Page 59 - IJPS-9-1
P. 59

International Journal of
            Population Studies                                     Neighborhood social cohesion and self-reported depression



            shown by others. Cronbach’s alpha in the current study   Table 1. Descriptive statistics and associations with
            was acceptable (α = 0.58; Mallery, 2003). Participants were   self‑reported depression (n=790)
            to ask response Yes/No to a question about feeling safe in   Variables  Self‑reported depression  Univariate
            their neighborhood, mirroring other studies, which have                                   statistics
            conceptualized neighborhood safety as a single construct.
                                                                                      No       Yes    χ 2  p
              To assess the influence of social cohesion in riskier                 n   %    n   %
            contexts, we included four post-migration risk factors:   Gender
            Perceived discrimination, self-reported general health   Male          268 39.81%  38  40.9% 0.03  0.46
            (SRGH), unemployment, and housing status. Participants   Female        405 60.21%  55  59.1%
            were asked if they had experienced unfair treatment in   Age
            the past 12 months based on ethnicity, age, gender, sexual   ≤29       190 27.90%  15  16.1% 7.55  0.05
            orientation and disability, and categories were summed   30 – 41       165 24.22%  21  22.6%
            to  create  a  variable  to  represent  any  form  of  perceived   42 – 64  164 24.11%  27  29.0%
            discrimination in the previous year. Housing, employment,   ≥65        162 23.84%  30  32.3%
            and  SRGH  was  measured  via  a  single-item  measure   Country of Birth
            (excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor).        Ireland            510 75.10%  62  65.3% 4.19  0.02
                                                                UK                 169 24.93%  33  34.7%
            2.3. Analysis
                                                               Housing
            A hierarchical logistic regression was conducted using SPSS   Non-homeowner  412 61.51%  68  70.8%
            23 to test the unique association between SRD and both (i)   Homeowner  258 38.54%  28  29.2%
            PNS and (ii) PSS. The data were assessed for independence of   Employment
            errors, linearity, and outliers, and the sample size was sufficient   Unemployed  33  4.84%  7  7.3% 16.38 0.001
            for logistic regression (Bujang et al., 2018). The dependent   Not unemployed  661 95.23%  89  92.7%
            variable was SRD (Yes/No). In Step 1, the unique association   SRGH
            of PSS and PNS with SRD was tested while controlling for   Very poor    4  0.61%  3  3.2% 93.83 0.001
            demography. In this step, we assessed the unique effects of   Poor     34  5.46%  25  26.6%
            PSS and PNS in universal or low-risk settings. In Step 2, we   Fair    90 14.34%  30  31.9%
            included employment-  and housing-related risks. In Steps   Good       241 38.32%  30  31.9%
            3 and 4, we included SRGH and perceived discrimination,   Very good    260 41.33%  6  6.4%
            respectively. Essentially, we wanted to know if PSS and PNS   Neighborhood safety
            predicted SRD in higher-risk contexts. Model variables were   No       34  5.50%  21  25.6% 40.43 0.001
            included based on the previous research on Irish migrants   Yes        584 94.51%  61  74.4%
            (Delaney et al., 2013; Moore, 2019).               Support from neighbors
                                                                Very difficult     64 10.62%  23  25.0% 16.89 0.02
              To test the interaction between age and both PNS and PSS,
            we used the Andrew Hayes’ Process Macro for SPSS (Hayes,   Difficult   104 17.38%  18  19.6%
            2012). The same covariates as the direct effects models   Possible     202 33.62%  25  27.2%
            were  included  and  continuous  predictor  variables  were   Easy     131 21.84%  13  14.1%
            mean-centered to aid interpretation of interaction effects.   Very easy  100 16.61%  13  14.1%
            When a significant interaction was found, we performed   People close for support
            a simple slope test using the pick-a-point method. Using   None        25  4.10%  11  11.7% 16.43 0.001
            the standard conditional values of ±1 SD from the mean,   1 – 2 people  219 36.23%  40  42.6%
            we probed interactions at 27, 45, and 65 years of age. These   3 – 5 people  181 29.94%  29  30.9%
                                                                ≥5 people
            age groups were theoretically relevant representing young   People showing concern  180 29.81%  14  14.9%
            adulthood, middle aged, and elderly. Missing data were   None          22  3.70%  10  10.9% 19.82 0.001
            within acceptable ranges (max 10.61%; Bennett, 2001) and   Little      49  8.28%  16  17.4%
            managed through the pairwise function in SPSS.
                                                                Uncertain          84 14.15%  12  13.0%
            3. Results                                          Some               251 42.02%  34  37.0%
                                                                A lot              191 32.08%  20  21.7%
            3.1. Descriptive statistics                        Any unfair treatment
            Table 1 provides demography of the sample, which has   No              455 80.28%  47  53.4% 30.64 0.001
            been reported in full previously (Moore, 2019). Just over   Yes        112 19.89%  41  46.6%


            Volume 9 Issue 1 (2023)                         53                         https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.431
   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64