Child and Teen Development

Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal (2024) 41:427–439 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-022-00866-0

(Ben-Arieh, 2012; Dinisman et al., 2015). For example, Smith et al.(2020) found that average or high SWB were associated with greater classroom and teacher-student sup- port as well as higher emotional and behavioral student engagement among children. A focus on SWB diverts from traditional research approaches that examine sources of maladjustment, to focus on factors associated with positive child developmental trajectories (Ben-Arieh, 2012; Casas et al., 2012; Lippman, 2007). However, there is a dearth of literature exploring SWB among urban youth (e.g., McCullough et al., 2000; Vera et al., 2008). Indeed, the pre- dominant discourse in research on urban children has been a deficit perspective focused on psychopathology and risks associated with living in particular urban areas such as less access to resources, poverty, and violence (Jain & Cohen, 2013; Boutte, 2012; Welsh & Swain, 2020). Neighborhood poverty, for example, has been associated with adverse child outcomes such as poor mental health (Hurd et al., 2013) and anti-social behavior (Odges et al., 2012). Neverthe- less, there are often resources in urban environments, like neighborhood satisfaction (Shin et al., 2010), social capital

Subjective wellbeing (SWB), defined as “a person’s cogni- tive and affective evaluations of his or her life” (Diener et al., 2002, p. 63), is considered an essential component of an individual’s quality of life and overall wellbeing across the life course (Ben-Arieh et al., 2014; Bradshaw & Rich- ardson, 2009; Diener et al., 1998). The majority of SWB research has centered on adults, finding that SWB is associ- ated with positive outcomes including better physical health and health behavior (e.g., Diener et al., 2017; Kushlev et al., 2020; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). SWB has also been associated with positive perceptions of school connected- ness (Suldo et al., 2008) and lower psychopathology (Athay et al., 2012; Keyes, 2006). Emerging evidence suggests that child SWB is not only a source of positive develop- ment, but can also serve as a buffer for adverse outcomes

Patrice Forrester [email protected]

1 School of Social Work, University of Maryland Baltimore, 525 West Redwood St, 21201 Baltimore, MD, USA

Abstract Purpose Subjective wellbeing (SWB) is a significant contributor to quality of life and overall wellbeing in childhood through adulthood. However, less is known about the modifiable factors that support SWB among urban children. This study explored the association between socio-ecological factors (family, peers, and neighborhood) and child SWB. Method A convenience sample of 69 students were recruited from the 3rd (n = 40) and 5th (n = 29) grades at two urban ele- mentary schools in a mid-Atlantic state. The average age for participants was 9.32 (SD = 1.33) and most of the sample identi- fied as female (60.9%). We expected that better perceived family and peer relationships, and neighborhood quality would be positively associated with higher child SWB. Regression analyses were conducted by SWB outcome, which included global and domain-specific life satisfaction (i.e., personal wellbeing), and core affect. Results Study findings indicated that family relationships were positively associated with overall life satisfaction and per- sonal wellbeing. Neighborhood quality was also positively associated with student life satisfaction and core affect. Peer relationships were not associated with any of the SWB outcomes. Discussion The findings highlight the importance of strengthening a child’s relationships and environment to sustain posi- tive child SWB.

Keywords Life satisfaction · Subjective wellbeing · Family · Peers · Neighborhood

Accepted: 29 June 2022 / Published online: 5 August 2022 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022

Family, Peer, and Neighborhood Influences on Urban Children’s Subjective Wellbeing

Patrice Forrester1  · Ursula Kahric1 · Ericka M. Lewis1 · Theda Rose1

1 3

P. Forrester et al.

(Jesperson et al., 2021), and family support (Morgan et al., 2011) that can promote child SWB. Thus, better understand- ing of factors that support SWB may contribute to overall healthy child development (Lima & Morais, 2018; Williams et al., 2020), despite greater vulnerability to potential chal- lenges (e.g., substandard housing) inherent in some urban environments (Shin et al., 2010).

Child SWB

Exploring SWB from children’s perspectives is important for gaining a more accurate and comprehensive understand- ing of their wellbeing within the context of relationships in their environment (Ben-Arieh, 2008; Casas, 2011). Chil- dren’s information about their experiences of SWB makes them an active participant in the research and can add to the complementary or alternative interpretations of adults and researchers who may not be fully aware of all the fac- tors that contribute to a child’s SWB (e.g., Soffia & Turner 2021). This may be particularly relevant among urban chil- dren as they identify and potentially clarify strengths and challenges of their specific environments that may compro- mise or enhance their SWB (e.g., McCullough et al., 2000), even as some studies report lower SWB for children living in urban areas compared to other geographic environments (e.g., rural; Gross-Manos & Shimoni 2020).

SWB is a multicomponent construct comprised of life satisfaction and affect (e.g., Diener et al., 1999; Diener et al., 2002). Life satisfaction includes both global and domain-specific (e.g., family, school) perceptions about the quality of one’s life (Diener et al., 1999). Domain-spe- cific measures of life satisfaction can incorporate multiple domains [e.g., health, personal safety (Personal Well-being Index-School Children; Cummins & Lau 2005)] that are especially important for children and linked to their overall life satisfaction (e.g., Casas & Rees 2015). Generally, stud- ies show that higher life satisfaction among children and youth is associated with positive youth development (Park, 2004, 2005), such as lower substance use (Lew et al., 2019), better school outcomes (e.g., Ng et al., 2015), better mental health (Marques et al., 2013), and increased physical activ- ity (García-Hermoso et al., 2020).

The second component of SWB, affect, refers to a range of feelings when reflecting on one’s quality of life (Cum- mins et al., 2007). Positive affect represents pleasurable forms of affect such as feelings of gratitude and happiness, whereas negative affect represents non-pleasurable forms of affect such as feelings of irritability and sadness (Fred- rickson & Losada, 2005). Research indicates that reciprocal positive affect between parent and child is associated with lower symptoms of child psychopathology, particularly

with fathers (Thomassin & Suveg, 2014). Positive affect was also a buffer for poor emotional regulation, whereas negative affect predicted poor emotional regulation among children (Uhl et al., 2019). Finally, child positive affect has been associated with concurrent and later (one year) social competence (Lengua, 2003). The positive effects of higher life satisfaction and positive affect on child development shows the importance of understanding the factors that con- tribute to child SWB.

Socio-Ecological Factors and Child SWB

Human development is a process influenced by multiple factors including family, peer groups, and community in one’s social ecology (Oberle et al., 2011). Indicators of healthy child development include child SWB such as high life satisfaction and positive affect (Newland, 2015). Bron- frenbrenner’s bio-ecological framework (Bronfrenbrenner & Ceci, 1994) and Erikson’s stage theory of development (Erikson,1968) demonstrates the importance of psycho- logical and social processes in supporting a child’s healthy development. Supportive relations with family, peers, or community, can also support a child’s positive adaptation to their environment and promote a feeling of competency in the use of their talents and skills (Berzoff, 2011; Erikson, 1968). Furthermore, children inhabit layers of environments that can influence their development over time (Bronfren- brenner & Ceci, 1994; Rosa & Tudge 2013). The micro- system is a child’s immediate environment, which includes their relationships, roles, and activities (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2013).

