Neighborhood Cohesion

Abstract

The Neighborhood Cohesion scale is an instrument designed to assess the level of social integration and shared values within a specific residential area or block. Originally developed by Perkins, Florin, and Rich in 1990, this brief, self-report measure quantifies residents’ sense of belonging, their perceived influence over neighborhood affairs, and the quality of their interpersonal relationships with neighbors. The scale was later adapted in 1993 by the Houston Community Demonstration Project for use in public health and community intervention research, often serving as a proxy for collective efficacy and social capital.

The instrument is concise, consisting of eight items that utilize a 3-point response format. Higher scores on the scale indicate a more robust sense of belonging, greater social cohesion, and stronger shared values among neighbors, making it a valuable tool for assessing the social environment of residential areas in community research.

Keywords

Neighborhood Cohesion, Social Cohesion, Shared Values, Community Psychology, Residential Environment, Collective Efficacy, Sense of Belonging, Community Assessment.

Authors

Dennis D. Perkins, Paul Florin, Robert C. Rich, Abraham Wandersman, David M. Chavis.

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Neighborhood Cohesion scale is to provide a standardized, concise assessment of the psychological and social bonds that link residents within a localized geographical unit, such as a residential block. It is utilized heavily in urban studies and community psychology research to understand the social environment’s impact on resident behaviors and outcomes, particularly crime prevention and civic participation.

By quantifying elements like shared values and mutual influence, the scale helps researchers and practitioners gauge the strength of the social fabric. High scores suggest that residents share goals, feel comfortable, and are willing to engage in collective action to address block issues, thereby facilitating successful community interventions.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of Neighborhood Cohesion, which is generally conceptualized as a critical component of neighborhood social capital. This construct encompasses several intertwined dimensions: Shared Values (the belief that neighbors desire the same outcomes for the block), Sense of Belonging (feeling at home and connected to the residential area), and Local Influence (the perception that residents collectively can solve problems and shape the environment).

The underlying theoretical framework suggests that high cohesion facilitates collective efficacy, enabling neighbors to supervise behavior and enforce informal social control. The instrument aims to capture both the affective component (feeling at home, getting along) and the instrumental component (solving problems, having influence) of neighborhood life, contributing to a holistic measure of neighborhood solidarity.

Validity

Although specific psychometric data are often detailed within individual research protocols, the scale’s initial validation in the 1990 publication by Perkins et al. established strong construct and criterion validity. The measure has been consistently shown to correlate positively with indicators of active neighborhood participation, such as joining block associations and engaging in local problem-solving initiatives.

The items demonstrate strong face validity, directly addressing concepts central to social integration, such as visiting neighbors and sharing values. Furthermore, the scale’s utility in predicting community outcomes, including lower rates of violence-related behaviors among youths (as suggested by its inclusion in the CDC compendium), supports its criterion-related validity in public health research settings.

Reliability

Reliability for the Neighborhood Cohesion scale is typically assessed using internal consistency measures, such as Cronbach’s alpha. Studies utilizing the original and adapted versions of the scale generally report acceptable to good reliability scores (alphas usually ranging from 0.70 to 0.85) for this brief, 8-item instrument, confirming that the items consistently measure the same underlying construct of social cohesion.

Due to the brevity of the instrument, internal consistency is the most common reliability metric reported. Test-retest reliability is also considered adequate across various applications, indicating the scale’s stability over short periods, reflecting the relatively stable nature of perceived neighborhood bonds in the absence of major community changes or interventions.

Factor Analysis

The Neighborhood Cohesion scale is concise and generally scored as a single, overall measure of cohesion. Factor analyses often confirm a dominant unidimensional factor structure reflecting the overall sense of belonging and shared purpose, aligning with the authors’ intent to capture block solidarity.

While the instrument contains items related to both shared attitudes (values, influence) and behaviors (visiting), researchers typically combine all items to derive a single, comprehensive cohesion score. The original authors designed the items to capture a holistic sense of mutual concern, supporting the practice of summing all items rather than relying on multiple sub-factors derived from this brief instrument.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological scale.

Format: 8-item, 3-point Likert-type response format.

Language Available: English (original publication).

Population Group: Residents of a specific residential block or neighborhood.

Age Group: Adults (typically used with residents capable of reporting on community perceptions).

Population Details: Used extensively in urban, community, and public health settings, particularly in studies focusing on violence prevention and collective action.

Test Methodology: Responses are scored on a 3-point scale where the initial assignment is: Agree=1, Disagree=3, and No opinion=2. Items 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 must be reverse coded (Agree=3, Disagree=1, No opinion=2). Total scores are calculated by summing point values and then dividing by the total number of items answered. Higher resulting scores indicate greater levels of neighborhood cohesion and shared values.

Keywords

Community Assessment, Social Capital, Neighborhood Environment, Residential Blocks, Violence Prevention, Civic Participation, Social Control, Urban Studies.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: N/A

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original scale was published in 1990 by Perkins, Florin, and Rich. An adaptation was conducted in 1993 by the Houston Community Demonstration Project. This instrument is widely available in the public domain for academic and non-commercial research purposes, especially as detailed in the CDC compendium of assessment tools.

Reference’s

Perkins DD, Florin P, Rich RC, Wandersman A, Chavis DM. Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: crime and community context. American Journal of Community Psychology 1990;18(1):83-115. The original article is available here: https://my.vanderbilt.edu/perkins/files/2011/09/Perkins-et-al.1990.Participation-the-social-physical-environment-of-residential-blocks.AJCP_.pdf

Houston Community Demonstration Project. Houston, TX: City of Houston Health and Human Services Department, 1993.

This instrument can be found on page 343 of Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools. The original PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/YV_Compendium.pdf

[quads id=5]

Items of the Neighborhood Cohesion

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. People on this block do not share the same values.

2. I have almost no influence over what this block is like.

3. If there is a problem on this block, people who live here can get it solved.

4. My neighbors and I want the same things for the block.

5. I feel at home on this block.

6. People on this block generally do not get along.

7. Occasionally, I visit with neighbors inside their homes.

8. Occasionally, my neighbors visit with me inside my home.