1986•Journal of Community PsychologyRequires access

Neighborhood and sense of community

Thomas J. Glynn

Open publisher page 115 citations

Abstract

In the context of a larger study focused on the development of an instrument to measure sense of community, respondents were asked to identify components (e.g., family, friends, church, neighborhood) that they believe comprise their community. Initial data analysis suggested a potentially important division between respondents who did and did not include “neighborhood” in their definition of their community. These two groups then were compared on the major variables of the larger study: Actual sense of community, ideal sense of community, community satisfaction, and community competence. Results suggest that respondents with a higher ideal sense of community were significantly less likely to identify “neighborhood” as a component of their community; those whose actual sense of community, community satisfaction, and community competence were higher were significantly more likely to include “neighborhood” among the components. The tendency not to consider one's neighborhood important in assessing ideal sense of community, but, rather, to actually consider it an important feature of one's day-to-day sense of community is discussed in light of some suggestions that one's neighborhood has become a less important element in developing or maintaining one's sense of community.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In the context of a larger study focused on the development of an instrument to measure sense of community, respondents were asked to identify components (e.g., family, friends, church, neighborhood) that they believe comprise their community. Initial data analysis suggested a potentially important division between respondents who did and did not include “neighborhood” in their definition of their community. These two groups then were compared on the major variables of the larger study: Actual sense of community, ideal sense of community, community satisfaction, and community competence. Results suggest that respondents with a higher ideal sense of community were significantly less likely to identify “neighborhood” as a component of their community; those whose actual sense of community, community satisfaction, and community competence were higher were significantly more likely to include “neighborhood” among the components. The tendency not to consider one's neighborhood important in assessing ideal sense of community, but, rather, to actually consider it an important feature of one's day-to-day sense of community is discussed in light of some suggestions that one's neighborhood has become a less important element in developing or maintaining one's sense of community.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 115 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In the context of a larger study focused on the development of an instrument to measure sense of community, respondents were asked to identify components (e.g., family, friends, church, neighborhood) that they believe comprise their community. Initial data analysis suggested a potentially important division between respondents who did and did not include “neighborhood” in their definition of their community. These two groups then were compared on the major variables of the larger study: Actual sense of community, ideal sense of community, community satisfaction, and community competence. Results suggest that respondents with a higher ideal sense of community were significantly less likely to identify “neighborhood” as a component of their community; those whose actual sense of community, community satisfaction, and community competence were higher were significantly more likely to include “neighborhood” among the components. The tendency not to consider one's neighborhood important in assessing ideal sense of community, but, rather, to actually consider it an important feature of one's day-to-day sense of community is discussed in light of some suggestions that one's neighborhood has become a less important element in developing or maintaining one's sense of community.

Key concepts: Sense of community, Competence (human resources), Social psychology, Ideal (ethics), Community organization, Community building, Psychology, Common sense

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Neighborhood and sense of community — Research Paper | ScholarLens