Family Structure and Relationships

Family is a key factor in a child’s microsystem that can influence SWB. In most cultures, family, particularly care- giver-child relationships, is the major context where early socialization takes place (Grusec, 2011). Studies reveal that family communication and support are significantly related to SWB for children (Moore et al., 2018). Lawler and col- leagues also reported that family relationships were most predictive of life satisfaction for rural children, compared to peers and neighborhood quality (Lawler et al., 2018). Though family, peer, and neighborhood factors all have an impact on wellbeing, family connectedness has been found to be more strongly associated with wellbeing, including SWB, over time in children ages 10 to 15 in comparison to peer and community connectedness (Jose et al., 2012). This indicates that family may be the most influential factor for wellbeing for this age group (Jose et al., 2012). Addi- tionally, studies showed that family self-esteem (i.e., extent to which they feel accepted by family) and family support

1 3

428

Family, Peer, and Neighborhood Influences on Urban Children’s Subjective Wellbeing

were robust predictors of better life satisfaction and lower negative affect among early adolescents residing in urban communities (Morgan et al., 2011; Vera et al., 2008).

Family structure, such as whether a child’s parents are together or separated, can impact wellbeing (Bradshaw et al., 2011). For example, children who describe their family caregiver structure as a couple were found to have higher SWB scores compared to adolescents whose family struc- ture is made up of only a stepparent or lone parent (Brad- shaw et al., 2011). Fictive kinships can also be important relationships for youth that can affect wellbeing, especially for African American youth (Hall, 2008). For African American self-identified adult children of alcoholics, fictive kin were defined as an individual who was a regular par- ticipant at significant life events such as a mentor or coach throughout their childhood and adolescence (Hall, 2008). Their fictive kin relationships influenced their psychological wellbeing through helping promote resilience and forming relationships with mentors (Hall, 2008). While it has been well documented that family is essential for the wellbeing of children, the extent to which family relationships influ- ence wellbeing can vary amongst cultural groups given that they may place differing value on the family unit (Stuart & Jose, 2014).

Peer Relationships

For children and early adolescents, peer relationships are a component of their microsystem and influential to SWB. Peer relationships become increasingly influential between late childhood and middle adolescence. While children in middle childhood are starting to spend increasingly more time with their peers, they are still largely influenced by their parental relationships (Moretti & Peled, 2004). During early adolescence, as children begin to spend less time at home and more time in environments such as school with their peers, their external environment becomes increas- ingly influential in determining their wellbeing (Oberle et al., 2011). Specific elements of peer relationships such as the frequency with which peers interact both in and out of school, satisfaction with their friends, and the number of friends they have all impact SWB in children (Lawler et al., 2017). In line with these findings, Morgan et al., (2011) found that friend support was positively associated with positive affect among urban early adolescents.

The impact of peer relationships on wellbeing is not universal and can differ depending on macrosystems, spe- cifically whether one’s country of residence is more collec- tivistic or individualistic (Lawler et al., 2017). For example, Lawler and colleagues found that positive peer relationships were significant in predicting life satisfaction amongst 10-to- 12-year-old children in the individualist-based country of

the United States (U.S.) but not in the collectivist-based country, South Korea. In addition to life satisfaction, peer relationships can also influence self-image in children, par- ticularly as they approach adolescence. For example, New- land and colleagues (2019) found that the quality of peer relationships among 9- to14-year-old children had a stron- ger effect on self-image compared to other SWB measures (Newland et al., 2019).

Neighborhood Quality

Neighborhood is another component of a child’s microsys- tem and becomes increasingly influential during a child’s development (Ashiabi & O’Neal, 2015). Consistent with the proverb “it takes a village,” one’s neighbors and neighbor- hood can be particularly influential on child SWB. Neigh- borhood can include both positive factors such as sense of community as well as negative factors such as perceived neighborhood stress. For example, community participation and sense of community had a positive direct effect on psy- chological empowerment (e.g., sense of leadership) among urban youth of color (Lardier, 2018). Further, the relation- ship with one’s neighbors can be an important component of how children view their neighborhood (Jespersen et al., 2021). Non-kin older neighbors were found to contribute to improved neighborhood quality of life for children and enhance children’s social capital, which in turn has implica- tions for improving children’s wellbeing (Jespersen et al., 2021).

Greater neighborhood satisfaction is associated with bet- ter school and overall life satisfaction among urban children and adolescents (Shin et al., 2010).Patton et al.( 2012) also reported a significant positive relationship between neigh- borhood satisfaction and self-esteem for African Ameri- can males. Conversely, a significant negative relationship between being afraid while going to and from school with self-esteem was reported in the same study. Higher self- reported levels of neighborhood disorder were also asso- ciated with lower levels of life satisfaction among African American adolescents (Valois et al., 2020). However, neigh- borhood (i.e., sense of community, neighborhood condi- tions) was not a significant predictor of SWB among urban early adolescents (Morgan et al., 2011). Furthermore, every- day experiences of discrimination one faces in their neigh- borhood, such as racial profiling in a store, can negatively impact wellbeing, specifically in Black children (Seaton et al., 2010). Experiences of perceived discrimination are correlated with negative life satisfaction and decreased self- esteem amongst African American and Caribbean Black adolescents (Seaton et al., 2010).

1 3

429

P. Forrester et al.

student living in the attendance zone), and had schoolwide Title 1 status (Schools, n.d.). Both schools were also Com- munity Schools, leveraging strategic partnerships with other community resources (e.g., organizations, universi- ties) to support academic achievement, and the overall health and wellbeing of the child, family, and their com- munities (Schools, n.d.). According to United States (U.S.) Census Data, the schools are located in a city that is 62.3% Black and approximately 5.4% Hispanic/Latino (US Census Bureau Quick Facts, 2021).

Procedure

Data were collected using the Children’s Worlds survey, a multi-national survey of children’s wellbeing developed to address a gap in knowledge on wellbeing from children’s perspectives [see (Children’s Worlds, n.d.) for more infor- mation about Children’s Worlds]. Elementary schools that were part of a university-based center at the Principal Investigator (PI)’s university were approached to determine potential interest in study participation. For the schools that volunteered to participate, school principals provided let- ters of support for the study and school coordinators were identified at both schools to assist in participant recruitment. After receiving institutional review board (IRB) approval at both the PI’s institution and the school district, school coordinators shared information about the study with eli- gible students and their respective caregivers in the 3rd and 5th grade at the schools. Caregiver consent and child assent forms, fully explaining the study and with relevant contact information, were sent home with interested students. For one school, a Spanish version of the caregiver consent form and child assent were included, and that schools’ coordina- tor served as a translator for the study’s PI as applicable. Teachers and other school administrators were also briefed on the survey and research procedures before data collection by school coordinators.

Data were collected from two elementary schools dur- ing Spring 2018. Surveys were administered in each school (e.g.,, designated classroom, school library) at a time that did not infringe on instructional time, exams, major proj- ects, or significant school events. Consistent with Children’s Worlds survey administration, separate versions of the sur- vey were administered to children based on grade level by the research team. At the time of survey administration, the researchers re-emphasized to the children that (1) their responses would be kept confidential; (2) there were no cor- rect or incorrect answers; (3) their participation is volun- tary, and they can end participation at any time; and (4) they can skip any questions they don’t want to answer. For one school, in one grade, students participated in their classroom.

