Context as a critical factor in young adolescents' concepts of caring.

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which context played a role in young adolescents' descriptions of barriers to caring in four domains: self, intimate others (close friends and family), acquaintances (people in school), and strangers. Interviews with 101 students at two middle schools (an urban and a suburban) in the Midwest, as well as participant observations, indicate that the manner in which young adolescents talk about caring is highly contextual. The "context" identified in the students' responses was the nature of their relationship to the cared-for. Consequently, even though the majority of the students responded that "nothing" would stop them from caring for themselves or for their close friends and family, lack of reciprocity was the major barrier to caring for people in school, while fear of violence was identified as the main barrier to caring for strangers. The authors recommend that schools strive to develop caring communities in which an ethic of caring is nurture d at all levels.

Early adolescence is often characterized by high levels of egocentrism and an overemphasis on personal needs and gratification (Steinberg, 1998). During this time period, however, young people are moving into the wider social circles of middle school or junior high school and dealing with their first romantic relationships. It is also at this stage of their lives that adolescents experience an increase in conflict and, sometimes, violence as they struggle with their new roles. All these changes challenge adolescents' concepts of caring.

Caring underlies the development of mature relationships, as well as a commitment to social justice and participation in a community. An understanding of caring can lay the groundwork for creating social environments in which youth can strengthen their commitment to being caring individuals themselves and contributing to a caring community. Schools today are increasingly seen as responsible for affective education (Chaskin & Rauner, 1995; Kohn, 1991; Noblit & Rogers, 1992; Noblit, Rogers, & McCadden, 1995; Noddings, 1992, 1995). Noddings (1992) contends that "we should educate all our children not only for competence but also for caring" (p. xiv).

Although the literature on caring is extensive, the voice of youth is often missing in most discussions and education reforms (Anfara & Miron, 1996; Bosworth, 1995). The authors contend that to cultivate caring in youth and develop caring commumties in schools, adolescents' understandings of caring and of what creates barriers to caring must be examined. Adolescents' definition of caring was explored in an earlier report on a large ethnographic study of caring in middle schools (Bosworth, 1995). The results indicated that the great majority of the adolescents interviewed had a clear understanding of caring as well as of the behaviors used to express caring. Most of these adolescents' definitions included two or more dimensions of caring, such as helping, and having empathy for, another person. This article explores a different area of the same study: young adolescents' perceptions of the barriers to caring and the extent to which context plays a role in their descriptions of the barriers to caring for self, i ntimate others (close friends and family), acquaintances (people in school), and strangers.

Theoretical Framework

Caring is a fundamental human characteristic. Our understanding of the concept of caring is elusive, in part because it appears in so many contexts. Caring is a broad concept often used to denote a wide range of attitudes and behaviors. Caring, in connection with moral development, is examined as an orientation for moral reasoning. Caring also is used as a synonym for other concepts, such as prosocial behavior (a group of behaviors oriented toward caring), empathy (ability to understand others' perspectives), helping (a behavioral manifestation of caring), and compassion (an attitude or value) (Eisenberg, 1992; McCroskey, 1992).

Caring cannot exist in isolation; it always exists in relation to a "cared-for" (Noddings, 1984, 1992). According to Noddings, a caring relationship involves a "feeling with" that she calls "engrossment," a temporary state in which the "one-caring" receives the "cared-for" into her/himself, and sees and feels with the other (p. 30). Thus, caring is a "way of being in relation, not a set of specific behaviors" (Noddings, 1984, p. 17). Caring involves devotion, patience, honesty, trust, hope, and courage (Mayeroff, 1971). These qualities should be used to help the cared-for grow toward self-actualization (Brendtro, Brokenleg, & Van Bockern, 1990; Mayeroff, 1971).

It is important to conceive of caring, then, not merely in terms of behaviors, but also in terms of an underlying ethic that guides behavior (Noblit et al., 1995; Noddings, 1992). It is not an abstract ethic, but rather one that is based on a sense of connection between persons, situation, and context. As an ethic, caring is not just extended through behavior; it also can serve as a moral foundation for decision making. Caring emphasizes responsibilities and relationships rather than rights and rules (Noblit & Rogers, 1992; Noblit et al., 1995).

In exploring the concept of caring, a fundamental question arises in terms of the innate versus the learned nature of caring. Bateson (1990) examined the contention between those who see humans as social egotists versus those who view humans as having a capacity for empathy and altruism. He supported the view of humans as able to care for others to fulfill altruistic needs, not just selfish motives. Others have identified altruistic behaviors in children as young as 1 or 2 years old (Eisenberg, 1992). These findings indicate that humans are born with the propensity for moral behavior and, consequently, to be caring people. Indeed, Hemmings (1991) contends that moral behavior evolved as part of the human need for cooperation, which increased the odds for survival.

Although caring behaviors may be displayed during single events (when helping a stranger in need, for example), interdependence and mutuality (or reciprocity) are at the core of caring relationships (Beck, 1995; Buber, 1965; Chaskin & Rauner, 1995; Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 1992). Indeed, to the philosopher Martin Buber (1965), caring is like a dialogue "where each participant really has in mind the other.., with the intention of establishing a living, mutual relationship" (p. 19). This view is similarly expressed by Noddings (1992), who writes that in a caring relationship, "the parties exchange places; both members are carers and cared-fors as opportunities arise" (p. 17). To Gilligan (1982), caring involves others and self in a "dynamic bond of interdependence" (p. 149).

Furthermore, mutual reciprocity is believed to facilitate cognitive and emotional development in children (MacDonald, 1996; Russell, Pettit, & Mize, 1998; Waxman, Spencer, & Poisson, 1996). Genero (1995) defines mutuality or reciprocity as a "bidirectional movement of feelings, thoughts, and activity between persons" (p. 33). Although moral developmental theorist Lawrence Kohlberg (1984a, 1984b) viewed reciprocity as direct exchange, which he situated in the early stages of moral development (which he designates stage two), reciprocity appears to be an important aspect of any relationship. Research on dyadic interactions indicates that relationships characterized by high levels of mutual reciprocity are evaluated more positively by their participants (McCulloch, 1990; Wright & Aquilino, 1998).

Although moral reasoning has been postulated as a series of hierarchical, intellectual developmental stages (Kohiberg, 1984a; Piaget, 1932), research indicates that context plays an important role in how caring is expressed (Benner & Wrubel, 1989; Noblit et al., 1995; Seigfried, 1989; Wentzel, 1997). According to Seigfried (1989) "one cannot look at caring relations separate from the economic, political, and social contexts in which they occur" (p. 89). Noddings (1992) addresses the contextual nature of caring by stating that "caring cannot be achieved by formula. It requires address and response; it requires different behaviors from situation to situation and person to person" (p. 44).

In her book The Challenge To Care in Schools, Noddings (1992) addresses the multiple dimensions of caring in relation to the cared-for and proposes a model of education organized around centers of care. In this seminal work, Noddings argues for a school curriculum in which students learn to care for themselves; for their inner circle; for strangers and distant others; for animals, plants, and the earth; for the human-made world; and for ideas. Noddings's work has led to a deeper understanding of the nature of caring by focusing on the role that context plays in the definition and demonstration of caring.

Purpose of the Study

Although the purpose of this study was not to test Noddings's model, the authors wanted to examine the extent to which context played a role in adolescents' conversations about caring and its barriers in four domains: self, intimate others (close friends and family), acquaintances (people in school), and strangers (Noddings, 1992). This paper examines adolescents' descriptions of the barriers to caring in these four domains. The following research questions guided this study:

1. What are the barriers that adolescents perceive to caring in the context of self, intimate others (close friends and family), acquaintances (people in the school), and strangers?

2. How are these perceptions affected by relationships to the cared-for?

Methodology

Qualitative methodologies (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994) were used in this study. Qualitative approaches involve strategies that allow researchers to "consider experiences from the informants' perspectives" (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p. 32). The strategies used included participant observations, interviews, and document analysis. These three forms of data collection techniques were used for "triangulation"; data collected in one way was used to "crosscheck" the accuracy of data gathered in another way (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993).

Setting

The study took place in two middle schools in a midwest United States metropolitan area. One school was located in the heart of a major city and is identified here as the Urban Junior High School. The other school was located in a suburb of the same city and is identified as the Suburban Middle School. These schools were selected by a nomination process and had reputations as caring schools. Each of the schools was divided into academic teams consisting of about 120-140 students per team.

Urban Junior High School. Urban drew its 7th- and 8th-grade students mainly from its surrounding neighborhood, although some students were bused from other sections of the city. Many of the neighborhood's residents lived in poverty; to cite one indicator, 90% or more of Urban's 800 students qualified for free or reduced-cost lunches. The racial mix at Urban was 51% African American and 48% European American. The enrollment numbers for other ethnic groups, such as Hispanics and Asians, were very small.

Suburban Middle School. As the only middle school in its district, Suburban's 1,200 students in grades 6, 7, and 8 came from neighborhoods that represented a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds. Some of the neighborhoods that fed into Suburban could be described as transient, with about 30% of the student population moving in and out every year. Most families, however, consisted of blue-collar workers who were employed in business and commercial enterprises in the local area or in the city itself.

The racial mix at Suburban was 87% European American and l2% African American. Most of the African American students were bused in from a poor urban neighborhood as the result of a court-ordered desegregation plan. The remaining one percent was composed of other ethnic groups, including Asians and Hispanics.

Participants

The participants consisted of 101 students in five academic teams--three at Suburban, one at each grade level (6th, 7th, and 8th); and two at Urban (in the 7th and 8th grades; Urban did not have a 6th grade). Of these, 55 were female (36 European American, 18 African American, and 1 Hispanic) and 46 male (33 European American, 12 African American, and 1 Asian). The selection of the participants was based on teacher and peer nominations.

Procedure

All of the students in the five academic teams received a form that asked them to define caring and to nominate the five most caring peers in their team. The teacher nomination form asked teachers to define caring, and to nominate the five most caring students and the five most uncaring students in their team. The peer nominations were tallied into four groups: 10 or more nominations, 5-9 nominations, 1-4 nominations, and no nominations. Peer and teacher nominations were used to compile a list of students to interview in each team and school. A parental permission form was given to each student on the list before the final sample was selected. Students who returned the signed parent permission form were used to create a representative sample concerning race, gender, and number of peer and teacher nominations. The teacher and peer nominations were used to ensure that the sample achieved representative sampling; it included students from every caring category, from most to least caring. "Representative sampling " seeks to include a comprehensive representation of a population (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993).

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected through audiotaped interviews with each of the 101 students. The interviews lasted 30-40 minutes and involved questions regarding the following areas: definition of caring; how does one care for oneself, intimate others (close friends and family), acquaintances, and strangers; and what are the barriers to caring for self, intimate others (close friends and family), acquaintances, and strangers. In addition, two researchers visited each school weekly for a period of five months and took extensive field notes during each visit, observing activities in classrooms, hallways, the school grounds, and the cafeteria, and during extracurricular activities and committee meetings. The field notes were used to identify any instances of caring and/or uncaring.

Data analysis involved standard methodology in naturalistic inquiry (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994). After the interview tapes were transcribed, the transcripts and field notes were read several times to identify regularities and patterns, which were used to develop coding categories (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Further analysis involved "member checking" and "triangulation" before the final categories were decided (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Results

The results in Figure 1 indicate that although many of the categories of responses were similar in the four contextual domains described earlier, the percentage of responses varied by domain.

Barriers to Caring for Self

When the young adolescents in this study were asked "What would stop you from showing caring towards yourself?," 45% of them indicated that nothing would prevent them from caring for themselves. Indeed, most of them simply responded "Nothing!" Some of them provided more elaborate responses, such as the following one from an 8th-grade male at Urban: "Nothing, really. I know that I can do it. Like if I get in trouble or anything, that I can step right back up and do good again." A greater percentage of males (48%) than females (38%) responded that "nothing" would stop them from caring about themselves. However, these findings were only true for the European American females. An equal percentage of female and male African American students (67%) gave this response.

Ten students responded that if someone continuously made them feel inadequate, they would eventually stop caring about themselves. These responses were grouped into a category termed "Put-Downs." The response of a 7th-grade female is a good illustration of the answers in this category: "Maybe if people put me down enough to start believing it." An equal number of females and males provided responses in this category. However, all of these students were from Suburban and seven (5 males and 2 females) were 6th-graders. A related category to "Put-downs" was developed from a variety of responses dealing with reciprocal caring (not being cared for). Nine students (6 females and 3 males) provided responses related to reciprocal caring. Eight of the 9 students who answered in this fashion were from Suburban and all of them were European American.

Some responses were related to "Personal Tragedies" involving close family members. "If someone in your family were to die and it was someone really close to you, you would say there is no reason for me to live on," replied a 6th-grade, European American female. A 7th-grade, European American female added, "Probably if there was a major family crisis like one of my parents died." These responses were exclusive to Suburban.

