SOCIALIZATION AGENTS AND ACTIVrriES
OF YOUNG ADOLESCENTS
Sara Amon, Shmuel Shamai, and Zinaida Ilatov
ABSTRACT
Research examined the relative importance of peer groups for young adolescents as compared with diverse adult socialization agents—family, school, and
community. The factors involved were teenagers' activities, preferences, feelings, and thoughts as to how they spend their leisure time, their preferences
for help providers, and their sense of attachment to their community. These
comparisons were made with religious and non-rehgious youngsters, in both
rural and urban communities, and in gender subgroups. Questionnsdres were
administered to teenagers at secondary schools in a northern peripheral region
of Israel. Findings showed the primary importance of peer groups and family
in leisure activities and support, and the secondary importemce of school and
community. No evidence was found of a sharp generation gap. Community
could 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 Importance
and impact of peer groups, family, school, and community on young
adolescents. The relative influence of these socialization agents were
demonstrated mainly by the activities, preferences, feelings, and
thoughts ofthe teenagers concerning the way they spend their leisure
time, their preferences for help providers, eind the sense of attachment
to their community. This study examined "normative" adolescents, in
contrast to many studies that deal with problematic behaviors and
their prevention. It focuses on three elements of the youngsters' cultural background which are considered important explanatory factors
of their subculture: gender, level of religiosity, and nature of their
Sara Amon, Tel-Hai Academic College, P.O.B. Upper Galilee, 12110, Israel & (Jolan Research Institute, University of Haifa, Israel, 12900. E-mail:
[email protected]
Zinaida Ilatov, Golan Research Institute, University of Haifa.
Reprint requests to Shmuel Shamai, Tel-Hai Academic College, P.O.B. Upper Galilee, 12110, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]
ADOLESCENCE, Vol. 43, No. 170, Summer 2008
Libra 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 parents, and moving on to a wider social miheu with extra-famihal relationships is generally considered a crucial developmental stage which
the adolescent must pass through in order to achieve maturity (Roherts, 1985; Coleman, 1992). Western research has found that youth
spend much less time with the family, which may reflect individualistic
rather than coUectivistic values with greater value placed on individualism rather than family (Larson & Verma, 1999). This distancing of
youth is also from teachers and other significant adults and from official institutions (such as school and organized leisure institutions).
The increasing importance of the peer group makes it an effective
sociahzation agent, which may encourage idle activity that is negatively correlated with adolescents' school achievement and positively
with higher rates of delinquency and anti-social behavior (Coleman,
1989,1992; Larson & Vema, 1999). Group Socialization theory asserts
that it is not the home hut the peer environment that has lasting
effects on adolescents' psychological characteristics when they hecome
adults. Self-categorization processes of assimilation and differentiation
tend to make adolescents more similar to each other within peer groups
and less similar to adults (Harris, 1995). The gap leads to intergenrational conflict. Adolescents threaten the authority of parents, educators, and traditional institutions. According to social control theory
(Hirschi, 1969), the detachment of young persons from parents and
community institutions of conventional society weaken social control
over them. In its moderate mode the conflict is a "generation gap" and
in its extreme mode it is a "generation war." On the other hand, from
a positive point of view, a degree of separateness from parents and
other adults is essential for establishing independence; generally it is
normal and moderate (Chen & Farruggia, 2002; Coleman, 1989;
Hendry et al., 1993).
Peer groups act as a source of behavioral standards, particularly
where parental influence is weak. Acceptance hy peers is perceived as
important especially by young adolescents, with conformity to the
group the price that has to he paid. It is sustained by peer pressure
which transmits group norms and fosters loyalty to the group (Hendry
et al., 1993).
374
Leisure and Free Time of Young Adolescents
Leisure is a central sphere of life, descrihed by Roberts (1985) as
intrinsically satisfying experiences tbat individuals derive from recreation during their free time. Free time and leisure activities are major
facets of adolescents' lives. In developing and postindustrial societies,
it is schoolwork that most clearly replaces household and paid labor in
youths' time use. Tbe amount of time spent on schoolwork is inversely
related 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 intrinsically
satisfying fun experiences, but also an important part of their socialization process. They give adolescents tbe opportunity to experience tbeir
immediate social environment. Leisure activities also construct and
manifest tbeir own youtb cultures. Tbe freedom adolescents have for
their leisure activities enables them to socialize outside the family, to
establisb independence from adults, to practice tbe skills required for
entering conventional adult roles, to develop tbeir future adult identities, to express tbeir own interests, and to build tbeir own cultures
witb tbeir peer groups. Tbese activities also reveal tbe possible conflict
between adolescents' need for self-identity and skill development and
the constraints of roles, expectations, cultural norms and values of
adult socialization agents. As a result, leisure activities are an important and appropriate source for comparing tbe relative place and
influence of peer groups as socialization agents witb tbose of adult
agents (Coleman, 1988; Hendry, 1989; Hendry et al., 1993; Larson &
Verma, 1999; Lefstein, 1982; Medricb, 1982; Roberts, 1985; Zeijl et
al., 2001).
