Neighborhood Characteristics that create Stress may cause Depression

RESEARCH JOURNAL REVIEW:

Cutrona, C. E., Wallace, G., & Wesner, K. A. (2006, August). Neighborhood Characteristics and Depression: An Examination of Stress Processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(4), 188-192. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00433.x

 I.                   Purpose of the Study (In your own words) –

A.                What were the authors studying and why?

Authors summarized multiple studies in this review about how “neighborhoods with poor-quality housing, few resources, and unsafe conditions impose stress, which can lead to depression.”  These environmental characteristics increase the negative impact of stressors unique to individuals’ personal life and can hamper the formation of supportive interpersonal bonds between people.

Why did the authors study this? It is meaningful for our society to understand the “role of neighborhoods” in a resident’s potential for developing depression because (1) Residents often blame themselves mistakenly instead of recognizing their well-being is genuinely affected “by the context around them” and complications of their locality (2) outsiders don’t understand the extent these residents of impoverished areas are negatively impacted “by their surroundings”, and often erroneously blame these residents’ mental health problems on perceived personality flaws or race instead; (3) treating each impacted person separately is much less efficient than dealing with public health threats on a broader community level. Neighborhoods that subsist with inferior quality resources and lack the benefits of “integration with more prosperous families” may find increased instances of social dilemmas related to “threats to mental health.”

B.                 What did they expect to find (i.e., what were the hypotheses?)

Research studies will find stress links between “neighborhood characteristics and depression.” These characteristics influence how intensely residents are stressed, how vulnerable to depression a person is “following negative events in their lives,” and “interfere with formation of bonds among (other) people” creating limited interpersonal support systems also leading to lessened “informal social control,” deficient social support, and substandard family-role performance. “Neighborhood stressors” often result from scrambling for scarce resources and/or predatory people inhabiting the neighborhood who pose physical threats to other residents. In comparative studies of residents in better, less adverse neighborhoods many of these issues were not as common.

II.                Methodology - Review the basic methods.

A.                How did they measure what they were studying?

When reviewing other studies based on “systematic observations” by researchers and resident surveys, the authors considered how personal vulnerability to depression may be effected by neighborhood characteristics such as physical features (accessibility to basic resources like hospitals, reliable public transit, retail stores, recreational facilities), structural characteristics (percent of neighborhood that are employed, impoverished, educated, minority), and negative functional characteristics (unlawful behavior, social disorder). This consideration was made by statistically getting rid of effects like “individual and family characteristics such as income, education, employment status, age, and race.”

B.                 What type of people were they studying?

The studies in this review analyzed residents of high poverty neighborhoods by U.S. Census tracts (roughly nine city blocks, about 4,000-6,000 residents in each tract), and some studies broke these units down into smaller block groups or face blocks.

III.             Results and Discussion –

A.                What did the researchers find?

Based on comparison to other studies, researchers found that neighborhood stressors may be imposed by physical characteristics or neighborhood residents that pose threats to physical safety. Examples of negative physical characteristics that can cause stress include: lack of accessible resources, high traffic density, low quality housing, etc. Ratings related to the quality of housing predicted depression more often than simple being low income in rural women studied in 2000. Women who moved out of unsatisfactory apartments into Habitat for Humanity homes, showed a decrease in reports of sadness. “Lack of access to needed resources is demoralizing because of the extra effort required to meet daily needs… More refined measures that capture type, accessibility, and distance to community resources are needed.”

“Fear of victimization” is another stressor that impacts the well-being of residents. “Social disorder, not poverty per se… most directly causes depression in areas with high crime rates… for both children and adults.” Other studies shows that impoverished areas with little crime, did not show the same tendencies for depression.

“Vulnerability to depression following negative events” is more likely in bad neighborhoods than in in neighborhoods that have more advantages. “Reasons for this heightened vulnerability may include lack of resources, the absence of role models who provide hope for personal success, and local norms that promote ineffective coping and negative interpretations of events.”

