Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
327
328
329
attachment.
The basic finding from the work on parent-child attachments
is that securely attached childrenwho are distinguished from
other children primarily on the basis of the quality of parent-tochild behaviors they experience are different from non
securely attached children, most notably in the level and quality
oftheir sociability. Compared to other children, securely
attached children have been found to have more friends, be
more empathic, be more popular, approach others and
respond to them with more positive affect, be more selfconfident, and be more cooperative (e.g., Ainsworth, Blehar,
Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1969; Sroufe & Fleeson, 1988).
Although there has not yet been adequate empirical validation
of specific adolescent-to-parent attachment measures
(Schneider & Younger, 1996), the growing
330
JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT
331
332
333
334
335
3.
I actively participate in drama (e.g., school plays)
or music (e.g., band).
4.
I actively participate in student government.
Cronbachs alpha was .65.
Sample items from the nine items measuring Interpersonal
Social Initiative were the following:
1.
2.
3.
336
337
2.
I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
3.
I feel that Im a person of worth, at least on an equal
plane with others.
Appropriate responses were reverse coded so that higher
scores corresponded with higher levels of self-esteem.
Cronbachs alpha was .90.
Antisocial behavior. Antisocial behavior was measured by six
items from the delinquent subscale of the Child Behavior
ChecklistYouth Self-Report (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1987).
Response categories ranged from 1 (not true) to 3 (very true
or often true). Sample items were the following:
338
1.
2.
3.
TABLE 1: Bivariate Correlations Among All Variables for the Full Sample
3
1. Parental support
2. Parental psych control
3. Parental behavioral control
4. Parent-child conflict
5. Peer relations
6. Community relations
7. School relations
8. Depression
9. Self-esteem
10. Group social initiative
11. Interpersonal social initiative
NOTE: Correlations .08 and above are significant at the .05 level; correlations .11 and
above are significant at the .01 level; correlations .14 and above are significant at the .
001 level.
340
341
342
Table 3 Continued
343
younger cohort, 1995 parental behavioral control was associated with higher levels of 1996 community relations. Also for
the younger cohort, the association between 1995 parentadolescent conflict and 1996 peer relations differed by sex,
with the association significantly negative for males and
nonsignificantly positive for females.
Family and individual characteristics. As seen in Block 5 of
Table 3, 1995 parental support was associated with lower levels
of 1997 antisocial behavior for the younger cohort. Also for the
younger cohort, 1995 parental behavioral control was
associated with higher levels of 1997 self-esteem. For the older
cohort, 1995 parental behavioral control was associated with
lower 1997
344
346
347
5.
The role of nonfamily interpersonal relationship
inpredicting social initiative: Youth 1996 interpersonal
connections with peers, teachers, and community adults were
significantly predictive of 1997 individual characteristics and
1997 social initiative for the younger cohort, but not for the
older cohort.
6.
The role of parental support in predicting social
initiative: 1995 parental support was the most important
measureof the family context for the older cohort, being related
both directly to 1997 group social initiative and indirectly
through 1996 peer relations as well as being related to 1997
group social initiative through 1997 self-esteem. For the
younger cohort, 1995 parental support was related to 1997
group social initiative through 1997 antisocial behavior.
7.
The role of parental behavioral control in predicting
social initiative: 1995 parental behavioral control was the most
salient family variable for the younger cohort, being related
indirectly to 1997 group social initiative through 1997 antisocial
behavior, 1996 community relations, andtoboth 1997 group and
interpersonal social initiative through 1996 self-esteem. For
the older cohort, 1995 parental control was related to 1997
group social initiative through 1997 antisocial behavior.
8.
The nonsignificance of other family variables:
Parental psychological control and parent-child conflict were
generally not meaningful variables in the models.
9.
The predictive association between parentadolescent relations and nonfamily interpersonal relations: The
family variables were not consistently predictive of the quality of
relations in the nonfamily contexts, with the exception of the link
between 1995 parental support and 1997 peer relations for both
cohorts.
10.
The lack of association among the nonfamily
measures of interpersonal relationship quality: Generally, there
were not consistent associations among the non-family
contexts.
11.
The lack of variation across sex and religious
affiliation of youth: The functioning of the predictive model of
social initiative was virtually invariant across sex of youth and
religious affiliation of youth.
DISCUSSION
Guided by a variety of theories that implicate interpersonal
relationships in the competence of individual functioning, this
study assessed the degree to which adolescent social
competence could be traced to adolescent interpersonal
connections in the family, peer, school, and community
contexts. Prior work that has studied the antecedents of social
competence has focused primarily on the parental relationship.