But evidencefromvarious Western countries sbows a decline in tbe
rate young people participate or sbow interest in traditional youtb
organizations. Altbougb in general, young people respect boundaries
to use of leisure time, researcb shows tbat tbey prefer alternative and
independent ways, especially with peers, over activities tbat are organized for tbem by adults. Tbe more peer-oriented adolescents sbow
less interest in formal groups and achievement; tbey tend to spend
more of tbeir time "hanging out" and have less involved parents. Adolescents 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 of
group 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 into
three types: a very small minority that is heavily committed to intensive organized after-school activities; a small group that does not participate in organized activities; and the majority who participate
regularly but not intensively in organized activities (Hendry et al.
1993). A study of 11- and 12-year-old youngsters in Oakland demonstrated 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 their
high energy, striving for self-definition, and a need to prove personal
competence 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 surroundings that provide teenagers with formal and informal social services, but one of their most important socialization agents. The
institutions of community in modem society, especially schools, have
assumed an important psirt of parents' roles (Coleman, 1961; Hurrelman, 1989). Although in the past three decades "community" and "social capital" have emerged as two of the most salient concepts in the
social sciences, they do not enjoy special interest in research on adolescents, just as adolescence is almost absent from general community
research and discussion.
Despite changes and enlargement of community definition in the
global era (e.g., internet communities, virtual communities), its basic
definition—as a significant common place of living, and as a mediating
social structure between individuals and the forces of the larger society—endures (Chekki, 1990; Delanty, 2003; Lyon, 1989). The classic
definition of commimity has three main dimensions: a locality or territory; a social system and structure with economic, political, cultural,
and social institutions, functions and interactions; social relations and
symbols 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 be
a source of feelings of alienation and social pressure which can harm
the personal autonomy of individuals and minorities (Bender, 1978;
Levin, 1980). Social capital is the central component in community
building; it is a quality created between people, which consists of three
376
elements: social networks; trust among people, community institutions
and community leaders; and norms of reciprocity which enhance solidarity and civic engagement. Generally social capital strengthens the
individuals and the community as a whole, but it can also have negative consequences when it is channeled toward anti-social goals (Burt,
1997; Coleman, 1988; Lin, 1999). Putnam (2000) argues that social
capital makes better communities for bringing up children, providing
better 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, urban
neighborhoods. Hirsch showed that the culture of the after-school center meets the needs of urban youth by drawing upon and replicating
positive 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 psychoeducational programs often fail to reach their full potential.
In adolescence the social world is widening, and young people see
their community as representative of the whole society. Significant
relationships with adults occur in structured community organizations: schools and sports club. Community leaders and other adults
serve as moral, societal, and occupational role models. They also provide new role opportunities including volunteering that contributes to
the "public good." (Cotterell, 1995).
An important aspect of community is the "sense of place" or "place
attachment" it provides. Sense of place is defined by Datel and Dingemans (1984, p. 135) as "the complex bundle of meaning, symbols, and
qualities that a person or group associates (consciously and unconsciously) with a particular locality or region." It is a social phenomenon
(Canter, 1977; Eisenhauer et al., 2000). Social ties are related to a
geographical unit (Lidskog, 1996); Israeli studies found that cultural
and social factors are related to that sense of place (e.g., it was found
that a rural population had a higher sense of place than did an urban
population (Shamai, 1986; Shamai & Kellerman, 1985; Shamai & Kellerman, 1985; Shamai & Ilatov, 2005). Feelings for places vary and
may be negative (Amon, 2001; Piveteau, 1969; Relph, 1976; Shamai &
Kellerman, 1985; Shamai, 1991). Some studies have suggested a ranking procedure for this phenomenon. Different scales have measured
the 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 well
as more distant areas. In a highly supportive socialization environment 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, Religiosity
Culture influences adolescents' physical, cognitive, and socioemotional development and their behaviors. Adolescents in different cultures spend different amounts of time with their peers, and
consequently peer influence tends to vary (Chen & Farruggia, 2002).
Sociological theories of adolescence posit that there is no one youth
culture 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-time
activities (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 residential community, and school religiosity as explanatory factors for
the different adolescent characteristics.
Early adolescents tend to spend much of their free time with peer
groups of their own gender. Boys are relatively more privileged than
girls in their use of leisure. They have more freedom to stay out late
and, as in the adult world, public areas are seen to be more suitable
for them than for girls (Larson & Verma, 1999). Girls tend to socialize
with peers and pursue casual leisure activities earlier than do boys,
but generally they have less access to public areas, and tend to use
their homes as the base for their free-time activities (Hendry et al.,
1993).
