550 likes | 621 Views
Security, Self-Worth, and Social Functioning in Early Adolescence. Authors. Cathryn Booth-LaForce Wonjung Oh Angel Hayoung Kim Kenneth H. Rubin Linda Rose-Krasnor Kim B. Burgess. Background. Attachment-peer links—mostly in younger children.
E N D
Security, Self-Worth, and Social Functioning in Early Adolescence
Authors • Cathryn Booth-LaForce • Wonjung Oh • Angel Hayoung Kim • Kenneth H. Rubin • Linda Rose-Krasnor • Kim B. Burgess
Background • Attachment-peer links—mostly in younger children. • Not much research in middle-childhood/ early adolescent attachment. • Relatively new measures. • Evidence is mixed regarding attachment-peer links in this age period.
Most studies in this age period have assessed security/insecurity, and not types of insecurity. • Specific Linkage Hypothesis: • Avoidant and aggressive, hostile with peers • Preoccupied (resistant) and socially inept, passive, victimized, low dominance with peers
Most studies have assessed attachment in relation to mother, but not father. • Mother Primacy Hypothesis: Attachment relationship with mother is more predictive of outcomes than is attachment relationship with father.
Effects of child gender have been considered rarely. • Same-Sex Linkage Hypothesis: Sons’ attachment to fathers and daughters’ attachment to mothers—more predictive of outcomes.
Attachment security is related to perceptions of self-worth. • Self-worth is related to psychosocial functioning. • Is self-worth a mediating variable?
Purpose • To evaluate the links between peer-group functioning and indicators of attachment security and insecurity in relation to mother and father in early adolescence. • To investigate differential effects of parent gender and child gender. • To determine whether perceptions of self-worth mediate attachment-peer links.
We hypothesized that… • Security would be related to social competence • Insecure-Avoidance would be related to aggression • Insecure-Preoccupied would be related to social withdrawal • Self-worth would mediate attachment-peer links • No specific hypotheses about parent or child gender
Participants73 children (36 boys) • 78% European-American • 11% African American • 3% Asian • 5% Hispanic • 3% Other
Procedure • Extended Class Play peer nomination procedure. • Children—questionnaires about attachment and self-worth • Mothers—questionnaires about children’s behaviors • Teachers—questionnaires about children’s behaviors
Extended Class Play(Burgess et al., 2004) • Based on Revised Class Play (Masten et al., 1985) with 10 items added. • Pretend to be directors of imaginary class play and nominate classmates for positive and negative roles. • Choose one boy and one girl for each role. • Scores standardized within sex and classroom.
Extended Class Play (ECP)Summary Scores(five orthogonal factors) • Aggression • Shyness/Withdrawal • Rejection/Victimization • Leadership/Prosocial • Popularity/Sociability
Security Scale(Kerns, Klepac, & Cole, 1996) • Availability and responsivity of the parent. • Reliance on the parent in times of stress. • Ease and interest in communicating with the parent.
