemming from the social characteristics of participants, the type of small group (religious, secular, or mixed), and the opportunity to develop social capital through participation in small groups. Findings indicate that members of religious small groups do not actively engage in civic affairs, but members of secular and mixed groups do participate in a broad range of civic activities. Differences in social participation can be attributed to characteristics of the small groups (formalization and cohesion) and to some characteristics of members (education). When small support groups offer members the opportunity to acquire civic skills, to exchange information, and to develop self-efficacy, there is more interest and activity in civic affairs.

STATES AS MOLDERS OF INFORMAL RELATIONS?

ABSTRACT This article studies the impact of a range of state institutions on citizens’ contacts with family and close friends in 20 countries. Recent studies have shown large country level differences in social participation. We aim to explain these differences from an actor centered institutionalist perspective. We present two lines of reasoning. According to the first, a high level of social security crowds out social participation, as intimate networks are no longer needed as an economic safety net. The second line of reasoning proposes that corruption or a lack of civil rights drive citizens to seek refuge in their secure intimate contacts. In a comparative, multi-level design we focus on participation in the nuclear family, in the extended family, and with the best friend. We test the two lines of reasoning simultaneously on ISSP 2001 data. We find that states matter. State institutions are an important determinant of social participation. Our findings mainly confirm the second line of reasoning, whereas the crowding out thesis is only supported for contact with the extended family. Moreover, we find that the contextual effects are not similar across social groups: the poor are more strongly affected by the institutional design than the rich.

Sociale participatie van 55-64 jarigen: is de huidige generatie sociaal actiever dan de vorige?

Nowadays people speak of the ‘new’ generation of young old who would be healthier and more socially active compared to the earlier generation. Using data from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam it was examined to what degree this is a realistic image. The study compared the social participation level of 55-64 year olds in 1992 and the same age group in 2002, and aimed to explain the differences from cohort differences in four determinants of participation: level of education, labour participation, health and partner status. Descriptive analyses showed that the younger cohort was more actively involved in voluntary organisations and participated more often in cultural and leisure activities compared to the older cohort. In addition, the younger cohort was more highly educated, yet reported more functional disabilities, and more often hold paid jobs compared to the older cohort. No cohort differences were found with respect to the proportion of married persons. Logistic regression analyses showed that the higher level of social participation of the younger cohort was mainly due to the higher level of education, but that this effect was reduced by the larger disability of the younger cohort. Job and partner status did not explain the cohort differences in social participation. It is concluded that the current young old are more socially active and higher educated than their predecessors. Their (somewhat) worse health status, however, asks for a more nuanced image of the ‘new’ young old.

Motor Function and Social Participation in Kindergarten Children

This study focused on the associations between individual variations in children’s motor abilities and individual differences in social participation and play behavior. Indoor and outdoor play behavior patterns of 88 kindergarten children were observed, and a battery of standard assessments of basic motor functions was administered. The findings indicate significant associations between children’s motor abilities and social and nonsocial forms of play. Results are discussed in relation to existing conceptual models of the underlying causes for nonsocial behavior.

Ethnic differences in social participation and social capital in Malmö, Sweden: a population-based study

The aim of this study was to investigate ethnic differences in different aspects of social participation in Malmö, Sweden. The public health survey in Malmö 1994 is a cross-sectional study. A total of 5600 randomly chosen individuals aged 20–80 years were asked to complete a postal questionnaire. The participation rate was 71%. The population was divided into categories born in Sweden, Denmark/Norway, other Western countries, former Yugoslavia, Poland, Arabic speaking countries and all other countries. The age-adjusted and multivariate analyses were performed using a logistic regression model in order to investigate the importance of possible confounders (age, education, economic stress and unemployment) on the differences by country of origin in different aspects of social participation. Men and women born in Arabic speaking countries and other countries (Iran, Turkey, Vietnam, Chile and subsaharan Africa) participate to a significantly lower extent in a variety of civic and social activities when compared to the reference population born in Sweden. The differences in participation in these groups compared to the group born in Sweden are observed both for social participation items at the core of the definition of social capital and cultural and other activities unrelated to social capital. This pattern is particularly pronounced for women born in Arabic speaking countries. These women even sharply differ from the participation rates of men born in Arabic speaking countries. The ethnic differences in most cases do not seem to be explained satisfactorily by education, economic stress or possibly unemployment.