Current Study

This study applies developmental theories and a strength- based perspective to explore the socio-ecological factors that contribute to positive SWB among urban children. Though research emphasizes the importance of SWB for adult and adolescent populations, the literature is still devel- oping on the critical importance of SWB and the factors that contribute to positive SWB among urban children. The pres- ent study sought to fill that gap by exploring the association between family and peer relationships, neighborhood qual- ity, and child SWB in one mid-Atlantic state. Specifically, we examined the extent to which family relationships, peer relationships, and neighborhood quality predicted higher SWB among urban elementary school children. Given the significance of positive family relationships to child SWB (e.g., Jose et al., 2012; Lawler et al., 2018), we expected better family relationships to be positively associated with higher SWB (Hypothesis 1). Similarly, peer relationships become increasingly important in late childhood (Moretti & Peled, 2004) and peer relationships have been associated with aspects of SWB, such as life satisfaction (e.g., Lawler et al., 2018). Thus, we expected stronger peer relationships to be positively associated with higher SWB (Hypothesis 2). Finally, based on the importance of community and neigh- borhood environments to children (e.g., Ashiabi & O’Neal 2015) and the positive influence of community to better child outcomes (e.g., Lardier 2018; Shin et al., 2010), we expected positive associations between better neighborhood quality and greater SWB (Hypothesis 3). Findings from the study could inform the development and enhancement of interventions designed to support SWB among urban children.

Method

Sample

We recruited a purposive sample of 69 students from the 3rd (n = 40) and 5th grades (n = 29) at two urban elemen- tary schools in one mid-Atlantic state. The average age for participants was 9.32 years old (SD = 1.33), with most of the sample identifying as female (60.9%; n = 42). One par- ticipant did not identify their sex. Race, ethnicity, nor any other demographic data were collected for the 3rd grade stu- dents; therefore, no additional demographic data is reported here to protect confidentiality. However, school district data revealed that both schools consist of mostly (≥92%) Black and Latino children (Schools, n.d.). At the time of data col- lection, both schools served children in pre-kindergarten to 5th grade, had neighborhood enrollment (i.e., accepted

1 3

430

Family, Peer, and Neighborhood Influences on Urban Children’s Subjective Wellbeing

options ranged from 0 (do not agree) to 4 (totally agree) and items were averaged so that higher mean scores rep- resent higher neighborhood satisfaction. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87.

Child SWB Variables

Life satisfaction was assessed using a single-item ques- tion of global life satisfaction, a scale of overall life satis- faction, and one domain-specific life satisfaction measure. Core affect was assessed using one positive affect and one negative affect item. Given the difference in the response sets for the child SWB variables between 3rd and 5th grade students, we used the equipercentile method for conversion (Kolen & Brennan, 2014) of the wider range 5th grade mea- sure to the narrower range 3rd grade measure. This process involved identifying the percentiles on each measure, then graphing 5th grade percentile values against the correspond- ing 3rd grade percentile values, drawing lines between the points. The lines acknowledged that not all the values on each measure are represented in the percentiles. However, we identified 5th grade values at any point and then found the 3rd grade value at that point. This approach assumed linearity between the points. To identify the appropriate 3rd grade value for a 5th grade core affect scale score of 5, for example, we found this point on the x-axis and it showed that the corresponding value on the y-axis, the 3rd grade value at the same percentile, was 1.

Overall Life Satisfaction. Overall life satisfaction (OLS) was assessed using a single item question asking partici- pants about their satisfaction with life as a whole. Response options ranged from 0 (not at all satisfied) to 4 (totally satis- fied); higher scores reflected greater life-satisfaction.

Student Life Satisfaction. Student life satisfaction was measured using two items from the Student Life Satisfac- tion Scale (SLSS; Huebner 1991a) as well as a third item adapted from Diener’s Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Sample questions included how much participants agree with the following sentences about their life as a whole: “my life is going well” and “I have a good life.” Response options ranged from 0 (I do not agree) to 4 (I totally agree). Items were averaged so that higher mean scores represent greater student life satisfaction. Previous studies including early adolescents reported a test-retest reliability coefficient after 2 weeks of 0.74 (Huebner, 1991a), and a strong inter- nal consistency (α = 0.82) (Huebner, 1991b). Convergent validity with other self-reported life satisfaction measures including the Perceived Life Satisfaction Scale was r = .58 (Huebner, 1991a). For this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.98.

Personal Wellbeing. Personal wellbeing was mea- sured using five items from an adapted version of the

All other data collection took place in the schools’ libraries. The students who were not consented to participate were given a worksheet. Worksheets and completed surveys were collected and placed in a manilla envelope. Surveys took approximately 30–45 minutes to complete. Consent and assent forms were kept separate from survey responses to protect confidentiality of study participants. All study docu- ments were stored in a locked file in the locked office of the study PI. After data analysis was completed, the research team prepared a report with group-level deidentified data and shared with respective schools. The report was intended to provide a snapshot of current student wellbeing to poten- tially guide programs, services, and advocacy efforts that promote SWB among children, particularly in relation to how SWB can help children succeed in school.

Measures

Children completed the Children’s Worlds survey. The survey measures child wellbeing across multiple domains of life, including living situation, money and possessions, relationships, area of residence, school, health, how time is spent, and the self. The survey has been tested and used by a wide variety of researchers in countries including Brazil, England, Germany, Israel, Spain, Canada, South Africa, and the U.S. For this study, separate scales from the Children’s Worlds survey were used to assess socio-ecological factors and children’s SWB.

Socio-Ecological Variables

Family Relationships. Four items assessed connection with and support from one’s family e.g., “how much do you agree with: there are people in my family who care about me.” Response options ranged from 0 (do not agree) to 4 (totally agree). Items were averaged so that higher mean scores represent better family relationships. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.74.

Peer Relationships. Four items assessed the quality of one’s friendships e.g., “how much do you agree with: if I have a problem, I will have a friend to support me.” Response options ranged from 0 (do not agree) to 4 (totally agree) and items were averaged so that higher mean scores represent higher peer satisfaction. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.72.

