SOCIALIZATION AGENTS AND ACTIVrriESOF YOUNG ADOLESCENTS

Sara Amon, Shmuel Shamai, and Zinaida Ilatov

ABSTRACT

Research examined the relative importance of peer groups for young adoles-cents as compared with diverse adult socialization agents—family, school, andcommunity. The factors involved were teenagers' activities, preferences, feel-ings, and thoughts as to how they spend their leisure time, their preferencesfor help providers, and their sense of attachment to their community. Thesecomparisons were made with religious and non-rehgious youngsters, in bothrural and urban communities, and in gender subgroups. Questionnsdres wereadministered to teenagers at secondary schools in a northern peripheral regionof Israel. Findings showed the primary importance of peer groups and familyin leisure activities and support, and the secondary importemce of school andcommunity. No evidence was found of a sharp generation gap. Communitycould also be significant if its organizations accepted youth as a peer group,and not only individually, on an equal and cooperating basis.

INFLUENCE OF SOCIALIZATION AGENTS

ON LEISURE-TIME ACTIVITIES OF YOUNG ADOLESCENTS

The aim of this research was to examine the relative Importanceand impact of peer groups, family, school, and community on youngadolescents. The relative influence of these socialization agents weredemonstrated mainly by the activities, preferences, feelings, andthoughts ofthe teenagers concerning the way they spend their leisuretime, their preferences for help providers, eind the sense of attachmentto their community. This study examined "normative" adolescents, incontrast to many studies that deal with problematic behaviors andtheir prevention. It focuses on three elements of the youngsters' cul-tural background which are considered important explanatory factorsof their subculture: gender, level of religiosity, and nature of their

Sara Amon, Tel-Hai Academic College, P.O.B. Upper Galilee, 12110, Is-rael & (Jolan Research Institute, University of Haifa, Israel, 12900. E-mail:amonse@mgamla.co.il

Zinaida Ilatov, Golan Research Institute, University of Haifa.Reprint requests to Shmuel Shamai, Tel-Hai Academic College, P.O.B. Up-

per Galilee, 12110, Israel. E-mail: shamai@rsearch.haifa.ac.il

ADOLESCENCE, Vol. 43, No. 170, Summer 2008Libra Publishers, Inc., 3089C Clairemont Dr., PMB 383, San Diego, CA 92117

community. Participants (7th- 9th-grade adolescents) living on the Gk)-lan Heights, a peripheral area in the north of Israel.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The process of the separating from childhood dependencies and par-ents, and moving on to a wider social miheu with extra-famihal rela-tionships is generally considered a crucial developmental stage whichthe adolescent must pass through in order to achieve maturity (Roh-erts, 1985; Coleman, 1992). Western research has found that youthspend much less time with the family, which may reflect individualisticrather than coUectivistic values with greater value placed on individu-alism rather than family (Larson & Verma, 1999). This distancing ofyouth is also from teachers and other significant adults and from offi-cial institutions (such as school and organized leisure institutions).The increasing importance of the peer group makes it an effectivesociahzation agent, which may encourage idle activity that is nega-tively correlated with adolescents' school achievement and positivelywith higher rates of delinquency and anti-social behavior (Coleman,1989,1992; Larson & Vema, 1999). Group Socialization theory assertsthat it is not the home hut the peer environment that has lastingeffects on adolescents' psychological characteristics when they hecomeadults. Self-categorization processes of assimilation and differentiationtend to make adolescents more similar to each other within peer groupsand less similar to adults (Harris, 1995). The gap leads to intergenra-tional conflict. Adolescents threaten the authority of parents, educa-tors, and traditional institutions. According to social control theory(Hirschi, 1969), the detachment of young persons from parents andcommunity institutions of conventional society weaken social controlover them. In its moderate mode the conflict is a "generation gap" andin its extreme mode it is a "generation war." On the other hand, froma positive point of view, a degree of separateness from parents andother adults is essential for establishing independence; generally it isnormal and moderate (Chen & Farruggia, 2002; Coleman, 1989;Hendry et al., 1993).

Peer groups act as a source of behavioral standards, particularlywhere parental influence is weak. Acceptance hy peers is perceived asimportant especially by young adolescents, with conformity to thegroup the price that has to he paid. It is sustained by peer pressurewhich transmits group norms and fosters loyalty to the group (Hendryet al., 1993).

374

Leisure and Free Time of Young AdolescentsLeisure is a central sphere of life, descrihed by Roberts (1985) as

intrinsically satisfying experiences tbat individuals derive from recre-ation during their free time. Free time and leisure activities are majorfacets of adolescents' lives. In developing and postindustrial societies,it is schoolwork that most clearly replaces household and paid labor inyouths' time use. Tbe amount of time spent on schoolwork is inverselyrelated to the amount of time devoted to nearly every other activity,particularly leisure activities (Larson & Verma, 1999; Zeijl et al.,2001).

Adolescents' free time activities are not just a source of intrinsicallysatisfying fun experiences, but also an important part of their socializa-tion process. They give adolescents tbe opportunity to experience tbeirimmediate social environment. Leisure activities also construct andmanifest tbeir own youtb cultures. Tbe freedom adolescents have fortheir leisure activities enables them to socialize outside the family, toestablisb independence from adults, to practice tbe skills required forentering conventional adult roles, to develop tbeir future adult identi-ties, to express tbeir own interests, and to build tbeir own cultureswitb tbeir peer groups. Tbese activities also reveal tbe possible conflictbetween adolescents' need for self-identity and skill development andthe constraints of roles, expectations, cultural norms and values ofadult socialization agents. As a result, leisure activities are an im-portant and appropriate source for comparing tbe relative place andinfluence of peer groups as socialization agents witb tbose of adultagents (Coleman, 1988; Hendry, 1989; Hendry et al., 1993; Larson &Verma, 1999; Lefstein, 1982; Medricb, 1982; Roberts, 1985; Zeijl etal., 2001).

But evidence from various Western countries sbows a decline in tberate young people participate or sbow interest in traditional youtborganizations. Altbougb in general, young people respect boundariesto use of leisure time, researcb shows tbat tbey prefer alternative andindependent ways, especially with peers, over activities tbat are orga-nized for tbem by adults. Tbe more peer-oriented adolescents sbowless interest in formal groups and achievement; tbey tend to spendmore of tbeir time "hanging out" and have less involved parents. Ado-lescents spend a lot of time in public areas witb their peers. The street,bus shelters, and malls serve as meeting places for experimentation;tbey are locations for self-display, observation, and development ofgroup solidarity—away from parental supervision (especially boys).Conversing is one of their main activities wben banging out.

