Adolescent Wellbeing and Connectedness to School, Family, Peers, and Community over Time

Paul E. Jose & Jan PryorVictoria University of Wellington,Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families

SASP ConferenceWellington, NZMarch 29, 2008

Thank you

To the FRST Foundation for their financial support

To the YCP research team: Bill Siddells, Jo Kleeb, Carla Crespo, our Maori Research group, and all of the research staff

To the respondents, their families, their schools, and their principals

Rationale for the study

Western society has tended to emphasise the “individuation” of its adolescents, i.e., their development of self and separation from their family of origin. Is healthy development during adolescence simply a case of e separation?

We are interested in striking a more balanced note: we believe that this individuation occurs within a matrix of connections: Family Peer group School Community

Development over time Probably the strength of these connections vary over

time (and possibly by age, gender, and ethnicity) We expect that over time, connectedness will go

down for: Family School

And we would expect that general adjustment would go down as well: Wellbeing (a combination of 4 related constructs)

And we expect that over time, connectedness will go up for: Peers Community

-------------------------------------------------------------- What is the association between connectedness and

wellbeing over time?

Basic hypothesis

Connectedness Wellbeing

If one were to assess these two general constructs at one pointin time, one would probably find that they were positively associated, but we would not know which one caused theother or if they exist in a bidirectional relationship (shown on nextslide.

A bidirectional relationship?

Connectedness Connectedness

Wellbeing Wellbeing

Time 1 Time 2

Measures

Connectedness:1. Family connectedness: family cohesion subscale

of the FACES scale, 5 items ( = .88)2. School connectedness: 5 items ( = .80)3. Peer connectedness: 3 items ( = .78)4. Community connectedness: 4 items ( = .70)Wellbeing:1. Life satisfaction : 3 items measuring ( = .71)2. Positive affect: 3 items measuring ( = .69)3. Confidence: 4 items measuring ( = .79)4. Aspirations: 4 items measuring ( = .74)

Characteristics of the sample

About 1,400 adolescents gave us complete data at both time points

About equal numbers of males and females

Focused on ENZ (935) and Maori (460) respondents, i.e., left out Pacific and Other

About equal numbers of three cohorts (10-11, 12-13, and 14-15 year-olds)

Procedure

Administered a large survey (over 250 questions) via laptop to the adolescents in their schools

Period of time between T1 and T2 was about one year (we are collecting T3 now)

Obtained data from parents and principals as well. Also, an in-depth qualitative study by NZCER. Much more to come . . .

Mean group differences over time?

Yes, a repeated measures MANOVA indicated that the following measures went DOWN over one year: Family connectedness Peer connectedness (against prediction) School connectedness Well-being

One measure did not change: Community connectedness (against prediction)

------------------------------------------------------------ Now let’s consider the question of whether WB and

Conn affect each other through time.

The model

Connect-ness T1

WellbeingT1

Connect-ness T2

WellbeingT2

Family

Friends

School

Comm.

Aspir.

Confid.

PosAff

Life sat

Family

Friends

School

Comm.

Aspir.

Confid.

PosAff

Life sat

1

2

3

4

R2

A good fitting model

Chi-square = 339.6, df = 91, p < .001, ratio = 3.73

RMR = .017; GFI = .98; AGFI = .96; NFI = .97

RMSEA = .041, Critical N = 607

The answers

Connect-ness T1

WellbeingT1

Connect-ness T2

WellbeingT2

Family

Friends

School

Comm.

Aspir.

Confid.

PosAff

Life sat

Family

Friends

School

Comm.

Aspir.

Confid.

PosAff

Life sat

.74***

.47***

.21***

.59

.47

.69

.34

.64.78

.47

.75

.63.47

.74

.43

.69

.82

.50

.76

WB1 => Conn2 beta = .01, p = .89

R2

.55

.43

Important points

1. All indicators load well on their respective constructs (community lowest for connectedness)

2. Stabilities of WB and Conn are reasonable, although Conn is more stable. Still, it is probably somewhat modifiable.

3. Most important: Wellbeing T1 does NOT predict Connectedness T2, i.e., doesn’t seem to be reciprocal (at this level), but Conn T1 does predict WB T2. Confirms our basic hypothesis.

4. Amount of variance explained in the two outcomes are reasonable: not too high, not too low.

Conclusions

It seems that wellbeing as well as most aspects of connectedness diminish over one year (separation?). Third year of data will give us a clearer sense of change over time.

But it also seems that a general sense of connectedness is predictive of an improved sense of wellbeing one year later. Those youth who are well connected report greater levels

of aspiration, confidence, life satisfaction, and positive affect one year later.

Implication? Social policy should be devoted to enhancing connections in youth of this age

Wellbeing T1 did not predict Conn T2! Reminds me of efforts in the U.S. of trying to boost grades by improving self-esteem. It matters where and how we design interventions.

Future directions

If we examine specific aspects of connectedness, will we find the same patterns? I think that we’ll see a fairly complicated picture:

evidence of WB1 predicting SchlConn2; also aspects of connectedness affect each other over

time (e.g., FamConn1 predicts SchlConn2) Do connectedness and wellbeing predict outcomes

that we care about: school performance, delinquency, weight control, sleep, involvement with cultural activities, ethnic identity, and so forth?

We may find that some separation is healthy against a backdrop of general connectedness. What about individuals who increase in connectedness?

Differences by age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status? Thus far: biggest differences by age.

Thank you for listening

Check out our web-site: http://www.vuw.ac.nz/youthconnectedness/

Write to myself: paul.jose@vuw.ac.nz

Or Jan Pryor: jan.pryor@vuw.ac.nz-----------------------------------------------------------Does anyone have a few dollars to continue

this project?

FamilyConn 1

PeerConn 1

SchoolConn 1

Comm.Conn 1

Well-Being 1

FamilyConn 2

PeerConn 2

SchoolConn 2

Comm.Conn 2

Well-Being 2

Stability coefficients over one year

.54***

.33***

.42***

.48***

.40***

weakest

strongest

FamilyConn 1

PeerConn 1

SchoolConn 1

Comm.Conn 1

Well-Being 1

FamilyConn 2

PeerConn 2

SchoolConn 2

Comm.Conn 2

Well-Being 2

Cross-lag coefficients over one yearR2

.40

.18

.33

.27

.29Bold: > .10; light: > .05