Interpersonal Relationships are put at risk in less advantaged neighborhoods. A 2005 study showed that areas with high turnover, offer less tendency for people to form relationships with their community due to mistrusting neighbors due to high crime rates. “Relationship disruption may have several consequences relevant to depression, including lower levels of informal social control, inadequate social support, and poor family-role performance.

This leads to a lack of “Informal Social Control” in these troubled neighborhoods, people don’t “monitor or control each others’ behavior and norms that permit antisocial or maladaptive behavior may arise… leading to problems like job loss or unintended pregnancies that may turn into depression. A 2002 study showed that comparatively, nicer neighborhoods express disapproval, alert authorities or form watch groups to maintain social niceties in their area.

Residents are areas with high-social disorder often feel their relationships are less supportive, “because support providers themselves are highly burdened. Living in impoverished neighborhoods “appears to weaken the protective power of social resources in people’s lives,” according to a 2003 study. Neighborhood poverty also predicted lower-quality parenting behaviors” and less marital warmth, both of which can contribute to issues with depression.

Cutrona’s earlier 2000 study determined that not everyone has the same reaction to living in unsatisfying neighborhoods. “Some people with particularly resilient personalities can cope successfully, even in dangerous and disorderly neighborhoods. Other people are highly vulnerable to depression (and appear to be significantly harmed psychologically) when they live in adverse surroundings.  The bottom line finding is that “living in disadvantaged and disorderly neighborhoods eventually erode optimism and replaces it with hopelessness and negativity.”

B.                 Did the results support or fail to support the authors' hypotheses?

The results support the authors’ hypotheses. They compared their hypotheses to similar studies.

C.                 What is the meaning of the results?

More attention must be paid to the influence of contextual factors like neighborhood characteristics on mental health.  Additional studies are necessary to find the “most effective ways to mobilize neighborhood residents to meet common goals and improve the context in which they live.”

Neighborhood context has an impact on feelings of well being, above and beyond personal stressors. By increasing stressors, intensifying “reactivity to negative life events” and deterring the growth of healthy interpersonal relationships, neighborhood of residence can influence a “wide range of psychological processes and merits further study.”

Comparative studies where residents were moved into a better area showed better mental health for residents. “Some of the problems associated with low income people should actually be attributed to low-income environments.”

The results of this comparative study mean that changes are necessary for improvements.  Suggestions for improving the design of future studies include: “analyzing family characteristics, using separate samples of residents to obtain information and outcome measures, study processes of factors that facilitate change.” In order to most effectively help these neighborhoods, we must empower residents to organize improvements. City planners must be mindful when designing subsidized housing and promote “economically integrated housing,” by avoiding concentrating poverty into limited areas which breeds “hopelessness, depression and other social problems.”

“Greater collaborations across the disciplines of city planning, economics, sociology, and psychology are needed in generating such data.

IV.             Personal Reflection –

A.                What are your thoughts about the study and the questions asked?

I think the study asks important questions about how we focus studies related to poverty and high-crime areas with greater consideration paid to the potential for depression in residents.  They asked important question about the correlation of factors and causality to mental health issues.

B.                 Does the study relate at all to your interests or life?

This study relates to my interests in helping the less fortunate and providing more balanced decision making in city planning decisions and treatment offerings in low-income areas.

C.                 What did you learn that was new to you?

I learned that more research is needed, and what studies have been done seem to support the author’s supposition that neighborhood characteristics generally have impact on the potential for depression in the residents.

D.                Is there anything missing?

Answered above

E.                 What questions does this study raise for you?

What are good ways to encourage economically integrated neighborhoods? Can treating community mental health issues on a broader level be more cost effective than dealing with individual issues of depression that may one day lead to more costly criminal impacts?

F.                  Do you have any ideas about how to study this concept differently?

I am curious if these trends related to neighborhood characteristics have been measured by researchers outside the United States. An extended review that included international studies on similar topics would be recommended.