Traditional societies allow their youth less freedom, supervise their
free-time activities more, and prefer institutionalized frameworks like
schools that promote knowledge and human capital development that
beneflt both the individual youngster and society at large (Larson &
Verma, 1999). A study among adolescents aged 15-18 years from rural
and urban areas found that boys and rural adolescents in general had
smaller and less diverse networks and asked help from parents more
frequently than did girls and virban adolescents. Another study examined the social world and the important people in the lives of 15-16year 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 traditional hehaviors and attitudes. Female adolescents tend to he more
conforming to cultiiral norms, especially religious than are males
(Thomas et al., 1974). Usually a strong religious or ethical code is used
as 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 place
of familial, communal, and social authorities and values, and the conformist nature of Israeli adolescents. It was also characterized hy a farreaching and centralized adult-supervised informal education, which
included political-ideological youth movements. Until recently, youth
movements in Israel have heen powerful as a socialization institution
which cultivated an autonomous youth culture. They were perceived
as a central social and political social agent, an educational, ideological, task-oriented framework that served the purpose of conve3ring national goals. This trend gradually eroded, and a new individualistic
Western ethos of "youth in the service of youth" emerged, with heterogeneous youth suhcultures. Youth movements in Israel represent a
special model of organization which operates hetween a formal organized institution for adolescents and one that is informal and selfdirected. Today they serve as a supervised framework for leisure and
recreation (Rapoport et al., 1995). In a typical Israeli youth movement
today, young adolescents meet with their peers of the same age in
groups under the guidance of two adolescents, usually two years older
than they, in their own place in the community. A young person supervises the activities of all the groups, and a regional committee of adults
manages all activities which include social games and sports, discussion of issues, fleld activities, and camps during vacations (Shulman,
1992). A survey hy the Brookdale Institute (1994) showed that 25% of
6th-11th graders were memhers of a youth movement or a youth cluh,'
and that the rate decreased with age. The exception is religious Zionist
youth who maintain the previous trend and the institution still serves
as 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 exists, a deep disagreement and lack of dialogue hetween Jewish secular
adolescents and religious Zionist adolescents. The leisure pattems of
these two groups are quite different: The religious families and communities supervise their adolescents more strictly and prefer them to
379
spend their free time at home or in activities organized by adults (Elboim, 1987). Sivan (1984) found that students at religious schools preferred to spend their free time in activities that provided general
knowledge, while students at secular schools preferred pleasure activities. A survey of 100 boys and girls in grades 9 to 12 at a religious and
a secular school in Israel revealed that in both groups leisure time was
first for pleasure activities and then as an expression of the adolescents' need for autonomy and for meeting socially with peers. But more
religious than secular students saw leisure time as an opportunity to
contribute to society by helping others; they spent more time in youth
movements. On the other hand, more secular than religious students
deflned leisure time as an opportunity to meet youngsters of the other
gender and spent more time hanging around in pubs and discos, and
using mass media (Yogev, 2005).
The Golan Region Youth
This study was conducted in the Golan Heights region. There is
one town, Katzrin, with about 7,000 people, which is run as a local
municipality. About 20% of its citizens are religious with about 25%
new immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Thirty-two rural settlements, with a total population of about 25% new immigrants from
the former Soviet Union. Thirty-two rural settlements, with a total
population of about 14,000, belong to the "Golan Regional Council."
These are small communities with 30 to 200 households each. Twothirds of them are non-religious settlements and the rest £ire religious.
Most of the children study in the Golan area at religious or non-religious schools. At elementary religious schools boys and girls are in
separate classes, and religious high schools are separate for boys and
girls. Most of the settlements cultivate a rich cultural life on their
own and through community centers. Katzrin has its own community
center, while the Golan settlements attend three regional community
centers (in the north and south, which cater mainly to a secular audience, with one in the center catering to the religious groups). The
commimity centers offer many activities for children and adults. Youth
are of particular interest for the community centers, and they are offered sports, music, and other courses. Youth groups hold their meetings there, and special activities such as summer camps and trips are
held under the supervision of a guide, usually someone a few years
older than the teenagers. The community center operates after school
hours; participation is voluntary and usually payment is required.
380
METHOD
The sample included 526 Jewish residents from the Golan Heights
region, 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 and
lived in various rural settlements ofthe Golan Region or in the town
of Katzrin. Our msdn consideration was to assemhle a sample that was
homogeneous in many aspects (age, living area, regional organizations,
and leisure opportunities) in order to compare teenagers' cultural suhgroups hy community type, religiosity of school, and gender (see Tahle 1).
A questionnaire consisting mainly of closed questions, was administered in class at the schools. Questions were of Likert or yes/no type
and included four kinds of variahles representing the impact of socialization agents. Data reflected the youths' suhjective assessment of how
they "usually" hehaved.
The Background variables represent suhgroups of the adolescents,
which may explain the differences among the impacts of socialization
agents: 1) Gender (G); 2) Rehgiosity of school (RS), which reflects adoTable 1. Sample distribution: community type, religiosity of school, and gender
Religiosity
Community type
Gender
of school.
Rural settlement
Religious
89
(48%)
10
(48%)
99
(48%)
Girls
97
(52%)
11
(52%)
108
(52%)
186
90%
21
10%
207
39%
Boys
91
(47%)
57
(45%)
148
(46%)
Girls
102
(53%)
69
(55%)
171
(54%)
193
60.5%
126
39.5%
319
61%
Boys
180
(47%)
67
(46%)
247
(47%)
Girls
199
(53%)
80
(54%)
279
(53%)
379
72%
147
28%
526
100%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Boys
Total
Secular
Urban settlemoit
Percentages % in parentheses were calculated in each cell
% in bold were calculated in row
% in underlined bold were calculated in their colunu
381
lescents' religious or non-religious way of life; 3) Community type (CT),
with Katzrin representing a small urban community or the small rural
communities of the region.
