Patterns of place‐based self‐regulation and associated mental health of urban adolescents

Abstract

Efforts to simultaneously address adolescent self‐regulation, activity space (routine locations), and mental health represent a promising social ecological approach aimed at understanding the lives and development of urban youth. This type of examination of contextual influences on self‐regulation is considered an important area of developmental research, yet one that is understudied (McCabe, Cunnington, & Brooks‐Gunn, 2004). Little is known about the self‐regulatory experiences that might link specific types of locations with mental health problems, particularly with urban youth who live in areas characterized by chronic and severe stressors such as personal violence, criminal activity, and poverty. Recent research has demonstrated the “power of context” (Tolan, Gorman‐Smith, Henry, Chung, & Hunt, 2002) to influence coping styles and has demonstrated that without detailed and specified knowledge of the social ecology of urban youth, measurement of critical variables and interpretation of results are likely to be misinformed (Tolan & Grant, 2009). Given the importance of understanding youth through an interactive and contextual framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Szapocznik & Coatsworth, 1999), the present study examined self‐regulatory experiences, specified favorite locations, and mental health with urban adolescents residing in low‐resource and high‐risk environments. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Environmental Strategies of Affect Regulation and Their Associations With Subjective Well-Being

“…Whether referring to a natural setting or not, accounts concerning favorite places commonly carry themes of affect regulation (Korpela et al, 2001 ). For example, cross-sectional self-report studies indicate that people recognize that favorite nearby places provide restorative, stress-alleviating experiences such as relaxation, a decrease in negative feelings and an increase in positive ones, and that people visit these places for the regulation of their self-experience and feelings (Newell, 1997 ; Gulwadi, 2006 ; Mason et al, 2010 ; Johnsen, 2013 ). In a controlled field experiment, subjects who visited nearby favorite places experienced significantly stronger stress-alleviation (e.g., calmness, attentiveness, relaxation) than subjects in non-visiting and control groups during 5 days (Korpela and Ylén, 2009 ).…”

Attributing activity space as risky and safe: The social dimension to the meaning of place for urban adolescents

“…Mason and colleagues analyzed whether the likelihood of urban adolescents’ substance use involvement was dependent on place-based social networks (based upon activity space) and whether that is moderated by gender and age. Results show that for young female adolescents’ (13–16) substance use is strongly associated with their place-based social networks compared to older female adolescents (17–20) and compared to young and older male adolescents (Mason, Valente, Coatsworth, Mennis, Lawrence, & Pate, in press). This research has established linkages between socio-spatial behaviors and health outcomes and provides further insight into the social ecology of urban adolescents.…”

“…These studies show that the meaning ascribed to various places is important, and is linked to and expressed through social practices and health behaviors. Specifically, the interpretation of meaning of places is the psycho-social mechanism by which geographic features exert influence on individuals (Mason, et al, in press). …”

“…that plague other U.S. cities. Our work has examined three distinct lines of research: a) Patterns of place-based self-regulation (Mason, et al, 2010); b) Risk and protection of social network quality (Mason, Valente, Coatsworth, Mennis, Lawrence, & Pate, in press); and c) Relationship between the geographic characteristics and perceptions of activity spaces (Mason, Mennis, Lawrence, Coatsworth, Valente, & Pate, 2009). These studies have made unique contributions to understanding urban youth substance use within the context of a) how teens interact with places, b) how their networks are protective or risky, and c), how they perceive their activity space.…”

Young Urban Adolescents' Activity Spaces, Close Peers, and the Risk of Cannabis Use: A Social–Spatial Longitudinal Analysis

“…By extending the cognitive-experiential self-theory of Epstein (1985), Korpela posits individuals develop environmental strategies with favorite places to maximize pleasure through interacting with environments that enhance positive self-esteem, provide identity coherence, and in particular, regulate emotions (Korpela, 1989, 1992). Studies with adults and adolescents support the significance of favorite places in providing security, privacy, control, clearing one’s mind, expressing troubles, self-reflection, problem solving, and respite from social demands (Abbot-Chapman & Roberson, 2001; Korpela, 1989; Mason et al, 2010; Mason & Korpela, 2009; Spencer & Woolley, 2000; Owens, 1994). Much of these outcomes can be situated within the field of study of emotion regulation, which incorporates coping, mood regulation, situation modification, attentional deployment, and cognitive change (Gross & Thompson, 2007).…”