Neighborhood Quality. Neighborhood quality was assessed using five items measuring children’s perceptions of their local area as well as their relationships with adults in their local area e.g., “how much do you agree with each of these sentences about your local area?,” or “In my area there are enough places to play and have a good time.” Response

1 3

431

P. Forrester et al.

outliers. There was little to no multicollinearity given all variables had a VIF < 10 (Cohen & Cohen, 2003). No out- liers were observed for study variables as Cook’s distance values were greater than the absolute value of 1 and all variables had standard residuals between − 3 and 3. Nor- mality of residuals, homoscedasticity, and linearity assump- tions were met for core affect. The OLS, PWI, and SLSS variables did not meet assumptions for normality of residu- als, linearity, or homoscedasticity. These variables were negatively skewed when their residuals were plotted on a histogram. Thus, the OLS, PWI, and SLSS variables were squared to address negative skewness. After transforming the variables, there was improvement in their homoscedas- ticity, linearity, and normality. However, these variables still had a slight negative skew. The main results from trans- formed and untransformed variables did not differ. As such, results from untransformed OLS, SLSS, and PWI variables are reported.

domain-specific Personal Wellbeing Index-School Children (PWI-SC; Cummins & Lau 2005) e.g., “how satisfied are you with how you use your time?” Response options ranged from 0 (not at all satisfied) to 4 (totally satisfied) and items were averaged so that higher mean scores represent higher personal wellbeing. In prior child and adolescent samples, the PWI demonstrated adequate internal reliability (α = 0.83; Casas & Rees 2015) as well as high inter-item reliability (α = 0.82) (Tomyn et al., 2013). Compared to the general life happiness (GLH) single item measure (‘how happy are you with your life as a whole?’), PWI has demonstrated conver- gent validity of r = .68 in adolescent samples (Tomyn et al., 2013). For this sample, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.98.

Core Affect. Core affect was measured using two items from the Russell Core Affect Scale (Russell, 2003), with response options ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (always). Par- ticipants were asked how often they have felt happy and sad during the last two weeks, with sad being reverse coded and both variables averaged so that higher scores indicated better core affect. Prior adaptations of the scale have dem- onstrated high reliability (0.87 − 0.93) in a sample of young adults (Västfjäll et al., 2002). For this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.78.

Analysis Plan

All analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics version 27 (IBM, 2020). Pearson correlations were conducted to test associations of age, sex, family relationships, peer relation- ships, and neighborhood quality with overall life satisfac- tion, personal wellbeing, student life satisfaction, and core affect (Table 1). Four multiple regressions were conducted to examine associations between socio-ecological factors (family relationships, peer relationships, neighborhood quality) and each of the child SWB outcomes (overall life satisfaction, personal wellbeing, student life satisfaction, and core affect) (Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5). Regression assump- tion testing was conducted to assess for multicollinearity between continuous independent and dependent variables, homogeneity of variances, normality of residuals, and

Table 1 Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients for Socio-ecological Variables and Wellbeing Outcomes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Family -- 0.32** 0.17 0.57 0.14 0.43 0.32** 2. Peer 0.32** -- 0.11 0.13 − 0.02 0.17 0.14 3. Neighborhood 0.17 0.11 -- 0.16 0.29* 0.30* 0.49 4. OLS 0.57 0.13 0.16 -- 0.34** 0.48 0.42** 5. Core Affect 0.14 − 0.02 0.29* 0.34** -- 0.19 0.24 6. PWI 0.43 0.17 0.30* 0.48 0.19 -- 0.61 7. SLSS 0.32** 0.14 0.49 0.42** 0.24 0.61 -- Note. OLS = Overall life satisfaction; PWI = Personal wellbeing; SLSS = Student life satisfaction *p < .05. **p < .01. p < .001

Table 2 Multiple Linear Regression Results for OLS Variable B SE β p Constant 1.78 0.39 -- < 0.001 Family 0.52 0.10 0.56 < 0.001 Peer 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.95 Neighborhood 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.83 Note. Model Statistic: r2 = 0.32. F (3, 61) = 9.76, p < .001

Table 3 Multiple Linear Regression Results for PWI Variable B SE β p Constant 2.20 0.31 -- < 0.001 Family 0.27 0.08 0.38 0.00 Peer 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.84 Neighborhood 0.12 0.06 0.23 0.04 Note. Model Statistic: r2 = 0.23. F (3, 65) = 6.62, p = .00

Table 4 Multiple Linear Regression Results for SLSS Variable B SE β p Constant 0.97 0.57 -- 0.10 Family 0.27 0.15 0.21 0.07 Peer 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.63 Neighborhood 0.40 0.10 0.43 < 0.001 Note. Model Statistic: r2 = 0.29. F (3, 63) = 8.36, p < .001

1 3

432

Family, Peer, and Neighborhood Influences on Urban Children’s Subjective Wellbeing

number of tests (r/4) to obtain a rank ratio. The rank ratio was then multiplied by the FDR rate (0.05) for an adjusted p value (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995). The original p values from multiple regression tests were compared to the new adjusted p values to ascertain if they met the new threshold. See Table 6 for FDR adjusted p values for each predictor of interest.

Note. Assume FDR = 0.05. FDR = false discovery rate; IV = socio-ecological variables.

Results

The sample of 69 students included 3rd (n = 40) and 5th grad- ers (n = 29). The average age for participants was 9.32 years old (SD = 1.33), with most participants identifying as female (60.9%; n = 42). One participant did not identify their sex. Students had a mean OLS score of 3.62 (SD = 0.74), a mean PWI score of 3.48 (SD = 0.59), a mean SLSS score of 3.19 (SD = 1.03) and a mean core affect score of 2.05 (SD = 0.74).

Bivariate analyses

Family relationships were significantly associated with overall life satisfaction (r = .56, p < .001), personal wellbe- ing (r = .43, p < .001), and student life satisfaction (r = .32, p = .01), but not with core affect. Neighborhood quality was significantly correlated with personal wellbeing (r = .30, p = .01), student life satisfaction (r = .49, p < .001), and core affect (r = .29, p = .02), but not with overall life satisfaction. No other significant correlations were observed.

Regression analyses

All regression models testing independent predictors with dependent variables were significant, except for one. The first regression model testing the independent predictors and their relationship with overall life satisfaction was significant, F (3, 61) = 9.76, p < .001 (Table 2). The second regression model predicting personal wellbeing was also significant, F (3, 65) = 6.62, p = .00 (Table 3). The regres- sion model testing independent predictors and their rela- tionship with student life satisfaction was also significant, F (3,63) = 8.36, p < .001 (Table 4). The final regression model testing independent predictors and their relationship with core affect was not significant, F (3, 64) = 2.40, p = .08 (Table 5).

We expected that better family relationships would be positively associated with higher SWB (Hypothesis 1). This hypothesis was partially supported in this sample. Family relationships was the only predictor that had a statistically significant association with overall life satisfaction (B = 0.52,

For each regression, semi-partial correlations for statisti- cally significant predictors were squared to understand the variable’s unique contribution to the change in variance in dependent variables. The change in r2 was calculated to produce the effect size (ΔR2 ) for all statistically significant findings. The effect size was obtained by determining the difference between the r2 in the regression model with all independent variables and the r2 for a model without the independent variable of interest. To control for the antici- pated rate of Type 1 error due to multiple concurrent tests, a Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) adjustment was made (1995). This adjustment allows for greater power in comparison to the Bonferroni adjustment (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995). To make the adjustment, the p values for each of the 4 multiple regression tests were ranked in order from least to highest. Then, the rank (r) was divided by the

Table 5 Multiple Linear Regression Results for Core Affect Variable B SE β p Constant 1.37 0.42 -- 0.00 Family 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.37 Peer − 0.06 0.09 − 0.09 0.48 Neighborhood 0.18 0.08 0.28 0.02 Note. Model Statistic: r2 = 0.10. F (3, 64) = 2.40, p = .08

Table 6 Benjamini-Hochberg FDR Adjustment for Multiple Regres- sion Analyses Variables Ordered

by p Rank Rank

ratio Adjusted signifi- cance level

Sig- nifi- cant?