Impact of socialization agents. This was measured by respondents'
preferences regarding leisure activities after school (1-5), satisfaction
with the leisure opportunities (1-10), those from whom they preferred
to seek advice or help (0/1), and a sense of attachment to community
of residence (-5-+5).
Free-time variables included an obligatory instrumental "work" factor (homework) and free-choice non-instrumental leisure activities
(seeing friends, participating in community center activities, and volunteering 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 from
family members.
• Peer group. Seeing friends; asking for their help.
• School. Doing homework in free time, going to school in the afternoon free time to take part in recreation and social activities, and
satisfaction with these activities, seeking help from a teacher.
• Community. Taking part in community activities or courses, satisfaction with these activities, involvement in volunteering for public
benefit (e.g., medical services, fire brigade), sense of attachment to
community.
• Youth movement. Participation in youth activities, asking help from
youth movement leaders.
Each question was analyzed by GLM Univariate statistical procediire (using SPSS) to determine average differences between teenagers'
subgroups according to community type, religiosity of school, and gender, 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 adolescents, and if so, what role does it play in their lives?
3. What is the place of peer groups in the lives of young adolescents
compared with adtdt socialization agents?
382
4. What is the influence of gender, religiosity, and community types
in adolescents' attitudes toward their social agents?
FINDINGS
Impact of Socialization Agents on Teenagers Leisure Activities
The following describe what the teenagers did with their free time
after school, their satisfaction with these activities, and the connection
of these activities with socialization agents.
Amount of teenagers' free time for leisure activities after school. With
regard to the statement: "Studies leave me a lot of time for leisure
activities," teenagers generally expressed a perception of having a
moderate 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 analysis
was found signiflcant {F 7,492 = 2.6, p = 0.012), but only the two main
factors of community type and religiosity of school explained part of
the differences between adolescents. Those from rural communities
felt they had more free time (average = 3.10) than did adolescents
from the small urban community (2.79), and adolescents from nonreligious schools said they had more free time (3.07) than did those
from religious schools (2.93). No significant differences were found between boys and girls or interaction groups.
Preferred free-time activities. The young adolescents were asked how
often tbey participated in six activities in their free time after school
(1 = never to 5 = always). Tables 2A and 2B show the results of
Univariate analysis of the six activities, explained by the students'
background variables—^type of community, religiosity of school, and
gender—and their interactions. It also shows the average answers
given by all the adolescents (total average) and by the Various subgroups.
Total average intensity reveals the impact of the various socialization agents on the yoimg adolescents'free-timeactivities in the following descending order: peer groups, family, school, and community. The
activities can be divided into three pairs, according to their total average 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-formal
way, with their peers (average = 3.33), with family (3.02). (2) On average the youngsters devoted less than half of their free time to the
second pair of activities: doing homework (2.30), which represents the
impact of scbool as a socialization agent, and going to a youth movement function (2.09), which can be seen as an area between peer group
and community influence. (3) The last pair, and tbe least popular activ383
«
[Ctioi
e
-n
d
2
*i
.2
rel
B
'"^
u
d
ro
o
as
o
d
d
d
d
00
oo
--<
o
d
d
o
CN
d
d
d
d
O
d
ta
o
d
O
d
d
ro
<s
o
o
o
o
o
o
d
d
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
d
o
r-
o
|ISO
oo
in
in
'""'^
di
a
CL
ii
comm
peer g
school
^
family
social
ag
peergrou
-tm
m
B
d
d
o
.
CO
B
es
1
d
in
ta
JS
C3
ON
d
in
O
o
d
o -o
B
u 03
"o
O
o
d
d
ro
o
1-H
o
d
o
;ligi
ree-ti
endei
Q,
in
d
3
o
o
>^
>>
ant test i
' type (ri
hei
H
U
d
OS
lon-rel
w
o
1 (religic
o
B
03
DC
1
"scl
^B
fnivai
|IAI
h-l
e
a>
O
d
a
;-;>
O
o
d
o
03
•o
ro
o
comm uni
03
9>
o
d
7.2
B
U
S3
0)
B
o
d
00
^-
d
o
comm uni
nity
by CO
X
B
.a
d
Is
teraci
s
d
m
•X
a
E
E
00
384
on p
'c7
=
* In bold::
CT-Com
volunteer ing
youth
movemen
1 com muni
center coi
homewor
4—*
with fami
Free ti
activi
E .b
1 Going ab(
|with frien
C/5
B
O
m
p!
o
•
VO
tN
o
fS
tN
CNI
—..j
tN
VOJ
tNl
m
tN
OO
o
OS
O
tN
OS
(N'
rn
00
OS
t^
igioL
(N
tN
m
tN
—
«
lder
00
o.
oo
school (re ;iou
—
JO
TJ
aye
m
n t lem are di
00
-Reli
•"
oo
<n
n),
c ^
00
nces 1
rn
1 "^
o
<ri
54.
