- Email: [email protected]
Brief report: Peer group influences and adolescent internalizing problems as mediated by effortful control
Journal of Adolescence 41 (2015) 131e135
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Adolescence journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado
Brief report: Peer group influences and adolescent internalizing problems as mediated by effortful control Rachel Dyson*, Gail C. Robertson, Maria M. Wong Idaho State University, 921 S. 8th Avenue Stop 8112, Pocatello, ID 83201, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online 7 April 2015
Internalizing problems in adolescence encompass behaviors directed inward at the self (Colman, Wadsworth, Croudace, & Jones, 2007). Several predictors have been linked to internalizing problems including antisocial and prosocial peers (Cartwright, 2007; Chung, 2010). Effortful control, a component of self-regulation, is one factor that could mediate the relationship between peer behaviors and individual outcomes. This study assessed the relationship between peer behaviors, effortful control, and adolescent internalizing problems. Participants were 151 middle school adolescents (M ¼ 12.16 years old) who completed self-report questionnaires regarding behaviors of their peers, perceptions of effortful control, and experiences of internalizing problems. Structural equation modeling (SEM) yielded a significant negative relationship between antisocial peers and effortful control, and a significant positive relationship between prosocial peers and effortful control. In addition, effortful control significantly mediated the relationship between prosocial peers and internalizing problems, but not for antisocial peers. Implications for interventions related to adolescent health were discussed. © 2015 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Peer group Internalizing problems Effortful control Antisocial Prosocial
In 2010, the National Institute of Mental Health reported that prevalence rates for anxiety and depression in adolescence continued to rise (8 and 11% respectively; Merikangas et al., 2010). The current study focused on the broader construct of internalizing problems, defined as deviant, emotion-driven behaviors targeted inward toward the individual (e.g., disturbed self-concept, negative self-talk; Achenbach, 1991; Colman et al., 2007; Morgan, Izard, & Hyde, 2014). Risk factors of internalizing problems include parent psychopathology, negative sibling interactions, and chaotic familial structure (Hicks, DiRago, Iacono, & McGue, 2009; Moilanen, 2005). Several studies have established the role of deviant peer association and victimization in developing internalizing symptoms (Cartwright, 2007; Chung, 2010; Dishion, 2000; Fanti & Henrich, 2010; Hoglund & Chisholm, 2014; Shapero, Hamilton, Liu, Abramson, & Alloy, 2013). Existing research on peer relationships has focused on peer deviance, whereas fewer studies have considered the importance of prosocial peer behaviors (i.e., actions intended to benefit another person; Prinstein, Boergers, & Spirito, 2001). An important variable contributing to the relationship between peers and internalizing problems may be effortful control. Subsumed under the construct of self-control, effortful control is defined as the ability to inhibit a dominant response in order to perform a subdominant response (Rothbart & Rueda, 2005). It involves three subcomponentsdactivation, engaging in an action one is inclined to avoid; inhibition, refraining from engaging in an inappropriate action; and attention, shifting
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 208 282 2462. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Dyson), [email protected] (G.C. Robertson), [email protected] (M.M. Wong). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.03.004 0140-1971/© 2015 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
132
R. Dyson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 41 (2015) 131e135
attention in line with changing goals. Research has found that effortful control predicts to lower emotional/behavioral problems, and higher prosociality in adolescence (Eisenberg, Smith, Sadovsky, & Spinrad, 2004; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). It has been negatively linked to several internalizing symptoms (van Oort, Greaves-Lord, Ormel, Verhulst, & Huizink, 2011), and has positively related to the quality and quantity of adolescent friendships (Bowker & Rubin, 2009). Friendships formed during adolescence are highly influential (Calkins & Keane, 2009). Based on a Social Learning Theory perspective, the peer group serves as a social model from which the child learns associations between behaviors and punishments/rewards (Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino, & Pastorelli, 2003; Cornish, 1993). Together with Rothbart's theory of effortful