6th Australia & New Zealand Health Conference 24th September 2007

1. Youth Connectedness Project: A selection of results from year 1 dataJ. Kleeb, J. Pryor, C. Crespo, & P. Josejo.kleeb@vuw.ac.nz 6th Australia & New Zealand Health Conference 24th September 2007 Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families

2. AREAS COVERED Overview Higher order patterns Bullying Technology Family

3. OVERVIEW We obtained self report surveys from: 2,173 young people 1,889 parents 57 school principals We sought to over-represent Maori youth - we did by approx. 10% (= 30% of our sample of young people overall). We achieved good representation across school decile, gender, and age. We need to geo-code participant addresses before we report definitively on urban/rural representation.

4. HIGHER ORDER PATTERNS Connectedness Domain Family .31*** School Wellbeing .23*** R2 = .39 Peers .24*** All key domains predict wellbeing while simultaneously controlling for the effects of other domains. Family strongest, community weakest. .04* Community (Note: *p<.05, ***p<.001)

5. GENERAL AGE TRENDS • Family connectedness, school connectedness and wellbeing decrease with age. • Peer connectedness remains relatively stable across age. • Community and technology connectedness increase with age.

6. BULLYING OUTCOMES We measured rates of being bullied and victimized both in and outside school and via text messages. For schools we also measured rates of witnessing bullying and anti-bullying initiative effectiveness. A selection of outcomes are presented here.

7. BULLYING OUTCOMES - GENERAL  Self-report school bullying decreased as school decile increased, but not self report school victimization.  Like traditional bullying, males were more likely to send or receive a mean text message than females.  Year 8 (12 to 13 years) appears to be a time when sex and school decile differences in bullying rates temporarily disappear (developmental phase?).  Participants were more likely to be victimised in school than outside school or via text.  Rates of being bullied outside school showed a pattern of decrease with advancing school year.  Being a bully or a victim was more likely for those who said they had a boyfriend or girlfriend (holds across age groups and text bullying).

8. THE POWER OF TEACHERS? Post survey focus group participant: ‘teachers need to care, to watch that bullying doesn’t happen’. .23*** Effectiveness of school anti-bully initiative Wellbeing (.10***) .41*** Quality of relationship with teacher (.38***) .36*** Partial mediation of the impact of school bullying initiative on wellbeing by quality of relationship with teacher, sobel = 11.90***. (Note: ***p<.001)

9. RATES OF NEUTRALS, BULLIES, VICTIMS & BULLY-VICTIMS FOR TRADITIONAL vs. TEXT Note. Straight frequency reported within the prior month outside of brackets. Weighted frequency (by cluster analysis) within brackets. Bully-victim rates (weighted) are higher for text compared to traditional bullying (text wars?) Domain overlap: neutral 70.6% (86.6); bully-victim 42.3% (23.3); bully 18.2% (16.1); victim 16.4% (9.7). Text bullying clusters demonstrate similar relationships with other variables as traditional bullying clusters - but typically not as strong.

10. TRADITIONAL BULLYING CLUSTERS (weighted results) A sample of findings  Substance use (particularly cigarettes), truancy and a higher degree of deviant peer affiliation was more likely in bullies and bully-victims.  Susceptibility to negative peer influence: neutral<victim<bully<bully-victim.  Bully-victims tended to have poorer social skills and used more negative coping strategies, with those in the neutral group reporting the highest adjustment in these areas.  Self harming actions/thoughts were more likely in bullies, victims and bully-victims than in the neutral group.  Family conflict was highest in bully-victims. Bullies and victims also report higher levels of family conflict than the neutral group.  Victims and bully-victims were least likely to feel they would have reliable support when in trouble, while bullies reported less guidance support than those in the neutral group.  Bullies and bully-victims reported less secure bonding and reassurance of worth than those in the neutral group.