1.54
o
c
* Only avera: 5 with signi
Theh ighest erage is un
lommu ty type (rur
12
"is • w •
1.56
00
communit;
o
38 11.84
1
'ob
3.06
3
volunte ering
DC
ro
m
2.23
E
1
2.96
boy 1
cipal Religi
2.1
O
communit.
• ' ,
ao
Communit
+ peer gro
U
school
|.2
youth
movem ent
commu nity
center course
2
2
^'
1
homew ork
0£
o
2.94
3
family
I -5
S 2
0
O
c
with fa mily
« -o
« c
E «
1s
re
H
U
ral
PI
peer group
z: at
u
O
Going iibout
with fri ends
ll
rural
DC*-
Main
socializati
agent
1
Free time
act vity
ctions
-U(
o
o
1.40
1.58
girl
snoL
JB
vo
>o
O
2
.^
rn
OS
(N
o
"§
o
(U
>+-
rn
o
• > ,
r-
f—
o
hi'
of
b .b
to
Q.
to
-1
V
385
ities, on which teenagers spent a very small part of their free time
was community center courses (1.66) and volunteering activities (1.54).
This suggests that formal activities organized by adults had only a
slight impact on the teenagers' free-time activities.
According to Univariate overall tests, all activities were significantly
explained by community type, school religiosity, and gender. Religiosity of school had the most impact on five of the six free-time activities
(except spending time with family). Community type was the second
strongest factor. Only gender explained participation in youth movement and community center activities, and was a source of the difference in interaction with community type and school religiosity.
Interaction among all the explaining variables (CT*RS*G) was not
found to be significant.
By examining the means ofthe free-time activities we can determine
which subgroup of the three explanatory variables was significantly
higher or lower as to preferences for each activity. The general rank
order of the activities, and the socialization agents they represent,
were identical for all subgroups, as indicated above, but the average
differences between them were not in one direction. The impact of
peers, schools, and community center courses was significantly higher
for the activities of non-religious students than for religious students
spending time with peers (average 3.50 vs. 3.07), doing homework (2.46
vs. 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 was
higher for religious students than for non-religious students (2.24 vs.
1.93), as it was with their contribution to community by volunteer
work (1.72 vs. 1.43), especially religious girls (1.85). Teenagers who
lived 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 higher
for homework as afree-timeactivity (2.6) vs. 2.18). Rural teenagers in
contrast, scored higher in communitj^s youth movement activity (2.23
vs. 1.73). Adolescent girls participated more than boys in the more
structured peer-group free-time activity of youth movement, arranged
by community (2.24 vs. 1.93). Adolescent boys scored higher than girls
in structured activities of community center courses (1.78 vs. 1.55),
especially urban boys (2.29) and boysfromnon-religious schools (2.14).
Satisfaction with leisure-time opportunities. The Golan teenagers
were also asked about their satisfaction with the leisure-time opportunities arranged by four central adult socialization agents. Their answers were scored on a scale of 1 (not satisfied at all) to 10 (very much
satisfied). (See Table 3.)
The mean total score in Table 3 indicates that family was the most
satisfying provider of leisure opportunities (average = 7.34); those ar386
I.
.0
es
r~
u
D.
-o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
§
V,
o
o
o
'F
x>
so
o
o
so
•o
. •q-
fN
> .- >, -^ >
o
o
en u
o
o
CJ
c—
r<S
p
-o
u
o
o
.. o
2
8 S
elig ious),
(-1
chool 1 reli gio^
are displa
;q
bet eenth
1
t differ
ined.
, R-Re ligi
001
3.2
'5) §
0.43
O
<^
0.49
O J>
4.7
c _;
nt test (p<(
ith signif
rage is un
: (rural/ ur
O
o
tool
E
E
H
U
01
.s
*
rl
boy
gni
Url
vo
mmunity
o
a
2
'S
0.00
B
01
•S 1?
IComm uni
center acti ties
Aftem
activit
school
signif
erages
shest a
unity t
CT-C
*
municipal
u
:T*RS
H
U
01) 5
"u o
ttlement
mmunity
a
-age
jo
m
ISO
<« 5
C
o S
>^
060
^1
•a ^ £
ro
00
-uou/sr
S
00
Youth acti ities
in resi<dent ll
comm jnit
O
2
fa
O
<U
3
H
U
mily
CM
Aver
2 2
>s
• effec
DXI
I
Total
w
O
Given
O _J
verall
test
CM
iat( analy sis
i
(^
.13
UIB
i
Main
socialzation
agent
2
Sati
tion
with lei ure1
oppo
ities
c
.(^
o
Ov
fN
,
vo
O
O
c
O
c
00
<N
1
g ? a>
Q.
C
eg ' i -
F
o
• .«
387
ranged by the settlement community were the second most satisfying,
hut far hehind were family (4.68); community center (3.52), and
school (3.24).