control, models in the adolescent's environment could alter the malleable self-regulation component of effortful control. The current study examined the relationships among peer behaviors, effortful control, and internalizing problems within this theoretical model. Two goals were identified: i) understand the role that prosocial and antisocial peers play in the expression of internalizing behaviors and ii) explore whether effortful control mediated that relationship. We hypothesized that higher prosocial and lower antisocial peer behaviors would relate to lower internalizing problems. Effortful control was hypothesized to be a mediator for both relationships. Method Participants were 151 middle school adolescents ages 11e14 (M ¼ 12.16) in a rural Northwestern U.S. town and were primarily Caucasian (57.6%) and Hispanic (33.8%). Participants returned a signed parental consent and adolescent assent form to meet eligibility. Data were collected across three homeroom periods, with 15e20 participants per classroom. The Youth Self Report (YSR; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) was used to assess internalizing problems. The YSR is a widely normed questionnaire in which adolescents rate the frequency of various issues over the past six months on a scale from 0 (Never/Rarely) to 2 (Often/Very Often). The 35 items comprising the Internalizing subscales were summed to calculate internalizing problems (Cronbach a ¼ .83). The Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised (EATQ-R; Capaldi & Rothbart, 1992) is a 16-item questionnaire measuring effortful control. Responses are based on a 5-point scale (1 ¼ Almost Always Untrue, 3 ¼ Sometimes True/Sometimes Untrue, 5 ¼ Almost Always True). The three subscales (attention, inhibition, activation) were used to construct effortful control scores (Cronbach a ¼ .60.73, respectively). The Peer Behavior Inventory (PBI; Prinstein et al., 2001) is a 19-item questionnaire that asks adolescents to indicate the number of “best friends” that engage in different behaviors (substance use, suicidality, deviance, prosociality). A ratio score is computed for each item by dividing the number of friends that engage in a behavior by the total number of identified friends. Responses range from 0.0 to 1.0. The Peer Behavior Profile (PBP; Zucker & Fitzgerald, 2002) was used to assess the proportion of peers engaging in various behaviors on a 5-point scale, where 1 ¼ Almost None, and 5 ¼ Almost All (nine prosocial items, Cronbach a ¼ .89; 19 antisocial items, Cronbach a ¼ .93). The YSR, EATQ and PBP have been validated in previous research (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001; Capaldi & Rothbart, 1992; Zucker & Fitzgerald, 2002). Participants also completed a demographics questionnaire measuring gender, ethnicity and age. Results Data were analyzed by structural equation modeling (SEM) to simultaneously assess two mediation models. Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics for all observed variables are listed in Tables 1 and 2. Test of model fit was assessed by the chi-square test of model fit, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980), Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), and TuckereLewis Index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973). All analyses were carried out using Mplus 6.0 n & Muthe n, 1998 e 2010). (Muthe For the measurement model, four latent variables were constructed from the observed data: i) peer prosocial behavior included the summed prosocial items from the PBI and PBP, ii) peer antisocial behavior included the summed antisocial items from the PBI and PBP, iii) effortful control included summed scores for the three EATQ-R subscales, iv) and internalizing problems consisted of the summed scores from the YSR subscales Anxious/Withdrawn, Anxious/Depressed, and Somatic Table 1 Zero-order correlations of all major predictor and outcome variables.
1. Peer Prosocial (PBI) 2. Peer Prosocial (PBP) 3. Peer Antisocial (PBI) 4. Peer Antisocial (PBP) 5. Activation Control 6. Inhibitory Control 7. Attention Control 8. Anxious/Depressed 9. Withdrawn/Depressed 10. Somatic Concerns Note. *, p < .05, **, p < .01.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
e
.29** e
.09 .01 e
.15 .16 .35** e
.25** .18* .28** .19* e
.43** .20* .18* .16 .42** e
.32** .24** .13 .12 .54** .47** e
.12 .01 .15 .05 .33** .20* .33** e
.21* .01 .20* .07 .34** .29** .33** .71** e
.10 .01 .10 .08 .21** .10 .32** .67** .55** e
R. Dyson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 41 (2015) 131e135
133
Table 2 Mean, SD, Skewness, and Kurtosis of major predictor and outcome variables.
Age Ethnicity Grade Anxious/Depressed Withdrawn/Depressed Somatic Concerns Activation Control Inhibitory Control Attention Control Peer Prosocial (PBI) Peer Prosocial (PBP) Peer Antisocial (PBI) Peer Antisocial (PBP)
Mean
Std. Dev.
