main chidush of jessor: it is
not extreme b/h but also smaller things/more general b/h which is also
problematicYouth = A subpopulation
Risk-Behaviors = some danger àsomething
that affects well-being
youth
Names:
-our society spilt up into age like categories àgrades
àbut some grades split off kids in august/September/January
àin
Europe, in the same grade #, the kids are ½ year younger!!!
Nargila: in last few years (2 yrs.)
-youth is gradual thing àusually
G b/f boys
adolescence
childhood:
Young childhood/youth
5-9/10 (or physiological)
Early Adolescent 11+
Mid-adolescence: 13-15/16
àjunior
high
late adolescent: 16-18
young adulthood: still in transition
àIsrael stops it at 18 – when people go to army.
àin American – when people go to college
àsame
idea of change, but diff. experience in US and Israel.
-weekend – come home from college: ‘weekend experience’
àalso
in 1st yr. college = less mature than same age in Israel/some
of Europe
àIsrael 21-24: college
àAmerica:
work/schooling àyounger/don’t have to pay for university
(vs. Israel, where people are older and more likely to feel that they
have to work for your education)
Adolescence:
grade 6àend
of high-school
--
-most hurt in car accidents
in N/A: ages 20-26
key areas of discussion
stressors
-bio dev. could be traumatic if 1st or last to dev.
àregardless
of age of onset: stats show that ages where puberty start: more wounds àshows
that they are more sensitive/affected emotionally
-even though puberty isn’t
‘bad’ and everyone gets it, it is still an emotionally charges/traumatic
period:
-there are times w/ more stress
and times w/less
2 main traumatic issues
--
decision
-in adolescence = first time kid has to feel the burden of decision
ài.e. people (i.e. school) decided what
you’re going to study in school/etc…
àtoday, there is much less certainty: more decisions = stressful
-bagruyot might be helpful to socialize the child, yet also has the negative side of putting too much unnecessary stress.
-sometime people choose to go somewhere b/c everyone else goes there ànot b/c that is what he really wants
àsometimes it is a fashion to go there: i.e. cars: people buy specific cars b/f of status (‘everyone buys it’) and not b/c of need
àpeople
used to drive Subaru anywhere (in Israel) regardless of no clear advantage
-hard to disregard it in adolescent
b/c you’re leaving the family!!! And the peers b/c more central
challenging the borders
when is the clearest/right border:
-when putting too many/strict
borders: it is bad for them àthey won’t know how to deal w/ problems
that arise in life
might actually lead to
àyet
is it also bad if you do not set any borders
question: what is endangering?
Answer: many levels of endangering
àsometimes, endangering is good: i.e. ‘let go of the site of the shore’
àno risks in life = youre stuck in life
àyou
got to do a calculated risk
bad endangerment:
health/security risk to self/others around him/his development/schooling/psych.
well-being/property
i.e. drugs: health is endangered (physical risk)
àbut also affect is his ability to be involved in proper schooling (and will be outcast from system)
àonce
the kid is in the school system,he is still w/I a system that can help
him. the problem is once he’s out of it.
Primary security steps: steps to avoid damage
Secondary: stop damage that already there
Tertiary: to avoid damage
in the future (i.e. speed of ambulance): so situation won’t get worse:
[I.e. they guy will heal vs. die (God forbid)]
Read ‘moos’ in biblio
Read Learning theory
-we stop a b/h when we think
that the adolescent is endangering himself/others/property
-creativity + shituf peula = best answer:
->i.e.
to avoid graffiti: let kids draw on 1 wall (nicely)
-not always is there a clear
red line, i.e. nargila: no one agree on if/h.m. it is dangerous
Daring: the phenomenon where 1 dares the other to do something
dangerous just for the guts of it
àuniversal
to teenagers at every generation/time in history (thought its manifestation
might be diff)
-diff. b/w attacker and victim
àoften victims b/c attackers
-there is a difference in dynamics b/w attackers/victim
àNew
Olim b/c victims more easily(as opposed to the common though tthat they
are more violent that old olim)
banalization of violence:
there is a huge proportion of violence: it b/c a regular/daily occurrence:
they are also hit by older kids and also hit younger kids
-violence is learnt, but so is patience: it you don’t teach them patience he will learn violence from the street
àif he learns violence at home, you must teach him patience, so he will have an alternative, though much harder b/c home is strong
àmust teach them constructivism and
not violence/escalation
àeasiest to influence b/h when it is still being established and not after it is set!!!!
àthe best time to fix heart problems/cholesterol
is at age 14!!!
