Why I picked it up: see my review of the introduction to this book: "The Field of Prosocial Behavior: An Introduction and Overview"  
​
What you need to know: Part 1 focused on prosocial behavior at the individual level. I found the following articles particularly interesting, and have bulleted out my takeaways to make it easier to internalize. It's still a very long post, mostly because I found so much to be relevant. Finally, you'll see I added commentary that I connected with museums, our current state mid-pandemic, and other research (identified at beginning of bullet at "SMW comments"). 

• "The Economics of Prosocial Behavior," Eric van Dijk.
  • Classic economic theory assumes humans are rational, but behaving in prosocial ways isn't always rational and often comes at economic cost (such as giving money to charity). Behavioral economics, however, does begin to describe why people engage in prosocial behavior … and how they benefit from it as well (such as reputationally when they give that money to charity). Generally, when societies support prosocial behavior, they tend to have higher levels of cooperation, to everyone's benefit. And, generally, societies that heavily sanction poor behavior have lower levels of cooperation … and fewer benefits.
    • SMW comments - Think about masks. When we cooperate and wear masks in a pandemic, we all benefit. And when we don't, well, we don't.
  • Most people can be classified as having a prosocial/cooperative personality, a competitive personality, or an individualistic personality. The individualistic one is highly self-interested, while competitors and prosocials consider the outcomes of others … competitors because they want to come out ahead, while prosocials (about half of adults) want to increase everyone's outcomes. Prosocials seem to be more concerned about "true fairness," while individualists and competitors are more likely to use fairness instrumentally, as a means to improve their own outcomes.
    • SMW comments - This is interesting. If this is personality type, then that suggests that, to some extent, it is how individuals are wired. And that doesn't jive so much with American Generosity, which explored how external factors and childhood upbringing and adult peer groups affect generosity (which is, clearly, a prosocial behavior). Taking our behaviors during this pandemic as an example, this suggests that there appears to be a correlation with political persuasion, with conservatives more likely to be individualistic, and liberals more prosocial.
  • People are more generous if they know more details about the people they are helping. That's why appeals that tell stories about those helped tend to do better than appeals that are simply statistics.

 

• "The Development of Prosocial Behavior," Nancy Eisenberg, Natalie D. Eggum-Wilkens, and Tracy L. Spinrad. - Reviews theories around the development of prosocial behavior, especially in childhood.
  • Early childhood. Explores Hoffman's Theoretical Model for empathetic responding, which posits that capacity for empathy begins during infancy. Around two to three years, "veridical empathy" begins, which is the awareness of others' needs and feelings, and responding to them in other-oriented ways (that is, trying to comfort in ways someone may wish to be comforted). By late childhood, the capacity for "empathy for another's life condition" develops, right around when the ability to think abstractly develops, which is a valuable progression as it can develop into broader awareness of issues and prosocial activism.
  • Middle Childhood. Generally, it had been supposed prosocial behavior increases as children get older, but a number of trajectory studies indicates that prosocial behaviors appear to decrease through the elementary-school years, especially in studies of boys.
    • SMW comments - I find this distressing. It is like we set kids up really well, but then we find it difficult to sustain it as kids get older. Is this because we, as parents and caregivers, have shifted our focus from social development to academic pursuits and extracurriculars? Are we doing our children a significant disservice in the process?
  • Adolescence. The research indicates that prosocial behavior in adolescence and early adulthood has some starts and stops, but tends to increase in late adolescence and early adulthood.
  • As individuals, we tend to be consistently prosocial in our lives. That is, those who were highly prosocial as children tend to be highly prosocial as adults, and vice versa.
  • Those with high levels of socio-cognitive and self-regulations skills, including emotion understanding and perspective taking, have higher levels of prosocial behaviors.
    • SMW comments - This makes sense to me. And now we're starting to talk business, because that cognitive bit is where I think museums come into play.
  • Origins of Prosocial Responding
    • Heredity - Some people are more wired for prosocial behaviors than others.
    • Parental Socialization - Through encouragement and modeling of behavior, warm and secure relationships with their children, and exhibiting high levels of emotional intelligence, parents affect the prosocial development of children throughout childhood and into adulthood. Additionally, authoritative parenting is linked with higher prosocial behaviors in children than authoritarian parenting. 
    • Nonparental Socialization - Such as teachers, peers, and siblings. Like with parents, having close, supporting relationships with siblings and peers tends to yield more prosocial behaviors, such as perspective taking. Teachers can also affect prosocial behaviors by the tone they set in their classrooms.
  • Role of Cultural and Subcultural Variation
    • There can be wide variations in prosocial behavior from culture to culture, with different cultures having different social norms. Typically, where prosocial behavior is prized, communal values are as well, and more aggressive and hostile cultures tend not to value prosocial behaviors as much.
    • Cultures that tend to assign children chores from a young age, value extended families, and appreciate the economic contributions of women in the household tend to raise more prosocial-oriented children. More "traditionally" cultured children tended to act more prosocial towards family members, and children raised in more "industrial" cultures tended to be more prosocial towards those who are not relatives. Cultures with more focus on individuals (more "Western") versus those focus more on communal needs (more "Eastern") show mixed differences which yield no conclusions that either is more prosocial.
    • There are some research studies that show that certain school-based programs can affect children's intrinsic motivation as well as prosocial behaviors, indicating that prosocial behavior can be nurtured outside of the home environment.
  • Overall conclusion is that prosocial behaviors are a mixture of nature and nurture, and that some children are more receptive to prosocial intervention than others.

• "Morality and Prosocial Judgments and Behavior," by Elliot Turiel
  • Explores the difference between prosocial behavior and moral judgments. Whereas prosocial behavior are actions to benefit others with no expectation of a reward (and often at some degree of sacrifice), moral judgments refer to the cognitive aspects of morality, including conceptualizing and reasoning about moral issues. This isn't to say that they are not connected, or even that there is no overlap in them; there can be. Sometimes, the moral judgments stem from times when prosocial reasoning is necessary to overcome laws, authorities, and potential punishments in order to then proceed to action (civil disobedience would be an example).
  • Overall discussion of how we weigh greater good, with actions against trust and honesty. When is it OK to lie in order to prevent/cause something else to happen that may, on balance, be better? How does that line vary with maturity, or based on the scenario given? What happens when it is a matter of fairness? What happens if exercising one's right to do something negatively affects a different right … or another's rights?

• "The Contextually Grounded Nature of Prosocial Behavior: A Multiscale, Embodied Approach to Morality," by J. Scott Jordan and Eric D. Wesselmann
  • Immediately posits that the world isn't black-and-white, prosocial or antisocial, but instead there is a lot of gray as we inhabit a "multiscale" world of peers, social groups, and cultural groups that influence our behavior and that may affect whether that behavior actually is prosocial or antisocial. For example, ostracism is seen as an antisocial behavior, but when used as a form of correction, it is prosocial, working towards the greater good (though this can be used for ill-purposes as well, such as in cults).
    • SMW comments - I would argue that ostracism can be taken to an extreme with cancel culture as well. That wasn't even a thing when this volume was released.
  • That being said, gives considerable discussion to how we respond prosocially to the actions of others. For example, two people engaged in discussion while sitting in rocking chairs are likely to rock synchronously, while two people ignoring each other don’t. This has repercussions for empathy, of course, and it is also somewhat related to Theory of Mind and how we think about the mental state of others. In so doing, we are constantly in a state of considering that mental state of others, as individuals one-on-one, but also as we operate in the multiscale.

• "Culture and Prosocial Behavior," by Irina Feygina and P.J. Henry 
  • Are some cultures more prosocial than others? Is it a degree of interpretation? Or, are some privately prosocial, and publicly less so (or vice versa)?
  • Prosocial behavior, and its rewards and punishments, has its own 3 Rs: reputation, reciprocation, and retribution. Engaging in prosocial behavior enhances reputation, aids in reciprocation, and failing to do so risks retribution.
  • Individualistic cultures have different types of prosocial expectations than more collective cultures, with the latter making more cooperative choices. That being said, collective cultures tend to be more prosocial within their ingroup, while individualist cultures tend be more even-handed toward both ingroup and outgroup individuals.
    • SMW comments - I get what they are saying, but I think it varies within those cultures as well. For example, the United States tends towards the individualistic side. But if we look at conservative and liberal attitudes, especially during this pandemic (and mask-wearing, as an indicator behavior), we see the opposite of what the authors are suggesting. That is, conservatives tend to be more individualistic, but are more prosocial within their ingroup; liberals are more collective, but are more even-handed toward both ingroup and outgroup.
  • The less wealth someone has, the greater the likelihood that individual will help others. They go on to note that lower SES individuals tend to behave more prosocially. It is hypothesized the lower SES individuals need other people more, which leads to that prosocial behavior, while higher SES are more independent, not putting them into the prosocial frame of mind as much.
    • SMW comments - this has been seen in other studies as well, with lower-income households often giving a higher percentage of their incomes to charity than high-income households.

Full citation:  Schroeder, David A. and Graziano, William G. "The Field of Prosocial Behavior: An Introduction and Overview." The Oxford Handbook of Prosocial Behavior, edited by David A. Schroeder and William G. Graziano, Oxford University Press, 2015.

Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

I read and skim a lot of reports. Some are reviewed here on The Curated Bookshelf. Some turn out to not be that relevant. And some have bits and pieces that are interesting, falling a bit in between.

Pew Research Center produces a prodigious amount of high-quality reports, and here are snapshot review of three fairly recent ones that I found of enough interest to flag (two briefly, one at more length). 

"Generation Z Looks a Lot Like Millennials on Key Social and Political Issues." Pew Research Center, January 2019.

First, if you don't know who Generation Z is, it comprises a new generation ages 14 to 22 … the generation that comes after the Millennials. It is shaping up to be the most diverse and well-educated generation yet (until, of course, the generation that comes after them!). Overall, their attitudes are fairly similar to Millennials in that, compared to older generations, they tend to be more liberal … at least for now. As they grow fully into adulthood, attitudes can shift. What I think is most important to museums is that both non-Hispanic whites AND Gen Z Republicans specifically are more progressive on racial and ethnic issues and on climate change than their older counterparts, which I personally view with hope.


"What Americans Know About Science." Pew Research Center, March 2019.

Science, just like many things, is political. Climate change, vaccines, the age of Earth … whether one believes science is real or that theories are up for debate (thus clearly not understanding what science means by the word "theory"). As usual, Pew Research Center is unafraid to delve into political issues and looked at what Americans know about science, and then ran their filters and cross tabs to look for variations. Of interest to us is that science knowledge isn't steady. One would think that those with more education score better on a test of science knowledge (they do), but men outperform women, and whites score better than blacks and Hispanics … even after controlling for educational attainment. Meanwhile, political persuasion doesn't seem to matter when it comes to science knowledge, but it does come into play in terms of how people apply science to the world. If you are dealing with the public on science issues, you should read the full report.


"Where Americans Find Meaning in Life." Pew Research Center, November 2018
​
We talk about how visitors find meaning in museums. But most people don't visit museums, and those that do are visiting a handful of times a year, not every week. So how do Americans find meaning in their day-to-day lives? And can that give us better insight to how they find meaning in museums?
​
Unsurprisingly, family comes out tops for finding meaning in life. But of interest to museums is how activities and hobbies rank, as well as learning.

The learning finding makes a lot of sense, given my work that shows that somewhere around 5 - 10% of the population is highly curious and finds joy in learning … as well as the 10% or so of Americans who visit museums 3 or more times/year. While these two groups are not exactly the same, the point is there is likely a high degree of overlap and the sizes make sense.

As Pew points out, different groups of Americans finds meaning in different places. Educational attainment drove some key differences, as those with higher education were more likely to mention friends, good health, hobbies, travel, and most crucially, learning … things that those who are less socioeconomically privileged may not always have the resources to enjoy. 
​
​There are important differences by  other factors such as religion, race and ethnicity, and political persuasion. Some are more relevant to museums than others (though educational attainment seems to be the strongest factor for us). But bottom line, meaning is found in emotional attachments, whether family, religion, or friends, and in how we live our fullest lives. Museums can help with both. 


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: I'm interested in how spaces work, and I am also interested in inequality, the levels of civic engagement and discourse in our country, and health and wellness. This book is a confluence of these things, so I picked up a copy as soon as I heard about it.

What you need to know: The author studies what he calls social infrastructure, "the physical places and organizations that shape the way people interact." It isn't the same thing as social capital, which measures people's relationships and interpersonal networks. Instead, it is about the physical conditions that determine how easy it is for that social capital to develop … or not.

There is an increasing numbers of academic research that documents the physical and mental benefits of social ties, but are there physical mechanisms that make those social ties easier to develop? Klinenberg says yes.

He goes on to make a case that a strong social infrastructure is increasingly critical because when it fails it can have catastrophic consequences for people's health and wellbeing: as a chronic condition of unattachment and/or when disaster hits (such as a natural disaster).

So what are the places that promote social infrastructure? He suggests the places we would call "third places," such as playgrounds, libraries, parks, etc., as well as the community organizations that meet in those places. These places can be designed to promote interactions in ways that benefit residents.

This book kept reminding me of The Vanishing Neighbor, by Marc Dunkelman (reviewed here March 2018), which suggested that communities are struggling as Americans have reduced their "middle-ring" friendships of casual acquaintances and friendships. When that support social network fails, so do communities. Similarly, when the social infrastructure that supports the "middle-ring" friendships fails, so do the support networks that help all of us over the long-term and in times of crises. Both books make the case that we are facing challenges, and that we need these community places and networks to engage with each other to our mutual benefit.

Implications for museums: Theoretically, museums would be great places to build social infrastructure (and some do). What breaks my heart in this book is that Klinenberg doesn't mention museums once. He does, however, love libraries, and speaks at length about how they serve as crucial social infrastructure for many. Indeed, this book could serve as a love letter to libraries.

It begs the question, however, of how and why we have structured our museums historically so that museums are simply not even considered part of the social infrastructure of our communities. We can do better. We must.

Read or skip? If you are interested how place and community intersect for greater wellbeing, and/or if you liked The Vanishing Neighbor, you should pick it up. There is a lot in the book to think about and consider. I only scratched the surface in this review. Otherwise, this review is likely sufficient.
​
Full citation: Klinenberg, Eric. Palaces for the People: How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life. New York: Crown, 2018.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Recent studies I have reviewed show strong evidence that culture and health go hand-in-hand: individuals that participate in culture tend to be healthier and exhibit greater well-being, and the same goes for communities. (For examples, see "Creative Health" and "The Social Wellbeing of New York City's Neighborhoods.")

So looking at state and municipal rankings on health and wellbeing can be incredibly useful for considering how museums can make significant contributions to their communities through the lens of their missions.

To get a sense of those rankings, here's a quick roundup. I encourage you to check out how your state or city scores, and then consider how your museum, working alone, with other museums, or with community partners, might help address areas of weakness. 

State of American Well-Being: 2017 State Well-Being Rankings
What it is: National survey by Gallup • Sharecare to capture well-being across five dimensions:

1. Purpose
2. Social
3. Financial
4. Community
5. Physical

The report compares each state overall, and then by each dimension. Page six of this (very short) report gives best practices to consider. (National Geographic turned this into a smiley-face map of the US, and also shared some details not found in the overall summary.)

Sadly, the national index score decreased from 2016 to 2017, with 21 individual states showing declines and no states showing a statistically significant improvement. The biggest declines nationally are in the "purpose" and "social" dimensions. I've seen evidence of this in my client work as well, when working with the broader population. There is an exhaustion that is, in part, due to the political and news cycles, but in other parts due to the relentlessness of the challenges of modern life. To be honest, I was surprised there wasn't a decline in the "community" dimension as well.

Full citation:   "State of American Well-Being: 2017 State Well-Being Rankings." Gallup • Sharecare. February 2018.


State of American Well-Being: 2017 Community Well-Being Rankings
What it is: The same research from the "State of American Well-Being" report, but broken down by cities.
Interesting notes: 17 of the top 25 communities are in only five states, while about half of the lowest 25 communities are in the South. Overall, well-being is higher for people in urban areas than rural areas, for a variety of reasons from access to resources to socio-economic patterns. But on the flip side, community well-being tends to increase as the population size decreases, so there are pros and cons for both rural and urban areas.

Like in the state-based report, page six shares best-practices to consider, some of which may be mission-appropriate for museums.

Full citation: "State of American Well-Being: 2017 Community Well-Being Rankings." Gallup • Sharecare. March 2018.


America's Health Rankings: Annual Report 2017
What it is: An assessment of health that looks across 35 measures, including clinical care and policy, but also behaviors, community, and environment. The emphasis is on complete health, looking at physical, mental, and social well-being. Similar to the "State of American Well-Being," this assessment had troubling decreases in health outcomes, primarily rising rates of premature death.

Head straight to page eleven, where you can see the ranking to gain an immediate snapshot of how your state is doing. And then flip over to page fourteen, as it breaks down state rankings through the lenses of behavior, community and environment, policy, clinical care, and health outcomes. Full-page reports on each state start on p. 109.

The report also examines critical health issues, how socio-economic status relates to health outcomes, and then compares the US to other countries. Much of this is only tangentially relevant to museums (though could make interesting exhibits and programs for science centers or for history museums looking at them through a historical lens). There were a few things, however, that museums may be able to work with partners to address, such as:

• High school graduation (p. 50)
• Physical inactivity (p. 54)
• Children in poverty (p. 59)
• Disconnected youth (p. 97)
• Neighborhood amenities (p. 98)
• Poor mental health days (p. 105)

Full citation: "America's Health Rankings: Annual Report 2017. United Health Foundation. December 2017.

Why I picked it up: What on earth does a book about developing nations have to do with museums, especially American ones? Quite a bit, as it turns out.

There are a few areas of my work that I have always struggled with, and one is how to discuss what I usually describe as low socio-economic status (SES) households. Households that have fewer resources, and more barriers to museum visitation. I've come to a realization that museums (inadvertently, perhaps) perpetuate income inequality as our (primarily) well-educated audiences provide resources and experiences to their children, yielding benefits that make that next generation better educated, more employable, and often higher earning. A perpetuation of privilege. I'm part of that privilege, and museums are part of what helped me, just as I count on them to help my children be more knowledgeable and compassionate thinkers.

To say "if only low SES households would visit …" seems patronizing while also self-serving to museums. And it also shifts "blame" to low SES individuals. Like it is their fault for challenges they face in their lives when, instead, it is often a slew of external forces that are influencing life outcomes. Forces such as family medical or caregiving needs, childhood upbringing, systemic racism, and economic insecurity.

Which is why reviewing another book, American Generosity, was such a revelation to me. It utilized a capacity approach to how individuals exhibit generosity, and it is an approach I have embraced in my own work. It is an approach that casts no judgement on an individual. Instead, it embraces human dignity, recognizing that capacity to engage with others, a community, or the broader world varies widely. It is one that moves us to do what we can to increase individual capacity so that more can reach their full potential.

I recently reviewed Welcome to Your World, where I came across the work of Martha Nussbaum (the author of this book) and economist Amartya Sen. I was intrigued by their ideas on capabilities, as well as negative freedoms (e.g., freedom from want) and positive freedoms (e.g., freedom to educate oneself). My desire to learn more led me to this book.

What you need to know: First off, the Capabilities Approach is based on the question "What are people actually able to do and to be?" It focuses on respect for individuals and their human dignity, and has been adopted by the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme.

The Capabilities Approach is rooted in choice and freedom, which thus creates individual opportunity. This emphatically makes the approach highly concerned about "entrenched social justice and inequality." The overall goal is to lift everyone on the planet up to a widely held threshold of capability that builds internal capabilities of health, education, etc., along with changes in the social, political, and economic environments that allow people to act on their internal capabilities.

There are 10 Central Capabilities:

• Life (of normal length)
• Bodily health
• Bodily integrity
• Senses, imagination, and thought
• Emotions
• Practical reason
• Affiliation (includes compassion)
• Other species (living with natural environment)
• Play
• Control over one's environment

Some of these capabilities lend themselves to negative freedoms (that is, bodily health implies freedom from want or hunger), while others lend themselves to positive freedoms (freedom to feel, learn, or play). Lifelong learning, such as through museums, can increase a number of these capabilities.

Implications for museums:

1. Consider the ten capabilities and how museums can support capabilities through some or all of them.
2. Reframe our value as increasing people's capacity to grow, both personally and as contributing members of society.
3. Actually help people … live the philosophy.
4. Collect and show evidence of how we do this work. After all, this is how we make a difference, and we need to show that evidence to generate the resources we need to expand that work.

Theory and Circular Logic Tangent (skip this part of the review unless you enjoy getting in my head): Throughout this book I struggled with my own circular logic. I know from my research that museum-goers exhibit greater capacity to engage with the world, and improved life outcomes (even when controlling for educational attainment). Pursuing lifelong learning (including visiting museums) likely is a key reason for that gap. So, in theory, if we provide greater access to our resources to more people, we could help improve individual capacity, right? Sure. But this also feels patronizing (my review notes actually include the word "imperialistic"). Like telling someone with an unhealthy diet to eat their spinach. They know it is better, but they don't want to do it. And, indeed, they have the individual freedom to choose their diet.

Yet, flipping it around, why do I think encouraging people to visit museums more to increase capabilities is patronizing, but telling kids to stay in school isn't? Aren't they both about education? Or, to take from Nussbaum, is forcing children to visit museums early and often (as well as other enrichment lifelong learning activities) a "necessary prelude to adult capability?" Yet not everyone needs museums to have good outcomes in life … just like I can dislike kale and still be a healthy adult (I actually like spinach).

Fortunately, my struggles with the theory, my own circular logic, and presumptions are not unique. Nussbaum herself delves into it herself, trying to find her own line in the sand, just as I am. So whew, it isn't just me.

Read/skip: Skip. You got this from this review. Unless you love theory (because this book is theory heavy).

Full citation:  Nussbaum, Martha C. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011.

Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: Museum-goers tell me museums have contributed to their understanding of others, and that it happens over a lifetime, starting from childhood. This study focuses on kindness (including compassion and empathy), so the relevance seemed, at least initially, obvious.

What it is: A survey of 2000 children ages 6 to 12. It tells us their views, as well as what they think  their parents believe. Interesting, as what they think their parents believe may different than what their parents actually believe. Not a bad approach, seeing how parental attitudes and behaviors are translated to children. Additionally, there are a fair number of restrictions around surveying children this young, so I'm grateful for any solid source that provides data directly from children like this.

Good news nugget: 2/3 of children did indicate a fundamental understanding of the concept of empathy, with older children being somewhat more likely than younger ones, which is understandable.

Is it useful to museums? To be honest, I found this of limited use to museums. It is helpful to get a "lay of the land" on children, especially if children and their families are a key audience segment. But otherwise, not directly useful. Instead, the audience for this data is parents, with a goal of helping parents prioritize showing kindness.

That being said, they have a great summary infographic that is worth a look.

Methodological gripe: I found some of the questions a bit problematic, methodology-wise. For example, they ask: "What do you think is most important to your parents, that you're happy, do well in school, or are kind?" 44% responded that they are happy, 33% that they do well in school, and 23% said being kind. The study then goes on to note "Parents, you may think that the kindness message--being a good person with strong values--is getting through to your kids, but the survey data shows that kids think otherwise."

REALLY? That's not how I read it. This isn't a zero-sum game. The question only allowed one answer, and I can see a child being torn in how to answer. The fact that 77% chose things other than kindness doesn't tell me that parents are not teaching and/or modeling kindness. It tells me that there are two other things that come out ahead, but the margin is totally unclear. It could be big (in which case their conclusion that children are not getting the kindness message is correct). But I suspect it is fairly narrow, with parents likely valuing all three things. How this question is asked, however, doesn't allow children to provide any nuance. Thus, I took all of the results with a bit of a grain of salt.

Full citation:  "State of the Kid 2017." Highlights for Children. 2017.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: Families with young children, as well as school groups, are a key audience for museums. And we all know that museums can provide children with meaningful experiences …. experiences that are cherished, and sometimes change lives in obvious and not-so-obvious ways. But we meaningfully reach too few children, a social justice issue that museums have not truly reckoned with. So of course I picked this up.

What you need to know:  The Annie E. Casey Foundation has been working on this annual "by the numbers" on child wellbeing since 1990; this 2017 book uses the most recent data (2015) from the US Census Bureau, the CDC, the US Department of Education, and other sources.
​
The Data Book examines child wellbeing across four factors, noting if there has been progress (or regression) over the past five years (so, since 2010).

• Economic: Progress! There are fewer children in poverty … but one in five are still from impoverished households.
• Education: Mixed. Graduation rates are improving, but other measures (e.g. school proficiency) are lagging.
• Health: Progress! There has been overall improvement, particularly in health insurance coverage thanks to Obamacare.
• Family and community: Mixed. Teen pregnancy rates are declining, but there are increasing numbers of children in single-parent households, which tend to be lower income with fewer resources and more stressors.

Other findings:

• Overall, whites and Asian American children are doing much better than other children of color.
• They examined wellbeing by states and regionally, finding that New England states overall have highest rates of child wellbeing; states in the South, Southwest, and Appalachia are not doing as well. These findings make sense given those regions have sharply different levels of educational attainment, with resulting economic outcomes that affect child wellbeing.

Implications for museums:  While this report doesn't directly mention museums, we have to be mindful that its focus is a key audience for all of us. In particular:

• Any director or staff member of a museum that has children and/or families as a core audience should have familiarity with the report, since this is your core audience. It will give you a better idea of challenges your audience is facing … especially underserved audiences.
• In particular, educators should take a look at how their state is doing, and consider programs that might address some of these concerns. And development directors should work closely with education staff to secure funding through new sources. After all, we are capable of creating meaningfully improved outcomes for all children. But we have to reach them to do so.

The website includes a wonderful tool for focusing in on one specific geographic area for a snapshot of child wellbeing. For some lucky states, it can even be refined by zip code. Go to datacenter.kidscount.org to start pulling your community's numbers.

Read or skip? Anyone who wants to serve all children in their community should skim through the report, check out page 53 for their state's ranking, and consider going to datacenter.kidscount.org to create more refined reports. They make it easy.

Full citation:  "2017 Kids Count Data Book: State Trends in Child Well-Being." The Annie E. Casey Foundation. June 2017.
​


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

"At least one third of GP appointments are, in part, due to isolation."
                                                                                                                   - Dr. Jane Povey, GP

Why I picked it up: I'm always looking for any and all research that provides evidence that the arts and culture have positive impacts in people's lives … as well as for communities and society. And I'm a pragmatist about this. Yes, I absolutely believe we should value arts and culture for its own sake, but that doesn't preclude tracking more practical impacts … such as health and wellbeing. One doesn’t preclude the other.

What you need to know: Goodness, this is the most thorough, comprehensive review of what has to be every study out there that provides evidence that arts and culture promote better health and wellbeing. 1,048 footnotes worth, by life stage (from prenatal exposure to death).

In the forward, the report makes three key points that arts and cultural engagement:

1. support overall well-being;
2. help meet significant healthcare challenges; and
3. can save significant healthcare costs.​

​The report also makes the economic case for shifting the healthcare system from one focused on hospital care and illness treatment to one that is more holistic and person-based, which includes lifestyle choices that matter.  In particular, it recommends extending the reach of arts and culture to individuals in lower socio-economic households as well as older adults (two segments of the population that have lower levels of engagement). On p. 10 of the short report there is a far-sighted list of ten recommendations for changes in the UK; I'd like to see a similar list coming out of the American medical, health insurance, and cultural fields as well.

Implications for museums: The bottom line is that there is considerable and conclusive evidence that regular participation in arts and culture improves health and wellbeing throughout one's life. This results in longer, healthier lives, greater economic contributions through those lives, and significant healthcare savings. Seems to me that is a pretty powerful case that we can broaden our audiences significantly by attracting them based on their extrinsic motivations for greater health and wellbeing, and then giving them something meaningful to experience as well.

I want to flag the older adults bit. We have a rapidly aging population of older adults, and older adults are the least likely segment of the population to participate in arts and culture according to two national studies I fielded. This report lists the significant outcomes that arts and cultural engagement has for older adults, including:

• Social access
• Reductions in loneliness
• Increased independence
• Reduced neuro-cognitive disorders
• Increased health and wellbeing
• All thus reducing health costs across socio-economic strata

This seems like a no-brainer for museums.

Read or skip? You should read the "short report" to familiarize yourself with what is in the long report. In particular, the infographic in that short report is rather useful (pictured above).  As for the full report, only those who are focused on wellness initiatives in their work or are writing a proposal that needs clear evidence of health-related impact need to dive in. For the latter, this is absolutely your go-to resource because they covered everything. Finally, the website has five two-page "policy briefings," that are clearly intended for advocacy. Those can be very useful as well, but do keep in mind this is a UK report, even though it cites studies from around the world.

​Full citation:  "Creative Health: The Arts for Health and Wellbeing." Research report published by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health, and Wellbeing. Released July 2017. A "short report" is also available.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: I'm pretty focused on what impact arts and culture has on individuals and communities. So I'll look at any study that examines long-term arts engagement and civic engagement to see if there is any reliable evidence. This new study was only released last week.

What you need to know: Researchers from the University of Lincoln and the University of Kent (UK) wanted to test the hypothesis that arts engagement generates more prosocial cooperation, thus yielding significant societal benefits. They used the Understanding Society sample, which is longitudinal and, crucially, a representative sample of the UK population. With n = 30,476, they can control for a host of sociodemographic factors.

Their questions boiled down to:

1 - Is there a connection between arts engagement and prosocial behavior?
2 - Does that connection still exist when sociodemographic and personality variables are controlled? That is, when the capacity for prosocial behavior and for arts engagement is accounted for.
3 - Is this connection distinctive, or are there other things that similarly affect prosocial behavior?
4 - Does arts engagement create short-term effects, or is it cumulative?

Their results were pretty definitive.

First, yes, no question. Engagement in the arts was one of the strongest predictors of charitable giving and volunteering even stronger than most socio-demographic variables. And when the socio-demographic variables that also strongly affected prosocial behaviors were controlled for (e.g., education, income), arts engagement was the strongest predictor at all levels. So while low-income individuals may generally have lower capacity to engage in the arts and/or engage in prosocial behavior, those that do engage in the arts still have greater prosocial behavior than those who do not. And while high-income individuals may have greater capacity to engage in the arts and/or prosocial behavior, the same rule holds depending on whether they actually do engage.

The results also suggest that the effect is cumulative. The longer individuals engage with the arts, the more prosocial they became. Or, in other words, one museum visit isn't going to make anyone significantly more prosocial. It takes many visits, over years.

They summed up their conclusions in three points:

1 - Arts have an essential role in prosocial behavior, benefiting society.
2 - Evidence indicates that there are significant social and economic gains for investing in the arts.
3 - The most effective investments in the arts are likely those that make arts engagement more widely available across the socio-economic spectrum.


Implications for museums: This is a solid study, using a well-respected longitudinal survey, that should be helpful for making a case to both donors and potential community partners that arts organizations, including museums, can deliver significant impact that is far-reaching.

And the research makes sense to me, as the findings are similar to my own about  museum-going and civic engagement: museum-goers are more likely to be active in their communities. I'm mindful, however, that we have to be careful about making judgments about those who are not engaged, and be sensitive about capacity to engage. (See my review of American Generosity for my first thinking about this; you'll see me explore it more in the coming weeks on The Data Museum as well.) Additionally, we need to consider why arts engagement yields these prosocial effects. 


Read or skip? Probably skip. But keep the citation handy for approaching community partners to extend reach, and for grant proposals that focus on community and/or impact. The article is short, and most of the method and results sections can be skipped … if you want to quote from it in a grant, head to the summary at the end.


Full citation:  Van de Vyver, Julie, and Abrams, Dominic. "The Arts as a Catalyst for Human Prosociality and Cooperation." Social Psychological and Personality Science. August 2, 2017.



Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: It is a rigorous look, on a neighborhood basis, to determine if the presence of culture within a neighborhood enhances social wellbeing and neighborhood health. It's all about impact! Of course I picked it up!

What the researchers were looking for: Two key questions shaped their research:
1.  "What aspects of the city's neighborhood ecology are associated with concentrations of cultural resources," and
2.  "How is the presence of cultural resources, in turn, related to other aspects of social wellbeing?"

Two concepts come out of this that need examining:

1. Social Wellbeing. Looking beyond "narrow economic standards" of poverty and income to  include "security, health, education, social connection," etc. As Harvard professor Amartya Sen says, it is "the freedom to lead lives they have reason to value." There are ten dimensions of social wellbeing they identified:
   1. Economic wellbeing
   2. Housing burden
   3. Ethnic and economic diversity
   4. Health access
   5. Health
   6. School effectiveness
   7. Security
   8. Environmental amenities
   9. Social connection
   10. Cultural assets  
2. Neighborhood ecology. The idea that everything is connected as part of a broader "neighborhood cultural ecosystem." This implies that arts and culture are a part of that ecosystem, and contribute to the health of a neighborhood's ecology, but acknowledges that the ecology approach makes it difficult to exactly measure any one factor's impact.

The researchers note early that the ecology of a neighborhood "exerts a powerful effect on the wellbeing of its residents," especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods. This implies an understanding that an individual's social wellbeing is influenced by a neighborhood's ecology, but also that a neighborhood's ecology is healthier when its individuals have a higher degree of social wellbeing. The two things are closely intertwined and highly reliant on each other.

What they found: Economic standing, race, and ethnicity are the most significant influences on social wellbeing, with low-income neighborhoods, and those with higher percentages of African American or Hispanic residents, having lower social wellbeing and poorer neighborhood ecologies. Economic wellbeing was, overall, the strongest variable towards social wellbeing as it affects a number of other measures in many ways.

But when other factors are controlled for, culture appears to have a positive impact on neighborhood health, particularly in low-income neighborhoods. For example, low income neighborhoods with relatively high cultural amenities also had lower levels of obesity, serious crime, and investigations of child abuse, and increased rates of children scoring higher on standardized tests. There was also "spillover," in that residents in those neighborhoods that don't participate in culture still benefited.

But does culture itself increase social wellbeing? Their ultimate answer was "yes, but …" with notes about methodological challenges. Point is, they rigorously used the best data available, but that doesn't mean data collection across all potential variables couldn't be improved. And for these reasons, they say that culture predicts wellbeing, but they cannot say that culture causes it. Healthier neighborhood ecosystems, which include access to culture, have greater social wellbeing because those neighborhoods have more opportunities for social connection … and culture supports that rather well.

So while as a matter of policy it makes sense to focus on economic wellbeing to address social wellbeing challenges, there is also room for what are likely cost-effective programs that may not directly address economic wellbeing, but have meaningful, and even outsized, impact when it comes to individual social wellbeing and the health of neighborhood ecologies. This can include things like planting trees, greater access to prenatal care, and, of course, culture.

My take: What I find most interesting is the interplay between individual social wellbeing and a neighborhood's ecology. I like how they framed it that way, as it gives me a framework for trends I see in my data as well.

As you will see in the coming months, as I release major research on The Data Museum, individuals who are highly connected to, and engaged, with their community tend to be museum-goers and cultural consumers. Thus, we could reason that if we can boost cultural engagement through museums, those new audiences may be open to a greater degree of connection to, and engagement with, their community, thus improving a community's ecology as well as increasing individual social wellbeing.

And, indeed, my research indicates there is a desire for more community connection among some segments of the population that do not visit museums regularly (or, perhaps, at all). Work can be done here. Really good work. And by increasing access to all ten of the dimensions of social wellbeing, including culture, the long-term outcomes can be tremendous.

The researchers also mentioned a tension between the intrinsic value of culture and its "instrumental influence on other social factors." I have to confess, I have always been thoroughly perplexed by this. One doesn't preclude the other. We can value culture for its own sake while recognizing its broader impact. Just because we find a place of natural beauty that is good for our souls doesn't mean that we can't recognize that that place also has positive instrumental influences on us and our society. So what is culture's problem with this? And, pragmatically, let's be honest. There are some individuals who value that broader impact more than intrinsic one, especially in positions of influence. Fine. Let's find evidence of that broader, more instrumental impact, and share it.

Implications for museums: The researchers didn't discuss museums specifically, but the implication is that if museums want to deliver true, lasting impact, they should consider it via:

1. Individual social wellbeing. On an individual level, how do they make a difference in lives? How do they do this through education and social interaction? Through identity?
2. Neighborhood ecology. As a place of social interaction, education, and identity, how do they boost the health of a community?

Neither of these in any way take away from our core missions of art, history, or science (or some mix thereof), but instead values what those things accomplish in individuals and neighborhoods … when they are done well.

But there is, buried in the report, a call to action. They note that since culture is spread unevenly, with lower-income neighborhoods having fewer resources, it means that "privilege [is] generating more privilege" in wealthier ones. A case right there to make our work more accessible in neighborhoods that are under-served, and delivering out-sized impact when we do so. And let's be practical about it and go to where they are (and not expect them to come to us).

Read or skip? This research is important, so yes, you should read their summary, which gives you their overview in six pages. Feel free to skip the longer report unless you have a particular reason to dig in.

A note on their methodology: The project had three phases:

1. Documenting "cultural ecosystems" on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis in New York City
2. Rigorously assessing other factors that contribute to social wellbeing
3. Examining how culture affects wellbeing on a grassroots, neighborhood level, including controlling for SES (socio-economic status)

I read through their methodology thoroughly. Every research project, even well-funded ones, runs into roadblocks. This one did too. The authors shared their rationale for how they addressed data gaps and other challenges, and they pointed out "one cannot collect data that do not exist." Overall, their methodology seemed entirely reasonable to me, though I have some questions about their cultural participation assumptions (I think their method likely undercounted participation). No red flags.

Full citation: Mark J. Stern and Susan C. Seifert. "The Social Wellbeing of New York City's Neighborhoods: The Contribution of Culture and the Arts." Research report published by the University of Pennsylvania Social Impact and the Arts Project. Released March 2017.

See also "Culture and Social Wellbeing in New York City: Highlights of a Two-Year Research Project" for their excellent summary.
​

Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.