11. SCHOOL CELL-PHONE POLICIES - 1 The most common policies were prohibition of use during class time or handed into the school during the school day. Leniency increased with school year. Of those who said cell-phones were not allowed in class time, 30% specified that breaking the rules resulted in confiscation. School Year %

12. SCHOOL CELL-PHONE POLICIES - 2 We collapsed policies into two groups: 1/ allowed during the school day and 2/ not allowed. We then examined mean differences in student data as a function of group membership. RESULTS Lower decile schools were more likely to fall into the ‘not allowed’ category. Controlling for school year and decile, we also found that the ‘not allowed’ category (compared to allowed) was associated with higher levels of text traffic on both school days and weekends and higher rates of text bullying – both sent and received. FOCUS GROUP Results were reported to a post-survey focus group of 13 to 16 year olds who indicated that being told they cannot have a cell phone makes them want to use it more and banning serves to create ‘hidden’ use (which can’t be monitored).

13. INTERNET – KEY FINDINGS - 1 Internet use, having net friends and using the net to maintain Proximal/distal ties showed a robust linear increase with age. Note: All values are percentages Females used the internet to maintain proximal and distal ties more often than males.

14. INTERNET – KEY FINDINGS - 2 • Within internet users, those with net friends chatted on the net with known others more often than those without net friends, suggesting a strong tendency to accrue ‘stranger’ friendships via social networking with known others. • Those with net friends spent more time gaming than those without net friends. • High risk rates for negative peer influence and externalization, by level of internet engagement: non-net users: 31%  net users without net friends: 26%  those with net friends: 50% • The ‘net friends’ group also showed a pattern of having the poorest outcomes across a wider range of family, school, peer and wellbeing indicators (age, sex, decile controlled for).

15. NET FRIENDS vs. TRADITIONAL FRIENDS  Young people rated traditional friend’s support higher than net friend support – however, 10-11 year olds made less of a distinction between support from the two sources (r = .42), while 14 to 15 years made the most distinction (r = .19).  The positive impact of net friend support on wellbeing lost significance when its effects were considered in tandem with traditional friend support.  Higher levels of net friend support were associated with a greater susceptibility to being influenced by others, while the opposite was true for traditional friend support.

17. Family Data Who participated in the family survey? • 1889 parents/caregivers answered our survey (Mothers: 1342; Fathers: 254) • Different family structures in our sample Family structuren Intact 1150 Lone 454 Step/complex 205 Extended 72 Other 8 Total 1889

18. Family dimensions • Cohesion •Identity • Mutual activities • Autonomy • Monitoring and Supervision • Conflict

19. Family perceptions • 1 Family • 2 “Informants” Young person Parent/caregiver

20. Parents/caregivers’ and young people’s views on family DimensionSignificant differences Cohesion Parents > Young people (M/S) Identity Parents > Young people (M/S) Mutual activities Parents > Young people (M/S) Autonomy Parents >Young people (M/L) Monitoring and supervision Parents >Young people (M/L) Conflict No differences (Effect Size: S = small, M = medium, L = large)

21. Family structure: how it matters • Looking beyond outcomes’ mean differences • Family structure: a moderator Young people’s outcomes Family dimensions Family structure

22. Links between family dimensions and cigarette smoking RQ: Is the link between family dimensions (mutual activities, monitoring/supervision, and conflict) and smoking equally important for young people in all family structures? Family Mutual Activities - .03* - .18** Young people’s cigarette consumption Family Monitoring and Supervision .10** Family Conflict Family structure (Note: *p<.05, **p<.01)

23. Mutual activities and smoking: Lone cf Intact families Figure 1. Family structure (lone cf intact families) as a moderator between family mutual activities and young people’s cigarette consumption.

24. Mutual activities and smoking: Step cf Intact families Figure 2. Family structure (step cf intact families) as a moderator between family mutual activities and young people’s cigarette consumption.

25. Monitoring/supervision and smoking:Extended cf Intact families Figure 3. Family structure (extended cf intact families) as a moderator between family monitoring and supervision and young people’s cigarette consumption.

26. Conclusion - General linksIn relation to cigarette consumption… • Family mutual activities have a negative association with cigarette consumption (ie., higher activities’ levels = lower consumption) • Family monitoring/supervision have a negative association with cigarette consumption (ie., higher monitoring/supervision = lower consumption) • Family conflict has a positive association with cigarette consumption (ie., higher conflict levels = higher consumption)

27. Conclusion - Moderation linksIn relation to cigarette consumption… • Family mutual activities are especially important for young people in lone and step families • Family monitoring/supervision is especially important for young people in extended families • Family structure did not moderate the relationship between family conflict and smoking.