Differences in Social Participation: Blacks and Whites

Three prominent explanations of ethnic differences in social participation-the isolation, compensation, and ethnic community theories-are critically examined and found wanting on several grounds. As an alternative, a socialpsychological approach emphasizing self-efficacy and system-blaming is proposed. A test of the explanation shows that, with some modification, it is an adequate representation of the participation patterns noted among blacks and whites. The findings indicate greater differences within races than between them, a pattern predicted by the proposed theory. Prior explanations, it is concluded, have not adequately accounted for the complexity of social participation; hence much of the debate about their relative viability has been misplaced. Differences in the extent of social participation have long attracted the attention of social scientists. Much of the research centered on the differential involvement of blacks and whites (cf. London; Myrdal et al.; Olsen; Orum; Wright and Hyman) and, more recently, their comparison with Mexican Americans (Antunes and Gaitz; Williams et al.). Three explanations have been commonly offered stressing compensation, isolation, and ethnic communal identity. 1 Central as these interpretations are to an evaluation of potential intergroup conflict and societal integration, they have been rendered only as ex post facto explanations of sample-specific findings. They have not been fully explicated or directly tested. To further confound matters, the explanations have either been viewed as antithetical (Babchuk and Thompson; Orum), suggesting they are not equally viable, or as complementary in that they have been seen as relevant to different

Differences in Social Participation: Blacks and Whites

Differences in Social Participation: Blacks and Whites

Sex differences in social participation.

Twenty female and 38 male first-year college students maintained a daily record of their social interactions for 2 weeks early in the fall semester and for 2 weeks late in the spring semester. Over all interactions, females decreased time per day in interaction more than males did, primarily by reducing the length of interactions, and reported decreased satisfaction with these interactions. In interactions with three best same-sex friends, females also decreased length more than males did but maintained a higher level of satisfaction Number of interactions with same-sex best friend decreased markedly for females but not for males. The results were interpreted as showing that females socialize more intensely in the new environment than males and make use of the same-sex best friend to deal with the social stimulation. Differences between the sexes on interaction measures in the spring were minimal. Social psychology is often denned as the study of social interaction, and social psychologists do indeed study social interaction in a variety of ways. Strangely enough, however, social scientists in general are hard pressed to answer some of the most basic questions about social interaction: questions such as how much time during a day do people spend in social interaction? With how many different people do they interact? How long is the average interaction? How many people are involved in the typical social encounter, and what is its sexual composition? What differences exist among people in their reactions to their social lives? For each of these questions and the many others that could be asked, a second question immediately follows: In what ways, if any, do males and females differ in their social behavior? Using sex-based characteristics is a nearly universal way of describing

The Social Participation of Minorities: A Critical Examination of Current Theories

DIFFERENCES IN social participation patterns, particularly between blacks and whites, have been repeatedly noted.1 Considerable inconsistency exists, however, in the findings related to these patterns, some studies observing that affiliation and participation are more extensive among blacks and other investigations reporting just the opposite.2 Explanations of minority participation are, as a result, themselves diverse and, more crucially, inconsistent with one another. Within the limited compass of this paper, we wish to explore the deficiencies of the extant explanations, hopefully setting the stage for the future development of more adequate theories of minority participation. The four explanations considered are those concerning: isolation, compensation, ethnic community and the more recently expounded cultural inhibition hypothesis.