A key contribution of the present study was an assessment of
this broader social ecology of adolescent interpersonal
relations. The study assessed the extent to which relationships
with parents,
348
349
across the models for both age cohorts, but these links were
rather sporadic. Furthermore, there were not consistent
associations among the quality of relations in the nonfamily
contexts. Thus, it was not apparent in the findings that youth
who had positive relationships with their parents were
consistently transporting those relationship styles into their
other social relationships.
Such an expectation for consistency, however, may be
inappropriate for at least two reasons. First, a limitation of this
studys methodology was that nonparallel measures of the
quality of social relationships were used. For example, the
measure of community relations was an assessment of the time
that youth spent with community adults, whereas the measure
of parent-adolescent relations was an assessment of the
degree of support from the parents perceived by the youth.
Thus, an absence of consistency in associations among the
social contexts could be explained in part because
noncongruent aspects of those contexts were assessed.
Second, the relationship partner(s) differed across contexts,
particularly with regard to the degree that youth had choice in
establishing the relation-ship(s). For example, the peer
relations variables was an assessment of the interpersonal
relationship quality with the youths best friend. Presumably,
youth develop best friendships by way of mutual selection
between the friends. The volition that guides the establishment
of this type of relationship may facilitate the transmission of
relationship style from the parent to the best friend realm,
either through a working models process or through the youth
using the behaviors they experience in relationship with their
parents asamodel for how they behave toward their best friend.
They may also select, in part, a best friend that exhibits some of
the positive behaviors experienced with their parents. Indeed,
the only consistent association across cohort models in the
present study was this link between parental support and peer
relations, a relationship that could be further explained in that
350
that was assessed between ages14 and 16, social initiative was
only informed by earlier relations with parents. This may indicate
that by the age of 16, adolescents have already formed a rather
durable social personality that is less sensitive to or
dependent on variations in the matrix of their other social relationships (but, interestingly, continually informed by their key
relationship with parents). For younger adolescents,onthe other
hand, social identity may still be in the process of formation and
therefore may fluctuate more in accordance with the
realitiesoftheir social interactionin the many domains of their
lives.
Other evidence in this study might also reinforce this
developmental picture of social competence formation. For the
younger cohort, the two forms of social initiative were
substantially correlated (.51), suggesting that for the younger
adolescents, interpersonal social assertiveness was tied to
some degree with their involvement in structured, group, social
activity. This association was substantially lower for the older
cohort (.13), perhaps reflecting again the more independent
social identity that has been formed by the older ages.
Furthermore, the independence of older adolescent social
identity is suggested in the stability across time of
interpersonal social initiative (.40) for the older cohort,
compared to the less stable association for the younger cohort
(.12).
Regarding the distinction between the two forms of social
competence, more variance was explained in interpersonal
social initiative than in group social initiative, but each form of
social initiative was predicted by all domains of interpersonal
relationship history. The reason for this was likely because the
predictor variables were mostly also measures of interpersonal
relationshipsthus, sensibly, relationship quality predicted
later relational competence. Also, however, the limited variance
explained in group social initiative could be attributed to the
more restricted nature of the group social initiative measure.
351
352
Cauce,A. M., Mason, C., Gonzales, N., Hiraga, Y., & Liu, G.
(1996). Social support during adolescence: Methodological and
theoretical considerations. In K. Hurrelmann & S. F. Hamilton
(Eds.), Social problems and social contexts in adolescence:
Perspectives across boundaries (pp. 131-151). New York:
Aldine de Gruyter.
Chung, H., & Elias, M. (1996). Patterns of adolescent
involvement in problem behaviors: Relationship to self-efficacy,
social competence, and life events. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 24(6), 771-784.
Coleman,J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creationof human
capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New
York: Scribner.
Crocenkenberg, S., Jackson, S., & Langrock, A. M. (1996).
Autonomy and goal attainment: Parenting, gender and
childrens social competence. New Directions for Child
Development, 73, 41-55.
Finger, J., & Silverman, M. (1966). Changes in academic
performance in the junior high school. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 45, 157-164.
Garmezy, N. (1971). Vulnerability research and the issue
ofprimary prevention.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41,
101-116.
Gecas, V., & Seff, M. A. (1990). Families and adolescents: A
review of the 1980s. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
52(4), 941-958.
Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative
parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 61, 574-587.
Lapsley, D. K., Rice, K. G., & FitzGerald, D. P. (1990).
Adolescent adjustment, identity and adjustment to college:
Implications for the continuity of adaptation hypothesis. Journal
of Counseling Development, 68, 561-565.
Levendosky, A. A., Okun, A., & Parker,J.G. (1995). Depression
353
354
2001