Six students responded that engaging in risk behaviors would prevent them from caring for themselves. Some mentioned joining a gang: "Probably if I was in a gang or something." Others mentioned drugs and alcohol. The words of a 6th-grade, African American male depict the general theme: "If I start doing things like drinking or something, I might look in the mirror and say 'Look at you!"'

Four students, one at Urban and three at Suburban, mentioned anger and violence as barriers to caring for self. Two mentioned fighting with someone, and two others mentioned getting angry with someone.

Barriers to Caring for Close Friends and Family

When the researchers asked the adolescents in this study, "What would stop you from showing caring towards your close friends and family?," 49% of the females and 35% of the males answered "Nothing!" Of the students who answered in this manner, 50% of them were from Urban and 38% from Suburban. Race differences were found in that a greater percentage of African American females (56%) than European American females (46%) answered in this manner. There were no visible differences between the two groups of males.

It is important to remember that the question included family and close friends on the same level of importance. During the interviews, however, many students demonstrated that they thought differently about family and close friends. Thus, when they mentioned "nothing!" they might have intended this response for family.

While the response of "nothing!" might have been intended principally for family, the authors believe that the adolescents' responses related to reciprocal caring, the next largest category, were intended mainly for friends. The following quotes provide some examples of the responses related to reciprocal caring:

"If they just stopped caring for me" (Suburban, 8th-grade European American male)

"Talking behind my back" (Suburban, 7th-grade European American male)

"If they treat me mean" (Urban, 7th-grade European American male)

"If they turn against me" (Urban, 8th-grade European American female)

The difference in the percentage of females and males who provided responses in this category was small (17% vs. 22%). However, a greater percentage of students at Suburban (25%) than at Urban (11%), and more European Americans (23%) than African Americans (13%), provided responses related to reciprocal caring.

Ten students, eight from Suburban and two from Urban, mentioned risk behaviors as barriers to caring for their close friends and family. Some students used very general language ("If they start getting in trouble"), while others specified the type of risk they would consider a barrier ("If they joined a gang or something else like that" "If they killed somebody or something"). The researchers consider that these responses were intended mainly for friends. There were no visible gender or grade differences in this area.

A small number of students--eight-- mentioned fighting/violence as barriers to caring for friends and family. For the most part, the responses involved some drastic physical violence such as "If they started beating me up and everything" and "Unless they tried to kill me or something." Others mentioned temporary barriers: "If they make me angry, I'll be mad at them for a couple of days, but then it'll go back to the same old thing; we'll just be friends again."

Barriers to Caring for People in School

Most of the responses (42%) to the question "What may stop you from showing caring to people in your school?" belonged to reciprocal caring. Although there were no notable school or gender differences in the number of responses, a greater percentage of European Americans than African American students (44% vs. 33%) provided responses related to reciprocity.

Many sub-themes were identified within the responses related to reciprocal caring. Even though some of the responses were clearly of the direct exchange sort ("If they don't care back"), others reflected a different dimension of the same theme: "If they made fun of me," "If they didn't like me," and "If they change and act differently."

Three students appeared to be very protective of their family: "If they do something to hurt my family" or "Probably calling my mom names to me." The researchers often heard that "calling your family names" was a source of arguments and fights among the students.

The next largest theme in barriers to caring for people in school was violence/ fighting, which constituted 26% of the responses. No meaningful differences were found in regards to school, grade, gender, or race in this category.

Barriers to Caring for Strangers

The largest number of student responses (45%) under barriers to caring for strangers was related to violence (see Table 1). A greater percentage of males than females (60% vs. 44%), African American than European American students (66% vs. 47%), and urban than suburban students (62% vs. 47%) provided responses in this category. The following quotes illustrate the variety of responses under violence:

"If they had a gun" (Suburban, 7th-grade African American female)

"If they kidnap me or something" (Urban, 8th-grade African American female)

"If they did something bad to me" (Suburban, 6th-grade European American male)

"If they tried to do stuff that I didn't want them to do to me." (Suburban, 7th-grade European American male)

Eighteen percent of the students responded that "nothing" would stop them from caring for strangers. This represented the second largest category of responses, followed by responses related to reciprocal caring (see Figure 1).

Discussion

The manner in which adolescents in this study talked about barriers to caring was highly contextual. The "context" identified in the students' responses was the nature of their relationship to the cared-for (Noddings, 1992). As the results in Figure 1 indicate, even though the three main categories of responses were found in the four domains, the percentage of responses in each category varied from domain to domain. Thus, although 45% of the students responded that "nothing" would make them stop caring for themselves, this figure was slightly higher (50%) for close friends and family, decreased to 10% for people in school, and was 18% for strangers.

When examining the categories of reciprocal caring and violence, however, the opposite is true. Responses related to reciprocal caring were low under barriers to caring for self (9%), increased to 23% under barriers to caring for close friends and family, were highest (42%) for people in school, and were relatively low (18%) under barriers to caring for strangers. Responses under violence followed an even clearer pattern. Very few students provided responses related to violence under barriers to caring for self and intimate others (4% and 8%, respectively). Yet, under barriers to caring for people in school 26% of the responses were related to violence; this figure increased to 45% under barriers to caring for strangers.

Using the results of this study, barriers to caring can be viewed as a series of concentric circles starting with self at its center, followed by close friends and family, people in school, and strangers (see Figure 2). Self is the central point of reference from which relationships with others are considered. According to Noddings (1992), "In one sense, everything we care about is somehow caught up in concerns about self. . . ." (p. 74). However, the positioning of self in relation to others influences and is influenced by the nature of the relationship to the cared-for. As the spatial distance increases between self and others, the bonds between self and the cared-for become weaker and are easier to break This is evident in the participants' main responses to barriers to caring in the four domains.

Under barriers to caring for self (first concentric circle), almost half of the youngsters indicated that "nothing" would stop them from caring for themselves. Thus, these adolescents did not perceive any barriers to caring for self, which may be a reflection of their strong sense of self-preservation (Lapierre, Bouffard, & Bastin, 1993; Powell, 1995). Interestingly, a greater percentage of students at Urban than at Suburban responded in this manner. Field notes from the observations indicated that both the physical and emotional environments at Urban were more challenging. Furthermore, results from the interviews with the students indicated that the majority of those at Urban came from "tough" neighborhoods where violence was common. These conditions may have contributed to a stronger sense of self-preservation among the students at Urban (Lapierre et al., 1993; Genero, 1995). This premise is supported by other student responses under barriers to caring self. For example, all the responses under "Put-downs" were exclusive to Suburban. Some researchers have found higher self-concept (Shapes, 1992; Sharps & Wang, 1997) and self-esteem (Richman, Clark, & Brown, 1985; Rotheram-Borus, 1990) among minority students. It is possible that the results here are related, to a certain degree, to some dimension of the participants' self-esteem and self-concept. More research in this area is needed to identify variables that might contribute to these findings.

The second concentric circle represents the intimate circle of those closest to self (family and close friends). As with barriers to caring for self, half of the students did not perceive any barriers to caring for their close friends and family, as their responses of "nothing" indicate. A greater percentage of students at Urban than at Suburban gave this response, however (50% vs. 38%). This finding was surprising given that observations indicated that more fights occurred among the students at Urban than at Suburban. It is possible that the greater violence at Urban led to stronger friendships among some students. Another explanation could be the larger number of African American students at Urban Middle School. Tuma and Hallinan (1979) found that African American children formed friends more rapidly and had more stable friendships than did European American children. Others (Kerner & Aboud, 1998) found "reliable alliance" to be more important for "black" than for "white" children. These findings suggest th at friendships among African American students may be more important to the social support system of African American students than for European American students. This contention is also supported by the responses under reciprocal caring, the next largest category in this domain. A greater percentage of students at Suburban (25%) than at Urban (11%) gave responses related to reciprocal caring.

As previously pointed out, the authors believe the large number of responses of "nothing" in this domain were intended mainly for family, while those related to reciprocal caring were intended mainly for friends. Developmental researchers (Hartup, 1989; Hartup & Laursen, 1991; Maccoby, 1992; Rubin & Coplan, 1992) contend that parent-child and child-peer relationships are markedly different. While relationships with parents are "vertical," due to the asymmetrical and complementary behavior of parent and child, relationships with friends and peers are "horizontal," or similar, due to the participants' equality (Kochanska, 1992; Russell et al., 1998). Although these findings emerged from studies of young children, these qualities might still be present in adolescent relationships.