Coping Strategies Questionnaire(Finnegan, Hodges, & Perry, 1996) • Two dimensions of insecurity in relation to the mother—preoccupied (or resistant) coping and avoidant coping. • 8 items for Preoccupied coping (alpha = .74) • 8 items for Avoidant coping (alpha = .60)
Self-Perception Profile for Children(Harter, 1985) • Perceptions of self-competence, adequacy, self-worth • 36 items; 6 subscales • Global Self-Worth subscale used (alpha = .79)
Teacher-Child Rating Scale (T-CRS)(Hightower et al., 1986) • Teacher’s perceptions of the child’s adjustment in terms of behaviors and competencies in the school context • 38 items, 4 relevant subscales
Parent-Child Rating Scale (P-CRS)(Hightower et al., 1988) • Parent version of the T-CRS, with some items reworded • 3 relevant subscales
Factor Analysis of Peer Variables • Classmates (Extended Class Play) • Teachers (T-CRS) • Mothers (P-CRS)
Factor 1: Anxious/Rejected • ECP Rejected/Victimized (.71) • ECP Shy/Withdrawn (.87) • T-CRS Shy/Anxious (.65) • P-CRS Shy/Anxious (.67)
Factor 2: Aggressive • ECP Aggressive (.86) • T-CRS Acting Out (.80) • P-CRS Acting Out (.57)
Factor 3: Socially Competent • ECP Leadership/Prosocial (.68) • ECP Popular/Sociable (.76) • T-CRS Socially Assertive (.53) • T-CRS Peer Sociability (.63) • P-CRS Peer Sociability (.60)
Summary of Variables • Attachment: • Security—Mother • Security—Father • Preoccupied Coping—Mother • Avoidant Coping—Mother • Global Self-Worth • Peer Variables: • Anxious/Rejected • Aggressive • Socially Competent
Preliminary Analyses What are the relations among the attachment variables? AV PRE S-DAD Security-Mom -.35** .16 .49*** Avoidant-Mom ---- -.15 .02 Preoccupied-Mom ---- -.13
Results • Is security related to social competence? • Security—Mom & Social Competence: .35** • Security—Dad & Social Competence: .25*
Is avoidant coping related to aggression? • Avoidant Coping & Aggression: .24*
Also note that… • Security—Dad & Aggression: -.28*
Is preoccupied coping related to anxiety/ rejection? • Preoccupied Coping & Anxiety/Rejection: .21+
Are perceptions of self-worth related to attachment variables? • Self-Worth & Security—Mom: .32** • Self-Worth & Security—Dad: .36** • Self-Worth & Avoidance: -.26* • Self-Worth & Preoccupied: -.11
Are perceptions of self-worth related to peer variables? • Self-Worth & Social Competence .38*** • Self-Worth & Aggression: -.20+ • Self-Worth & Anxiety/Rejection: -.42***
Recall…. • Security—Mom & Social Competence: .35** • Security—Dad & Social Competence: .25*
Follow-up Regression: Mother Primacy Hypothesis • Is Security with Mom or Security with Dad a stronger predictor of Social Competence? • Enter both simultaneously…. • Security—Mom: Beta = .36** • Security—Dad: Beta = .08
Recall…. • Avoidance—Mom & Aggression: .24* • Security—Dad & Aggression: -.28*
Follow-up Regression: Mother Primacy Hypothesis • Is Avoidance with Mom or (lack of) Security with Dad a stronger predictor of Aggression? • Enter both simultaneously…. • Avoidance—Mom: Beta = .14 • Security—Dad: Beta = -.32*
Same-Sex Linkage? • Child Gender X Parent Gender ANOVA on Attachment Security variable • Child Gender was not significant • Parent Gender was significant (p < .01): • Children had higher scores for Security—Mom than for Security—Dad.
Self-Worth as Mediator Self-Worth AttachmentPeer Variable
Self-Worth as Mediator • Attachment, self-worth, and peer variable had to be significantly intercorrelated. • Four groups of variables met this criterion: • Security-Mom and Social Competence • Avoidance and Aggression • Security-Dad and Aggression • Security-Dad and Social Competence • Used Baron & Kenny (1986) procedure plus Sobel (1982) test.
Self-Worth as Mediator Self-Worth Security-Mom Social Comp. Direct: .68 With Mediator: .48 (p < .05)
Self-Worth as Mediator Self-Worth Security-Dad Social Comp. Direct: .32 With Mediator: .17 (p < .05)
Self-Worth as Mediator Self-Worth Avoidance Aggression Direct: .81 With Mediator: .68 (ns)
Self-Worth as Mediator Self-Worth Security-Dad Aggression Direct: -.36 With Mediator: -.25+
Self-Worth as Outcome Peer Variable AttachmentSelf-Worth
Self-Worth as Outcome Social Competence Security-Mom Self-Worth Direct: .51 With Mediator: .34 (p < .05)
Self-Worth as Outcome Aggression Avoidance Self-Worth Direct: -.64 With Mediator: -.55 (ns)
Self-Worth as Outcome Aggression Security-Dad Self-Worth Direct: .39 With Mediator: .32 (ns)