The convergence of clinical behavioral sciences and social advocacy reached a transformative milestone in the early twentieth century through the emergence of orthopsychiatry. By rejecting the narrow confinement of mental health to institutional asylums and biological reductionism, this movement forged an enduring link between individual psychological well-being and systemic human welfare. The American Orthopsychiatric Association stands as the historic institutional embodiment of this vision, uniting diverse disciplines to champion preventive mental health, civil rights, and social justice.
American Orthopsychiatric Association
1. Concise Definition
The American Orthopsychiatric Association (AOA)—renamed in 2015 as the Global Alliance for Behavioral Health and Social Justice—is an interdisciplinary professional organization dedicated to understanding and addressing behavioral health through the integration of clinical practice, social policy, human rights, and preventive intervention. Established in 1924, the organization was founded on the premise that behavioral and psychological difficulties cannot be detached from the ecological, legal, economic, and cultural environments in which individuals reside.
Historically, the association broke away from the traditional medical hegemony that dominated early twentieth-century American psychiatry. Instead of viewing psychopathology exclusively as an endogenous illness managed within institutional walls, the AOA conceptualized human maladjustment as a dynamic outcome of interactions between biological vulnerabilities and dysfunctional social environments. Through its flagship publication, the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, the association has historically provided an empirical and theoretical platform for examining the social determinants of health, child development, family dynamics, and institutional inequities.
In its modern instantiation, the organization operates as an international advocacy collective and scholarly community. It advances behavioral health equity by bridging clinical practice with legislative reform, prioritizing marginalized populations, and framing access to mental healthcare and safe developmental conditions as fundamental human rights.
2. Etymology & Linguistic Origin
The term orthopsychiatry is a modern neologism derived from classical Greek linguistic roots. The prefix ortho- originates from the Greek orthos (ὀρθός), signifying “straight,” “upright,” “correct,” or “regular.” The central morpheme psych- stems from psyche (ψυχή), meaning “soul,” “mind,” or “breath of life.” The terminal element -iatry traces back to iatreia (ἰατρεία), denoting “healing,” “medical treatment,” or “cure,” itself derived from the verb iaomai (ἰάομαι, “to heal”).
Coined in the early 1920s, the term was deliberately constructed by early pioneers—most notably neuropsychiatrist Karl Menninger and child psychiatrist Lawson G. Lowrey—to distinguish their reformative paradigm from conventional asylum psychiatry. While traditional psychiatry focused on chronic mental alienation and severe adult pathology, the prefix ortho- was chosen to emphasize corrective, preventive, and developmental stewardship, conceptually mirroring orthopedics (the straightening or sound development of children’s physical frames). Thus, orthopsychiatry literally translates to the “upright development and healing of the mind,” reflecting an ethos centered on early intervention, youth guidance, and holistic rehabilitation.
3. Pronunciation & Grammatical Form
Pronunciation: The term is pronounced phonetically as /ˌɔːrθoʊpsaɪˈkaɪətri/ (or in American English: OR-thoh-sy-KY-uh-tree). The adjectival form is orthopsychiatric (/ˌɔːrθoʊˌsaɪ kiˈætrɪk/), and a practitioner or specialist within the discipline is designated as an orthopsychiatrist.
Grammatical Properties: In contemporary academic and clinical discourse, orthopsychiatry functions as an uncountable, abstract singular noun. The “American Orthopsychiatric Association” serves as a proper noun phrase, frequently abbreviated in historical literature as the AOA or colloquially as “Ortho.” In international contemporary scholarship, references frequently mention the organization alongside its successor moniker, the Global Alliance for Behavioral Health and Social Justice.
4. Detailed Conceptual Explanation
To understand the American Orthopsychiatric Association, one must conceptualize orthopsychiatry not as an isolated psychiatric sub-discipline, but as an integrative philosophy of behavioral wellness. At its core, the orthopsychiatric paradigm posits that human psychological development cannot be analyzed in a vacuum. Emotional, behavioral, and cognitive pathologies emerge from complex transactions across multiple systemic levels: the biological organism, the family constellation, the educational environment, socioeconomic conditions, and the prevailing legal and political architecture.