Skewness
Kurtosis
12.16 0.58 6.97 0.36 0.40 0.40 3.57 3.92 3.64 0.63 2.26 0.50 1.20
0.85 0.49 0.78 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.86 0.59 0.66 0.22 0.65 1.21 0.37
0.15 0.32 0.05 1.53 0.96 1.21 0.11 0.27 0.36 0.50 0.75 0.71 1.42
0.78 1.91 1.36 2.27 0.34 1.67 0.81 0.02 0.96 0.03 0.19 1.20 1.69
Concerns. Factor loadings for the observed variables are displayed in Fig. 1. The measurement model yielded a good fit for the data (c2 ð29Þ ¼ 41:41; p ¼ :063) with all observed variables significantly loading on their respective factors. Fit indices were excellent (CFI ¼ .97, TLI ¼ .95, RMSEA ¼ .05). The initial structural model included gender, grade, and ethnicity as control variables. Results indicated that no demographic variables significantly predicted internalizing problems (Gender b ¼ 1.01, p ¼ .31; Age b ¼ .98, p ¼ .33; Ethnicity b ¼ 1.61, p ¼ .11) therefore these variables were excluded from the model. In the final model, effortful control significantly mediated the relationship between peer prosocial behavior and internalizing problems (95% Asymmetric Confidence Interval (ACI) [.92, .07]; ACI does not include 0, indicating that the mediated effect was significant at p < .05 (MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007; MacKinnon, 2008). ACI has more statistical power and more accurate Type I error rates than other product-ofcoefficients methods (e.g., Sobel test; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004; MacKinnon et al., 2007). ACI is calculated by PRODCLIN, a program that calculates the confidence limits of the product of two normal random variables (MacKinnon et al., 2007). Higher prosocial peers were associated with higher effortful control, which predicted lower internalizing problems. Effortful control significantly mediated the relationship between antisocial peers and internalizing problems (95% ACI [.02, .57]). Higher antisocial peers were associated with lower effortful control and higher internalizing problems. Model fit was excellent (c2 ð29Þ ¼ 41:41; p ¼ :063; CFI ¼ :968; TLI ¼ :951; RMSEA ¼ :053 ). Peer prosocial and antisocial behavior did not predict internalizing problems after controlling for effortful control.
Discussion The current study focused on the relationship between peer behaviors and internalizing problems in early adolescence. The hypothesis that lower prosocial and higher antisocial peers would directly relate to internalizing problems was not
Fig. 1. Effortful control mediates the relationship between peer prosocial and antisocial behaviors on adolescent internalizing problems.
134
R. Dyson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 41 (2015) 131e135
supported by the data. The relationship between peer behaviors and internalizing problems is likely more complex and could be affected by factors such as the frequency, intensity, and proximity of interactions. Future research exploring how relationship quality affects the development of internalizing problems is warranted. The second hypothesis was supported. Effortful control significantly mediated the relationship between peer prosocial behavior and internalizing problems, as well as between peer antisocial behavior and internalizing problems. An assessment of effortful control may be useful for understanding peer group effects on adolescent internalizing problems. Without considering effortful control, the relationship between peer behaviors and internalizing problems were within the borderline ranges. One possible explanation regarding the relationship between peer behaviors and effortful control is that the peer group models strategies for behavior regulation that could be prosocial or antisocial in nature (e.g., seeking support versus seeking revenge), which in turn affects the degree of self-regulation adopted by the adolescent. Consequently, increased effortful control would decrease one's susceptibility to the emotionally dysregulated characteristics of internalizing problems. The current study had several limitations. The lack of experimental or longitudinal designs precluded any causal conclusions. The SEM model was formulated based on our theoretical propositions. Although the model fits the data well, future work needs more rigorous study designs. We recognize that the proposed model is only one way that these variables could relate to each other. Longitudinally assessing peer relations across adolescence could offer an understanding of how changes in peer influence affect effortful control and internalizing problems (Hooshmand, Willoughby, & Good, 2012; Rasco, 2008). Experimentally manipulating peer behaviors could also be a promising avenue for testing these processes (Reijntjes, Stegge, Terwogt, Kamphuis, & Telch, 2006, 2011). All study variables were assessed via self-report, which has clear weaknesses (e.g., social desirability, recall bias). However, given the private nature of the target variable (e.g., thoughts/cognitions), and maintaining confidentiality within a rural setting, this method yielded the best balance between feasibility and data quality. Alternate considerations for sampling these constructs would be helpful for future projects. Finally, the rural, primarily Caucasian sample characteristics pose a challenge for generalization of the findings. Future research should collect data from multiple demographic groups to obtain a more comprehensive sample. Taken together, these results provide preliminary support for effortful control as a mediator between peer behaviors and internalizing problems in adolescence. Future research needs to replicate these findings through experimental and longitudinal studies in addition to identifying other intervening variables. Prevention efforts could target adolescent peer relations and self-control as vehicles for decreasing risk for internalizing behaviors.
References Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms and profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families. Bandura, A., Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 74(3), 769e782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00567. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238e246. Bowker, J. C., & Rubin, K. H. (2009). Self-consciousness, friendship quality, and adolescent internalizing problems. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 249e267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/026151008X295623. Calkins, S. D., & Keane, S. P. (2009). Developmental origins of early antisocial behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 21(4), 1095e1109. http://dx.doi. org/10.1017/S095457940999006. Capaldi, D. M., & Rothbart, M. K. (1992). Development and validation of an early adolescent temperament measure. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 12(2), 153e173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431692012002002. Cartwright, H. (2007). Peer acceptance, deviancy training, and victimization as predictors of adolescent problems: a search for personality moderators. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67. Chung, J. (2010). The social functioning of the peer group: contextual effects on social, school, and psychological adjustment in Chinese children. Dissertation Abstracts International Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 70(8), 5204. Colman, I., Wadsworth, M. E. J., Croudace, T. J., & Jones, P. B. (2007). Forty-year psychiatric outcomes following assessment for internalizing disorder in adolescence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 126e133. Cornish, D. (1993). Theories of action in criminology: learning theory and rational choice approaches. In M. Clarke, & R. V. Felson (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice (pp. 351e382). Piscataway, NJ US: Transaction Publishers. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Dishion, T. J. (2000). Cross-setting consistency in early adolescent psychopathology: deviant friendships and problem behavior sequelae. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 1109e1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00128. Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Effortful control: relations with emotion regulation, adjustment, and socialization in childhood. In R. F. Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 259e282). New York, NY US: Guilford Press. Fanti, K., & Henrich, C. (2010). Trajectories of pure and co-occurring internalizing and externalizing problems from age 2 to age 12: findings from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1159e1175. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/a0020659. Hicks, B. M., DiRago, A. C., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2009). Gene-environment interplay in internalizing disorders: consistent findings across six environmental risk factors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(10), 1309e1317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02100.x. Hoglund, W., & Chisholm, C. (2014). Reciprocating risks of peer problems and aggression for children's internalizing problems. Developmental Psychology, 50(2), 586e599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033617. Hooshmand, S., Willoughby, T., & Good, M. (February 2012). Does the direction of effects in the association between depressive symptoms and health-risk behaviors differ by behavior? A longitudinal study across the high school years. Journal of Adolescent Health [Serial Online], 50(2), 140e147. Available from: PsycINFO, Ipswich, MA. Accessed 13.12.14. MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 593e614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev. psych.58.110405.085542.
R. Dyson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 41 (2015) 131e135
135
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99e128. Merikangas, K. R., Burstein, M., Swanson, S. A., Avenevoli, S., Cui, L., Benjet, C., et al. (2010). Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in U.S. adolescents: results from the National Comorbidity Study- Adolescent Sample (NCS-A). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(10), 980e989. Moilanen, K. (2005). Parenting and self-regulation in adolescence: associations with adolescent behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66, 2858. Morgan, J. K., Izard, C. E., & Hyde, C. (2014). Emotional reactivity and regulation in head start children: links to ecologically valid behaviors and internalizing problems. Social Development, 23(2), 250e266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12049. n, L. K., & Muthe n, B. O. (1998e2010). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthe n & Muthe n. Muthe van Oort, F. A., Greaves-Lord, K. K., Ormel, J. J., Verhulst, F. C., & Huizink, A. C. (2011). Risk indicators of anxiety throughout adolescence: the TRAILS study. Depression & Anxiety (1091-4269), 28(6), 485e494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/da.20818. Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Spirito, A. (2001). Adolescents' and their friends' health-risk behavior: factors that alter or add to peer influence. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 26(5), 287e298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/26.5.287. Rasco, L. M. (2008). Advanced social cognition in the preschool years: a mixed blessing for social-emotional well-being in early childhood and adolescence. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69, 1969. Reijntjes, A., Stegge, H., Terwogt, M., Kamphuis, J., & Telch, M. (2006). Children's coping with in vivo peer rejection: an experimental investigation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(6), 873e885. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-006-9061-8. Reijntjes, A., Thomaes, S., Kamphuis, J. H., Bushman, B. J., de Castro, B., & Telch, M. J. (2011). Explaining the paradoxical rejection-aggression link: the mediating effects of hostile intent attributions, anger, and decreases in state self-esteem on peer rejection-induced aggression in youth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 955e963. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167211410247. Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.) (5th ed.)Social, emotional and personality development: Vol. 3. Handbook of child psychology (pp. 105e176). New York: Wiley. Rothbart, M. K., & Rueda, M. (2005). The development of effortful control. In U. Mayr, E. Awh, & S. W. Keele (Eds.), Developing individuality in the human brain: A tribute to Michael I. Posner (pp. 167e188). Washington, DC US: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11108-009. Shapero, B. G., Hamilton, J. L., Liu, R. T., Abramson, L. Y., & Alloy, L. B. (2013). Internalizing symptoms and rumination: the prospective prediction of familial and peer emotional victimization experiences during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 36(6), 1067e1076. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence. 2013.08.011. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. In Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1e10. Zucker, R. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (2002). Family study of risk for alcoholism over the life course. Assessment Protocol: Description of Instruments and Copies of Contact Schedules, Appendix 9.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Adolescence journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado
Brief report: Peer group influences and adolescent internalizing problems as mediated by effortful control Rachel Dyson*, Gail C. Robertson, Maria M. Wong Idaho State University, 921 S. 8th Avenue Stop 8112, Pocatello, ID 83201, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online 7 April 2015
Internalizing problems in adolescence encompass behaviors directed inward at the self (Colman, Wadsworth, Croudace, & Jones, 2007). Several predictors have been linked to internalizing problems including antisocial and prosocial peers (Cartwright, 2007; Chung, 2010). Effortful control, a component of self-regulation, is one factor that could mediate the relationship between peer behaviors and individual outcomes. This study assessed the relationship between peer behaviors, effortful control, and adolescent internalizing problems. Participants were 151 middle school adolescents (M ¼ 12.16 years old) who completed self-report questionnaires regarding behaviors of their peers, perceptions of effortful control, and experiences of internalizing problems. Structural equation modeling (SEM) yielded a significant negative relationship between antisocial peers and effortful control, and a significant positive relationship between prosocial peers and effortful control. In addition, effortful control significantly mediated the relationship between prosocial peers and internalizing problems, but not for antisocial peers. Implications for interventions related to adolescent health were discussed. © 2015 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Peer group Internalizing problems Effortful control Antisocial Prosocial
In 2010, the National Institute of Mental Health reported that prevalence rates for anxiety and depression in adolescence continued to rise (8 and 11% respectively; Merikangas et al., 2010). The current study focused on the broader construct of internalizing problems, defined as deviant, emotion-driven behaviors targeted inward toward the individual (e.g., disturbed self-concept, negative self-talk; Achenbach, 1991; Colman et al., 2007; Morgan, Izard, & Hyde, 2014). Risk factors of internalizing problems include parent psychopathology, negative sibling interactions, and chaotic familial structure (Hicks, DiRago, Iacono, & McGue, 2009; Moilanen, 2005). Several studies have established the role of deviant peer association and victimization in developing internalizing symptoms (Cartwright, 2007; Chung, 2010; Dishion, 2000; Fanti & Henrich, 2010; Hoglund & Chisholm, 2014; Shapero, Hamilton, Liu, Abramson, & Alloy, 2013). Existing research on peer relationships has focused on peer deviance, whereas fewer studies have considered the importance of prosocial peer behaviors (i.e., actions intended to benefit another person; Prinstein, Boergers, & Spirito, 2001). An important variable contributing to the relationship between peers and internalizing problems may be effortful control. Subsumed under the construct of self-control, effortful control is defined as the ability to inhibit a dominant response in order to perform a subdominant response (Rothbart & Rueda, 2005). It involves three subcomponentsdactivation, engaging in an action one is inclined to avoid; inhibition, refraining from engaging in an inappropriate action; and attention, shifting
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 208 282 2462. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Dyson), [email protected] (G.C. Robertson), [email protected] (M.M. Wong). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.03.004 0140-1971/© 2015 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
132
R. Dyson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 41 (2015) 131e135