The Structuring of Social Relationships Engendered by Suburban Residence

T iS the major objective of this paper to examine the characteristics of suburban communities as they relate to the structuring of ' of the resident populations. This presumes that the form taken by these phenomena in suburban communities somehow differs from the form to be observed in other types of communities, and, furthermore, that this difference is engendered by the suburban situation. The writer knows of no published research which provides substantial evidence to support either of these ideas. Numerous studies have been made of participation and interaction on the neighborhood and community level, but they are concerned almost entirely with the description of these patterns as observed in individual, unrelated, and relatively unique residential areas. To the extent that all communities have a common core of characteristics it can be expected that this common influence is conducive to the development of similar patterns of interaction in all communities.2 However, it can be hypothesized that the large urban center, the suburban community, and the rural village present such different situations that importantly different patterns of interaction are generated.3 If it is accepted for purposes of discussion that the structuring of in suburbs does differ importantly from the patterns found in nonsuburban communities, there still remains the basic question: To what extent is this structuring influenced by the nature of the suburban situation? corollary question is: What aspects of the suburban situation exert an influence on relationship patterns and in what way? These questions suggest that a classification of suburban characteristics will be required to deal with the general problem. These categories must make it possible to classify and examine independently the various aspects of the suburban situation as they relate to the structuring of which occur in such communities. Obviously other questions can be posed about the relationship between suburban status and relationship patterns. The present analysis is restricted to as dependent variables, even though it is recognized that for many purposes it may be desirable to treat them as independent variables. Suburban places make up an extremely * Revised version of a paper read at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Society, Washington, D. C., September, 1955. The writer is indebted to Jack P. Gibbs for helpful suggestions regarding the revision. 1 In this paper social relationships refers both to patterns of interaction between two or more individuals in informal situations and to participation in more formally organized associations. Since much of so called informal interaction takes place before, during, and after formally organized meetings, it is difficult to isolate the two types. Separation was not essential to the purpose of this discussion. 2There is evidence that in the United States variations in interaction and participation are rather uniformly associated with variations in socio-economic status, length of residence, and accessibility to interaction opportunities regardless of the type of community. See Walter T. Martin, A Consideration of Differences in the Extent and Location of the Formal Associational Activities of Fringe Residents, American Sociological Review, 17 (December, 1952), passim. 3 In spite of considerable literature regarding the differences found between cities, suburbs, and rural villages in their relative emphasis on neighboring, visiting, and participation in secondary groups, to the writer's knowledge only Key has made a systematic comparison. Key used six scales to compare various patterns of for rural areas, villages, small urban places, and two large cities. His findings support some but not all of the usual claims made about differences in found among these types of communities. Unfortunately his analysis did not include suburbs. [William H. Key, Rural-Urban Differences in Social Participation, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University, 1953.] Sylvia Fleis Fava is presently comparing neighboring patterns among suburbanites and central city residents. [Suburbanism as a Way of Life, American Sociological Review, 21 (February, 1956), p. 37.]

Urbanism Reconsidered: A Comparative Study of Local Areas in a Metropolis

THE investigation of the internal differentiation of urban population has been concerned chiefly with economic rank and ethnic diversity, and with the differences which accompany variations in these factors. Such studies throw little light upon the broad, non-ethnic, cultural differences generated in the metropolitan environment, i.e., upon as a way of life. While there has been much concern, theoretically, with the effects of the metropolitan ambit upon all social relationships, most of the empirical basis of urban theory has been the study of small natural or the study of gross regularities in census data, arranged spatially for analysis. Perhaps the best evidence bearing upon this larger question of urbanism has been the study of urban neighborhoods. The work of Donald Foley, for example, indicates that in a sample of Rochester residents (1) the neighborhood pattern still exists to some degree, but, (2) many individuals do not neighbor and do not consider their local area to be a social community.' Such studies approach the propositions that urban society is functionally rather than spatially organized and that urbanites are mobile, anonymous, and lacking in identification with their local area. To gauge the generality of Foley's conclusions, however, one needs to know where the neighborhoods he studied fit in an array of neighborhoods. Because wide variation exists, the relation between the area studied and others is crucial for the hypothsis tested; most of Rochester may be much more neighborhood oriented, or much less so, than the area studied. The Shevky-Bell typology of urban subareas is useful in this connection, for it allows any census tract to be located in three different arrays by means of three indices constructed from census data.2 It is hypothesized that these represent three dimensions within urban social space, each statistically unidimensional and independent of the others. The dimensions are social rank, segregation, and urbanization.3 The last largely measures differences in family structure, and, it is assumed, indicates corollary differences in behavior. Thus, when social rank and segregation are controlled, differences in the index of urbanization for specific tract populations should indicate consistent variations in social behavior. One purpose of the present research was to determine the nature of such corollary differences, and particularly differences in social participation. This report is based upon a pilot study of differences in social participation between sample populations in two Los Angeles areas (census tracts 35 and 63).4 The two tract populations are nearly identical with respect to two of the indices (social rank and segregation) and differ on the third, urbanization.