A defining conceptual cornerstone of the AOA is radical transdisciplinarity. Unlike traditional specialty bodies—such as the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association—the AOA was structured from its inception on the premise that no single discipline possesses an epistemological monopoly on the human mind. The association mandated that psychiatry, clinical psychology, psychiatric social work, public health, nursing, anthropology, and jurisprudence operate on equal footing. This collaborative synergy laid the foundation for the classic child guidance clinic model, where psychiatric evaluations, psychological testing, and social casework were integrated into a unified clinical assessment.
Furthermore, the AOA shifted the focus of mental health from remedial institutionalization to primary and secondary prevention. Recognizing that severe adult psychiatric distress often originates from unaddressed childhood developmental traumas and adverse environmental conditions, the organization concentrated its intellectual capital on early life stages, juvenile justice reform, family stabilization, and community support systems. The orthopsychiatric model holds that societal structures have an ethical obligation to eliminate structural oppression—such as poverty, racism, and institutional disenfranchisement—because such factors directly induce mental suffering.
Finally, the conceptual scope of orthopsychiatry links clinical observation with socio-legal advocacy. The association posits that when laws, educational structures, or public policies induce trauma or maintain inequity, behavioral scientists must intervene as institutional reformers. In this respect, the AOA served as an early precursor to modern public health frameworks and human rights perspectives in mental health, declaring that social justice is an indispensable component of psychological well-being.
5. Historical Development
The origins of the American Orthopsychiatric Association can be traced directly to the early twentieth-century mental hygiene and child guidance movements. During this era, clinical pioneers recognized that traditional institutional psychiatry offered virtually no tools for addressing delinquency, school maladjustment, or minor emotional disturbances in youth. In 1909, William Healy established the Juvenile Psychopathic Institute in Chicago, working within the Cook County Juvenile Court to evaluate court-involved youth from a holistic psychiatric, physical, and environmental standpoint. This initiative served as the structural prototype for the orthopsychiatric model.
In December 1923, a cohort of nine prominent practitioners met in Chicago at the invitation of Karl Menninger and Herman Adler to discuss the formation of a society committed to criminal and juvenile behavior, developmental psychology, and preventive clinical work. On June 10, 1924, the American Orthopsychiatric Association was officially incorporated. The inaugural president was William Healy, with Karl Menninger serving as vice president. The founding roster included prominent figures such as Lawson G. Lowrey, Herman Adler, David Levy, and Augusta Bronner. In 1930, the association established its flagship academic periodical, the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, appointing Lowrey as its founding editor.
Throughout the mid-twentieth century, the AOA played a prominent role in linking social science with landmark civil rights battles. Most notably, the association and its members—including social psychologists Kenneth Clark and Mamie Phipps Clark—provided critical research on the psychological damages of racial segregation. This empirical work substantially influenced the historic 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, demonstrating that institutionalized racial segregation directly inflicted psychological harm upon Black schoolchildren.
During the 1960s and 1970s, under the leadership of socially conscious directors and amidst the broader civil rights, feminist, and deinstitutionalization movements, the AOA expanded its activism. It served as a platform for challenging the medicalization of systemic problems, advocating for community mental health centers, and championing the rights of psychiatric patients, children, and vulnerable families. By the early twenty-first century, acknowledging that human rights, forced migration, systemic poverty, and behavioral wellness were fundamentally global issues, the membership voted in 2015 to adopt a new institutional identity: the Global Alliance for Behavioral Health and Social Justice, expanding its mission beyond North American domestic boundaries.
6. Theoretical Foundations
The intellectual framework of the American Orthopsychiatric Association is anchored across several complementary theoretical models that bridge biology, psychology, and sociology:
1. Ecological Systems Theory: Decades prior to Urie Bronfenbrenner’s formal articulation of ecological systems theory, orthopsychiatry operated within an applied ecological framework. Human pathology was mapped as the product of overlapping micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-systems. A child’s emotional distress was understood as an emergent property of physiological predispositions interacting with parental dynamics (microsystem), school and peer structures (mesosystem), parental employment and socioeconomic stability (exosystem), and broader cultural norms and legal codes (macrosystem).