Portrayal of Natives in Media

Sociological Critical Analysis of Native Representation in Media

The portrayal of natives in media affects how they are treated by outsiders, and often impacts how natives see themselves and perceive their own potential for success. For perspective, we will cover the history of native representation in media like film. We’ll discuss the implications of media stereotypes and their effect of youth self-esteem. That labeling people as “oppressed” by on media stereotypes is an overgeneralization. How typecast John Wayne’s cowboy characters promote a dangerously racist hegemony of imperialism and genocide. We’ll remind you that natives are not extinct. It may look that way in the media, but just like with other minority groups, there is a disproportionately low use of native actors in Hollywood.

Yet 21^st century content creators have an exciting opportunity to right some of the wrongs with how indigenous people are represented in media, by using more native voices in modern contexts. Strides in the right direction have been taken by Canada and Australia, but there is much work to be done. This critical analysis will review this theme through the lens of several television shows (Murdoch Mysteries, and Roseanne), in addition to reinforcing some of the sociological concepts found in the documentary film, Reel Injun. “The media plays a very important part in forming the discourse on Aboriginalism, as many are influenced by media representation and base their views on Indigenous people as a result of these representations” (Garetto 2013).

Historically speaking, media has been fascinated with portraying Native Americans as exotic novelties from as far back as the early days of Edison’s moving pictures in the late 1800s. However around the 1930s the emphasis shifted to showing Natives as dehumanized savages to be killed indiscriminately in westerns. John Wayne’s movie characters usually portrayed that he was more a “true American than natives, who must be stopped from settling their own land” (Reel Injun 2009). This interpretation of that era’s media glosses over the genocidal message being presented to the audience, “A good injun is a dead injun” (Reel Injun 2009). This fictional depiction of the “Indian resistance served to fuel the myths of conquest and glory, and the American divine right to conquest” and occupation of the land (Common Portrayals of Aboriginal People n.d.).

How did our society come to accept the socialized hegemony of such harsh marginalization of an entire ethnicity? In part, this false consciousness has been perpetuated through the use of stereotypes in mass media. Often audiences use mass media hoping to gain information about the world and their identity, as well as find models to imitate (Berger 2014). Negative models in mass media affect the self-esteem of impressionable youth, this implicates how this group views their own potential for success.

“Ward Churchill argues that the myths and stereotypes built up around the Native… served to explain in positive terms the decimation of Native tribes and their ways of life by ‘advanced’ cultures in the name of ‘progress,’ thereby making it necessary to erase the achievements and very humanity of the conquered people. ‘Dehumanization, obliteration or appropriation of identity, political subordination and material colonization are all elements of a common process of imperialism,’ he says. ‘The meaning of Hollywood’s stereotyping of American Indians can be truly comprehended only against this backdrop’” (Common Portrayals of Aboriginal People n.d.). Due to the dehumanizing effect stereotypes have of the perception of natives by consumers of popular culture, there are few roles offered to Native Americans in media. The few roles out there are typically objectified extras, historical caricatures.

Natives make up around 2% of the American population but were only represented in less than 0.4% of characters in television and film (Leavitt 2015).  Considering these population statistics, “Native Americans experience ‘relative invisibility’ in the media. When they are included, they generally are portrayed as historical figures – individuals from the 18th and 19th centuries who wear buckskin, ride horses or live in teepees. When they are shown as modern people, they often are associated with addiction, poverty and a lack of formal education” (Leavitt 2015). “In the few television programs that Indigenous people are shown in, it is usually in a negative light, and they are presented in a scenario as the victim”… or as a token in a specialized role (Garetto 2013). Native characters are generally objectified into stereotypes and used as a plot device, as an “allegorical tool for any oppressed people” the author may want to reference metaphorically in their story (Reel Injun 2009).