Although the general Univariate model was significemt on all four
satisfaction questions, few significant differences were foimd hetween
the satisfaction rates of the respondents' subgroups. The main source
of difference was type of community and its interactions with religiosity and gender. Young adolescents from rural communities were significantly more satisfied with the opportunities arranged hy their
community of residence than were their more urhan counterparts (average 5.03 vs. 3.70), especially girls from rural communities (5.42).
Religious teenagers from the rural community were the most satisfied
with leisure opportunities given hy their families (7.81). Boys from
the urhan Katzrin commimity were most satisfied with activities the
commvmity center offered (4.26), while rural hoys were the least satisfied with these opportunities (2.92).
Teenagers' Sense of Place Attachment
To evaluate the place of the community as a socialization agent in
the lives of the young adolescents, we examined their sense of attachment and belonging to their community by asking: "What kind of connection do you feel to your home settlement?" We used a response scale
from —5 to +5, where - 5 denoted very negative connection, 0 denoted
no sense of connection (indifference), and +5 denoted very positive
connection. The results are shown in Tahle 4.
Of the young adolescents, 85.5% expressed a positive sense of connection, (50% a very positive sense), 6.6% expressed no sense of connection, and 7.6% expressed a negative sense. The mean total in Table 4
(2.94) shows a moderately positive sense of attachment to the community of residence. Tahle 4 also indicates that sense of attachment to
community of residence was significantly explained by the overall
model. It was explained hy type of community, and proved higher
among teenagers from rural rather than urhan community (3.26 vs.
2.05); it was also explained hy the interaction hetween type of community 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 concerning the socialization of young adults and the role that socialization
388
Urban
1
Inte ractio
T*RS
B
B
"2
c
*
:=
3
1 £
lder
v o
a: -a
1
O
"2
o
CO
3
•e dis
a
a
.*H
B
c
c«
OS
0.41
CT*RS
f effects
1 Main 1 Interai
U
H
U
.1M
o.
o
o
o
o
o
i it
m
u
o
TD fc
cs
•«
o
CO
1
1.M 2 J
ence
lunit
ace
00
[3Uiq
e
^ i»
c -r £:
(0 ^ (U
o
>
—
ttac
cs
bfa
§
V S § •€
O
0*
*5
-4—>
t test (f
'a
o
a
1
<u
CO
000
Is
ea
• (jil
E
000
cs
ivariate: nalysis ''
cs
2
c
o
cs
2
B
cs
a.
')
It differen es betwee
lined.
H
OD
'5)
vera
M)
-d
(U
, R- Religii jity of sch
«5
6
</)
••
^
i
'1
w
2 c«-^
o
P
u o
rural/1
H
U
th sigr
leeis
lain
c ^
nitj
cs
9>
OX)
CS
00
1
CS
"a.
3
a> o
U
2
•-
*
*
H
U
389
agents play in this process. The main findings can be summarized
as 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 secondary.
• Thesefindingslead to the conclusion that peers are a very important
socialization agent of young adolescents. But they did not seem to
have a contradictory or exclusive influence on the lives of yoxmg
adolescents in comparison with other adult socialization agents.
They did not seem to have an exclusive "youth-centered" orientation
or an opposition orientation to adults.
• Teenagers expressed complex attitudes toward school. They distinguished between school as a formal institution and their teachers
as its significant members. They evinced a negative attitude toward
the school institution.
• Community is a network of diverse connected institutions, people,
and interactions. Young adolescents in this study showed diverse
and non-uniform use of these community opportunities, and revealed different attitudes toward them. Community center, as a
community institution, was less favored by the teenagers. The
"youth movement" in the community of residence (supervised by the
community center) proved the most preferred community organization for youth leisure activities. The less institutionalized recreation
activities and events arranged directly by the community of residence (e.g., festivals and trips) were shown to provide moderate satisfaction.
• The variables that had an infiuence on the issues dealt with in this
study were religiosity and type of community: teenagers of the urban
community were generally more "home centered," spending more
time with family (especially boys) and doing homework. Teenagers
of the rural communities were generally more community oriented
as they scored higher in participating in youth movement activities;
they (especially girls) also scored higher on satisfaction with the
events in their residential community and in their sense of attachment to it (especially religious teenagers).
• A religious or non-religious way of life, as indicated by religiosity of
school, also made a difference: religiosity was associated with higher
values in commimal activities. Religious teenagers also sought help
from their school teachers and youth movement guides, and expressed a greater sense of attachment to their community of resi390
dence. Non-religious teenagers divided their free time among
different socialization agents; they had a slightly greater tendency
for peer-group activity, and at the same they (especially boys) spent
more of their free time doing homework and in community center
activities and courses. The rural religious teenagers were the most
satisfied with the free-time opportunities provided by family and
had the strongest sense of attachment to their community.