2. Psychodynamic and Developmental Psychology: The early orthopsychiatric thinkers were heavily indebted to psychoanalytic theory, particularly the developmental paradigms championed by Sigmund Freud, Anna Freud, and later Erik Erikson. However, unlike traditional orthodox psychoanalysis, which frequently prioritized internal drives and intrapsychic fantasy, orthopsychiatry integrated ego psychology and social reality. Practitioners emphasized how early familial attachments, parental rejection, and external traumas shaped character development and emotional stability.
3. Critical Social Theory and Social Psychiatry: Orthopsychiatry drew theoretical sustenance from early twentieth-century sociology (notably the Chicago School of Sociology) and social epidemiology. It maintained that mental distress cannot be divorced from social disorganization, income inequality, discrimination, and neighborhood degradation. This theoretical orientation aligns orthopsychiatry with the broader traditions of social psychiatry and modern liberation psychology, which identify institutional oppression as a primary pathogenic variable.
4. The Human Rights and Public Health Framework: In its modern phase, the conceptual backbone of the association rests upon international human rights conventions, specifically the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Under this doctrine, behavioral health is theorized as an essential human right, making the state and civil institutions accountable for providing structural protections that ensure dignity, autonomy, and safety for vulnerable populations.
7. Key Components, Types & Dimensions
The orthopsychiatric model can be delineated into five operational dimensions that characterize its unique clinical and scholarly identity:
- Transdisciplinary Collaboration: The non-hierarchical unification of diverse fields—psychiatry, psychology, social work, nursing, anthropology, and jurisprudence—to formulate holistic diagnostic and intervention profiles.
- Preventive Multi-Tiered Intervention: A continuum of care prioritizing primary prevention (eradicating systemic risks before symptoms appear), secondary prevention (early screening and mitigation of emergent issues), and tertiary prevention (ameliorating chronic conditions to preserve functioning).
- Social Determinants of Behavioral Health: Explicit clinical and empirical focus on how environmental variables—including housing instability, food insecurity, legal status, systemic racism, and educational inequality—drive behavioral and affective disorders.
- Socio-Legal Advocacy and Public Policy: Active mobilization of behavioral science research to inform statutory reforms, file amicus curiae briefs, and dismantle discriminatory legal doctrines affecting children, families, and marginalized groups.
- Developmental and Child-Centric Orientation: A dedicated focus on childhood, adolescence, and family structures as the critical intervention window for disrupting generational cycles of trauma, poverty, and behavioral maladjustment.
8. Examples & Illustrative Cases
To contextualize the orthopsychiatric approach, consider the historical and contemporary operationalization of the model across three real-world scenarios:
Case 1: The Historical Child Guidance Clinic Team (1930s–1950s)
A ten-year-old boy in a major metropolitan center is brought to a child guidance clinic due to severe truancy, aggressive outbursts, and classroom noncompliance. Under a traditional psychiatric model of that era, the child might have been categorized as a juvenile defective, pathologized with moral insanity, or institutionalized. Under the orthopsychiatric approach, a three-pronged team was deployed: a social worker conducted home visits and interviewed the parents to evaluate economic strain, marital conflict, and maternal depression; a clinical psychologist administered psychometric and cognitive testing to discover an undiagnosed reading disability; and a child psychiatrist performed a somatic and neuropsychiatric assessment. Synthesizing these findings, the team identified that the child’s aggression was a compensatory reaction to academic frustration exacerbated by intense family stress. The resulting intervention did not rely on isolation or sedation, but on remedial tutoring, environmental stabilization, and family casework.
Case 2: Brown v. Board of Education (1954 Socio-Legal Case)
In one of the most prominent real-world applications of orthopsychiatric principles, researchers associated with the AOA provided scientific data documenting the psychological trauma inflicted by legally mandated racial segregation. Utilizing the famous doll tests developed by Kenneth and Mamie Clark, these scholars demonstrated that segregation generated internalized feelings of inferiority, damaged self-concept, and impaired personality development in African American children. The submission of these empirical behavioral findings directly influenced the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling, illustrating how the orthopsychiatric lens uses clinical data to dismantle oppressive societal structures.