attention in line with changing goals. Research has found that effortful control predicts to lower emotional/behavioral problems, and higher prosociality in adolescence (Eisenberg, Smith, Sadovsky, & Spinrad, 2004; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). It has been negatively linked to several internalizing symptoms (van Oort, Greaves-Lord, Ormel, Verhulst, & Huizink, 2011), and has positively related to the quality and quantity of adolescent friendships (Bowker & Rubin, 2009). Friendships formed during adolescence are highly influential (Calkins & Keane, 2009). Based on a Social Learning Theory perspective, the peer group serves as a social model from which the child learns associations between behaviors and punishments/rewards (Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino, & Pastorelli, 2003; Cornish, 1993). Together with Rothbart's theory of effortful control, models in the adolescent's environment could alter the malleable self-regulation component of effortful control. The current study examined the relationships among peer behaviors, effortful control, and internalizing problems within this theoretical model. Two goals were identified: i) understand the role that prosocial and antisocial peers play in the expression of internalizing behaviors and ii) explore whether effortful control mediated that relationship. We hypothesized that higher prosocial and lower antisocial peer behaviors would relate to lower internalizing problems. Effortful control was hypothesized to be a mediator for both relationships. Method Participants were 151 middle school adolescents ages 11e14 (M ¼ 12.16) in a rural Northwestern U.S. town and were primarily Caucasian (57.6%) and Hispanic (33.8%). Participants returned a signed parental consent and adolescent assent form to meet eligibility. Data were collected across three homeroom periods, with 15e20 participants per classroom. The Youth Self Report (YSR; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) was used to assess internalizing problems. The YSR is a widely normed questionnaire in which adolescents rate the frequency of various issues over the past six months on a scale from 0 (Never/Rarely) to 2 (Often/Very Often). The 35 items comprising the Internalizing subscales were summed to calculate internalizing problems (Cronbach a ¼ .83). The Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised (EATQ-R; Capaldi & Rothbart, 1992) is a 16-item questionnaire measuring effortful control. Responses are based on a 5-point scale (1 ¼ Almost Always Untrue, 3 ¼ Sometimes True/Sometimes Untrue, 5 ¼ Almost Always True). The three subscales (attention, inhibition, activation) were used to construct effortful control scores (Cronbach a ¼ .60.73, respectively). The Peer Behavior Inventory (PBI; Prinstein et al., 2001) is a 19-item questionnaire that asks adolescents to indicate the number of “best friends” that engage in different behaviors (substance use, suicidality, deviance, prosociality). A ratio score is computed for each item by dividing the number of friends that engage in a behavior by the total number of identified friends. Responses range from 0.0 to 1.0. The Peer Behavior Profile (PBP; Zucker & Fitzgerald, 2002) was used to assess the proportion of peers engaging in various behaviors on a 5-point scale, where 1 ¼ Almost None, and 5 ¼ Almost All (nine prosocial items, Cronbach a ¼ .89; 19 antisocial items, Cronbach a ¼ .93). The YSR, EATQ and PBP have been validated in previous research (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001; Capaldi & Rothbart, 1992; Zucker & Fitzgerald, 2002). Participants also completed a demographics questionnaire measuring gender, ethnicity and age. Results Data were analyzed by structural equation modeling (SEM) to simultaneously assess two mediation models. Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics for all observed variables are listed in Tables 1 and 2. Test of model fit was assessed by the chi-square test of model fit, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980), Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), and TuckereLewis Index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973). All analyses were carried out using Mplus 6.0 n & Muthe n, 1998 e 2010). (Muthe For the measurement model, four latent variables were constructed from the observed data: i) peer prosocial behavior included the summed prosocial items from the PBI and PBP, ii) peer antisocial behavior included the summed antisocial items from the PBI and PBP, iii) effortful control included summed scores for the three EATQ-R subscales, iv) and internalizing problems consisted of the summed scores from the YSR subscales Anxious/Withdrawn, Anxious/Depressed, and Somatic Table 1 Zero-order correlations of all major predictor and outcome variables.
1. Peer Prosocial (PBI) 2. Peer Prosocial (PBP) 3. Peer Antisocial (PBI) 4. Peer Antisocial (PBP) 5. Activation Control 6. Inhibitory Control 7. Attention Control 8. Anxious/Depressed 9. Withdrawn/Depressed 10. Somatic Concerns Note. *, p < .05, **, p < .01.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
e
.29** e
.09 .01 e
.15 .16 .35** e
.25** .18* .28** .19* e
.43** .20* .18* .16 .42** e
.32** .24** .13 .12 .54** .47** e
.12 .01 .15 .05 .33** .20* .33** e
.21* .01 .20* .07 .34** .29** .33** .71** e
.10 .01 .10 .08 .21** .10 .32** .67** .55** e
R. Dyson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 41 (2015) 131e135
133
Table 2 Mean, SD, Skewness, and Kurtosis of major predictor and outcome variables.
Age Ethnicity Grade Anxious/Depressed Withdrawn/Depressed Somatic Concerns Activation Control Inhibitory Control Attention Control Peer Prosocial (PBI) Peer Prosocial (PBP) Peer Antisocial (PBI) Peer Antisocial (PBP)
Mean
Std. Dev.