The three most common of these stereotypes of Natives typically seen in media are the Indian Princess, the Native Warrior and the Noble Savage:

• “The Indian Princess is the Native beauty who is sympathetic enough to the white man’s quest to be lured away from her group to marry into his culture and further his mission to civilize her people…. The (first) nations of this country never had a concept of royalty. We do not have kings, queens or princesses.” (unless you mistakenly count powwow princesses, which is more a non-political contest like a beauty queen) …

• The Native Warrior is fierce and formidable and a threat to civilized society. Bare-chested and brandishing a war lance, this warrior is the epitome of the savagery that must be courageously overcome by “progressive elements” pushing West…

• The mythic Noble Savage... Elevated to a sphere of goodness unreachable by those in contaminated White society and usually possessing some spiritual connection to the land… the Noble Savage communes in a cloud of mysticism and places no value on material possessions.” (Common Portrayals of Aboriginal People n.d.)

Recognizing these stereotypes as caricatures is the first step to improving how Natives are portrayed in media. Yet, “most destructive to the image of Aboriginal people is the lack of character and personality afforded them by the media. Aboriginal people are almost always cast in supporting roles or relegated to the background, and are rarely allowed to speak or display their complexity and richness as human beings. Whatever character they do have, tends to reveal itself only in terms of their interactions with White people. Rarely is an Aboriginal portrayed as having personal strengths and weaknesses, or shown acting on his or her own values and judgements” (Common Portrayals of Aboriginal People n.d.).  This rule of thumb is quite similar to the guidelines set by the Bechdel test for interpreting the roles of female characters in media.

However, as underrepresented as women are in film statistically, there may be a greater social problem of cultural misalignment with how minority groups like Native Americans are portrayed in media. Often “artistic license is liberally applied in portraying dress, customs, livelihoods and spiritual beliefs and ceremonies. This reduction of cultural heritage and diversity (which most audiences do not even notice) is seen by critics as both a symptom of the problem (not taking Aboriginal people seriously) and an unconscious yet systematic way of perpetuating erroneous stereotypes.” (Common Portrayals of Aboriginal People n.d.)

So in analyzing the following two television shows, I have considered the above points related to the portrayal of Natives in media. These points relate to common stereotypes, misuse of cultural dress, statistically low casting in major roles (often going to poorly painted, non-native actors), the socialized justification of genocide, and eminent domain as a symptom of the “divine right” of colonization. These things are considered in the context of media’s use of revisionist history myths that glamorize the genocide of western expansion and missionaries’ systematic destruction of first nations’ faiths and cultures. 

First, let’s discuss how two different television shows that portrayed natives with more respect paid to the modern native experience.  The episodes I chose seemed to have less objectified native characters than what you usually find in 20^th century media like westerns, a genre well discussed by the documentary Reel Injun (2009).

The comedy Roseanne featured Oneida tribe member and groundbreaking native standup comic, Charlie Hill who played her son’s history teacher in the episode. The class puts on a Thanksgiving play but does not follow the traditionally accepted version of the story. In the kid’s play, the puritans are invited to dinner where they pull out guns and shoot down their native hosts. Roseanne and her family applaud the play’s storyline but the other parents are stunned by what they call “revisionist tripe,” and “violent propaganda” on a holiday they believe is about discovery. Hill replies with, “How could someone else discover America if my people already lived here? That’s like me going outside and discovering someone else’s porch” (Sydner 1995).

Roseanne’s family invite Charlie’s family to Thanksgiving, where he tells them more about the first Thanksgiving. Natives “fed them, taught them how to survive…but they stopped listening because we didn’t agree about how man and woman should be” (Sydner 1995). The Caucasian actors all portray Pilgrims in the flashback sequence where they make jokes about real beliefs held by puritanical society such as sex for procreation only, self-flagellation for religious penance, segregation of genders during public meals, etc. They talk about turning the natives into servants and caddies, and taking their land to create golf courses. Charlie Hills calls the puritans “brothers from faraway lands that call themselves ‘saints’” (Sydner 1995). The dismissive judgement of native culture by missionaries acted as a catalyst for genocide on this continent even prior to the arrival of English speaking colonists, including the military force of Desoto’s soldiers and priests. Religious intolerance has been presented as a weak excuse for genocide for centuries and this is alluded to in this show’s jokes.