375

By their attitudes to leisure, young adolescents can be divided intothree types: a very small minority that is heavily committed to inten-sive organized after-school activities; a small group that does not par-ticipate in organized activities; and the majority who participateregularly but not intensively in organized activities (Hendry et al.1993). A study of 11- and 12-year-old youngsters in Oakland demon-strated the small amount of time they spent in organized activities:TV 3-4 hours a day), "on their own" (or with friends, 2-3 hours a day),with parents (1.5 hours a day), job and chores in and out of the home(1 hour a day), functions supervised by adults (1-2 meetings a week)(Medrich, 1982). Youngsters (aged 10-15) are characterized by theirhigh energy, striving for self-definition, and a need to prove personalcompetence in a variety of areas.

COMMUNITY AS A SOCIALIZATION AGENT AND ADOLESCENTS' ATTACHMENT

We maintain that community is not just a part of the general sur-roundings that provide teenagers with formal and informal social ser-vices, but one of their most important socialization agents. Theinstitutions of community in modem society, especially schools, haveassumed an important psirt of parents' roles (Coleman, 1961; Hurrel-man, 1989). Although in the past three decades "community" and "so-cial capital" have emerged as two of the most salient concepts in thesocial sciences, they do not enjoy special interest in research on adoles-cents, just as adolescence is almost absent from general communityresearch and discussion.

Despite changes and enlargement of community definition in theglobal era (e.g., internet communities, virtual communities), its basicdefinition—as a significant common place of living, and as a mediatingsocial structure between individuals and the forces of the larger so-ciety—endures (Chekki, 1990; Delanty, 2003; Lyon, 1989). The classicdefinition of commimity has three main dimensions: a locality or terri-tory; a social system and structure with economic, political, cultural,and social institutions, functions and interactions; social relations andsymbols which provide feelings of solidarity, cohesion, trust, unity,security, identity and significance (Chekki, 1990; Clark, 1973; Hillery,1955; Lyon, 1989; Turner & Dolch, 1996). But community can also bea source of feelings of alienation and social pressure which can harmthe personal autonomy of individuals and minorities (Bender, 1978;Levin, 1980). Social capital is the central component in communitybuilding; it is a quality created between people, which consists of three

376

elements: social networks; trust among people, community institutionsand community leaders; and norms of reciprocity which enhance soli-darity and civic engagement. Generally social capital strengthens theindividuals and the community as a whole, but it can also have nega-tive consequences when it is channeled toward anti-social goals (Burt,1997; Coleman, 1988; Lin, 1999). Putnam (2000) argues that socialcapital makes better communities for bringing up children, providingbetter schools, and reducing crime.

Hirsch (2005) conducted a study over a four-year period at six Boys &Girls Clubs all located in low income, predominantly minority, urbanneighborhoods. Hirsch showed that the culture of the after-school cen-ter meets the needs of urban youth by drawing upon and replicatingpositive features of the youth's familial environment and peer group.These club environments are repeatedly referred to as a "second home"by participating youth and seem to thrive even though formal psycho-educational programs often fail to reach their full potential.

In adolescence the social world is widening, and young people seetheir community as representative of the whole society. Significantrelationships with adults occur in structured community organiza-tions: schools and sports club. Community leaders and other adultsserve as moral, societal, and occupational role models. They also pro-vide new role opportunities including volunteering that contributes tothe "public good." (Cotterell, 1995).

An important aspect of community is the "sense of place" or "placeattachment" it provides. Sense of place is defined by Datel and Dinge-mans (1984, p. 135) as "the complex bundle of meaning, symbols, andqualities that a person or group associates (consciously and uncon-sciously) with a particular locality or region." It is a social phenomenon(Canter, 1977; Eisenhauer et al., 2000). Social ties are related to ageographical unit (Lidskog, 1996); Israeli studies found that culturaland social factors are related to that sense of place (e.g., it was foundthat a rural population had a higher sense of place than did an urbanpopulation (Shamai, 1986; Shamai & Kellerman, 1985; Shamai & Kel-lerman, 1985; Shamai & Ilatov, 2005). Feelings for places vary andmay be negative (Amon, 2001; Piveteau, 1969; Relph, 1976; Shamai &Kellerman, 1985; Shamai, 1991). Some studies have suggested a rank-ing procedure for this phenomenon. Different scales have measuredthe intensity of sense of place, ranging from a dichotomous scale ("yes"or "no") (Gold, 1980) to a scale of 11 ranks, from negative through"placelessness" to positive feeUngs of place (Shamai & Amon, 2005;Shamai & Ilatov, 2005).

377

Young adolescents begin to explore their own neighborhood as wellas more distant areas. In a highly supportive socialization environ-ment the child learns to be effective in that environment. Accordingly,it is most important to know how the community treats its adolescents(Thomas et al., 1974).

Background Variables: Gender, Type of Residence, ReligiosityCulture influences adolescents' physical, cognitive, and socioemo-

tional development and their behaviors. Adolescents in different cul-tures spend different amounts of time with their peers, andconsequently peer influence tends to vary (Chen & Farruggia, 2002).Sociological theories of adolescence posit that there is no one youthculture but different youth cultures. Youth of different ages, gender,race, and place of residence, and mainly of different social classes,are exposed to different opportunities, contradictions, and inequalities,learn different skills and values and are exposed to different free-timeactivities (Larson & Verma, 1999; Roberts, 1985; Zeijl et al., 2000).Leisure patterns of adolescents reproduce conventional gender, class,and environment life-style differences and opportunities (Cotterell,1995; Roberts, 1985). The present research uses gender, t5^e of resi-dential community, and school religiosity as explanatory factors forthe different adolescent characteristics.

Early adolescents tend to spend much of their free time with peergroups of their own gender. Boys are relatively more privileged thangirls in their use of leisure. They have more freedom to stay out lateand, as in the adult world, public areas are seen to be more suitablefor them than for girls (Larson & Verma, 1999). Girls tend to socializewith peers and pursue casual leisure activities earlier than do boys,but generally they have less access to public areas, and tend to usetheir homes as the base for their free-time activities (Hendry et al.,1993).