Skewness
Kurtosis
12.16 0.58 6.97 0.36 0.40 0.40 3.57 3.92 3.64 0.63 2.26 0.50 1.20
0.85 0.49 0.78 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.86 0.59 0.66 0.22 0.65 1.21 0.37
0.15 0.32 0.05 1.53 0.96 1.21 0.11 0.27 0.36 0.50 0.75 0.71 1.42
0.78 1.91 1.36 2.27 0.34 1.67 0.81 0.02 0.96 0.03 0.19 1.20 1.69
Concerns. Factor loadings for the observed variables are displayed in Fig. 1. The measurement model yielded a good fit for the data (c2 ð29Þ ¼ 41:41; p ¼ :063) with all observed variables significantly loading on their respective factors. Fit indices were excellent (CFI ¼ .97, TLI ¼ .95, RMSEA ¼ .05). The initial structural model included gender, grade, and ethnicity as control variables. Results indicated that no demographic variables significantly predicted internalizing problems (Gender b ¼ 1.01, p ¼ .31; Age b ¼ .98, p ¼ .33; Ethnicity b ¼ 1.61, p ¼ .11) therefore these variables were excluded from the model. In the final model, effortful control significantly mediated the relationship between peer prosocial behavior and internalizing problems (95% Asymmetric Confidence Interval (ACI) [.92, .07]; ACI does not include 0, indicating that the mediated effect was significant at p < .05 (MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007; MacKinnon, 2008). ACI has more statistical power and more accurate Type I error rates than other product-ofcoefficients methods (e.g., Sobel test; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004; MacKinnon et al., 2007). ACI is calculated by PRODCLIN, a program that calculates the confidence limits of the product of two normal random variables (MacKinnon et al., 2007). Higher prosocial peers were associated with higher effortful control, which predicted lower internalizing problems. Effortful control significantly mediated the relationship between antisocial peers and internalizing problems (95% ACI [.02, .57]). Higher antisocial peers were associated with lower effortful control and higher internalizing problems. Model fit was excellent (c2 ð29Þ ¼ 41:41; p ¼ :063; CFI ¼ :968; TLI ¼ :951; RMSEA ¼ :053 ). Peer prosocial and antisocial behavior did not predict internalizing problems after controlling for effortful control.
Discussion The current study focused on the relationship between peer behaviors and internalizing problems in early adolescence. The hypothesis that lower prosocial and higher antisocial peers would directly relate to internalizing problems was not
Fig. 1. Effortful control mediates the relationship between peer prosocial and antisocial behaviors on adolescent internalizing problems.
134
R. Dyson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 41 (2015) 131e135
supported by the data. The relationship between peer behaviors and internalizing problems is likely more complex and could be affected by factors such as the frequency, intensity, and proximity of interactions. Future research exploring how relationship quality affects the development of internalizing problems is warranted. The second hypothesis was supported. Effortful control significantly mediated the relationship between peer prosocial behavior and internalizing problems, as well as between peer antisocial behavior and internalizing problems. An assessment of effortful control may be useful for understanding peer group effects on adolescent internalizing problems. Without considering effortful control, the relationship between peer behaviors and internalizing problems were within the borderline ranges. One possible explanation regarding the relationship between peer behaviors and effortful control is that the peer group models strategies for behavior regulation that could be prosocial or antisocial in nature (e.g., seeking support versus seeking revenge), which in turn affects the degree of self-regulation adopted by the adolescent. Consequently, increased effortful control would decrease one's susceptibility to the emotionally dysregulated characteristics of internalizing problems. The current study had several limitations. The lack of experimental or longitudinal designs precluded any causal conclusions. The SEM model was formulated based on our theoretical propositions. Although the model fits the data well, future work needs more rigorous study designs. We recognize that the proposed model is only one way that these variables could relate to each other. Longitudinally assessing peer relations across adolescence could offer an understanding of how changes in peer influence affect effortful control and internalizing problems (Hooshmand, Willoughby, & Good, 2012; Rasco, 2008). Experimentally manipulating peer behaviors could also be a promising avenue for testing these processes (Reijntjes, Stegge, Terwogt, Kamphuis, & Telch, 2006, 2011). All study variables were assessed via self-report, which has clear weaknesses (e.g., social desirability, recall bias). However, given the private nature of the target variable (e.g., thoughts/cognitions), and maintaining confidentiality within a rural setting, this method yielded the best balance between feasibility and data quality. Alternate considerations for sampling these constructs would be helpful for future projects. Finally, the rural, primarily Caucasian sample characteristics pose a challenge for generalization of the findings. Future research should collect data from multiple demographic groups to obtain a more comprehensive sample. Taken together, these results provide preliminary support for effortful control as a mediator between peer behaviors and internalizing problems in adolescence. Future research needs to replicate these findings through experimental and longitudinal studies in addition to identifying other intervening variables. Prevention efforts could target adolescent peer relations and self-control as vehicles for decreasing risk for internalizing behaviors.
References Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms and profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families. Bandura, A., Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 74(3), 769e782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00567. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238e246. Bowker, J. C., & Rubin, K. H. (2009). Self-consciousness, friendship quality, and adolescent internalizing problems. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 249e267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/026151008X295623. Calkins, S. D., & Keane, S. P. (2009). Developmental origins of early antisocial behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 21(4), 1095e1109. http://dx.doi. org/10.1017/S095457940999006. Capaldi, D. M., & Rothbart, M. K. (1992). Development and validation of an early adolescent temperament measure. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 12(2), 153e173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431692012002002. Cartwright, H. (2007). Peer acceptance, deviancy training, and victimization as predictors of adolescent problems: a search for personality moderators. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67. Chung, J. (2010). The social functioning of the peer group: contextual effects on social, school, and psychological adjustment in Chinese children. Dissertation Abstracts International Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 70(8), 5204. Colman, I., Wadsworth, M. E. J., Croudace, T. J., & Jones, P. B. (2007). Forty-year psychiatric outcomes following assessment for internalizing disorder in adolescence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 126e133. Cornish, D. (1993). Theories of action in criminology: learning theory and rational choice approaches. In M. Clarke, & R. V. Felson (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice (pp. 351e382). Piscataway, NJ US: Transaction Publishers. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Dishion, T. J. (2000). Cross-setting consistency in early adolescent psychopathology: deviant friendships and problem behavior sequelae. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 1109e1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00128. Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Effortful control: relations with emotion regulation, adjustment, and socialization in childhood. In R. F. Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 259e282). New York, NY US: Guilford Press. Fanti, K., & Henrich, C. (2010). Trajectories of pure and co-occurring internalizing and externalizing problems from age 2 to age 12: findings from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1159e1175. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/a0020659. Hicks, B. M., DiRago, A. C., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2009). Gene-environment interplay in internalizing disorders: consistent findings across six environmental risk factors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(10), 1309e1317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02100.x. Hoglund, W., & Chisholm, C. (2014). Reciprocating risks of peer problems and aggression for children's internalizing problems. Developmental Psychology, 50(2), 586e599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033617. Hooshmand, S., Willoughby, T., & Good, M. (February 2012). Does the direction of effects in the association between depressive symptoms and health-risk behaviors differ by behavior? A longitudinal study across the high school years. Journal of Adolescent Health [Serial Online], 50(2), 140e147. Available from: PsycINFO, Ipswich, MA. Accessed 13.12.14. MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 593e614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev. psych.58.110405.085542.
R. Dyson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 41 (2015) 131e135
135
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99e128. Merikangas, K. R., Burstein, M., Swanson, S. A., Avenevoli, S., Cui, L., Benjet, C., et al. (2010). Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in U.S. adolescents: results from the National Comorbidity Study- Adolescent Sample (NCS-A). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(10), 980e989. Moilanen, K. (2005). Parenting and self-regulation in adolescence: associations with adolescent behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66, 2858. Morgan, J. K., Izard, C. E., & Hyde, C. (2014). Emotional reactivity and regulation in head start children: links to ecologically valid behaviors and internalizing problems. Social Development, 23(2), 250e266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12049. n, L. K., & Muthe n, B. O. (1998e2010). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthe n & Muthe n. Muthe van Oort, F. A., Greaves-Lord, K. K., Ormel, J. J., Verhulst, F. C., & Huizink, A. C. (2011). Risk indicators of anxiety throughout adolescence: the TRAILS study. Depression & Anxiety (1091-4269), 28(6), 485e494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/da.20818. Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Spirito, A. (2001). Adolescents' and their friends' health-risk behavior: factors that alter or add to peer influence. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 26(5), 287e298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/26.5.287. Rasco, L. M. (2008). Advanced social cognition in the preschool years: a mixed blessing for social-emotional well-being in early childhood and adolescence. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69, 1969. Reijntjes, A., Stegge, H., Terwogt, M., Kamphuis, J., & Telch, M. (2006). Children's coping with in vivo peer rejection: an experimental investigation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(6), 873e885. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-006-9061-8. Reijntjes, A., Thomaes, S., Kamphuis, J. H., Bushman, B. J., de Castro, B., & Telch, M. J. (2011). Explaining the paradoxical rejection-aggression link: the mediating effects of hostile intent attributions, anger, and decreases in state self-esteem on peer rejection-induced aggression in youth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 955e963. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167211410247. Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.) (5th ed.)Social, emotional and personality development: Vol. 3. Handbook of child psychology (pp. 105e176). New York: Wiley. Rothbart, M. K., & Rueda, M. (2005). The development of effortful control. In U. Mayr, E. Awh, & S. W. Keele (Eds.), Developing individuality in the human brain: A tribute to Michael I. Posner (pp. 167e188). Washington, DC US: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11108-009. Shapero, B. G., Hamilton, J. L., Liu, R. T., Abramson, L. Y., & Alloy, L. B. (2013). Internalizing symptoms and rumination: the prospective prediction of familial and peer emotional victimization experiences during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 36(6), 1067e1076. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence. 2013.08.011. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. In Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1e10. Zucker, R. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (2002). Family study of risk for alcoholism over the life course. Assessment Protocol: Description of Instruments and Copies of Contact Schedules, Appendix 9.