We find this episode of Roseanne satirizes the very serious problems stemming from the perpetuation of the savage warrior stereotype, who must be killed, assimilated, or converted by the colonists according to the precedent propagated by media archetypes. The myths surrounding the American holiday suggest that natives are now extinct, but were then happy to become an occupied territory.  However, the aftermath of that first Thanksgiving included the systematic land grab known as eminent domain and the attempted genocide of aboriginal, first nations people who were native to this continent. Roseanne addressed these issues in a comical way, and hired all native actors and actresses to perform in this episode. Quite impressive is the use of comedian Charlie Hill, for his first person voice as a native, but also to remind the audience of the rarity of a native comedian on American network television (Hill was the first, appearing on Richard Pryor’s show in 1977). However, Canada networks have made significantly more progress in how natives are portrayed in media as we will cover next.

Continuing this analysis of aboriginal representation in media chronologically through the lens of the Native American experience post-colonization, we now discuss an episode of the Canadian television show Murdoch Mysteries which is set in 1897, Victorian-era Toronto. Native tracker, Jimmy McCloud is brought into the constable’s investigation of several deaths that appear to be wolf attacks. 

  

The dying man tells his true name to Jimmy in his native tongue. When Murdoch asks what he said, Jimmy tells them the man’s name was Wolf and he was of the Chippewa tribe. This simple statement honors the humanity of the native, giving him a name and region instead of simply objectifying his character as a minority token character.

At the end of the show, it is summarized that the killer shaman’s “wolf motif allowed him to reclaim his identity and terrify his enemies” (Aitken 2009). This romanticized use of the mystical warrior character makes for exciting stories but it can be an impossibly high bar for native youth looking for role models to relate to.

Through the narrative we learn this native character would like to become a policeman but is excluded due to his race. He says “I lived with my grandfather till age 10, then I got taken away to a residential school.... They tried to beat the Indian out of me at school. They should have beat the color off me too. It’ll be a long time before someone like me wears that uniform” (Aitken 2009). Even though he is sharp and better trained than some of the white officers, he is not allowed to be hired and is relegated to work in the stables. The subtle way the writer of this episode slipped in a commentary on the historically true, wide-spread beatings of natives in missionary run, government funded residential schools is a positive use of media that helps modern people contextualize the struggle to be native in a country that penalizes those of other faiths, or those who speak other languages.

As the mystery unravels, the coroner and detective find clues that the wolf is a man with a machine, instead of a beast or wendigo as suspected. A near victim confesses to the detective that he and the other victims accidentally shot their native guide and left him for dead during a hunting trip. “Our guide, an Indian, I don’t know his name… he didn’t exactly die, but he was going to” (Aitken 2009). This statement is a huge metaphor for the way that natives are often treated by media.  The accomplice to a shooting has de-humanized this guide due to his race, different language and customs. They do not know his tribe, probably didn’t ask his name and didn’t consider notifying the family of his accident. Instead they abandon a dying man cruelly in the lonely forest, without remorse. They assume he has expired, become extinct. However, the native guide did not die and has come to the city to take vengeance on the hunting party one by one.

They learn the native guide who survived being shot was once a well-respected medicine man, who was later forced by colonialism to be employed as a hunting guide for graceless racists who almost murdered him. “He might be a shaman, we had one in our village and when he danced he wore the head and skin of a wolf… Missionaries put an end to the shamans, now we have doctors and good lord Jesus” (Aitken 2009), says Jimmy before he tracks the killer to the sewer tunnels. The police find the murder weapon, a bear trap like device affixed with machined wolf teeth. The killer runs headlong into the group dressed in the shamanic disguise of the wolf. He ignores commands spoken in English and is shot down by the Inspector.

