longitudinal family predictors of adolescents’ experiences of physical and psychological...
TRANSCRIPT
Longitudinal Family Predictors of Adolescents’ Experiences of Physical and Psychological Aggression in Their
Dating Relationships
Phyllis Holditch Niolon, M.A.
Gabriel P. Kuperminc, Ph.D.Georgia State University
David C. Tate, Ph.D.Yale University School of Medicine
Presented at the 2005 Biennial Conference of the Society for Research on Child Development, Atlanta, GA, April 7-10
Acknowledgements
• Dissertation committee
• Joseph P. Allen, Ph.D, PI of VSTF
• Past graduate students, undergraduates, and staff of the Virginia Study for Teens and Families
• Wrenn Thompson, project coordinator of the KLIFF project
Background
• Prevalence of adolescent dating aggression (ADA)
• Risk factors and correlates
• Limitations of current research
• Developmental psychopathology (Cicchetti, 1984)
• Autonomy and relatedness as a potentially relevant developmental process
The Current Study
• Examines how mothers’ and adolescents’ negotiation of autonomy and relatedness with one another longitudinally predicts adolescent involvement with dating aggression.
• Examines gender, race/ethnicity, and risk as potential moderating factors
Participants
• N=88
• 55% Caucasian, 44% African-American
• 48% Female
• 33% “At-risk”
• Mean age at Time 1= 15.8 (0.87)
• Mean age at Time 2= 18.2 (1.11)
• Mean income=$31, 322 ($19,747)
Procedure
• Recruited from local high schools
• Consenting families brought in for two waves of data collection
• Participants compensated for their time
• Transportation and child care provided when necessary
Variables
• Autonomy and Relatedness Variables (W1)– Mother’s Supporting and Inhibiting– Adolescent’s Supporting and Inhibiting
• Aggression Variables (W2)– Physical Perpetration and Victimization– Psychological Perpetration and Victimization
• Demographic Variables (W1)
Results
• Preliminary Analyses
• Few main effects of relatedness were consistent with hypotheses
• Autonomy findings were contrary to hypotheses and were predominantly characterized by interactions with gender, race/ethnicity, and risk
Interaction of Gender with Maternal Autonomy Support in Predicting
Physical Perpetration
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Low High
Mother's Behaviors Supporting of Autonomy
Phy
sica
l Per
petr
atio
n
Boys
Girls
Interaction of Gender with Maternal Autonomy Support in Predicting
Physical Victimization
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Low High
Mothe r's Be haviors Supporting of Autonom y
Phy
sica
l Vic
tim
izat
ion
Boys
Girls
Interaction of Risk with Adolescent Autonomy Support in Predicting
Physical Perpetration
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Low High
Te e n's Be haviors Supporting Autonom y
Phy
sica
l Per
petr
atio
n
Not at Risk
At Risk
Interaction of Race/Ethnicity with Adolescent Autonomy Support in
Predicting Psychological Perpetration
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Low High
Te e n 's Be haviors Supporting Autonom y
Psy
chol
ogic
al P
erpe
trat
ion
Caucasian
Minority
Implications
• Autonomy and relatedness predict ADA in distinct ways
• Importance of ecological and contextual factors in the role of autonomy in dating aggression
• Potential different meanings of/reasons for the use of aggression by moderators
Strengths
• Theoretical framework--first study to examine autonomy and relatedness as predictors of ADA
• Multi-method, longitudinal design• Highlights possibility of different pathways
to aggression for different groups of adolescents
• Examines perpetration and victimization
Limitations
• Small sample size, limited power
• Unable to examine the context of the dating relationships themselves
• Did not examine fathers’ role in AR negotiation
• Could not examine peer factors that may be more salient at this age
Future Directions
• Examine potential differential pathways to ADA by gender, race/ethnicity and risk as markers of ecological context
• Incorporate the context of aggression within dating relationships
• Explore impact of autonomy and relatedness with peers
Contact Information
Phyllis Holditch Niolon
Gabe Kuperminc
Dave Tate
Mothers’ Supporting Behaviors Negatively Predicting ADA
Physical Psychological Perpetration Victimization Perpetration Victimization Variable β β β β
Step 1 Gender .37** -.02 .37** .14
R² .11** .00 .11** .02 Step 2
Mothers’ Behaviors Supporting Autonomy -.03 -.24 .28** -.20 Mothers’ Behaviors Supporting Relatedness -.03 .02 -.11 .02
Change in R² .07* .01 .07* .01 Step 3
Mothers’ Behaviors Supporting Autonomy X Gender .41** .45** -- .33* Change in R² .10** .11** -- .06*
R² for final model .28** .13* .18** .09 Overall F for final model F (4, 83)=7.85** F (4, 83)=2.98* F (3, 84)=6.05** F (4, 83)=1.92
Mothers’ Inhibiting Behaviors Positively Predicting ADA
Physical Psychological Perpetration Victimization Perpetration Victimization Variable β β β β
Step 1 Gender .36** -- .34** -- Race/Ethnicity .26* -- -- --
R² .18** -- .11** -- Step 2 Step 1 Step 1
Mothers’ Behaviors Inhibiting Autonomy .15 .07 .08 -.06 Mothers’ Behaviors Inhibiting Relatedness -.02 .12 .20+ .27*
Change in R² .02 .03 .06* .06+ R² for final model .20** .03 .17** .06+ Overall F for final model F (4, 83)=5.29** F (2, 85)=1.27 F (3, 84)=5.69** F (2, 85)=2.83+
Adolescents’ Supporting Behaviors Negatively Predicting ADA
Physical Psychological Perpetration Victimization Perpetration Victimization Variable β β β β
Step 1 Gender .25* .27* -- Race/ethnicity .25* .02 .16 -- Risk Status .20 -- --
R² .19** .00 .11** -- Step 2 Step 1
Adolescents’ Behaviors Supporting Autonomy -.03 -.23 .02 .06 Adolescents’ Behaviors Supporting Relatedness .02 -.11 -.05 -.08
Change in R² .02 .01 .03 .01 Step 3
Adolescents’ Behaviors Supporting Autonomy X Race/Ethn. -- .28+ .29+ -- Adolescents’ Behaviors Supporting Autonomy X Risk Status .32* -- --
Change in R² .05* .04+ .04+ -- R² for final model .25** .05 .18** .01 Overall F for final model F (6, 81)=4.61** F (4, 83)=1.00 F (5, 82)=3.52** F (2, 85)=0.24
Adolescents’ Inhibiting Behaviors Positively Predicting ADA
Physical Psychological Perpetration Victimization Perpetration Victimization Variable β β β β
Step 1 Gender .36** -.02 .28* -- Race/Ethnicity .26* -- -- -- Risk Status -- -- -- --
R² .18** .00 .11** -- Step 2 Step 1
Adolescents’ Behaviors Inhibiting Autonomy -.001 -.08 .16 -.03 Adolescents’ Behaviors Inhibiting Relatedness -.04 .34+ .02 .21
Change in R² .00 .00 .03 .04 Step 3
Adolescents’ Behaviors Inhibiting Relatedness X Gender -- -.38* -- -- Change in R² -- .06* -- --
R² for final model .19** .07 .14** .04 Overall F for final model F (4, 83)=4.71** F (4, 83)=1.53 F (3, 84)=4.40** F (2, 85)=1.62