Labeling of risk-taking behaviors in a Latinx community

Abstract

Purpose: Adolescence is a time of rapid brain development and concurrent novelty seeking. In some youth this results in health-impacting “high risk” behaviors. The labeling of youth and the moral and social values that are placed on their behaviors has been described previously. Less is understood about how labeling of youth in populations with relatively high rates of adolescent-specific health challenges such as teen pregnancy and youth violence influences their health, wellbeing, and engagement with potentially protective community resources. This study extends Labeling Theory to investigate how community and peer labeling of adolescents, based on their known or perceived behaviors, affects their relationships with peers, engagement in school, and support from adults in the primarily Latinx agricultural community of Salinas, CA. Methods: Forty eighth graders (age range 12 to 15) were recruited from four Salinas middle schools to participate in two semi-structured in-depth interviews approximately one year apart. Bilingual research assistants conducted interviews in English or Spanish. Participants were a subset of the youth enrolled in A Crecer, the Salinas Teen Health Study, a prospective cohort study with two years of follow-up. Interviews focused on adolescents’ future aspirations, support systems, and relationships. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and five research team members completed iterative rounds of modified grounded theory coding. Results: Participants identified behaviors as being on a “good path” (e.g., success in school, abstinence from sex and illicit substances) or a “wrong path” (e.g., truancy, sexual activity, substance use). They noted that youth may be labeled as “good kids” or “bad kids” based on their observed behaviors. Participants also reported that youth may be labeled based on other people’s perceptions of their behaviors, where youth live, or their family and peer associations. Participants often expressed harsh judgements about the actions of youth who engage in behaviors on the “wrong path.” However, consistent with Labeling Theory’s concept of proximity, when considering the actions of close friends and family members, participants held a nuanced understanding that “good kids” might sometimes make high-risk choices. Participants reflected on the negative effects of being labeled as a “bad kid” with particular emphasis on disengagement from adult supports, ostracism from peer connections, and limitations on educational opportunities. Conclusions: Early and middle adolescents in this agricultural community reported that youth who are labeled as “bad kids” due to perceived or actual engagement in high-risk behaviors have less social support from peers, adult community members, and school. These labels may be influenced by community norms, as well as by structural factors affecting students struggling in the educational system or those involved in the juvenile justice system. Interventions to shift perceptions of age-normative risk- taking towards a research and community focus on why some youth take risks, the environmental circumstances that promote risk-taking, and the structural factors that can protect youth may reduce youth stigma and improve their engagement in critical community support systems. Sources of Support: The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD075787, K23HD093839) and the UCSF John A. Watson Scholars Program.