The dying man tells his true name to Jimmy in his native tongue. When Murdoch asks what he said, Jimmy tells them the man’s name was Wolf and he was of the Chippewa tribe. This simple statement honors the humanity of the native, giving him a name and region instead of simply objectifying his character as a minority token character.

At the end of the show, it is summarized that the killer shaman’s “wolf motif allowed him to reclaim his identity and terrify his enemies” (Aitken 2009). This romanticized use of the avenginff mystical warrior character makes for exciting stories but it can be an impossibly high bar for native youth looking for role models to relate to.

“Inaccurate and negative media depictions have psychological consequences. For example, exposure to common media portrayals has been shown to have a harmful impact on Native American high school students’ feelings about themselves, their community and their academic possibilities… Media depictions of Native Americans can influence how Native people see themselves. Some may be motivated to identify with representations, even if they are inaccurate” (Leavitt 2015) Imagine growing up in an era when everyone played cowboys and indians, only you can’t take off your racial profile like a costume and you always get chosen to identify as the indian in a story where the hero of the trope is predetermined by the formulaic stories, made popular in your society by movies and television shows. If you are a native kid, “does that mean you are just gonna lose every time?” (Reel Injun 2009). This negative impact on the self-esteem of natives has serious implications for our society.

Although occupied by foreign oppressors, native people are not extinct in North America. It is not too late for media to evolve and offer better roles for native actors in modern contexts. “We ought to challenge the media and treat Aboriginal culture as something that is continually evolving like our western culture, rather than a dead way of life” (Garetto 2013).

In development of new media, perhaps we can undo some of the damage done by media created during older eras. As content creators we must tell stories that show natives are human beings, included in storylines as modern regular people. Let reality inform your storylines and utilize native voices. Media can improve its track record by “disseminating more information about the Aboriginal reality, improving the training of communicators, involving Aboriginals in change processes, and using international media to affect local affairs” (Common Portrayals of Aboriginal People n.d.). 

If instead we “assume that … the constructed notion of Aboriginalism (where) Aboriginal people are portrayed as primitive and exotic, is in fact truth. The identity of Aboriginal people will become a thing of the past.
Indigenous culture is still evolving and will continue to evolve in the future, whether or not we choose to embrace this change and encourage it will depend on whether or not we are prepared to challenge the way the media represents individuals” (Garetto 2013).

WORKS CITED

Aitken, Paul. "Werewolves." Murdoch Mysteries (S2 E12). Citytv. Toronto, Canada, 20 May 2009. Netflix. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

Berger, Arthur Asa. Media Analysis Techniques. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2014. Print.

"Common Portrayals of Aboriginal People." Media Smarts. Canada’s Centre for Digital and Media Literacy, n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2016. <http://mediasmarts.ca/diversity-media/aboriginal-people/common-portrayals-aboriginal-people>

Garetto, Joanna. "How TV Makes Us Think All Indigenous People Are the Same." Larrikin Post. N.p., 25 Aug. 2013. Web. 01 Dec. 2016. 
 

                                                                                                                           

Qureshi, Farah. "Native Americans: Negative Impacts of Media Portrayals, Stereotypes." Journalist's Resource. Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center, 10 Feb. 2016. Web. 01 Dec. 2016. <http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/race-society/native-americans-media-stereotype-redskins>

Reel Injun. Dir. Neil Diamond. By Catherine Bainbridge. Rezolution Pictures / National Film Board of Canada, 2009. Film. Netflix. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

Sydner, Ritch. "Last Thursday in November." Roseanne, Collection (E22). ABC. Los Angeles, CA, 21 Nov. 1995. Netflix. Web. 24 Nov. 2016.