These findings point up the fact that the "generation gap" theory is
not supported as a characteristic of adolescence (in accordance with
Chen & Farruggia, 2002; Coleman, 1989; Cotterell, 1995; Hendry et
al., 1993; Josselson, 1994; Kerwesky & Lefstein 1872; Larson & Verma,
1999; Roberts, 1985; Serafino & Armstrong, 1980). No drastic rift in
the connection between teenagers and adults and to society was perceived, but rather a change in the connection as a result of the increasing importance of peer groups, which become a central social agent in
adolescence. Instead of emphasis being placed on the process of rejection of adults, it should be placed on the addition of the peers. Peer
groups seem to be very important in helping teenagers in the transitional phase of examining and developing their own adult identity—not rejecting adult socialization agents but operating with them.
This is generally true of "normal" adolescents, who move closer to
their peer groups and separate from adult socialization agents and
social authorities.
Most "ordinary teenagers maintain a balance between family and
peer groups. In this study it was demonstrated in the finding that
young adolescents spending most of their free time with peers, while
spending a little less time with their family. It is important to note
that the amount of time young persons spend with parents is determined not only by themselves, but sometimes mainly by parents, who
may be very busy (Chen & Farruggia, 2002). However, the young adolescents in this study declared that they were quite satisfied with the
leisure-time opportunities provided by their families.
The situation is different with regard to other adult socialization
agents such as school and community. Young adolescents preferred
them less. In our opinion thisfindingdoes not represent a major refiection on these socialization agents, but an objection to the perceived
patronizing attitudes of agents. Young adolescents need to feel that
they are being treated as adults, that their voice is heard, and that
they are given the freedom to manage their own lives. This does not
mean that they do not need mentoring by adults, but that it be done
with respect. The findings show that young adolescents were least
391
satisfied with afternoon activities offered by school, but a substantial
number of them (40%) chose their teachers and educators as significant
providers of help. This indicates that they did not oppose school as
such, but thought of it as an institutional social agent and their teachers as personal social agents. It also shows that the young adolescents
did not have an overall negative attitude toward adult socialization
agents: their attitudes were specific, and varied with the circumstances
of their interactions. In times of need and difficulties, teenagers understand their need of adultfiguresand are more ready to depend on them.
This differs from their need with regard to their free-time choices. The
same trend was illustrated in relation to community as a social agent.
In this study these patterns and attitudes toward the various social
agents proved to be similar for the different adolescent subgroups, in
keeping with findings of other studies. The basic differences appeared
between religious and non-religious adolescents, and between those
who lived in small rural communities and those in larger urban communities. Gender differences were less evident.
Community is not just a "place" for adolescents' social life, but is a
part of that social life which shapes and is shaped by them. In childhood, community is meditated by family and school, while in adolescence the young persons themselves directly explore their community
and its institutions and people.
Research has found that structured leisure activities the community offers its adolescents are associated with developmental benefits,
widened school and adult career achievements, and involvement in
civic activities. Thesefindingssuggest that youth in all societies would
benefit if the time given to this type of activity were greater (Larson &
Verma, 1999).
The present study found that although young adolescents wanted to
spend less of tbeir free time in institutionalized activities arranged by
community, they distinguished among the activities, favoring in this
descending order: youth movement, community center courses for
youth, volunteer activity. Further, most of the teenagers felt a moderately positive sense of attachment to their community of residence.
Another important attribute of community for its teenagers is connected to the very significant and central social agent of peer groups.
One of the most widespread ways adolescents spend time is hanging
around in the, streets of their community, together with supporting
and empowering peer groups—as revealed in this study and others in
different communities and countries. Community provides the representative scene of social life, hut also a kind of "home" for the peer
groups of adolescents. They need a place to meet and freely experience
392
their own culture without adult supervision and intervention (on the
basis of our and other researchers' claim that they do not violate the
hasic social order and norms). As they do not normally have other
choices they do this in such places as street comers, parks, and shopping centers. The Israeli youth movement can be a good example of
this direction.
In youth movement club-houses, especially in the rural settlements,
young adolescents have a place of their own, sometimes a separate
room for each age group. They meet there with their peers for organized or semi-organized activities under the guidance of other, slightly
older, adolescents of their community, or they go there by themselves
whenever they want to and give the place their own touch. On the one
hand they enjoy relative autonomy, and on the other, they are under
supervision and play out roles chosen by themselves. That is why the
youth 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, and
the importance of their acting in peer groups, can be found as the
central element of the Community Youth Development (CYD) movement (Huges, 2001, 2002) and the policy of "Youth development approach of reconnecting youth and community" (Reconnecting youth &
community, 1996) in the USA. CYD assumes the involvement of young
people in their own development and in that of the community—peirtnership with adults, to make use of their talents and increase their
investment in community life. It is based on an open approach whereby
adults and community do not have control over, but do influence youth.
This approach leads to youth engagement and to youth/adult partnerships in significant ways in community creation, maintenance, and
change. Instead of treating youth as objects and as a collection of problems, it treats them as resources and future parents, neighbors, and
workers. The focus is placed on young people's strengths and talents,
while connecting them to the larger community. Services are tailored
to meet youths' developmental needs in a commimity that enhances
their connection and involvement (Huges, 2001, 2002; Reconnecting
youth & community, 1996).