-another imp. thing is the immediacy of the danger: drugs/alcohol
àalso has chronic prob: i.e. alcohol:
kidney/brain damage
date rape: 68% of date rape is under the infl. of alcohol/drugs
àalso in colleges – close to 70% of
college rapes = b/c of drugs/alcohol
àhuge
amount of alcohol infl. you judgments àyou can also b/c a victim b/c lack
of judgment b/c of alcohol
sorosis of the liver:
liver dies b/c of alcohol
-Israel = one of lowest in Europe
àyet Israel is on the increase, while
others are on the decline
one of biggest killer: heart disease/cardiovascular disease (strokes)
àusually after 45/50
àin youth = bodily injuries (ptziyot)
à un/intentional injuries (ptziot [lo] mekuvanot)
àproblem w/ term: it also incl. poison/burn/etc…
=now we use ‘hipag’ut’
-in wounds, there are almost
no ‘accidents’ = injury could have been avoided if safety was taken
Main
ideaàthey
are unintentional, but definitely not accidental
àin
organized sports
-some b/h that adult world sees as unaccepted/illegal/dangerous
àone
must make the distinction b/c adult cultural norms/value judgments and
dangerous
-border testing is part of growing up – you have to make a distinction b/c border testing and danger!!!
-immediate damage or long-lasting, yet late onset damage
Mar 4,2003:
class discussion 22 orientation
of study:
2 orientations:
Suicide – in Israel
High-school
-25% of girls think of suicide!
-17% already planned!
-7% did drugs àbut increasing!
-what is imp. is not if they
did suicide, but that they thought of suicide! It is an indicator of
serious psych problem!
study
-it is true that when safety
measures (seatbelt) =more aggressive driving àyet it saves much more than not having
the seatbelts!
-asking people about suicide
won’t give them ideas about suicide
-alcohol consumption is generic. Though if everyone w/ an alcoholic parent is bound to be alcoholic is not necessarily bound to be alcoholic
àin
order to protect yourself from genetic vulnerability, you must preemptive
defenses
main idea: you must
intervene in the causal factors (which are changeable), so that there
is a reduction of change that you will get x
example
-i.e. people w/ negative view of schooling climate =more violence
àpeople
must thus find a strategy to improve school atmosphere, and see if it
improves the situation
Main idea: -you shouldn’t deal w/symptoms but w/ roots
ài.e.
quality of fruit is not a result of the branch but a result of the who
tree/root/branches/whether/
Accident prone personality:
studied in 50-80s,
-people up to age 50, die out of wounds, than all other things together
àresurge in study in late 80s
labgly: -more academic approach:
àcan’t change people, so you can only change context
àaccident prone is only 1/3 of a 1%!!!! It is not relevant to preemptive defenses
àcriticism:
the ones who orininally studied accident-prone people were aware of
that, but tried to study it out of interent
main idea of conflict of 2 approaches
àpeople
like langly won’t react to accident-prone people, yet people w/ more
practical approach will react to the accident-prone phenomenon
new approach:
-stress situations: will bring
anyone to be accident-prone
in 70s, focus on soc. deviance:
social deviance:
-h. patterns of deviant b/
develops – deviance from normal
-developed from benches of
disciplines of soc. psych/criminology
àjuvenile
justice
focus is either of 2 things:
focus on hard crimes: drugs
ànot
daily experiences
-in end of 80s, focus on clusters of b/h that go together
àJessor
1) Problem behavior theory: (Jessor) a model which explains [note: no longer deviating but problematic’]
-for example: the problematic b/h templates go together in clusters:
àcigarettes/drugs/
-vs-
-normative
b/h
ànot in the abnormal sense but in the sense that they could harm the kid
-school dropout = key predictor
in later crime
main chidush of jessor: it is
not extreme b/h but also smaller things/more general b/h which is also
problematic
àalso look at peer infl.
-one small thing is a gateway to a bigger thing
àcigarettes
is a gateway to easy drugsàhard drugs
integration of the 2 models (jessor/kandel)
-Kandel is not contradictory to jessor!
-in youth, kids get experience w/ bad templates of b/h àas a lifestyle
àthose experiences b/c increasingly
bas, in a gateway fashion
problem
-we don’t look for universal
problematic b/h since in 1 soc. might be bad where in others it might
not be bad àhard
to make a cross-culture, universal phenomenon
-in the problematic b/h theory, a problem might be the causality of those b/h
àwhat
causes them!!!!!! Psych/soc/cognitive factors that infl some but
not other kids àthe independent variables
In 1990s – look for causalities
-protective vs. endangering factors
àpsychosocial
factors
àproblem
is in the peer pressure àso you can’t tell them no, because
they have no alternative to that b/h, so you need a creative way to
teach them other/more limited b/h
-look for those people responsible for the problem
ài.e. if parents smoke, get them to
smoke out of the house
min idea: manipulate
the problematic source
àget
them to have healthier role-models
in 70s/80s focus on if you can see relationship/causality
in 90s not only 1 independent and 1 dependant variable but rather a matrix of good and bad causers
-from 1983 – multinational study (44 countries in Europe/Mediterranean/NA)
-each 4 yrs, representing sample
of the youth
-h. do prob. b.h dev. w/ age
àwhat is universal and what is local to this dev?
-hard since same words are understood
diff in diff. countries.
example
bullying:
Dieting: in Israel:
diet coke. In Finland: nutrition
Dependent variable àbehaviors
independent
cognitive
-deviance = many diff. factors
àneed to find the more central ones:
Dangers:
-cigarettes = one of the biggest
killers of the world
--
-easy to get rifles in US
àproblem is when person in a rage
state
-1989 – baseline info on
the above lists of dangers, and tried to fix up things by 2000 called
‘goals for public health by 2000!’