Family relation- ships (IV) Overall life satisfaction

0.000 1 0.25 0.013 Yes

Personal wellbeing

0.002 2 0.50 0.025 Yes

Student life satisfaction

0.072 3 0.75 0.038 No

Core affect 0.365 4 1.00 0.050 No Peer relationships (IV) Overall life satisfaction

0.479 1 0.25 0.013 No

Personal wellbeing

0.630 2 0.50 0.025 No

Student life satisfaction

0.844 3 0.75 0.038 No

Core affect 0.949 4 1.00 0.050 No Neighborhood quality (IV) Overall life satisfaction

0.000 1 0.25 0.013 Yes

Personal wellbeing

0.022 2 0.50 0.025 Yes

Student life satisfaction

0.042 3 0.75 0.038 No

Core affect 0.831 4 1.00 0.050 No

1 3

433

P. Forrester et al.

Neighborhood quality had no statistically significant asso- ciation with personal wellbeing or overall life satisfaction.

Discussion

This study drew from prominent theories of child and eco- logical development (Bronfrenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Erik- son 1968) to explore the association between family and peer relationships, neighborhood quality, and SWB among children residing in urban communities. Importantly, the study utilized children’s perspectives of their SWB, which is consistent with studies emphasizing children as the best reporters of their SWB and contributes to a better under- standing of SWB within varied environmental contexts (Ben-Arieh, 2008; Casas, 2011). Study findings also build on emerging literature of SWB among urban children, with a focus on positive outcomes (e.g., Ben-Arieh 2012). The study found that family relationships were positively asso- ciated with overall life satisfaction and personal well-being, while neighborhood quality was associated with student life satisfaction and core affect. Surprisingly, peer relationships were not significantly related to any of the SWB outcomes.

Family Relationships

Our study findings suggest that higher perceived family relationship quality is associated with increased life satis- faction and personal wellbeing among urban elementary school children. Study findings are consistent with previ- ous research demonstrating that family relationships are a key factor in predicting child and youth wellbeing globally (Lee & Yoo, 2017). Specifically, our results have confirmed the role perceived positive relationships with family mem- bers can play on SWB in urban children which align with prior studies (e.g., Morgan et al., 2011; Vera et al., 2008). Study participants were in middle childhood, meaning they were still in the beginning stages of transitioning to spend- ing more time in school, yet were still heavily influenced by their family. While a child’s perceived relationship with their family, specifically parents, becomes less hierarchical during early adolescence, individuation theory states that adolescents still need to maintain close relationships with parents (Schwarz et al., 2012).

Concomitantly, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory emphasizes that family is a part of a child’s micro- system given that it is in their immediate environment and interacts with other environmental factors influencing devel- opment (Ashiabi & O’Neal, 2015). Our study questions included perceptions of both quality of a child’s relationship with their parents as well as quality of their relationships

p < .001, ΔR2 = 0.29). The value of r2 denotes that 32% of the variance in overall life satisfaction can be explained by all socio-ecological variables. A 28.84% change in vari- ance in overall life satisfaction was accounted for uniquely by family relationships independent of the effects of other socio-ecological variables. Children who reported greater satisfaction and connection with their family also expe- rienced much greater satisfaction with their life overall. Results revealed a statistically significant positive associa- tion between family relationships and personal wellbeing (B = 0.27, p = .00, ΔR2 = 0.13). A 23% change in variance in personal wellbeing was explained by all socio-ecologi- cal variables. Family relationships uniquely accounted for 12.67% of the variance in personal wellbeing independent of the effects of other socio-ecological variables. More than half of the change in variance in personal wellbeing was attributed to family relationships. Children in this sample who reported better family relationships had higher satisfac- tion with important aspects of their personal lives, such as time usage, health, or safety. Family relationships had no statistically significant association with either student life satisfaction or core affect.

We also expected that stronger peer relationships would be positively associated with higher wellbeing (Hypothesis 2). This hypothesis was not supported in the sample. Peer relationships were not significantly associated with any indicators of SWB.

Finally, we expected that there would be positive associa- tions between better neighborhood quality and greater SWB (Hypothesis 3). This hypothesis was partially supported in this sample. Neighborhood quality was the only predictor with a statistically significant association with student life satisfaction (B = 0.40, p < .001, ΔR2 = 0.18). Twenty-nine percent of the change in variance in student life satisfac- tion was explained by all socio-ecological variables. Neigh- borhood quality uniquely accounted for 17.47% of the variance in student life satisfaction. Neighborhood quality had a greater contribution to the change in variance in stu- dent life satisfaction as compared to other socio-ecological variables. Students who reported greater satisfaction with their neighborhood reported greater satisfaction with their academic and social experience at school. Neighborhood quality was also the only predictor that had a statistically significant association with core affect (B = 0.18, p = .02, ΔR2 = 0.08). All socio-ecological variables accounted for 10% of the change in variance in core affect. Neighborhood quality uniquely accounted for 7.73% of the variance in core affect. Neighborhood quality contributed the majority of change in variance in core affect as compared to other socio-ecological variables. Children who reported higher neighborhood quality had better core affect; however, the effect of this association was small, thus had limited impact.

1 3

434

Family, Peer, and Neighborhood Influences on Urban Children’s Subjective Wellbeing

development for children in middle childhood and Bronfen- brenner’s ecological systems theory. According to Erikson (1968), the onset of puberty leads to an increase in indepen- dence and autonomy, in which children will have increased interactions within their neighborhood and community. As puberty typically begins at age 8 in girls and age 9 in boys, most participants are at the beginning stages of puberty and are likely increasingly influenced by their neighborhood interactions and relationships (About Puberty and Preco- cious Puberty, 2021). Similarly, based on Bronfenbrenner’s theory, neighborhood is one component of a child’s micro- system and is increasingly influential during a child’s devel- opment (Ashiabi & O’Neal, 2015). Taken together, both theories support our study results.

Results are consistent with prior research elucidating the importance of greater neighborhood satisfaction for life sat- isfaction among urban children (Shin et al., 2010). The sig- nificant associations for neighborhood quality may also be, in part, due to cultural factors of our study population. Mac- rosystem influences such as whether a community is more collectivist in nature can lead to increased value in one’s neighborhood influencing SWB, given a higher reliance on interdependent microsystems (Lawler et al., 2017). Ethnic and racial minorities in the U.S. are often more collectivist in nature due to cultural beliefs and traditions, compared to European Americans who often identify as more individu- alistic (Vargas & Kemmelmeier, 2013). Study participants attended schools that were primarily Black and Latino, and enrollment in both schools were composed of primar- ily students from the surrounding neighborhoods where the schools were located. Since our sample was composed primarily of students from groups that are more likely to have collectivist values, this may contribute to our under- standing about why neighborhood quality was particularly significant in influencing certain aspects of child wellbeing. Our results also emphasize the importance of positive adult relationships for child wellbeing as our inquiry primarily focused on the quality of relationships children have with adults in their local area. Beyond immediate family, adults in a child’s community with whom they feel they can go to for help can play a crucial role in wellbeing outcomes for this population.