Traditional societies allow their youth less freedom, supervise theirfree-time activities more, and prefer institutionalized frameworks likeschools that promote knowledge and human capital development thatbeneflt both the individual youngster and society at large (Larson &Verma, 1999). A study among adolescents aged 15-18 years from ruraland urban areas found that boys and rural adolescents in general hadsmaller and less diverse networks and asked help from parents morefrequently than did girls and virban adolescents. Another study exam-ined the social world and the important people in the lives of 15-16-year old (9th grade) boys and girls from both town and country and

378

found that girls has stronger sociability and higher levels of maturity,while the town-dwellers had smaller networks (Bo, 1989).

Religiosity is a manifestation of conforming and of internalized tradi-tional hehaviors and attitudes. Female adolescents tend to he moreconforming to cultiiral norms, especially religious than are males(Thomas et al., 1974). Usually a strong religious or ethical code is usedas a rationale for avoiding conflict.

Until the 1970s a coUectivistic ethos of "youth in service of society"dominated Israeli Jewish life. It was associated with the central placeof familial, communal, and social authorities and values, and the con-formist nature of Israeli adolescents. It was also characterized hy a far-reaching and centralized adult-supervised informal education, whichincluded political-ideological youth movements. Until recently, youthmovements in Israel have heen powerful as a socialization institutionwhich cultivated an autonomous youth culture. They were perceivedas a central social and political social agent, an educational, ideologi-cal, task-oriented framework that served the purpose of conve3ring na-tional goals. This trend gradually eroded, and a new individualisticWestern ethos of "youth in the service of youth" emerged, with hetero-geneous youth suhcultures. Youth movements in Israel represent aspecial model of organization which operates hetween a formal orga-nized institution for adolescents and one that is informal and self-directed. Today they serve as a supervised framework for leisure andrecreation (Rapoport et al., 1995). In a typical Israeli youth movementtoday, young adolescents meet with their peers of the same age ingroups under the guidance of two adolescents, usually two years olderthan they, in their own place in the community. A young person super-vises the activities of all the groups, and a regional committee of adultsmanages all activities which include social games and sports, discus-sion of issues, fleld activities, and camps during vacations (Shulman,1992). A survey hy the Brookdale Institute (1994) showed that 25% of6th-11th graders were memhers of a youth movement or a youth cluh,'and that the rate decreased with age. The exception is religious Zionistyouth who maintain the previous trend and the institution still servesas a national and political religious youth movement (Ichilov, 1992;Lamm, 1999; Rapoport, 1989; Rapoport et al., 1995; Shapira et al.,i980).

Lamm (1999) claims that an ideological and actual polarization ex-ists, a deep disagreement and lack of dialogue hetween Jewish secularadolescents and religious Zionist adolescents. The leisure pattems ofthese two groups are quite different: The religious families and commu-nities supervise their adolescents more strictly and prefer them to

379

spend their free time at home or in activities organized by adults (El-boim, 1987). Sivan (1984) found that students at religious schools pre-ferred to spend their free time in activities that provided generalknowledge, while students at secular schools preferred pleasure activi-ties. A survey of 100 boys and girls in grades 9 to 12 at a religious anda secular school in Israel revealed that in both groups leisure time wasfirst for pleasure activities and then as an expression of the adoles-cents' need for autonomy and for meeting socially with peers. But morereligious than secular students saw leisure time as an opportunity tocontribute to society by helping others; they spent more time in youthmovements. On the other hand, more secular than religious studentsdeflned leisure time as an opportunity to meet youngsters of the othergender and spent more time hanging around in pubs and discos, andusing mass media (Yogev, 2005).

The Golan Region YouthThis study was conducted in the Golan Heights region. There is

one town, Katzrin, with about 7,000 people, which is run as a localmunicipality. About 20% of its citizens are religious with about 25%new immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Thirty-two rural settle-ments, with a total population of about 25% new immigrants fromthe former Soviet Union. Thirty-two rural settlements, with a totalpopulation of about 14,000, belong to the "Golan Regional Council."These are small communities with 30 to 200 households each. Two-thirds of them are non-religious settlements and the rest £ire religious.Most of the children study in the Golan area at religious or non-reli-gious schools. At elementary religious schools boys and girls are inseparate classes, and religious high schools are separate for boys andgirls. Most of the settlements cultivate a rich cultural life on theirown and through community centers. Katzrin has its own communitycenter, while the Golan settlements attend three regional communitycenters (in the north and south, which cater mainly to a secular audi-ence, with one in the center catering to the religious groups). Thecommimity centers offer many activities for children and adults. Youthare of particular interest for the community centers, and they are of-fered sports, music, and other courses. Youth groups hold their meet-ings there, and special activities such as summer camps and trips areheld under the supervision of a guide, usually someone a few yearsolder than the teenagers. The community center operates after schoolhours; participation is voluntary and usually payment is required.

380

METHOD

The sample included 526 Jewish residents from the Golan Heightsregion, who was horn in Israel. Both girls and hoys in grades 7 to 9 (M= 13.9 years, SD = 0.9) studied at religious or secular schools andlived in various rural settlements ofthe Golan Region or in the townof Katzrin. Our msdn consideration was to assemhle a sample that washomogeneous in many aspects (age, living area, regional organizations,and leisure opportunities) in order to compare teenagers' cultural suh-groups hy community type, religiosity of school, and gender (see Ta-hle 1).

A questionnaire consisting mainly of closed questions, was adminis-tered in class at the schools. Questions were of Likert or yes/no typeand included four kinds of variahles representing the impact of social-ization agents. Data reflected the youths' suhjective assessment of howthey "usually" hehaved.

The Background variables represent suhgroups of the adolescents,which may explain the differences among the impacts of socializationagents: 1) Gender (G); 2) Rehgiosity of school (RS), which reflects ado-

Table 1. Sample distribution: community type, religiosity of school, and gender

Religiosity

of school.

Religious

Secular

Total

Percentages

Gender

Boys

Girls

Total

Boys

Girls

Total

Boys

Girls

Total

Community type

Rural settlement

89

97

186

91

102

193

180

199

379

(48%)

(52%)

90%

(47%)

(53%)

60.5%

(47%)

(53%)

72%

Urban settlemoit

10

11

21

57

69

126

67

80

147

(48%)

(52%)

10%

(45%)

(55%)

39.5%

(46%)

(54%)

28%

% in parentheses were calculated in each cell

% in bold were calculated in row

% in underlined bold were calculated in their colunu

Total

99

108

207

148

171

319

247

279

526

(48%)

(52%)

39%

(46%)

(54%)

61%

(47%)

(53%)

100%

381

lescents' religious or non-religious way of life; 3) Community type (CT),with Katzrin representing a small urban community or the small ruralcommunities of the region.

Impact of socialization agents. This was measured by respondents'preferences regarding leisure activities after school (1-5), satisfactionwith the leisure opportunities (1-10), those from whom they preferredto seek advice or help (0/1), and a sense of attachment to communityof residence (-5-+5).

Free-time variables included an obligatory instrumental "work" fac-tor (homework) and free-choice non-instrumental leisure activities(seeing friends, participating in community center activities, and vol-unteering for the community) each with different companions (family,peers, community).

Data were analyzed conceming each socialization agent:• Family. Spending time with family members, satisfaction with the

possibilities for leisure time offered by the family, seeking help fromfamily members.

• Peer group. Seeing friends; asking for their help.• School. Doing homework in free time, going to school in the after-

noon free time to take part in recreation and social activities, andsatisfaction with these activities, seeking help from a teacher.

• Community. Taking part in community activities or courses, satis-faction with these activities, involvement in volunteering for publicbenefit (e.g., medical services, fire brigade), sense of attachment tocommunity.

• Youth movement. Participation in youth activities, asking help fromyouth movement leaders.Each question was analyzed by GLM Univariate statistical proce-

diire (using SPSS) to determine average differences between teenagers'subgroups according to community type, religiosity of school, and gen-der, and their interactions. In binary questions (coded 0 = no, 1 = yes)the mean denotes the proportion of positive answers.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the relative infiuence of socialization agents—family,school, community, and peers—on young adolescents?

2. Can community be considered a socialization agent of young ado-lescents, and if so, what role does it play in their lives?

3. What is the place of peer groups in the lives of young adolescentscompared with adtdt socialization agents?

382

4. What is the influence of gender, religiosity, and community typesin adolescents' attitudes toward their social agents?

FINDINGS

Impact of Socialization Agents on Teenagers Leisure ActivitiesThe following describe what the teenagers did with their free time

after school, their satisfaction with these activities, and the connectionof these activities with socialization agents.

Amount of teenagers' free time for leisure activities after school. Withregard to the statement: "Studies leave me a lot of time for leisureactivities," teenagers generally expressed a perception of having amoderate amount of free time (M = 3.02, SD = 1.22, on a 5-point scale:(1 = never to 5 = always). Overall F test by GLM Univariate analysiswas found signiflcant {F 7,492 = 2.6, p = 0.012), but only the two mainfactors of community type and religiosity of school explained part ofthe differences between adolescents. Those from rural communitiesfelt they had more free time (average = 3.10) than did adolescentsfrom the small urban community (2.79), and adolescents from non-religious schools said they had more free time (3.07) than did thosefrom religious schools (2.93). No significant differences were found be-tween boys and girls or interaction groups.

Preferred free-time activities. The young adolescents were asked howoften tbey participated in six activities in their free time after school(1 = never to 5 = always). Tables 2A and 2B show the results ofUnivariate analysis of the six activities, explained by the students'background variables— t̂ype of community, religiosity of school, andgender—and their interactions. It also shows the average answersgiven by all the adolescents (total average) and by the Various sub-groups.

Total average intensity reveals the impact of the various socializa-tion agents on the yoimg adolescents' free-time activities in the follow-ing descending order: peer groups, family, school, and community. Theactivities can be divided into three pairs, according to their total aver-age intensity: (1) The first pair occupied half or more of their free time;they spent most of their free time in a non-institutional and non-formalway, with their peers (average = 3.33), with family (3.02). (2) On aver-age the youngsters devoted less than half of their free time to thesecond pair of activities: doing homework (2.30), which represents theimpact of scbool as a socialization agent, and going to a youth move-ment function (2.09), which can be seen as an area between peer groupand community influence. (3) The last pair, and tbe least popular activ-

383

.2

rel

a

nity

sEE

by C

O

.a|IAI

US30)

ree-

ti

o

uB

C3

XB

tera

ci

B

hei

•oB03

ende

i

DC-oB03

"oO

JS

esB

Is039>

fniv

ai

; - ; >

h-lO

•X

a

e

[Ctio

i

2*iB

'"̂

^B03

ta

O

B

«

u

w

HU

Q,

ta

mm

soci

al ag

E .b

Free

ti

activ

i

-n

d

d

d

ood

i n

d

O

do

rou

peer

g1 G

oing

ab(

|with

frie

n

0 0

d

rood

0 0

od

OS

d

od

ro<sodo

fam

ilyw

ith f

ami

m

d

d

oo--<d

ood

1-HO

d

ooodCO

i n

scho

olho

mew

or

asod

0 0^ -

d

ood

od

rood

oood

inoo

-t-^ CL

ii

com

mpe

er g

4—*

yout

hm

ovem

en

od

od

rood

od

d

oood

i n

'""'̂

7.2

>^

uni

com

m

C/5

1 com

mun

ice

nter

coi

od

CN

d

d

od

O N

d

oo .d

i n

>>

uni

com

min

gvo

lunt

eer

ea>O

1

o3

o

lon-

rel

1

igic

1 (r

el

oor- "s

cl

o

|ISO

;ligi

di

a

ant t

est

i' t

ype

(ri

on p'c7 =

* In

bol

d::

CT-

Com

384

ooJB

| . 2I -5S 2

1D C * -

l lz: atu DC« -o« cE «

0£2

ctio

ns

PI

O

OHU

^'

1

2

U

s

snoL-U(

3O

Rel

igi

cipa

lc

ral

3

o

girl

00

boy

1

'ob

2

1JO

ao

o1

1 "̂

re 0

c ^E •"

rura

l

"is • w •1 2• ' , «

BO

Mai

nso

cial

izat

iag

ent

tim

evi

tyFr

ee act

o<ri

rn

r-om

p!

peer

gro

upib

out

ends

Goi

ng i

wit

h fr

i

3.06

.̂rn

2.96

—

(N'

CNItNm

2.94

o •

fam

ily

mil

yw

ith

fa

VO

ofS

—..j

VOJtNl

OO

omtN

scho

olor

kho

mew

(NtN

rnOS

00oo

tN

tN

rnr-f —

2.23

OSOtN

Q.

Com

mun

it+

peer

gro

ent

yout

hm

ovem

1.58

2.1

o<n

m

1.54

OS(N

1.56

OS

00t̂

38 1

1.84

com

mun

it.

nity

cour

seco

mm

uce

nter

1.40

vo

>o00

00

m

tN

—

54.

com

mun

it;

erin

gvo

lunt

e

TJ

aye

o.oo

lem

are

di

nt

(U

nces

1

b .b

5 w

ith

sign

ier

age

is u

nav

era:

ighe

st*

Onl

yT

heh

lder

O1

o

igio

L

o"§

;iou

scho

ol (

re

>+-o• > ,

ohi'

-Rel

iof

n),

to

-1

to

ty ty

pe (

rur

c

lom

mu

V

385

ities, on which teenagers spent a very small part of their free timewas community center courses (1.66) and volunteering activities (1.54).This suggests that formal activities organized by adults had only aslight impact on the teenagers' free-time activities.

According to Univariate overall tests, all activities were significantlyexplained by community type, school religiosity, and gender. Religios-ity of school had the most impact on five of the six free-time activities(except spending time with family). Community type was the secondstrongest factor. Only gender explained participation in youth move-ment and community center activities, and was a source of the differ-ence in interaction with community type and school religiosity.Interaction among all the explaining variables (CT*RS*G) was notfound to be significant.

By examining the means ofthe free-time activities we can determinewhich subgroup of the three explanatory variables was significantlyhigher or lower as to preferences for each activity. The general rankorder of the activities, and the socialization agents they represent,were identical for all subgroups, as indicated above, but the averagedifferences between them were not in one direction. The impact ofpeers, schools, and community center courses was significantly higherfor the activities of non-religious students than for religious studentsspending time with peers (average 3.50 vs. 3.07), doing homework (2.46vs. 2.06), and participating in community center courses (1.84 vs. 1.38).On the other hand, the role of community in free-time activity washigher for religious students than for non-religious students (2.24 vs.1.93), as it was with their contribution to community by volunteerwork (1.72 vs. 1.43), especially religious girls (1.85). Teenagers wholived in Katzrin spent more time with their families (3.22 vs. 2.94),especially boys (3.41 vs. 2.91). Also, the impact of school was higherfor homework as a free-time activity (2.6) vs. 2.18). Rural teenagers incontrast, scored higher in communitj^s youth movement activity (2.23vs. 1.73). Adolescent girls participated more than boys in the morestructured peer-group free-time activity of youth movement, arrangedby community (2.24 vs. 1.93). Adolescent boys scored higher than girlsin structured activities of community center courses (1.78 vs. 1.55),especially urban boys (2.29) and boys from non-religious schools (2.14).

Satisfaction with leisure-time opportunities. The Golan teenagerswere also asked about their satisfaction with the leisure-time opportu-nities arranged by four central adult socialization agents. Their an-swers were scored on a scale of 1 (not satisfied at all) to 10 (very muchsatisfied). (See Table 3.)

The mean total score in Table 3 indicates that family was the mostsatisfying provider of leisure opportunities (average = 7.34); those ar-

386

2

iIDXI

CM

O _JCM O<U O

EES

^ 1

<« 5

.0es

I.

•a

2>

i(̂

gni

w

•S 1?

^ £

o S

2s

UIB

OHU

HU

Tot

alA

ver

*

sis

anal

yia

t(

a

Mai

nti

onS

ati

soci

al-

ure

-le

iw

ith

c

Url

23

C

j o

u

-age

• eff

ec

oa

B

2'S.s

vera

llte

st

O

zati

ona

gen

tit

ies

1op

po

rl

00

boy

00

>^

,01) 5"u o

c _;O J>

'5) §

mun

i-ci

pal

1

*u

:T*R

S

HU

D.

•o

ovo

O

<^

001

(-1

r~

-o

o

0.00

oo

01

o

fN

'F

fam

ily

x>

Giv

en

rom

vo

r<S

p

4.7

so

06

0

oo

§o. •q-

00

ttlem

ent

mm

unit

y

o oen u

ities

ll

> .- >,

acti

dent

jnit

You

thin

res

i<co

mm

. -(^

o

OvfN

;q

oo

0.49

o

01

o

mm

unit

y

oo

ties

-̂ >

uni

acti

ICom

mce

nter

3.2

so

0.43

O

V,

oo.. o

<N

tool

CJ

C

c —8 S

Aft

emac

tivit

scho

ol

-ou

disp

laar

eee

nth

bet

ct

diff

erin

ed.

nt te

st (p

<(

ith s

igni

fra

ge i

s un

g ? a>

sign

ifer

ages

shes

t a

2 eg ' i -

• .«

.13

c

OO

ious

),el

ig

-uou/sr

gio^

reli

choo

l 1

O

ISO

ligi

, R-R

e

1

: (r

ural

/ ur

Q.

unit

y t

Fo

CT

-C

387

ranged by the settlement community were the second most satisfying,hut far hehind were family (4.68); community center (3.52), andschool (3.24).

Although the general Univariate model was significemt on all foursatisfaction questions, few significant differences were foimd hetweenthe satisfaction rates of the respondents' subgroups. The main sourceof difference was type of community and its interactions with religios-ity and gender. Young adolescents from rural communities were sig-nificantly more satisfied with the opportunities arranged hy theircommunity of residence than were their more urhan counterparts (av-erage 5.03 vs. 3.70), especially girls from rural communities (5.42).Religious teenagers from the rural community were the most satisfiedwith leisure opportunities given hy their families (7.81). Boys fromthe urhan Katzrin commimity were most satisfied with activities thecommvmity center offered (4.26), while rural hoys were the least satis-fied with these opportunities (2.92).

Teenagers' Sense of Place AttachmentTo evaluate the place of the community as a socialization agent in

the lives of the young adolescents, we examined their sense of attach-ment and belonging to their community by asking: "What kind of con-nection do you feel to your home settlement?" We used a response scalefrom —5 to +5, where - 5 denoted very negative connection, 0 denotedno sense of connection (indifference), and +5 denoted very positiveconnection. The results are shown in Tahle 4.

Of the young adolescents, 85.5% expressed a positive sense of connec-tion, (50% a very positive sense), 6.6% expressed no sense of connec-tion, and 7.6% expressed a negative sense. The mean total in Table 4(2.94) shows a moderately positive sense of attachment to the commu-nity of residence. Tahle 4 also indicates that sense of attachment tocommunity of residence was significantly explained by the overallmodel. It was explained hy type of community, and proved higheramong teenagers from rural rather than urhan community (3.26 vs.2.05); it was also explained hy the interaction hetween type of commu-nity and school religiosity: rural religious teenagers scored the highest(3.65) and urhan religious teenagers the lowest (1.84).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study confirm hasic arguments and findings con-cerning the socialization of young adults and the role that socialization

388

B

CS

cs

"a.

9>OX)CS

OD

2cs

Bcs

2cs

IsB

0*

cs

2

B

ract

ioIn

tela

in

«5

naly

sis

''

ea

ivar

iate

:

'a

O

T*R

S

U

H

f ef

fect

s

oa

.1

Urb

an

"2

HU

M)

vera

cs

1 In

tera

i1

Mai

n

M

im

it

u

o

ace

e[3Uiq

ttac

cs

1

• - 3a> o

1

c *1 £

:= 3v oa: -a

1

c ^

"23

a.*HU

CT

*RS

c«OS

HU

o.

bfa

00

CO

CO

000

0.41

000

ooo

—0 0

ence

luni

t

TD fc•« Pu o

-d(U

a.

•e di

saE<u

-4—>

c

es b

etw

ee

o

') It di

ffer

enlin

ed.

o ^ i»

V S §

t tes

t (f

th s

igr

leei

s

c -r £:(0 ^ (Uo >

1 1 -.M 2 J• • ^ w2 c«-^

* *

lder

O

6</)o'5)• ( j i l

co

1*5§

jity

of s

ch

o

, R

- R

elig

ii

CO

•€

rura

l/1

i

nitj

'1o

HU

389

agents play in this process. The main findings can be summarizedas follows:• No evidence of a generation gap between adolescents' peer groups

and adults, and definitely not their parents, appeared.• The most important socialization agents for young adolescents were

peer group and family, whereas school and community were sec-ondary.

• These findings lead to the conclusion that peers are a very importantsocialization agent of young adolescents. But they did not seem tohave a contradictory or exclusive influence on the lives of yoxmgadolescents in comparison with other adult socialization agents.They did not seem to have an exclusive "youth-centered" orientationor an opposition orientation to adults.

• Teenagers expressed complex attitudes toward school. They distin-guished between school as a formal institution and their teachersas its significant members. They evinced a negative attitude towardthe school institution.

• Community is a network of diverse connected institutions, people,and interactions. Young adolescents in this study showed diverseand non-uniform use of these community opportunities, and re-vealed different attitudes toward them. Community center, as acommunity institution, was less favored by the teenagers. The"youth movement" in the community of residence (supervised by thecommunity center) proved the most preferred community organiza-tion for youth leisure activities. The less institutionalized recreationactivities and events arranged directly by the community of resi-dence (e.g., festivals and trips) were shown to provide moderate sat-isfaction.

• The variables that had an infiuence on the issues dealt with in thisstudy were religiosity and type of community: teenagers of the urbancommunity were generally more "home centered," spending moretime with family (especially boys) and doing homework. Teenagersof the rural communities were generally more community orientedas they scored higher in participating in youth movement activities;they (especially girls) also scored higher on satisfaction with theevents in their residential community and in their sense of attach-ment to it (especially religious teenagers).

• A religious or non-religious way of life, as indicated by religiosity ofschool, also made a difference: religiosity was associated with highervalues in commimal activities. Religious teenagers also sought helpfrom their school teachers and youth movement guides, and ex-pressed a greater sense of attachment to their community of resi-

390

dence. Non-religious teenagers divided their free time amongdifferent socialization agents; they had a slightly greater tendencyfor peer-group activity, and at the same they (especially boys) spentmore of their free time doing homework and in community centeractivities and courses. The rural religious teenagers were the mostsatisfied with the free-time opportunities provided by family andhad the strongest sense of attachment to their community.

These findings point up the fact that the "generation gap" theory isnot supported as a characteristic of adolescence (in accordance withChen & Farruggia, 2002; Coleman, 1989; Cotterell, 1995; Hendry etal., 1993; Josselson, 1994; Kerwesky & Lefstein 1872; Larson & Verma,1999; Roberts, 1985; Serafino & Armstrong, 1980). No drastic rift inthe connection between teenagers and adults and to society was per-ceived, but rather a change in the connection as a result of the increas-ing importance of peer groups, which become a central social agent inadolescence. Instead of emphasis being placed on the process of rejec-tion of adults, it should be placed on the addition of the peers. Peergroups seem to be very important in helping teenagers in the transi-tional phase of examining and developing their own adult iden-tity—not rejecting adult socialization agents but operating with them.This is generally true of "normal" adolescents, who move closer totheir peer groups and separate from adult socialization agents andsocial authorities.

Most "ordinary teenagers maintain a balance between family andpeer groups. In this study it was demonstrated in the finding thatyoung adolescents spending most of their free time with peers, whilespending a little less time with their family. It is important to notethat the amount of time young persons spend with parents is deter-mined not only by themselves, but sometimes mainly by parents, whomay be very busy (Chen & Farruggia, 2002). However, the young ado-lescents in this study declared that they were quite satisfied with theleisure-time opportunities provided by their families.

The situation is different with regard to other adult socializationagents such as school and community. Young adolescents preferredthem less. In our opinion this finding does not represent a major refiec-tion on these socialization agents, but an objection to the perceivedpatronizing attitudes of agents. Young adolescents need to feel thatthey are being treated as adults, that their voice is heard, and thatthey are given the freedom to manage their own lives. This does notmean that they do not need mentoring by adults, but that it be donewith respect. The findings show that young adolescents were least

391

satisfied with afternoon activities offered by school, but a substantialnumber of them (40%) chose their teachers and educators as significantproviders of help. This indicates that they did not oppose school assuch, but thought of it as an institutional social agent and their teach-ers as personal social agents. It also shows that the young adolescentsdid not have an overall negative attitude toward adult socializationagents: their attitudes were specific, and varied with the circumstancesof their interactions. In times of need and difficulties, teenagers under-stand their need of adult figures and are more ready to depend on them.This differs from their need with regard to their free-time choices. Thesame trend was illustrated in relation to community as a social agent.

In this study these patterns and attitudes toward the various socialagents proved to be similar for the different adolescent subgroups, inkeeping with findings of other studies. The basic differences appearedbetween religious and non-religious adolescents, and between thosewho lived in small rural communities and those in larger urban com-munities. Gender differences were less evident.

Community is not just a "place" for adolescents' social life, but is apart of that social life which shapes and is shaped by them. In child-hood, community is meditated by family and school, while in adoles-cence the young persons themselves directly explore their communityand its institutions and people.

Research has found that structured leisure activities the commu-nity offers its adolescents are associated with developmental benefits,widened school and adult career achievements, and involvement incivic activities. These findings suggest that youth in all societies wouldbenefit if the time given to this type of activity were greater (Larson &Verma, 1999).

The present study found that although young adolescents wanted tospend less of tbeir free time in institutionalized activities arranged bycommunity, they distinguished among the activities, favoring in thisdescending order: youth movement, community center courses foryouth, volunteer activity. Further, most of the teenagers felt a moder-ately positive sense of attachment to their community of residence.

Another important attribute of community for its teenagers is con-nected to the very significant and central social agent of peer groups.One of the most widespread ways adolescents spend time is hangingaround in the, streets of their community, together with supportingand empowering peer groups—as revealed in this study and others indifferent communities and countries. Community provides the repre-sentative scene of social life, hut also a kind of "home" for the peergroups of adolescents. They need a place to meet and freely experience

392

their own culture without adult supervision and intervention (on thebasis of our and other researchers' claim that they do not violate thehasic social order and norms). As they do not normally have otherchoices they do this in such places as street comers, parks, and shop-ping centers. The Israeli youth movement can be a good example ofthis direction.

In youth movement club-houses, especially in the rural settlements,young adolescents have a place of their own, sometimes a separateroom for each age group. They meet there with their peers for orga-nized or semi-organized activities under the guidance of other, slightlyolder, adolescents of their community, or they go there by themselveswhenever they want to and give the place their own touch. On the onehand they enjoy relative autonomy, and on the other, they are undersupervision and play out roles chosen by themselves. That is why theyouth movement was relatively more favored by young adolescents,especially those from rural settlements.

This community approach to organized activities for adolescents,which considers their need for both participation and autonomy, andthe importance of their acting in peer groups, can be found as thecentral element of the Community Youth Development (CYD) move-ment (Huges, 2001, 2002) and the policy of "Youth development ap-proach of reconnecting youth and community" (Reconnecting youth &community, 1996) in the USA. CYD assumes the involvement of youngpeople in their own development and in that of the community—peirt-nership with adults, to make use of their talents and increase theirinvestment in community life. It is based on an open approach wherebyadults and community do not have control over, but do influence youth.This approach leads to youth engagement and to youth/adult partner-ships in significant ways in community creation, maintenance, andchange. Instead of treating youth as objects and as a collection of prob-lems, it treats them as resources and future parents, neighbors, andworkers. The focus is placed on young people's strengths and talents,while connecting them to the larger community. Services are tailoredto meet youths' developmental needs in a commimity that enhancestheir connection and involvement (Huges, 2001, 2002; Reconnectingyouth & community, 1996).

In conclusion, this research detected no generation gap betweenteenagers and their peer groups and adult figures and authorities.Family still remained a leading social agent of young adults, a primarysoxirce of support to whom they could tum when in need. School andcommiinity proved much less important in terms of the amount offree time spent in them. But it is suggested that their importance for

393

adolescents could be increased if community institutions acceptedthem not only as individuals, but as a peer group and integrated theminto the community by offering them a place, partnership, and support.

REFERENCES

Amon, S. (2001). Ramifications of a state of continuous uncertainty on personaland social processes: The individual and the community on the GolanHeights confronted with the threat of being uprooted in 1995-1996. Doc-toral dissertation, University of Haifa, Israel. (Hebrew.)

Bender, T. (1978). Community and social change in America. New Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Bo, I. (1989). The significant people in the social networks of adolescents.In K. Hurrelman & U. Engel (Eds.), The social world of adolescents:International perspectives (pp. 141-166). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 42, 339-365.

Canter, D. (1977). The psychology of place. London: Architectural Press.Chekki, D. A. (1990). Introduction: Main currents and new directions in com-

munity sociology. In D. A. Chekki (Ed.), Contemporary community:Change and challenge, research in community sociology. Vol. 1 (pp. 1-22).London: JAI FYess.

Chen, C, & Famiggia, S. (2002). Culture and adolescent development. In W.J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Onlinereadings in psychology and culture (Unit 11, Chapter 2). Bellingham,Washington: Western Washington University, Center for Cross-CulturalResearch, http://www.wwu.edu/~culture

Clark, B. D. (1973). The concept of community: A re-examination. SociologicalReview, 2i(3), 397^16.

Coleman, J. C. (1961). The adolescent society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American

Journal of Sociology, 9, 95-120.Coleman, J. C. (1989). The focal theory of adolescence: A psychological perspec-

tive. In K. Hurrelman & U. Engel (Eds.), The social world of adolescents:International perspectives (pp. 1-23). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Coleman, J. C. (1992). The school years: Current issues in the socialization ofyoung people. London: Routledge.

Cotterell, J. (1995). Social networks and social influences in adolescence. Lon-don: Routledge.

Datel, R. E., & Dingemans, D. J. (1984). Environmental perception, historicpreservation, and sense of place. Research Paper, University of Chicago,Department of Geography, 209, pp. 131-144.

Delanty, G. (2003). Community. London: Routledge.Eisenhauer, B., Kannich, R., & Blahna, D. (2000). Attachments to special

places on public lands: An analysis of activities, reason for attachments,and community connections. Society and Natural Resources, 13,421^40.

Elboim-Dror, R. (Ed.). (1987). Policy and administration: Theory and applica-tion to education. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University.

394

Gold, J. R. (1980). An introduction to behavioral geography. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child's environment? A group socializationtheory of development. Psychological Review, 102(3), 458—489.

Hendry, L. B. (1989). The influence of adults and peers on adolescents' lifestyleand leisure-styles. In K. Hurrelman & U. Engel (Eds.), The social worldof adolescents: International perspectives (pp. 245-264). Berlin: Walterde Grujrter.

Hendry, L. B., Shuchsmith, J., Love, J. G., & Glending, A. (1993). Young peo-ple's leisure and lifestyles. London: Routledge.

Hillery, G. A. (1955). Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. RuralSociology, 80(2), 111-123.

Hirsch, B. (2005). A place to call home: After-school programs for urban youth.Washington, DC: APA books.

Hirschi, (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of Califor-nia Press.

Huges, D. M. (2001). From Newtonian physics to chaos theory: The foundationof CYD. CYD Journal 2(3). http://wwvir.cydjoumal.org/2001Summer/pub-lisher_note.html

Huges, D. M. (2002). Towards shared prosperity: Change-making in the CYDmovement. CYD Journal 3(1). http://www.cydjoumal.org/2002Winter/Framework.pdf

Hurrelman, K. (1989). The social world of adolescents: A sociological perpsec-tive. In K. Hurrelman & U. Engel (Eds.), The social world of adolescents:International perspectives (pp. 3-26). Berhn: Walter de Grujrter.

Ichilov, A. (1992). Civilian orientations of Israeli adolescents. In A. Ziv (Ed.),The unusual age (pp. 305-319). Tel Aviv: Pap3Tus (Hebrew).

Josselson, R. (1994). The theory of of identity development and the questionof intervention. In S. L. Archer (Ed.), Interventions for adolescent identitydevelopment (pp. 12-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kerwesky, W., & Lefstein, L. (1982). Young adolescents and their communities:A shared responsibility. In L. Lefstein, W. Kerwesky, E. A. Medrich, &C. Trank, 3:00 to 6:00 P.M. Young adolescents at home and in the commu-nity (pp. 5-22). Durham, NC: Monograph Design, Wordworks.

Lamm, T. (1999). Youth 99—The split experience Panim, 9 (Hebrew).Larson, R. W., & Verma S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time

across the world: Work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 125(6), 701-736.

Lefstein, L. (1982). Introduction. In L. Lefstein, W. Kerwesky, E. A. Medrich, &C. Trank, 3:00 to 6:00 P.M. Young adolescents at home and in the commu-nity (pp. 1-4). Durham, N.C.: Monograph Design, Wordworks.

Levin, H. (1980). The struggle for community can create community. In A.Gallaher & H. Padfield (Eds.), The dying community (pp. 257-277). Albu-querque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Lidskog, R. (1996). In science we trust? On the relation between scientificknowledge, risk consciousness and public trust. Acta Sociologica, 39(1),31-56.

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network: Theory of social capital. Connections,22(1), 28-51.

Lyon, L. (1989). The community in urban society. Philadelphia, PA: TempleUniversity Press.

395

Medrich, E. A. (1982). Time use outside school: Community services and facili-ties in the lives of young adolescents. In L. Lefstein, W. Kerwesky, E. A.Medrich, & C. Trank, 3:00 to 6:00 P.M. Young adolescents at home andin the community (pp. 23-43). Durham, N.C.: Monograph Design, Word-works.

NCFY. (1966). Reconnecting youth & community: A youth development ap-proach. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Clear-inghouse on Families & Youth. http://www.ncfy.com/Reconnec.htm

Piveteau, J. L. (1969). Le sentiment d'appartence regioned en Suisse. RevueGeogr. ApL, 59, 364r-386.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of Americancommunity. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rapoport, T. (1989). Experimentation and control in family, school and youthmovement. In K. Hurrelman & U. Engel (Eds.), The social world of ado-lescents: Intemational perspectives (pp. 229-244). Berlin: Walter deGruyter.

Rapoport, T., LunsM-Feder, E., Rash, N., Dar, J., & Adler, H. (1995). Youthand adolescence in the Israeli Society. In H. Flumm (Ed.), Adolescencein Israel: Personal, familial and social aspects (pp. 17—40). Tel Aviv:Reches (Hebrew).

Reconnecting youth and community: A youth development approach (n.d.).1996. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, prepared by theNational Clearinghouse on Families & Youth. http://www.ncfy.com/Re-connec.htm

Relph, F. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.Roberts, K. (1985). Youth and leisure. London: Allen & Unwin.Robins, D., & Cohen, P. (1978). Knuckle sandwich. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Salmon, P. (1992). The peer group. In J.C. Coleman (Ed.), The school years:

Current issues in the socialization of young people (pp. 107-122). Lon-don: Routledge.

Serafino, E. P., & Armstrong, J. W. (1980). Child and adolescent development.Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Shamai, S. (1986). Regional awareness in Israel. Horizons in Geography, 16,39-57 (Hebrew).

Shamai, S. (1991). Sense of place: An empiriced measurement. Geoforum,22(3), 347-358.

Shamai, S., & Amon, S. (2005). Sense of place of Golan Heights' youth. In M.Reuveni, M. Livneh, M. Hartal, M. Inbar, & S. Shamai (Eds.), Advancesin the Golan research: Man and landscape (pp. 175-186). Tel Aviv: Ra-mot, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew).

Shamai, S., & Ilatov, Z. (2005). Measuring sense of place: The case of immi-grants and Israeli bom. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geogra-fie, 96(5), 467-476.

Shamai, S., & Kellerman, A. (1985). Conceptual and experimental aspects ofregional awareness: An Israeli case study. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr.,76, 88-89.

Shapira, R., Adler, H., & Lemer, M. (1980). Youth movements in Israel: Amodel of youth-culture as a socialization agent. In D. Nevo (Ed.), Theeducational act: Study and research (pp. 383-405). Tel Aviv: Yachdav(Hebrew).

396

Shulman, S. (1992). Family and adolescence: Separation processes and inde-pendence acquisition. In A. Ziv (Ed.), The unusual age (pp. 103-117). TelAviv: Papyrus (Hebrew).

Sivan, A. (1984). Leisure of high school youth in Kibbutz and city. Thesis,Ramat Gan: Bar Han University (Hebrew).

Survey of leisure activities of Israeli youth. (1994). Tel Aviv: Brookdale Insti-tute (Hebrew).

Thomas, D. L., Gecas, V., Weigert, A., & Rooney, E. (1974). Family socializa-tion and the adolescent: Determinants of self-concept, conformity, religios-ity and counterculture values. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Tumer, J. H., & Dolch, N. A. (1996). Using classical theorists to reconceptual-ize community dynamics. In D. A. Chekki (Ed.), New communities in achanging world (Research in community sociology (vol. 6) (pp. 19-38).London: JAI Press.

Yogev, D. (2005). Leisure habits of religious and secular youth in Israel, 2003.Tel Hai Academic College: 36th Conference of the Israeli SociologicalAssociation (Hebrew).

Zeijl, E., De Poel, Y., Dois-Reymond, M., Ravesloot, J., & Meuhnan, J. J. (2000).The role of parents and peers in the leisure E^ctivities of young adoles-cents. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(3), 281-302.

Zeijl, E., Du Bois-Reymond, M., & De Poel, Y. (2001). Young adolescents' lei-sure pattems. Loisir et Soci6te, 24(2). http://www.erudit.org/revue/ls/2001/v24/n2/000188ar.html

397