àneed
to find ways to fix those problems
april 8, 2002
Shift from simple theories to complex models
-attempt to find the protective/risk
factors from w/I all the effects on dangerous b/h
for example:
-positive vs. negative school climate
àwe
don’t know if the climate made the experience or the experience made
the climate, but that is irrelevant, since if you fix climate,
you change the experience (i.e. risk b/h)
-when you want to change the climate, the community has to identify what to change. If not, it won’t work!!! (i.e. no cooperation)
àfocus on the goal, change the causal
factor and then your goal will be reached
example
-volunteering in community àprotective
factor àsince
it improves SE
note: it is better to
go at the root (why people take drugs), rather than focus on the policing
(tougher laws/policing)
-teach youth about AIDS since
people in late 20s get it, and its onset is 13 yrs after it enters body!!!
àproblem:
compliance w/ suggestion: condoms aren’t used even if many
know its rights
-we have no chisun to prevent people from getting HIV
-we have no way to fix people who already got it
àproblem – it’s a killer virus!!!
But: its hard to get AIDS: as opposed to airborne diseases
àso it is a smaller rate/speed of people
getting infections
AIDS:
trends:
-from 80s to mid-90s –youth were much more careful ànot only pills against pregnancy, but also condoms (i.e. against diseases)
àthen decreased in mid-90s
read:
The book by harel et al:
Test: 2 parts:
some imp. things to remember:
April 29, 2003
Imp. interactions b/w:
School
Parents
Peers
self-perception
Consequences of b/h
Social issues:
-yet, family still has powerful
influence, despite kid being autonomous
-->kids on non-conventional
families -->more at risk for dangerous b/h
-->it is traumatic: there
is usually a fight /family disruption b/f the breakup
good news:
-->older
kids: more tools to deal w/ it
coherence:
i.e. eating at least 1 meal together as a family
-->much better than never happening
-->could be a basis for improvement
of the family
-if parents work far from kids, could be a prob. detachment from kids
-->but of there is [even
a long distance] connection, i.e. cell-phone call each few hours- could
help
-->we look for things
to balance the lack of parents
-->look for protective
factors to balance the risk factors
-there is a diff. b/w helping
and controlling
-->lately, studies try to
differentiate b/w cultural and universal factors in the family system
school:
-there is a clear link b/w school and b/hs in school
-->changing
the school climate impr. Drugs/violence/school achievement
no clear: what specific part of the school climate makes effects the kid
-->trend
to think: it doesn’t matter – as long as it makes the kid feel bad
number analysis of kid’s answer of what they like/dislike about the school
-count the # of negative answers
out of the 13 questions asked about the school climate
-even 3 or 4 negative answers – doubles the risk of kids w/ 0 negative answers
-->doesn’t matter
what it is that bothers them – the thing that matters is that it bothers
them
social support:I have
to be supported so I won’t go down
new approach: empower
the kids to do something for the community: i.e. take care of a park,
so they feel worthy, and not need to do bad things
-->no one can tell people/communities
what to change for the better. To convince people what needs
to change is impossible. What you can do is to tell them
how to achieve it
Family school friends
His self-perceptions behaviors
-the challenge is not only
to find the causal factors but also those which could be altered in
order to efficiently fix the problem
peer
3 central areas of influence of peers in ind.
Integration bvs. Soc. integration:
-sense that no one wants to be with you
-kids that feel that they are
unpopular
-other kids feel social accepted, and have no sense of rejection
-subjective is of essence.
The objective is peripheral
àsame
thing w/ anorectic people: the reality is that they aren’t fat, but
they think that they are fat àappraisal
-sometimes, school is not in
the same place as neighborhood: thus the neighborhood and school acclimate
might be diff.
àthe
subjective appraisal leads to bad b/h, which the b/c problematic
àsome
kids spends no time w/ friends after school
bipolar relationship w/ time spent w/ friend’s
-Arab population is generally
scaled lower, but there are exceptions: they like their school more àtheir
culture respects it more
kinds of activities
note: we don’t just
try to change the ind. but his context, which incl. the social/peer
context [i.e. their b/h]
First revolution in Israel
: pubs/disco àdiscos
didn’t have alcohol on serious levels
àit
took a year or 2 for it to dev. in Israel, and then the ages that went
to pubs that went down
the revolution in
the experience: to go to a place just to get drunk
-school can infl. family/neighborhood,
since almost everyone has a kid in school/works in school/lives near
school
-violence is high in Israel, unlike other international measures
àbut it began to decrease
-i.e. if you change the school
climate by things, like volunteering -->impr. Situation!!!
27/5/2003
**
smoking
-kids start smoking b/w of peer-pressure
-->got to find the average
age where its starts so that we can try to find what to do to stop them
-there are some positive elements
of Sex/alcholo/nargila - social
WOUNDS:
intention:
place
road:
try to stop injuries:
laws:
--
Muuss:
Test components: