Advertisement

The (In)compatibility of Diversity and Sense of Community

  • Zachary P. NealEmail author
  • Jennifer Watling Neal
Original Article

Abstract

Community psychologists are interested in creating contexts that promote both respect for diversity and sense of community. However, recent theoretical and empirical work has uncovered a community-diversity dialectic wherein the contextual conditions that foster respect for diversity often run in opposition to those that foster sense of community. More specifically, within neighborhoods, residential integration provides opportunities for intergroup contact that are necessary to promote respect for diversity but may prevent the formation of dense interpersonal networks that are necessary to promote sense of community. Using agent-based modeling to simulate neighborhoods and neighborhood social network formation, we explore whether the community-diversity dialectic emerges from two principles of relationship formation: homophily and proximity. The model suggests that when people form relationships with similar and nearby others, the contexts that offer opportunities to develop a respect for diversity are different from the contexts that foster a sense of community. Based on these results, we conclude with a discussion of whether it is possible to create neighborhoods that simultaneously foster respect for diversity and sense of community.

Keywords

Diversity Sense of community Agent-based modeling Social networks 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the staff at the High Performance Computing Center at Michigan State University for their technical assistance.

Supplementary material

10464_2013_9608_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 2285 kb)

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  2. Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 319–342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berryhill, J. C., & Linney, J. A. (2006). On the edge of diversity: Bringing African Americans and Latinos together in a neighborhood group. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37(3/4), 247–255. doi: 10.1007/s10464-006-9012-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blau, P. M. (1977). A macrosociological theory of social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 83(1), 26–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Box, G. E. P. (1976). Science and statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71(356), 791–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burt, R. S. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In N. Lin & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 31–56). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Chavis, D. M., & Pretty, G. M. H. (1999). Sense of community: Advances in measurement and application. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6), 635–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(S), S95–S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(7), 697–711.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  12. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Fu, F., Nowak, M. A., Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2012). The evolution of homophily. Scientific Reports, 2, 845.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Grannis, R. (2009). From the ground up: Translating geography into community through neighbor networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrell, S., & Bond, M. A. (2006). Listening to diversity stories: Principles for practice in community research and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 365–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (Eds.). (1986). Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters: Social psychology and society. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Hill, J. L. (1996). Psychological sense of community: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), 431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoffer, L. D., Bobashev, G., & Morris, R. J. (2009). Researching a local heroine market as a complex adaptive system. American Journal of Community Psychology, 44, 273–286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelly, J. G. (1971). Qualities for the community psychologist. American Psychologist, 26, 897–903.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1964). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger, T. Abel, & C. H. Page (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18–66). New York: Octagon Books.Google Scholar
  22. Lenzi, M., Vieno, A., Santinello, M., & Perkins, D. D. (2013). How neighborhood structural and institutional features can shape neighborhood social connections: A multilevel study of adolescent perceptions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51, 451–467.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindblad, M. R., Manturuk, K. R., & Quercia, R. G. (2013). Sense of community and informal social control among lower income households: The role of homeownership and collective efficacy in reducing subjective neighborhood crime and disorder. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51, 123–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Long, D. A., & Perkins, D. D. (2003). Confirmatory factor analysis of the sense of community index and development of a brief SCI. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3), 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Macy, M. W., & Willer, R. (2002). From factors to actors: Computational sociology and agent-based models. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McMillian, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peterson, N. A., Speer, P. W., & McMillian, D. W. (2008). Validation of a brief sense of community scale: Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Portes, A., & Vickstrom, E. (2011). Diversity, social capital, and cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 461–479. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prilleltensky, I. (2001). Value-based praxis in community psychology: Moving toward social justice and social action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 747–778.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  34. Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: diversity and community in the twenty-first century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology: Values, research, and action. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  36. Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 1–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Riger, S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21(3), 279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  39. Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  40. Schelling, T. (1969). Models of segregation. American Economic Review, 59(2), 488–493.Google Scholar
  41. Shook, N. J., & Fazio, R. H. (2008). Interracial roommate relationships: An experimental field test of the contact hypothesis. Psychological Science, 19(7), 717–723.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1993). The contact hypothesis revisited: Black-white interaction and positive racial attitudes. Social Forces, 71(3), 781–795.Google Scholar
  43. Society for Community Research and Action. (2010). Policies and procedures manual. Retrieved from: http://www.scra27.org/documents/scradocume/policiesandproceduresmanualrevisedjuly2010pdf.
  44. Townley, G., Kloos, B., Green, E. P., & Franco, M. M. (2011). Reconcilable differences? Human diversity, cultural relativity, and sense of community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47, 69–85. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9379-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Trickett, E. J., Watts, R. J., & Birman, D. (1994). Toward an overarching framework for diversity. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 7–26). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  46. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of small-world networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Community Research and Action 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations