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

1
Adolescent Wellbeing and Connectedness to School,
Family, Peers, and Community over Time

• Paul E. Jose Jan Pryor
• Victoria University of Wellington,
• Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families
• SASP Conference
• Wellington, NZ
• March 29, 2008

2
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

3
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

4
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?

5
Basic hypothesis
Connectedness
Wellbeing
If one were to assess these two general
constructs at one point in time, one would
probably find that they were positively
associated, but we would not know which one
caused the other or if they exist in a
bidirectional relationship (shown on next slide.
6
A bidirectional relationship?
Time 1 Time 2
Connectedness
Connectedness
Wellbeing
Wellbeing
7
Measures

• Connectedness
• Family connectedness family cohesion subscale of
  the FACES scale, 5 items (a .88)
• School connectedness 5 items (a .80)
• Peer connectedness 3 items (a .78)
• Community connectedness 4 items (a .70)
• Wellbeing
• Life satisfaction 3 items measuring (a .71)
• Positive affect 3 items measuring (a .69)
• Confidence 4 items measuring (a .79)
• Aspirations 4 items measuring (a .74)

8
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)

9
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 . . .

10
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 lets consider the question of whether WB and
  Conn affect each other through time.

11
The model
R2
1
Family
Family
Connect- ness T1
Connect- ness T2
Friends
2
Friends
4
School
School
Comm.
Comm.
3
Aspir.
Aspir.
Wellbeing T1
Wellbeing T2
Confid.
Confid.
PosAff
PosAff
Life sat
Life sat
12
A good fitting model

• Chi-square 339.6, df 91, p lt .001, ratio
  3.73
• RMR .017 GFI .98 AGFI .96 NFI .97
• RMSEA .041, Critical N 607

13
The answers
R2
Family
Family
.59
.63
.47
Connect- ness T1
Connect- ness T2
Friends
.47
.74
Friends
.55
.74
.69
School
School
.43
.34
Comm.
Comm.
.21
Aspir.
.69
Aspir.
.64
Wellbeing T1
Wellbeing T2
.47
.78
.82
Confid.
Confid.
.43
.50
.47
PosAff
.76
PosAff
.75
Life sat
Life sat
WB1 gt Conn2 beta .01, p .89
14
Important points

• All indicators load well on their respective
  constructs (community lowest for connectedness)
• Stabilities of WB and Conn are reasonable,
  although Conn is more stable. Still, it is
  probably somewhat modifiable.
• Most important Wellbeing T1 does NOT predict
  Connectedness T2, i.e., doesnt seem to be
  reciprocal (at this level), but Conn T1 does
  predict WB T2. Confirms our basic hypothesis.
• Amount of variance explained in the two outcomes
  are reasonable not too high, not too low.

15
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.

16
Future directions

• If we examine specific aspects of connectedness,
  will we find the same patterns?
• I think that well 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.

17
Thank you for listening

• Check out our web-site http//www.vuw.ac.nz/youth
  connectedness/
• Write to myself paul.jose_at_vuw.ac.nz
• Or Jan Pryor jan.pryor_at_vuw.ac.nz
• --------------------------------------------------
  ---------
• Does anyone have a few dollars to continue this
  project?

18
Stability coefficients over one year
.54
Family Conn 1
Family Conn 2
strongest
.33
Peer Conn 1
Peer Conn 2
weakest
.42
School Conn 1
School Conn 2
.48
Comm. Conn 1
Comm. Conn 2
.40
Well- Being 1
Well- Being 2
19
Cross-lag coefficients over one year
R2
Family Conn 1
Family Conn 2
.40
Peer Conn 1
Peer Conn 2
.18
School Conn 1
School Conn 2
.33
Comm. Conn 1
Comm. Conn 2
.27
Well- Being 1
Well- Being 2
.29
Bold b gt .10 light b gt .05