{"id":{"repo_id":"brock","oai_identifier":"oai:brocku.scholaris.ca:10464/2257"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/brock/oai:brocku.scholaris.ca:10464/2257","repository":{"repo_id":"brock","name":"Brock University","base_url":"https://brocku.scholaris.ca/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Linking community variables to parenting behaviours and youth risk behaviours","abstract":"The puq)ose of this thesis is to test a model Hnking community disadvantage and urbanicity factors to parenting variables (i.e., monitoring, warmth, and knowledge) and to youth risk behavior (i.e., substance use and delinquency), measured both concurrently and one year after the assessment of parenting variables. The model builds on the work of Fletcher, Steinberg, and Williams-Wheeler (2004) but a) includes a more comprehensive measure of SES than that conceptualized by Fletcher et al.; b) considers whether the role of community disadvantage is indirectly as well as directly linked to youth risk behavior, by way of its association with parenting variables; c) considers whether level of community urbanicity plays a direct role in predicting both parenting variables and risk behaviors, or whether its influence on risk behaviours is primarily indirect through parenting variables. Both community disadvantage and urbanicity had virtually no relation to parenting and risk behaviour variables. Results found for relations of parenting variables and risk behaviour were similar to Fletcher et al. Although urban youth are typically perceived as being more at risk for substance use and delinquency, no evidence was found for a distinction between urban and rural youth within this sample. Targeting risk behaviour prevention/reduction programs toward only urban youth, therefore, is not supported by these findings.","abstract_html":"The puq)ose of this thesis is to test a model Hnking community disadvantage and urbanicity factors to parenting variables (i.e., monitoring, warmth, and knowledge) and to youth risk behavior (i.e., substance use and delinquency), measured both concurrently and one year after the assessment of parenting variables. The model builds on the work of Fletcher, Steinberg, and Williams-Wheeler (2004) but a) includes a more comprehensive measure of SES than that conceptualized by Fletcher et al.; b) considers whether the role of community disadvantage is indirectly as well as directly linked to youth risk behavior, by way of its association with parenting variables; c) considers whether level of community urbanicity plays a direct role in predicting both parenting variables and risk behaviors, or whether its influence on risk behaviours is primarily indirect through parenting variables. Both community disadvantage and urbanicity had virtually no relation to parenting and risk behaviour variables. Results found for relations of parenting variables and risk behaviour were similar to Fletcher et al. Although urban youth are typically perceived as being more at risk for substance use and delinquency, no evidence was found for a distinction between urban and rural youth within this sample. Targeting risk behaviour prevention/reduction programs toward only urban youth, therefore, is not supported by these findings.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Trithardt, Jaselyn Jarvis."],"institution":"Brock University","degree_name":"M.A. Child and Youth Studies","degree_level":"Masters","degree_discipline":"Faculty of Social Sciences","degree_department":"Department of Child and Youth Studies","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2005,"date_issued":"2005-07-14T19:40:48Z","date_published":"2005-07-14T19:40:48Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:22:58Z","subjects":["Risk-taking (Psychology) in adolescence.","Urban youth.","Rural youth.","Parent and child.","Child rearing."],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10464/2257","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Department of Child and Youth Studies"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Trithardt, Jaselyn Jarvis."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2009-07-14T19:40:48Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2009-07-14T19:40:48Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2005-07-14T19:40:48Z"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Electronic Thesis or Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Faculty of Social Sciences"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["M.A. Child and Youth Studies"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Brock University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Risk-taking (Psychology) in adolescence.","Urban youth.","Rural youth.","Parent and child.","Child rearing."]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["eng"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10464/2257"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The puq)ose of this thesis is to test a model Hnking community disadvantage and urbanicity factors to parenting variables (i.e., monitoring, warmth, and knowledge) and to youth risk behavior (i.e., substance use and delinquency), measured both concurrently and one year after the assessment of parenting variables. The model builds on the work of Fletcher, Steinberg, and Williams-Wheeler (2004) but a) includes a more comprehensive measure of SES than that conceptualized by Fletcher et al.; b) considers whether the role of community disadvantage is indirectly as well as directly linked to youth risk behavior, by way of its association with parenting variables; c) considers whether level of community urbanicity plays a direct role in predicting both parenting variables and risk behaviors, or whether its influence on risk behaviours is primarily indirect through parenting variables. Both community disadvantage and urbanicity had virtually no relation to parenting and risk behaviour variables. Results found for relations of parenting variables and risk behaviour were similar to Fletcher et al. Although urban youth are typically perceived as being more at risk for substance use and delinquency, no evidence was found for a distinction between urban and rural youth within this sample. Targeting risk behaviour prevention/reduction programs toward only urban youth, therefore, is not supported by these findings."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Linking community variables to parenting behaviours and youth risk behaviours"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.department":["Department of Child and Youth Studies"],"dc:creator":["Trithardt, Jaselyn Jarvis."],"dc:date.accessioned":["2009-07-14T19:40:48Z"],"dc:date.available":["2009-07-14T19:40:48Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2005-07-14T19:40:48Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["The puq)ose of this thesis is to test a model Hnking community disadvantage and urbanicity factors to parenting variables (i.e., monitoring, warmth, and knowledge) and to youth risk behavior (i.e., substance use and delinquency), measured both concurrently and one year after the assessment of parenting variables. The model builds on the work of Fletcher, Steinberg, and Williams-Wheeler (2004) but a) includes a more comprehensive measure of SES than that conceptualized by Fletcher et al.; b) considers whether the role of community disadvantage is indirectly as well as directly linked to youth risk behavior, by way of its association with parenting variables; c) considers whether level of community urbanicity plays a direct role in predicting both parenting variables and risk behaviors, or whether its influence on risk behaviours is primarily indirect through parenting variables. Both community disadvantage and urbanicity had virtually no relation to parenting and risk behaviour variables. Results found for relations of parenting variables and risk behaviour were similar to Fletcher et al. Although urban youth are typically perceived as being more at risk for substance use and delinquency, no evidence was found for a distinction between urban and rural youth within this sample. Targeting risk behaviour prevention/reduction programs toward only urban youth, therefore, is not supported by these findings."],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10464/2257"],"dc:language.iso":["eng"],"dc:subject":["Risk-taking (Psychology) in adolescence.","Urban youth.","Rural youth.","Parent and child.","Child rearing."],"dc:title":["Linking community variables to parenting behaviours and youth risk behaviours"],"dc:type":["Electronic Thesis or Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Faculty of Social Sciences"],"thesis:degree_level":["Masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["M.A. Child and Youth Studies"],"thesis:institution_name":["Brock University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:22:58Z"}