The next concentric circle is composed of distant others (people in school). The weak bonds between self and distant others are evident in the participants' large percentage of responses (42%) related to reciprocal caring. Reciprocity is considered to be a core component of "horizontal" relationships (Hartup, 1992; Kochanska, 1992; MacDonald, 1996). Relationships are evaluated more positively when reciprocity exists between those in a relationship (McCulloch, 1990; Wright & Aquilino, 1998). Reciprocity as reflected in the responses of our participants, however, was a condition for the continuation of caring behaviors towards those distant from self. Thus, reciprocity in this case was closer to direct exchange, as in Kohlberg's stage two of moral reasoning. The weaker bonds between self and other are also evident in the increasing number of responses related to violence in this domain, which had been low under the two previous domains. Violence in schools is becoming an increasing occurrence and students, part icularly at Urban, were well aware of it.

The last concentric circle represents the greatest spatial distance and weakest bonds between self and others (strangers). Indeed, when the adolescents in this study were asked about barriers to caring for strangers, the researchers did not foresee their skewed conception of a stranger. The manner in which the participants spoke about strangers, both in terms of caring and not caring for them, indicated that to most of them a stranger was a homeless person, a beggar, or a criminal. This perspective was illustrated by the response of one 7th-grade female, who when asked, "How do you show you care for strangers?" she replied, "I don't talk to strangers." The interviewer then said, "Let's say that I was walking in the supermarket and I asked you something. Would you help me?" She replied, "Yeah; I'd tell you where it's at." Another student, a 7th-grade European American female, responded to the first question by asking, "You mean, like poor people?" The interviewer answered, "Just about anyone." The 7th-grader t hen responded, "I've seen people standing by the highways that have posters saying, 'Will work for food' and I try to give them food and stuff." When the interviewer later asked the same student, "What would make you stop from showing caring towards strangers?" she answered, "Maybe if that stranger robbed our house or something." In both instances, these students did not appear to have a comprehensive understanding of the concept of a "stranger." These findings were evident in the number of responses related to violence as barriers to caring for strangers.

The association of strangers with violence is not unique to our respondents and has been found in other studies (Eichelberger, Gotscall, Feeley, Harstad, & Bowman, 1990; Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1997; Riedel, 1993; Stevensen & Schieber, 1996). For example, Hickman & Muehlenhard (1997) contend that although research indicates that most rapes of women are perpetrated by acquaintances, most women fear being raped by a stranger. Similarly, in a national survey of parents, Eichelberger et al. (1990) found that parents were more concerned about the possibility of a stranger abducting their child than about an injury, even though the rate of abduction is small in comparison to childhood injuries. According to Noddings (1992), we have an "almost instinctive fear of strangers" (p. 113); Silberman (1978) contends that "we fear strangers more than anything else . . . (p. 11).

Conclusion and Educational Implications

The need for schools to be places where cognitive as well as moral development flourish is crucial in light of school violence. According to Alfie Kohn (1991), "The very profession of teaching calls on us to try to produce not merely good learners but good people" (p. 497-498). Similarly, Noddings (1995), contends that "we should want more from our educational efforts than adequate academic achievement and that we will not achieve even [this] meager success unless our children believe that they themselves are cared-for and learn to care for others" (p. 675).

Research indicates that opportunities for youngsters to care for each other are most successful when implemented in the context of school as community (Battistich & Hom, 1997; Schaps, Battistich, & Solomon, 1997; Schaps, Watson, & Lewis, 1996; Sergiovanni, 1994a). A strong sense of community in schools has shown to be positively related to students' pursuit of academic and social goals (Battistich, Solomon, Kim, Watson, & Schaps, 1995; Battistich & Hom, 1997; Wentzel, 1997). According to Sergiovanni (1994a), when schools become communities they help fulfill a basic human need--belonging.

However, Sergiovanni (1994a, 1994b) also points out that changing schools into communities requires a change in the ideologies and beliefs that serve as a foundation of a school's culture. Schools become communities by first becoming "purposeful communities" or "communities of mind," which Sergiovanni (1994a) defines as a community in which its members are bound by a shared ideology. For a school to become a caring community, for example, the concept of caring must serve as a foundation to the development of school norms, policies, goals, and structures (Sergiovanni, 1994a). According to Epstein (1995), a caring community is forged "when parents, teachers, students, and others view one another as partners in education" (p. 701). In these schools, educators model and teach caring as a way of approaching self, group, community, and society, thus helping youth internalize caring as a value and demonstrate it in their interactions with others (Noblit, Rogers, & McCadden, 1995; Noddings, 1992, 1995).

The results of this study indicate that most adolescents have a complex understanding of the concept of caring and its barriers. How this understanding becomes translated into action depends on the relational distance of self to the cared-for, however. Observations of student interactions in these two schools indicate that as the emotional and relational bonds between self and other become weaker, caring for others becomes increasingly challenging. For instance, the authors noticed that the students in this study could show a great deal of care for their close circle of friends, and then only a minute later taunt or tease a peer outside their circle.

Noddings (1992) contends that psychological distance leads to moral disengagement. According to the adolescents in this study, violence and lack of reciprocity (not being cared-for) are the two main barriers to caring for those outside one's intimate circle. Thus, schools must become caring communities and provide adolescents with educational experiences that foster the development of relationships and help curtail the relational distance between self and others. Noddings (1992, 1995) suggests infusing the curriculum with themes of care in which students learn about self and others. For example, themes related to war, poverty, homelessness, and tolerance, when combined with service learning opportunities, help narrow the psychological and physical distance between self and strangers (Kratzer, 1996; Noddings, 1992, 1995; Perry, 1996; Tyree, Vance, & McJunkin, 1997). Activities, such as peer tutoring, that bring together students from different ages and academic levels help foster relations between self and oth ers within the school (Cabello & Terrell, 1994; Kratzer, 1996; Schaps, Lewis, & Watson, 1997).

The results of this study indicate that without these opportunities adolescents' concepts of caring will remain a direct function of the relational distance between self and others. Weekly observations indicated that these schools' most emphasized improving students' essential skills and raising their state test scores. There was no systematic effort to achieve affective goals, including using the curriculum to teach students to care. Although parents were encouraged to participate in celebrations to honor their children, they did not play an active role in the functioning of the schools. Similarly, even though both schools had some partnerships with the community, there was no systematic effort to infuse the schools with service-learning projects, which would help students experience caring and understand its important contributions to the school's culture.

References

Anfara, V. A., & Miron, L. F. (1996). Beyond caring: a look at practical intersubjectivity as a new paradigm to govern educational reform. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 2(3), 304-330.

Bateson, C. D. (1990). How social and animal? The human capacity for caring. American Psychologist, 45(3), 336-346.

Battistich, V., & Hom, A. (1997). The relationship between students' sense of their school as a community and their involvement in problem behaviors. American Journal of Public Health, 87(12), 1997-2001.

Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1995). Schools as communities, poverty levels of student populations, and students' attitudes, motives, and performance: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 627-658.

Beck, L. (1995). Reclaming educational administration as a caring profession. New York: Teachers College Press.

Benner, P., & Wrubel, J. (1989). Primacy of caring. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bosworth, K. (1995). Caring for others and being cared-for: Students talk caring in school. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 686-692.

Brendtro, L. K., Brokenleg, M., & Van Bockern, S. (1990). Reclaiming youth at risk: Our hope for the future. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Buber, M. (1965). Between man and man. New York: Harper & Row.

Cabello, B., & Terrell, R. (1994). Making students feel like a family: How teachers create warm and caring classroom climates. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 29(1), 17-23.

Chaskin, R. J., & Rauner, D. M. (1995). Youth and caring: An introduction. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 667-675.

Eichelberger, M. R., Gotscall, C. S., Feeley, H. B., Harstad, P., & Bowman, L. M. (1990). Parental attitudes and knowledge of child safety: A national survey. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 144(6), 714-720.

Eisenberg, N. (1992). The caring child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701-711.

Genero, N. P. (1995). Culture, resiliency, and mutual psychological development. In H. I. McCubbin, E. A. Thompson, & J. A. Futrell (Eds.), Resiliency in ethnic minority families (Vol. 2, pp. 31-48). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin System, A Center for Excellence in Family Studies.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hartup, W. W. (1989). Social relationships and their developmental significance. American Psychologist, 44(2), 120-126.

Hartup, W. W. (1992). Having friends, making friends, and keeping friends: Relationships as educational contexts. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 345 854)

Hartup, W. W., & Laursen, B. (1991), Relationships as developmental contexts. In R. Cohen & A. W. Siegel (Eds.), Context and development (pp. 253-279). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hemmings, J. (1991). The physiology of moral maturity. Journal of Moral Education, 20(2), 127-137.

Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1997). College women's fears and precautionary behaviors relating to acquaintance rape and stranger rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(4), 527-547.

Kerner, M., & Aboud, F. E. (1998). The importance of friendship qualities and reciprocity in a multiracial school. Canadian Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 7(2), 117-25.

Kochanska, G. (1992). Children's interpersonal influence with mothers and peers. Developmental Psychology, 28(3), 491-499.

Kohlberg, L. (1984a). The psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L. (1984b). Essays on moral development, vol. 2: The psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kohn, A. (1991). Caring kids: The role of the school. Phi Delta Kappan, 27(7), 496-506.

Kratzer, C. C. (1996). Redefining effectiveness: Cultivating community in an urban elementary school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Lapierre, S., Bouffard, L., & Bastin, E. (1993). Motivational goal objects in later life. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 36(4),279-93.

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006-1017.

MacDonald, K. (1996). What do children want? A conceptualization of evolutionary influences on children's motivation in the peer group. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19(1),53-73.

Mayeroff, M. (1971). On caring. New York: Harper & Row.

McCulloch, B. J. (1990). The relationship of intergenerational reciprocity of aid to the morale of older parents: Equity and exchange theory comparisons. Journal of Gerontology, 45(4), S150-155.

McCroskey, J. C. (1992). An introduction to communication in the classroom. Edina, MN: Burgess International Group.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Noblit, G. W., & Rogers, D. L. (1992). Creating caring in schools. Paper presented at the Lilly Endowment Research Grants Program on Youth and Caring Conference, Key Biscayne, FL.

Noblit, G. W., Rogers, D. L., & McCadden, B. M. (1995). In the meantime: The possibilities of caring. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 680-685.

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Noddings, N., (1992). The challenge to care in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Noddings, N. (1995). Teaching themes of care. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 675-679.

Perry, C. M. (1996). How do we teach what is right? Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 2(4), 400-410.

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgement of the child. New York: Free Press.

Powell, G. (1995). Helping children cope with fear and stress. NHSA Journal, 14(1), 29-31.

Richman, C. L., Clark, M. L., & Brown, K. (1985). General and specific self-esteem in late adolescent students. Adolescence, 20(79), 555-566.

Riedel, M. (1993). Stranger violence: A theoretical inquiry. New York: Garland Publishing.

Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (1990). Adolescents' reference-group choices, self-esteem and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2),1075-1081.

Rubin, K. H., & Coplan, R. J. (1992). Peer relationships in childhood. In M. H. Bornstein & M.E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (3rd ed., pp. 519-578). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Russell, A., Pettit, G. S., & Mize, J. (1998). Horizontal relationships in parent-child relationships: Parallels with and possible consequences for children's peer relations. Developmental Review, 18(3), 313-352.

Schaps, E., Battistich, V., & Solomon, D. (1997). School as a caring community: A key to character education. In A. Molnar (Eds.), The construction of children's character (pp. 127-139). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Schaps, E., Lewis, C., & Watson, M. (1997). Classroom communities. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 27(1), 14-18.

Schaps, E., Watson, M., & Lewis, C. (1996). A sense of community is key to effectiveness in fostering character education. Journal of Staff Development, 17(2), 42-47.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994a). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994b). Organizations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 214-226.

Sharpes, D. K. (1992). Adolescent self-concept. Journal of Pedagogics, 13(1), 52-71.

Sharpes, D. K., & Wang, X. (1997). Adolescent self-concept among Han, Mongolian, and Korean Chinese. Adolescence, 32(128), 913-924.

Seigfried, C. (1989). Pragmatism, feminism, and sensitivity to context. In M. Brabeck (Ed.), Who cares: Theory, research, and educational implications of the ethic of care (pp. 63-83). New York: Praeger.

Silberman, C. E. (1978). Criminal violence, crimincal justice. New York: Random House.

Steinberg, L. (1998). Studying minority adolescents: Conceptual, methodological and theoretical issues.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stevensen, M. R., & Schieber, R.A. (1996). Preventing non-family child abductions: Are children aware they are being followed? Journal of School Health, 66(10), 359-360.

Tuma, N., & Hallinan, M. (1979). The effects of sex, race and achievement on school children's friendships. Social Forces, 57, 1265-1285.

Tyree, C., Vance, M., & McJunkin, M. (1997). Teaching values to promote a more caring world. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 3(2), 215-226.

Waxman, R. P., Spencer, P. E., & Poisson, 8.8. (1996). Reciprocity, responsiveness, and timing in interactions between mothers and deaf and hearing children. Journal of Early Intervention, 20(4), 341-355.

Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411-419.

Wright, D. L., & Aquilino, W. S. (1998). Influence of emotional support exchange in marriage on caregiving wives' burden and marital satisfaction. Family Relations, 47(2), 195-204.

[Figure 1 omitted]

[Figure 2 omitted]