Security, Self-Worth, and Social Functioning in Early Adolescence

1. Security, Self-Worth, and Social Functioning in Early Adolescence

2. Authors • Cathryn Booth-LaForce • Wonjung Oh • Angel Hayoung Kim • Kenneth H. Rubin • Linda Rose-Krasnor • Kim B. Burgess

3. 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.

4. Entering uncharted waters…

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Attachment security is related to perceptions of self-worth. • Self-worth is related to psychosocial functioning. • Is self-worth a mediating variable?

9. 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.

10. 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

11. Participants73 children (36 boys) • 78% European-American • 11% African American • 3% Asian • 5% Hispanic • 3% Other

12. 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

13. 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.

14. Extended Class Play (ECP)Summary Scores(five orthogonal factors) • Aggression • Shyness/Withdrawal • Rejection/Victimization • Leadership/Prosocial • Popularity/Sociability

15. 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.

16. 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)

17. 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)

18. 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

19. Parent-Child Rating Scale (P-CRS)(Hightower et al., 1988) • Parent version of the T-CRS, with some items reworded • 3 relevant subscales

20. Almost there….

21. Factor Analysis of Peer Variables • Classmates (Extended Class Play) • Teachers (T-CRS) • Mothers (P-CRS)

22. Factor 1: Anxious/Rejected • ECP Rejected/Victimized (.71) • ECP Shy/Withdrawn (.87) • T-CRS Shy/Anxious (.65) • P-CRS Shy/Anxious (.67)

23. Factor 2: Aggressive • ECP Aggressive (.86) • T-CRS Acting Out (.80) • P-CRS Acting Out (.57)

24. 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)

25. Summary of Variables • Attachment: • Security—Mother • Security—Father • Preoccupied Coping—Mother • Avoidant Coping—Mother • Global Self-Worth • Peer Variables: • Anxious/Rejected • Aggressive • Socially Competent

26. Results

27. 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

28. Results • Is security related to social competence? • Security—Mom & Social Competence: .35** • Security—Dad & Social Competence: .25*

29. Is avoidant coping related to aggression? • Avoidant Coping & Aggression: .24*

30. Also note that… • Security—Dad & Aggression: -.28*

31. Is preoccupied coping related to anxiety/ rejection? • Preoccupied Coping & Anxiety/Rejection: .21+

32. 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

33. Are perceptions of self-worth related to peer variables? • Self-Worth & Social Competence .38*** • Self-Worth & Aggression: -.20+ • Self-Worth & Anxiety/Rejection: -.42***

34. Recall…. • Security—Mom & Social Competence: .35** • Security—Dad & Social Competence: .25*

35. 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

36. Recall…. • Avoidance—Mom & Aggression: .24* • Security—Dad & Aggression: -.28*

37. 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*

38. 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.

39. Self-Worth as Mediator Self-Worth AttachmentPeer Variable

40. 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.

41. Self-Worth as Mediator Self-Worth Security-Mom Social Comp. Direct: .68 With Mediator: .48 (p < .05)

42. Self-Worth as Mediator Self-Worth Security-Dad Social Comp. Direct: .32 With Mediator: .17 (p < .05)

43. Self-Worth as Mediator Self-Worth Avoidance Aggression Direct: .81 With Mediator: .68 (ns)

44. Self-Worth as Mediator Self-Worth Security-Dad Aggression Direct: -.36 With Mediator: -.25+

45. Don’t celebrate just yet…..

46. Is Self-Worth a Mediator or an Outcome??

47. Self-Worth as Outcome Peer Variable AttachmentSelf-Worth

48. Self-Worth as Outcome Social Competence Security-Mom Self-Worth Direct: .51 With Mediator: .34 (p < .05)

49. Self-Worth as Outcome Aggression Avoidance Self-Worth Direct: -.64 With Mediator: -.55 (ns)

50. Self-Worth as Outcome Aggression Security-Dad Self-Worth Direct: .39 With Mediator: .32 (ns)