Limitations and Future Research

The present study represents a contribution to an area that has received little research attention. Nevertheless, study findings should be interpreted considering its potential limitations. First, the sample size was relatively small; this, combined with convenience sampling, limits gener- alizability. Second, the cross-sectional nature of the data

with family overall. Previous studies have shown that both family and parental relationships are predictive of subjec- tive wellbeing in youth (Lawler et al., 2017, 2018; Schwarz et al., 2012). Parents are only one subset of what one would often describe as their family composition. Our results indicate that while parents are important to wellbeing, per- ceptions of other familial relationships such as those with siblings or grandparents could also be extremely important in influencing child wellbeing.

Peer Relationships

Our findings indicated no statistically significant associa- tions between perceptions of the quality of peer relationship and any of the SWB outcomes. These findings are counter to most developmental theories for this age group, specifi- cally Erikson’s theory of development (Erikson, 1968), as well as previous studies on the influence of peers on youth wellbeing (Lawler et al., 2017; Newland et al., 2019). How- ever, our results are consistent with a prior study with urban early adolescents, where peer support was not associated with SWB (Vera et al., 2008). Erikson’s theory states that during middle childhood, children spend less time at home and under the supervision of their parents, while their social context expands to include relationships formed in school, specifically with peers (Erikson, 1968). Once children move into early adolescence and begin puberty, they start to have a stronger desire for autonomy from their family and are increasingly comparing themselves to peers (Eccles, 1999). Since study participants are at the beginning of puberty and may not have formally entered adolescence, we can expect that parents or other family still have a substantial effect on their wellbeing. At the same time, it is expected that peers will have some effect on wellbeing for this age group. Exist- ing literature states that peer relationships have a strong effect on childhood wellbeing and serve as a predictor across multiple wellbeing indicators such as life satisfaction and self-image (Lawler et al., 2017; Lee & Yoo, 2017). Since the increasing influence from peers and decreasing influ- ence from parents is a gradual process that occurs across the developmental lifespan, it is possible that in this study chil- dren were still at the beginning of the developmental transi- tion period and the family relationship maintains a primary influence.

Neighborhood Quality

The results from our study regarding neighborhood qual- ity are in line with the proverb “it takes a village to raise a child,” as well as Erikson’s stages of psychosocial

1 3

435

P. Forrester et al.

urban environments) view the relative importance of certain social relationships regarding their SWB. The knowledge gained from our study can inform practice efforts to support healthy child development and promote better assessment of child SWB in urban environments.

Our study findings suggest that positive relationships with family members increases child SWB. From a prac- tice perspective, social workers could use interventions that facilitate positive relationships between urban children and their families in clinical practice. Social workers working with parents who have elementary school children could provide psychoeducation to their clients on how to relate positively with children (e.g., active listening skills) to promote their child’s SWB. Social workers with child cli- ents could also provide psychoeducation to clients’ parents about building positive relationships with children. Social workers should also consider facilitating sessions as needed between school age children, their parents, and other impor- tant family members in the child’s life to promote positive relationship development. To grow in their ability to pro- mote positive family relationships, social workers could engage in continuing education about interventions with families, especially if they work with urban children or parents. Social workers at all levels of practice (e.g., direct service, management) can also advocate for social service practices and policies that promote positive relationships between children and their families within organizations and the wider community.

High satisfaction with neighborhood quality was also found to be a contributor to a child’s SWB, particularly as it relates to student life satisfaction. Social workers who engage in practice with elementary school children in urban environments could assess the level of satisfaction with neighborhood quality, including children’s sense of safety in the neighborhood, opportunities for play, and relationships with adults in the neighborhood. This assessment could pro- vide information about possible strengths within a child’s neighborhood that could be utilized to support healthy child SWB. Social workers could also advocate for policies that support safe neighborhoods, activities, and neighbor- hood spaces that interest children such as playgrounds and child-specific community-based programs. Social workers who engage in community-level work such as community organizing could also provide psychoeducation to inter- ested adult community members regarding best practices in positive relationships with children. Positive connections with family and neighborhood were found to be contribu- tors to child SWB, specifically for children in grades 3 and 5 residing in an urban city. This suggests the importance of strengthening a child’s relationships and environment to sustain positive child SWB.

limits directionality and precludes causal inferences. Mul- tiple data collection time points would have enabled us to assess mediating and moderating effects on the relationship between family/peer relationships and neighborhood qual- ity on SWB. Third, though the Children’s Worlds Survey provided a comprehensive assessment of wellbeing among children, some questions are only asked at certain ages and the response sets varied from 3rd to 5th grade. Thus, we uti- lized the equipercentile approach which can be a limitation because it assumes that percentiles on one measure equate to percentiles on the other. This approach also assumes lin- earity between the observed score values.

To address these limitations, future studies should include a larger sample of urban children, where probability sampling methods can be employed to enhance generaliz- ability. A larger sample size would also afford researchers the ability to explore the influence of age, sex, and race/ ethnicity in the associations between contextual factors and SWB among urban children. Though relevant to the exami- nation of SWB, sex and age were not included in the current study given the small sample size. Race was not collected across both grades in the study; additional race or ethnic- ity data would allow for further exploration of whether the observed associations were conditioned on race/ethnicity. The collection of data related to the socio-economic sta- tus of children’s families in future studies could also help in examining the role of household income on children’s SWB. Longitudinal studies can be applied to examine how the association between contextual factors and SWB may change over time as well as how early family, peer, and neighborhood relationships can influence later SWB. Finally, measures that are consistent in response sets for children would alleviate the need to apply an approach to analyze data together. SWB has been more recently defined to include emotional, psychological, and social wellbeing. These additional reliable and valid measures might provide a more nuanced understanding of SWB and the factors that are most critical to promoting SWB among urban children.

Implications for Social Work

We have much to learn about the factors contributing to positive SWB, specifically among elementary-aged chil- dren residing in urban communities. Knowledge from the current study supports the application of developmental and ecological theories, furthering our understanding of how microsystems such as family and neighborhood pro- mote SWB among children within potentially challenging environments. Study findings also build upon developmen- tal and ecological theories, exemplifying the importance of understanding how children in different localities (e.g.,

1 3

436

Family, Peer, and Neighborhood Influences on Urban Children’s Subjective Wellbeing

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-011-9119-1. Subjective indica- tors of personal well-being among adolescents

Casas, F., & Rees, G. (2015). Measures of children’s subjective well- being: Analysis of the potential for cross-national comparisons. Child Indicators Research, 8(1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12187-014-9293-z

Children’s Worlds. (n.d.). International Survey of Children’s Well- Being. http://www.isciweb.org/

Cohen, J., & Cohen, J. (Eds.). (2003). Applied multiple regression/cor- relation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). L. Erlbaum Associates

Cummins, R. A., & Lau, A. (2005). Personal Wellbeing Index–School Children. Deakin University. https://www.acqol.com.au/uploads/ pwi-sc/pwi-sc-english.pdf

