2016
DOI: 10.1177/0743558415600073
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Violence in the Social Networks of Homeless Youths

Abstract: This study examined social network processes related to interpersonal violence using a sample of 360 homeless youths from Los Angeles. Results indicated that violence is pervasive among homeless youths. Consistent with previous findings, hard drug use and childhood maltreatment experiences were closely related to violence experiences. Social network analyses revealed that having a higher proportion of violence-engaged peers in a youth's network is associated with increased risk of personal violent behavior as … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Increasingly, prevention researchers are interested in using social network analysis to understand the ways in which youth peer groups may influence attitudes and behaviors in positive and negative ways (Valente et al, 2003(Valente et al, , 2004. Social network analysis goes beyond examining perceptions of peers' attitudes and behaviors and objectively examines the extent to which attitudes and behaviors cluster within participant defined networks (Fujimoto & Valente, 2012;Lakon & Valente, 2012;Petering et al, 2016). Indeed, social networks can be important for behavior in a number of ways-through the structure of the network (and how embedded an individual is within the network or across networks), as well as through influence (how mean levels of network members' behaviors or attitudes can promote change in individuals to be more like the group) (Valente, 2005(Valente, , 2010.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Increasingly, prevention researchers are interested in using social network analysis to understand the ways in which youth peer groups may influence attitudes and behaviors in positive and negative ways (Valente et al, 2003(Valente et al, , 2004. Social network analysis goes beyond examining perceptions of peers' attitudes and behaviors and objectively examines the extent to which attitudes and behaviors cluster within participant defined networks (Fujimoto & Valente, 2012;Lakon & Valente, 2012;Petering et al, 2016). Indeed, social networks can be important for behavior in a number of ways-through the structure of the network (and how embedded an individual is within the network or across networks), as well as through influence (how mean levels of network members' behaviors or attitudes can promote change in individuals to be more like the group) (Valente, 2005(Valente, , 2010.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because qualitative interviews were limited to SGM participants, we are unable to compare and contrast their subjective experiences to cis‐hetero young adults. Despite the absence of cis‐hetero young adults' perspectives in the qualitative data, we can assume that one reason why SGM and cis‐hetero participants did not differ in their perceived safety in non‐service settings could be that both groups experience a similar degree of stigma when in the general community (Bender et al, 2015 ; Petering et al, 2016 ). These similarities, however, do not detract from the unique minority stressors and social supports cited by SGM young people experiencing homelessness when in general community settings (Alessi et al, 2020 ; Shelton, 2016 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…The positive effect of age on the migrant’s violent behavior reflects the emphasis on age as social power or status in Chinese culture (Peng et al, 2015). Such power or status has translated into violent behavior (Petering et al, 2016). By contrast, Western culture envisions the development of morality and social appropriateness with aging (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009; Gibbs et al, 2007).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%