In conclusion, this research detected no generation gap between
teenagers and their peer groups and adult figures and authorities.
Family still remained a leading social agent of young adults, a primary
soxirce of support to whom they could tum when in need. School and
commiinity proved much less important in terms of the amount of
free time spent in them. But it is suggested that their importance for
393
adolescents could be increased if community institutions accepted
them not only as individuals, but as a peer group and integrated them
into the community by offering them a place, partnership, and support.
REFERENCES
Amon, S. (2001). Ramifications of a state of continuous uncertainty on personal
and social processes: The individual and the community on the Golan
Heights confronted with the threat of being uprooted in 1995-1996. Doctoral 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 Science 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 community 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.), Online
readings in psychology and culture (Unit 11, Chapter 2). Bellingham,
Washington: Western Washington University, Center for Cross-Cultural
Research, http://www.wwu.edu/~culture
Clark, B. D. (1973). The concept of community: A re-examination. Sociological
Review, 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 perspective. 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 of
young people. London: Routledge.
Cotterell, J. (1995). Social networks and social influences in adolescence. London: Routledge.
Datel, R. E., & Dingemans, D. J. (1984). Environmental perception, historic
preservation, 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 application to education. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University.
394
Gold, J. R. (1980). An introduction to behavioral geography. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child's environment? A group socialization
theory of development. Psychological Review, 102(3), 458—489.
Hendry, L. B. (1989). The influence of adults and peers on adolescents' lifestyle
and leisure-styles. In K. Hurrelman & U. Engel (Eds.), The social world
of adolescents: International perspectives (pp. 245-264). Berlin: Walter
de Grujrter.
Hendry, L. B., Shuchsmith, J., Love, J. G., & Glending, A. (1993). Young people's leisure and lifestyles. London: Routledge.
Hillery, G. A. (1955). Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural
Sociology, 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 California Press.
Huges, D. M. (2001). From Newtonian physics to chaos theory: The foundation
of CYD. CYD Journal 2(3). http://wwvir.cydjoumal.org/2001Summer/publisher_note.html
Huges, D. M. (2002). Towards shared prosperity: Change-making in the CYD
movement. CYD Journal 3(1). http://www.cydjoumal.org/2002Winter/
Framework.pdf
Hurrelman, K. (1989). The social world of adolescents: A sociological perpsective. 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 question
of intervention. In S. L. Archer (Ed.), Interventions for adolescent identity
development (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 community (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. Psychological 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 community (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). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Lidskog, R. (1996). In science we trust? On the relation between scientific
knowledge, 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: Temple
University Press.
395
Medrich, E. A. (1982). Time use outside school: Community services and facilities 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 and
in the community (pp. 23-43). Durham, N.C.: Monograph Design, Wordworks.
NCFY. (1966). Reconnecting youth & community: A youth development approach. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Clearinghouse on Families & Youth. http://www.ncfy.com/Reconnec.htm
Piveteau, J. L. (1969). Le sentiment d'appartence regioned en Suisse. Revue
Geogr. ApL, 59, 364r-386.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rapoport, T. (1989). Experimentation and control in family, school and youth
movement. In K. Hurrelman & U. Engel (Eds.), The social world of adolescents: Intemational perspectives (pp. 229-244). Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Rapoport, T., LunsM-Feder, E., Rash, N., Dar, J., & Adler, H. (1995). Youth
and adolescence in the Israeli Society. In H. Flumm (Ed.), Adolescence
in 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 the
National Clearinghouse on Families & Youth. http://www.ncfy.com/Reconnec.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). London: 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.), Advances
in the Golan research: Man and landscape (pp. 175-186). Tel Aviv: Ramot, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew).
Shamai, S., & Ilatov, Z. (2005). Measuring sense of place: The case of immigrants and Israeli bom. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 96(5), 467-476.
Shamai, S., & Kellerman, A. (1985). Conceptual and experimental aspects of
regional awareness: An Israeli case study. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr.,
76, 88-89.
Shapira, R., Adler, H., & Lemer, M. (1980). Youth movements in Israel: A
model of youth-culture as a socialization agent. In D. Nevo (Ed.), The
educational act: Study and research (pp. 383-405). Tel Aviv: Yachdav
(Hebrew).
396
Shulman, S. (1992). Family and adolescence: Separation processes and independence acquisition. In A. Ziv (Ed.), The unusual age (pp. 103-117). Tel
Aviv: 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 Institute (Hebrew).
Thomas, D. L., Gecas, V., Weigert, A., & Rooney, E. (1974). Family socialization and the adolescent: Determinants of self-concept, conformity, religiosity and counterculture values. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Tumer, J. H., & Dolch, N. A. (1996). Using classical theorists to reconceptualize community dynamics. In D. A. Chekki (Ed.), New communities in a
changing 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 Sociological
Association (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 adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(3), 281-302.
Zeijl, E., Du Bois-Reymond, M., & De Poel, Y. (2001). Young adolescents' leisure pattems. Loisir et Soci6te, 24(2). http://www.erudit.org/revue/ls/
2001/v24/n2/000188ar.html
397