Cummins, R. A., Stokes, M. A., & Davern, M. T. (2007). Core affect and subjective wellbeing: A rebuttal to Moum and Land. Jour- nal of Happiness Studies, 8(4), 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10902-007-9065-2

Diener, E., Sapyta, J. J., & Suh, E. (1998). Subjective well-being is essential to well-being. Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0901_3

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276

Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction’. In C. R. Snyder, & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 63–73). Oxford University Press

Diener, E., Pressman, S. D., Hunter, J., & Delgadillo-Chase, D. (2017). If, why, and when subjective well‐being influences health, and future needed research. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐ Being, 9(2), 133–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12090

Dinisman, T., Fernandes, L., & Main, G. (2015). Findings from the first wave of the ISCWeB project: International perspectives on child subjective well-being. Child Indicators Research, 8(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-015-9305-7

Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children, 9(2), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602703

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W.W Norton Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the

complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678

García-Hermoso, A., Hormazábal-Aguayo, I., Fernández-Vergara, O., Olivares, P. R., & Oriol-Granado, X. (2020). Physical activity, screen time and subjective well-being among children. Interna- tional Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 20(2), 126–134

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2020.03.001 Gross-Manos, D., & Shimoni, E. (2020). Where you live matters: Cor-

relation of child subjective well-being to rural, urban, and periph- eral living. Journal of Rural Studies, 76, 120–130. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.04.009

Grusec, J. E. (2011). Socialization processes in the family: Social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 243–269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131650

Hall, J. C. (2008). The impact of kin and fictive kin relationships on the mental health of Black adult children of alcoholics. Health & Social Work, 33(4), 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/ hsw/33.4.259

Huebner, E. S. (1991a). Initial development of the Students’ Life Satis- faction Scale. School Psychology International, 12(3), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034391123010

Huebner, E. S. (1991b). Further validation of the Students’ Life Satis- faction Scale: The independence of satisfaction and affect ratings. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9(4), 363–368. https:// doi.org/10.1177/073428299100900408

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Social Work Community Outreach Service, University of Maryland Baltimore, and the children, families, and schools who participated in this study.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

References

About Puberty and Precocious Puberty. National Institute of Health. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/puberty/conditioninfo

Ashiabi, G. S., & O’Neal, K. K. (2015). Child social development in context: An examination of some propositions in Bronfen- brenner’s bioecological theory. SAGE Open, 5(2), 1–14. Ab

Athay, M., Kelley, S. D., & Dew-Reeves, S. E. (2012). Brief Mul- tidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale—PTPB version (BMSLSS-PTPB): Psychometric properties and relationship with mental health symptom severity over time. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 39(1–2), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-011-0385-5

Ben-Arieh, A. (2008). The child indicators movement: Past, present, and future. Child Indicators Research, 1(1), 3–16. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12187-007-9003-1

Ben-Arieh, A. (2012). How do we measure and monitor the “state of our children”? Children and Youth Services Review, 34(3), 569– 575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.10.008

Ben-Arieh, A., Casas, F., Frønes, I., & Korbin, J. E. (2014). Multifaceted concept of child well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I Frønes, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child well-being (pp. 1–27). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9063-8_134

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discov- ery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodologi- cal), 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995. tb02031.x

Berzoff, J. (2011). Psychosocial ego development: The theory of Erik Erikson. In J. Berzoff, L. M. Flanagan, & P. Hertz (Eds.), Inside out and outside in: Psychodynamic clinical theory and psycho- pathology in contemporary multicultural contexts (3rd ed., pp. 97–117). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Boutte, G. S. (2012). Urban schools: Challenges and possibilities for early childhood and elementary education. Urban Education, 47(2), 515–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911429583

Bradshaw, J., & Richardson, D. (2009). An index of child well-being in Europe. Child Indicators Research, 2(3), 319–351. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12187-009-9037-7

Bradshaw, J., Keung, A., Rees, G., & Goswami, H. (2011). Children’s subjective well-being: International comparative perspectives. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(4), 548–556. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.05.010

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture recon- ceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568

Casas, F. (2011). Subjective social indicators and child and adolescent well-being. Child Indicators Research, 4(4), 555–575. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12187-010-9093-z

Casas, F., Sarriera, J. C., Abs, D., Coenders, G., Alfaro, J., Safocada, E., & Tonon, G. (2012). Performance and results for different scales in Latin-language speaking countries: A contribution to the international debate. Child Indicators Research, 5(1), 1–28.

1 3

437

P. Forrester et al.

Marques, S. C., Lopez, S. J., & Mitchell, J. (2013). The role of hope, spirituality and religious practice in adolescents’ life satisfaction: Longitudinal findings. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(1), 251– 261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9329-3

McCullough, G., Huebner, E. S., & Laughlin, J. E. (2000). Life events, self-concept, and adolescents’ positive subjective well-being. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/ (SICI)1520-6807(200005)37:3%281::AID-PITS8%3.0.CO;2-2

Moore, G. F., Cox, R., Evans, R. E., Hallingberg, B., Hawkins, J., Lit- tlecott, H. J. … Murphy, S. (2018). School, peer and family rela- tionships and adolescent substance use, subjective wellbeing and mental health symptoms in Wales: A cross sectional study. Child Indicators Research, 11(6), 1951–1965. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12187-017-9524-1

Moretti, M. M., & Peled, M. (2004). Adolescent-parent attachment: Bonds that support healthy development. Paediatrics & Child Health, 9(8), 551–555. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/9.8.551

Morgan, M. L., Vera, E. M., Gonzales, R. R., Conner, W., Vacek, B., K., & Coyle, D., L (2011). Subjective well-being in urban ado- lescents: Interpersonal, individual, and community influences. Youth & Society, 43(2), 609–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/00441 18X09353517

Newland, L. A. (2015). Family well-being, parenting, and child well- being: Pathways to health adjustment. Clinical Psychologist, 19(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/cp.12059

Newland, L. A., Giger, J. T., Lawler, M. J., Roh, S., Brockevelt, B. L., & Schweinle, A. (2019). Multilevel analysis of child and adoles- cent subjective well-being across 14 countries: Child-and coun- try-level predictors. Child Development, 90(2), 395–413. https:// doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13134

Ng, Z. J., Huebner, S. E., & Hills, K. J. (2015). Life satisfaction and academic performance in early adolescents: Evidence for recipro- cal association. Journal of School Psychology, 53(6), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.09.004

Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Life sat- isfaction in early adolescence: Personal, neighborhood, school, family, and peer influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(7), 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9599-1

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Collins, K. M., & Frels, R. K. (2013). Foreword: Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory to frame quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research. International Jour- nal of Multiple Research Approaches, 71(1), 2–8. https://doi. org/10.5172/mra.2013.7.1.2

Park, N. (2004). The role of subjective well-being in positive youth development. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 25–39. https://doi. org/10.1177/0002716203260078

Park, N. (2005). Life satisfaction among Korean children and youth: A developmental perspective. School Psychology International, 26(2), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034305052914

Patton, D. U., Woolley, M. E., & Hong, J. S. (2012). Exposure to violence, student fear, and low academic achievement: African American males in the critical transition to high school. Chil- dren and Youth Services Review, 34(2), 388–395. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.11.009

Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution from ecology to bioecology: The evolution of Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory. Journal of Fam- ily Theory & Review, 5(4), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jftr.12022

Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110(1), 145–172. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.145

Schools. (n.d.). Baltimore City Public Schools. https://www.baltimo- recityschools.org/schools

Hurd, N. M., Stoddard, S. A., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2013). Neighbor- hoods, social support, and African American adolescents’ mental health outcomes: A multilevel path analysis. Child Development, 84(3), 858–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12018

IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh (27.0). (2020). [Computer soft- ware].IMB Corp

Jain, S., & Cohen, A. K. (2013). Fostering resilience among urban youth exposed to violence: A promising area for interdisciplin- ary research and practice. Health Education & Behavior, 40(6), 651–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198113492761

Jespersen, B. V., Korbin, J. E., & Spilsbury, J. C. (2021). Older neighbors and the neighborhood context of child well-being: Pathways to enhancing social capital for children. American Journal of Community Psychology, 68(3–4), 402–413. https:// doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12520

Jose, P. E., Ryan, N., & Pryor, J. (2012). Does social connectedness promote a greater sense of well-being in adolescence over time? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(2), 235–251. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00783.x

Keyes, C. L. M. (2006). Mental health in adolescence: Is America’s youth flourishing? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(3), 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.76.3.395

Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0317-7

Kushlev, K., Drummond, D. M., & Diener, E. (2020). Subjective well- being and health behaviors in 2.5 million Americans. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 12(1), 166–187. https://doi. org/10.1111/aphw.12178

Lardier, D. T. (2018). An examination of ethnic identity as a media- tor of the effects of community participation and neighborhood sense of community on psychological empowerment among urban youth of color. Journal of Community Psychology, 46(5), 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21958

Lawler, M. J., Newland, L. A., Giger, J. T., Roh, S., & Brockevelt, B. L. (2017). Ecological, relationship-based model of children’s subjective well-being: Perspectives of 10-year-old children in the United States and 10 other countries. Child Indicators Research, 10(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-016-9376-0

Lawler, M. J., Choi, C., Yoo, J., Lee, J., Roh, S., Newland, L. A. … Lee, B. J. (2018). Children’s subjective well-being in rural com- munities of South Korea and the United States. Children and Youth Services Review, 85, 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. childyouth.2017.12.023

Lee, B. J., & Yoo, M. S. (2017). What accounts for the variations in children’s subjective well-being across nations?: A decomposition method study. Children’s Well-Being Around the World: Findings From the Children’s Worlds (ISCWeB) Project, 80, 15–21. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.065

Lengua, L. J. (2003). Associations among emotionality, self-regula- tion, adjustment problems, and positive adjustment in middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(5), 595–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2003.08.002

Lew, D., Xian, H., Qian, Z., & Vaughn, M. G. (2019). Examining the relationships between life satisfaction and alcohol, tobacco and marijuana use among school-aged children. Journal of Public Health, 41(2), 346–353. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdy074

Lima, R., & Morais, N. (2018). Subjective well-being of children and adolescents: Integrative review. Ciencias Psicológicas, 12(2), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v12i2.1689

Lippman, L. H. (2007). Indicators and indices of child well-being: A brief American history. Social Indicators Research, 83(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-9058-2

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to suc- cess? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803

1 3

438

Family, Peer, and Neighborhood Influences on Urban Children’s Subjective Wellbeing

Indicators Research, 110(3), 1013–1031. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11205-011-9970-y

United States Census Bureau (2022, June 2). Quick Facts. https:// www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221

Uhl, K., Halpern, L. F., Tam, C., Fox, J. K., & Ryan, J. L. (2019). Relations of emotion regulation, negative and positive affect to anxiety and depression in middle childhood. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(11), 2988–2999. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10826-019-01474-w

Valois, R. F., Kerr, J. C., Carey, M. P., Brown, L. K., Romer, D., DiCle- mente, R. J., & Vanable, P. A. (2020). Neighborhood stress and life satisfaction: Is there a relationship for African American ado- lescents? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(1), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9679-z

Vargas, J. H., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2013). Ethnicity and con- temporary American culture: A meta-analytic investiga- tion of horizontal–vertical individualism–collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(2), 195–222. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0022022112443733

Västfjäll, D., Friman, M., Gärling, T., & Kleiner, M. (2002). The mea- surement of core affect: A Swedish self-report measure derived from the affect circumplex. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00265

Vera, E., Thakral, C., Gonzales, R., Morgan, M., Conner, W., Caskey, E. … Dick, L. (2008). Subjective well-being in urban adolescents of color. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(3), 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.14.3.224

Welsh, R. O., & Swain, W. A. (2020). Re) defining urban education: A conceptual review and empirical exploration of the definition of urban education. Educational Researcher, 49(2), 90–100. https:// doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20902822

Williams, K. L., Coles, J. A., & Reynolds, P. (2020). Re) creating the script: A framework of agency, accountability, and resisting deficit depictions of Black students in P-20 education. Journal of Negro Education, 89(3), 249–266

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris- dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Schwarz, B., Mayer, B., Trommsdorff, G., Ben-Arieh, A., Friedlmeier, M., Lubiewska, K. … Peltzer, K. (2012). Does the importance of parent and peer relationships for adolescents’ life satisfaction vary across cultures? The Journal of Early Adolescence, 32(1), 55–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431611419508

Seaton, E. K., Caldwell, C. H., Sellers, R. M., & Jackson, J. S. (2010). An intersectional approach for understanding perceived discrimi- nation and psychological well-being among African American and Caribbean Black youth. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1372–1379. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019869

Shin, R. Q., Morgan, M. L., Buhin, L., Truitt, T. J., & Vera, E. M. (2010). Expanding the discourse on urban youth of color. Cul- tural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(3), 421–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018693

Smith, N. D., Suldo, S., Hearon, B., & Ferron, J. (2020). An appli- cation of the dual-factor model of mental health in elementary school children: Examining academic engagement and social out- comes. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 4(1), 49–68

Soffia, M., & Turner, A. (2021). Measuring children and young peo- ple’s subjective wellbeing. https://www.headstartkernow.org. uk/HSK%20uploads/WSA/MCYPSW-Measures-bank-user- guide-1.pdf

Stuart, J., & Jose, P. E. (2014). The protective influence of family connectedness, ethnic identity, and ethnic engagement for New Zealand Māori adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 50(6), 1817–1826. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036386

Suldo, S. M., Shaffer, E. J., & Riley, K. N. (2008). A social-cognitive- behavioral model of academic predictors of adolescents’ life sat- isfaction. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 56–69. https://doi. org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.56

Thomassin, K., & Suveg, C. (2014). Reciprocal positive affect and well-regulated, adjusted children: A unique contribution of fathers. Parenting, 14(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/152951 92.2014.880017

Tomyn, A. J., Norrish, J. M., & Cummins, R. A. (2013). The sub- jective wellbeing of indigenous Australian adolescents: Vali- dating the Personal Wellbeing Index-School Children. Social

1 3

439

Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal is a copyright of Springer, 2024. All Rights Reserved.