Case 3: Contemporary Community-Based Trauma-Informed Systems
In contemporary practice, orthopsychiatric principles manifest within urban community mental health programs serving asylum-seeking and refugee children. Rather than diagnosing an adolescent refugee with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and prescribing psychotropic medications in isolation, an orthopsychiatric intervention mobilizes an ecological response: legal advocates assist the family with immigration court proceedings; social workers secure stable housing and food assistance; school liaisons adapt English-language curricula; and trauma-informed therapists conduct culturally grounded expressive therapy. Mental health is treated as inseparable from safety, legality, and basic resources.
9. Measurement & Assessment
Because orthopsychiatry is an overarching paradigm rather than a single metric, assessment within this tradition departs sharply from purely symptom-counting psychometric tools, such as the standard diagnostic categories of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Instead, orthopsychiatric assessment utilizes multidimensional, multi-informant, and multi-systemic evaluation strategies:
Ecological and Systemic Assessment: Orthopsychiatric evaluation employs holistic tools that measure the patient’s functioning within their broader environmental ecology. Standard assessments include the Eco-Map, family genograms, and structured measures of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). These frameworks assess biological predispositions alongside systemic stressors, including economic poverty, domestic violence, neighborhood safety, and caregiver availability.
Screening for Social Determinants of Health (SDOH): Contemporary orthopsychiatric clinicians integrate validated screening instruments to identify unmet material needs. Tools such as the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients’ Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE) or the EveryONE Project SDOH Screening Tool systematically quantify homelessness, food insecurity, utility needs, and exposure to personal violence. These environmental deficits are treated as clinically significant elements of the patient’s diagnostic profile.
Institutional and Human Rights Impact Assessments: In macro-level orthopsychiatry, measurement extends to evaluating public policies and institutional programs. Scholars employ qualitative and quantitative methodologies to measure whether social legislation, child welfare policies, or carceral environments infringe upon behavioral well-being, dignity, and developmental milestones, shifting the evaluative gaze from the pathology of the individual to the pathology of the system.
10. Applications & Practical Significance
The applications of orthopsychiatry span clinical, legal, educational, and public health spheres, demonstrating its broad practical relevance:
Child Welfare and Family Preservation: Orthopsychiatric principles serve as the foundation of modern child welfare paradigms. By prioritizing family preservation over punitive parental separation, the association has long advocated for providing struggling parents with economic, psychiatric, and social support. When out-of-home placement is inevitable, the orthopsychiatric model demands therapeutic foster care and trauma-informed kinship placements that protect the child’s developmental attachments.
Forensic Psychiatry and Juvenile Justice: Within the legal system, orthopsychiatry advocates against the punitive incarceration of youth. The AOA has continuously published research indicating that juvenile facilities exacerbate emotional and behavioral dysregulation. Instead, orthopsychiatric models champion restorative justice diversion programs, juvenile mental health courts, and community-based therapeutic interventions that address underlying developmental trauma, substance use disorders, and cognitive impairments.
School Mental Health and Restorative Discipline: Orthopsychiatric frameworks have restructured educational environments by challenging zero-tolerance disciplinary policies. The association advocates for school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) and trauma-informed educational practices. By identifying acting-out behaviors as symptoms of unmet social or emotional needs rather than willful defiance, schools reduce suspensions and the school-to-prison pipeline.
Public Policy and Global Health Advocacy: Through policy briefs, legislative testimony, and non-governmental representation at the United Nations, the organization applies research to affect macro-level change. Areas of active intervention include advocating for the rights of unaccompanied migrant children, combating human trafficking, demanding universal child care, and reforming structural healthcare delivery to ensure mental health parity.
11. Research & Empirical Evidence
Over the past century, empirical research validated within the orthopsychiatric community has shaped modern psychology and public health. A significant portion of this research has been disseminated via the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry (AJO), published in partnership with the American Psychological Association.
The Impact of Adverse Environments on Child Development: Groundbreaking studies published in the mid-to-late twentieth century demonstrated the compounding neurodevelopmental and psychological consequences of poverty, chronic community violence, and parental incarceration. Notable scholars such as Leon Eisenberg and Julius B. Richmond used orthopsychiatric platforms to present empirical models showing that maternal health, early environmental stimulation, and nutritional programs (such as Head Start, which Richmond helped design) directly alter developmental trajectories and intellectual outcomes.
Systemic Racism and Minority Mental Health: Following the landmark doll studies by Kenneth and Mamie Clark, the AOA served as an incubator for empirical investigations into how racial prejudice, systemic discrimination, and minority stress impact mental and physical health. Landmark empirical work by researchers such as James S. Jackson and Chester Pierce documented how persistent institutional racism and microaggressions generate chronic physiological stress responses, predisposing marginalized populations to higher rates of affective disorders and medical comorbidities.
Interpersonal Violence, Child Abuse, and Systemic Trauma: In the 1970s and 1980s, the association became a primary forum for empirical research on child sexual abuse, domestic violence, and trauma. Seminal contributions by Lenore E. Walker on battered woman syndrome and research by David Finkelhor on the epidemiology of child sexual abuse were analyzed and advanced within orthopsychiatric circles. This research shifted public perception and legal precedent, moving these issues from private domestic matters to systemic public health priorities requiring rigorous state protection.
12. Cultural & Cross-Cultural Considerations
Orthopsychiatry has progressively developed an acute sensitivity to cultural variables, largely due to its early recognition of anthropology as an essential partner in mental health analysis. The early inclusion of cultural anthropologists like Margaret Mead and Edward Sapir in orthopsychiatric forums ensured that early diagnostic formulations were not universally applied without context across divergent cultural groups.
Modern orthopsychiatry acknowledges that Western psychiatric nosology has historically suffered from ethnocentric biases, often categorizing culturally standard coping mechanisms or spiritual experiences as pathology. In cross-cultural applications, the orthopsychiatric approach emphasizes structural competency and cultural humility over rigid cross-cultural diagnostic categorizations. This requires clinicians to understand that an individual’s mental distress is refracted through cultural lenses that determine symptom presentation, help-seeking behaviors, and healing practices.
Furthermore, in its international transition as the Global Alliance for Behavioral Health and Social Justice, the movement directly confronts the neocolonial export of Western clinical paradigms to low- and middle-income nations. Instead of imposing Eurocentric pharmacological models onto communities impacted by war, displacement, or systemic poverty, orthopsychiatric global health strategies prioritize local indigenous knowledge, community-based collective healing, and the restoration of structural security and human rights.
13. Criticisms, Debates & Limitations
Despite its enduring contributions, the American Orthopsychiatric Association and its ideological foundations have faced notable criticisms and theoretical controversies throughout its history:
Tension with Biological Psychiatry: During the “Decade of the Brain” (1990s) and the ongoing ascent of molecular neuroscience, genetics, and psychopharmacology, the orthopsychiatric emphasis on social determinants was occasionally marginalized by mainstream biological psychiatry. Critics within neuropsychiatry argued that orthopsychiatrists minimized the genetic, neurochemical, and somatic etiology of severe mental illnesses—such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder—in favor of broad, non-specific environmental interventions. Conversely, orthopsychiatrists responded that biological reductionism ignores the profound epigenetic and environmental factors that govern gene expression and neurodevelopment.
Accusations of Political Activism over Objective Science: The AOA’s explicit commitment to social justice has led some traditionalists to argue that the organization blurs the line between objective scientific inquiry and partisan political advocacy. Skeptics maintain that taking political stances on controversial issues—such as economic redistribution, welfare policy, and international conflicts—risks compromising the empirical neutrality expected of scientific bodies. The organization has historically countered this claim by asserting that science is never value-neutral, and that remaining silent in the face of institutionalized oppression constitutes an implicit endorsement of the status quo.
Interdisciplinary Conflict and Boundary Disputes: While the multidisciplinary model was orthopsychiatry’s greatest theoretical innovation, it also produced persistent internal conflict. Historically, disputes over professional hierarchy, billing authority, diagnostic supremacy, and institutional control frequently arose between psychiatrists (who held medical authority and prescriptive privileges), psychologists (who controlled psychometric testing), and psychiatric social workers (who often conducted the core relational and community casework). Maintaining parity among these disciplines required continuous administrative negotiation.
14. Related Terms & Distinctions
To ensure conceptual clarity, orthopsychiatry must be distinguished from several related fields and terms:
- Orthopsychiatry vs. American Psychiatric Association (APA): The APA is a medical specialty organization exclusively composed of and governed by licensed psychiatrists, primarily focusing on psychiatric clinical practice, medical licensing, and biological-nosological frameworks (such as the DSM). The AOA (Global Alliance) is fundamentally transdisciplinary, including non-medical behavioral scientists, legal experts, and social workers, with an explicit emphasis on social justice, environmental systems, and preventive policy.
- Orthopsychiatry vs. Community Mental Health: Community mental health represents a service delivery model established largely in the 1960s to treat deinstitutionalized individuals in local outpatient facilities. Orthopsychiatry is a broader theoretical and philosophical paradigm that provided the intellectual and preventive blueprint for the community mental health movement, but extends into jurisprudence, child advocacy, and human rights.
- Orthopsychiatry vs. Social Work: Social work is an independent academic discipline and profession dedicated to enhancing human well-being and helping meet the basic needs of all people, especially the vulnerable. Orthopsychiatry is an interdisciplinary platform where social work unites with psychiatry, law, and psychology; it is not a profession in itself, but a collaborative framework.
- Orthopsychiatry vs. The Biopsychosocial Model: Formulated by George Engel in 1977, the biopsychosocial model is a clinical heuristic emphasizing that health is influenced by biology, psychology, and social factors. Orthopsychiatry preceded Engel’s model by more than fifty years, operationalizing these systemic insights into an active clinical, legal, and social reform movement.
15. Summary / Key Takeaways
The American Orthopsychiatric Association represents a historic and ongoing intellectual movement dedicated to the complete integration of mental health, developmental sciences, and social justice. Founded in 1924 by luminaries such as William Healy, Karl Menninger, and Lawson Lowrey, the AOA rejected narrow institutional and biological models of psychopathology, choosing instead to focus on early childhood intervention, juvenile delinquency prevention, and the social determinants of behavioral health.
Characterized by a commitment to non-hierarchical, transdisciplinary collaboration among psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and legal scholars, the organization fundamentally reshaped American social policy. Its pioneering empirical contributions catalyzed systemic transformations, from providing the psychological foundation for desegregating public schools in Brown v. Board of Education to advancing child abuse prevention, family preservation, and trauma-informed systems of care.
Now operating as the Global Alliance for Behavioral Health and Social Justice, the association maintains its foundational mandate across a global landscape. It views behavioral well-being not merely as an absence of individual neurochemical or psychological pathology, but as an ecological state of health anchored in human dignity, institutional equity, and fundamental human rights.
Ultimately, the legacy of the American Orthopsychiatric Association proves that sustainable psychological well-being cannot be cultivated in isolation from the socio-political environments that sustain human life. By synthesizing rigorous empirical scholarship with proactive social justice, the orthopsychiatric paradigm bridges the gap between individual clinical care and structural reform, establishing that the pursuit of behavioral health is indivisible from the collective fight for human rights.
References
- American Orthopsychiatric Association. (1950). Orthopsychiatry 1923–1948: Retrospect and prospect. American Orthopsychiatric Association.
- Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
- Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. P. (1947). Racial identification and preference in Negro children. In T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 169–178). Henry Holt.
- Eisen, K. (2014). The American Orthopsychiatric Association: A history of interdisciplinary mental health advocacy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(6), 605–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000034
- Healy, W., & Bronner, A. F. (1926). Delinquents and criminals: Their making and unmaking. Macmillan.
- Lowrey, L. G. (1948). The birth of orthopsychiatry. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 18(2), 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1948.tb05073.x
- Menninger, K. (1930). The human mind. Alfred A. Knopf.
- Sgroi, S. M. (1982). Handbook of clinical intervention in child sexual abuse. Lexington Books.
- Trickett, E. J. (2009). Multilevel community-based culturally situated interventions in community psychology: An ecological perspective. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43(3–4), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9227-y