The friend influence in network neighbourhood context on adolescents’ community attachment

Figures & data

Table 1. Frequencies and percentages for demographic characteristics of samples

Variable	n	%
Individual level (total samples)	1062
Gender
Female	515	48.493
Male	547	51.507
Age
13–14	413	38.889
16–17	649	61.111
Group level (total sample size of class)	48
Level of schooling
7th grade	22	45.833
10th grade	26	54.167
Location of school
Northern Taiwan	9	18.750
Central Taiwan	18	37.500
Southern Taiwan	11	22.917
Eastern Taiwan	10	20.833
Urbanization level of sample class’s location
Level 1	14	29.167
Level 2	24	50.000
Level 3	2	4.166
Level 4	4	8.333
Level 5	2	4.166
Level 6	2	4.166
Class size
Min	13
Max	45
Average	25.062
s.d.	8.093

Figure 1. The locations of sample schools in Taiwan

*Map was retrieved from google maps (https://www.google.com/maps) on 27 September 2018.

Table 2. Obliquely rotated component loadings for 19 survey items

Component	Factor 1 Community attachment	Factor 2 Neighbourhood relations	Factor 3 Social engagement
1. People here are concerned with the health of a community	.897	.033	−.010
2. I value the relationship with my neighbours	.914	.021	.000
3. I trust my neighbours	.944	−.010	.013
4. I am comfortable when being with neighbours	.914	.043	.024
5. People in this community have similar values	.928	−.031	−.033
6. My neighbours are on the same page for community’s common good	.925	.000	.000
7. I feel like I belong to this community	.859	.032	.051
8. I feel this community like home to live	.922	.000	.000
9. I would like to live in this community as long as I want to	.864	−.062	−.041
10. Neighbours and I greet one another often with cheers	.092	.794	.012
11. Neighbours and I chat often casually when we come across	−.034	.945	−.033
12. Neighbours and I would talk about family lives	−.022	.867	−.041
13. Neighbours and I would look after one another whenever need	.000	.935	.013
14. Neighbours and I would share good stuff and information with one another	.000	.937	.011
15. I would intuitively ask neighbours if they need something	.021	.912	.043
16. I do my best to make my community better	.023	.102	.677
17. I do what I can to solve social problems	−.033	.073	.697
18. I admire the ways people act	.012	−.064	.794
19. I can understand people’s needs and feelings	.000	−.043	.813
Bartlett’s test for sphericity (${\chi }^2$)	24,658.352*** (d.f. = 171)
Mean sample adequacy (overall)	.962***
Eigenvalues	11.097	1.825	1.769
Percentage of total variance	39.328	26.007	11.932
Confirmatory fit index	.954
Cronbach’s α	.982	.963	.840
RMSEA	.096
SRMR	.031
Number of test measures	9	6	4
Number of observations	1062

RMSEA: Root mean-square error of approximation; SRMR: standardized root mean square.

Note: Factor loadings $\ge$ .30 were selected.

^†p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations of factors and variables

Factor/Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4
Community attachment	30.001	8.062
Neighbourhood relation	16.835	6.982	.677***
Social engagement	13.495	3.778	.363***	.345***
Social anxiety	1.587	1.513	−.200***	−.171***	−.048
Social-friendliness	4.465	1.283	.230***	.203***	.414***	−.123

^†p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Figure 2. Levels of network structure

*Network data were from one of class samples in this study.

Table 4. Effects of network features on individual’s community attachment

Model specification	Model null	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Fixed effects
Group-level attributes
Constant, ${\gamma }_{00}$	30.059*** (.288)	−73.104*** (18.367)	−42.595** (14.875)	27.601** (13.082)
Urbanization, ${\gamma }_{01}$		−.003 (.174)	.010 (.126)	.261 (.104)
Class size, ${\gamma }_{02}$		−.003 (.038)	.048 (.122)	−.057 (.101)
Density within class, ${\gamma }_{03}$		−.224 (10.882)	−3.535 (8.160)	−2.128 (6.716)
Grand mean
Community attachment, ${\gamma }_{04}$		30.243*** (6.699)	29.654*** (4.967)	−8.421^† (4.435)
Neighbourhood relations, ${\gamma }_{05}$		−.426 (3.861)	−11.513*** (2.949)	2.355 (2.600)
Social engagement, ${\gamma }_{06}$		.890 (4.446)	−2.198 (3.326)	3.073 (2.976)
Social-friendliness, ${\gamma }_{07}$		−.392 (3.866)	−1.653 (2.894)	−1.228 (2.625)
Social anxiety, ${\gamma }_{08}$		−.182 (1.127)	.595 (.833)	−.764 (.735)
Personal attributes
Female, ${\gamma }_{10}$			.253 (.356)	.265 (.297)
Neighbourhood relations, ${\gamma }_{20}$			.699*** (.027)	.675*** (.028)
Social engagement, ${\gamma }_{30}$			.264*** (.054)	.308*** (.054)
Social-friendliness, ${\gamma }_{40}$			.308** (.154)	.281^† (.159)
Social anxiety, ${\gamma }_{50}$			−.407*** (.120)	−.411*** (.123)
Personal network features
Degree, ${\gamma }_{60}$			.108 (.085)	.068 (.070)
Closeness (log), ${\gamma }_{70}$			.859 (1.555)	−.597 (1.286)
Instrumental network influence
Community attachment, ${\gamma }_{80}$				1.817*** (.361)
Neighbourhood relations, ${\gamma }_{90}$				1.099*** (.371)
Social engagement, ${\gamma }_{100}$				−.473 (.322)
Social-friendliness, ${\gamma }_{110}$				.680** (.304)
Social anxiety, ${\gamma }_{120}$				−.333 (.294)
Casual network influence
Community attachment, ${\gamma }_{130}$				1.768*** (.355)
Neighbourhood relations, ${\gamma }_{140}$				.865** (.338)
Social engagement, ${\gamma }_{150}$				−.435 (.290)
Social-friendliness, ${\gamma }_{160}$				.366 (.276)
Social anxiety, ${\gamma }_{170}$				−.195 (.272)
Affective network influence
Community attachment, ${\gamma }_{180}$				2.166*** (.377)
Neighbourhood relations, ${\gamma }_{190}$				1.365*** (.375)
Social engagement, ${\gamma }_{200}$				−.073 (.317)
Social-friendliness, ${\gamma }_{210}$				.214 (.306)
Social anxiety, ${\gamma }_{220}$				−.052 (.293)
Random effects
Class mean, ${\mu }_{0j}$	1.015	>.000	>.000	>.000
Level 1 effect, $r_{ij}$	63.939	60.801	31.772	21.430
Goodness-of-fit test
AIC	7449.8	7398.1	6710.1	6322.8
BIC	7464.7	7452.8	6799.5	6486.7
Log likelihood	−3721.9	−3688.1	−3337.1	−3128.4

Standard deviation is in parentheses.

^†p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.