F. Christy McFarland University of Virginia Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN, April, 2001. The author can be reached at the Department of Psychology,P O Box 400400, 102 Gilmer Hall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4400 or [email protected]We would like to thank the William T. Grant Foundation, Spencer Foundation, and National Institute of Mental Health for funding provided to Joseph Allen, Principal Investigator, for the conduct and write-up of this study.
16
Embed
F. Christy McFarland University of Virginiapeople.virginia.edu/~psykliff/pubs/publications/mcfarlandsrcd2001.pdf · F. Christy McFarland University of Virginia Poster presented at
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
F. Christy McFarlandUniversity of Virginia
Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN, April, 2001. The author can be reached at the Department of Psychology,P O Box 400400, 102 Gilmer Hall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4400 or [email protected]
We would like to thank the William T. Grant Foundation, Spencer Foundation, and National Institute of Mental Health for funding provided to Joseph Allen, Principal Investigator, for the conduct and write-up of this study.
Abstract
The present investigation sought to provide new information regarding the
interrelationship between parenting strategies and attachment relationships by
exploring the moderating links of maternal undermining relatedness on the
relationship between adolescent preoccupation and psychosocial functioning.
Data were collected from a sample of 127 adolescents (mean age 15.9 [sd
0.80]; 51.9% male; 38% minority; median family income $25,000) and their
.04.22-.21*Preoccupation X Maternal Undermining Relatedness
.00.18.02Maternal Undermining Relatedness
.05.18.23**Teen Preoccupation
.03.13.16+Race
.10.10.32***Gender
∆r2r2β
Regressions Predicting Internalizing Outcomes
+p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001
Table 2: Hierarchical Regressions (cont.)
.04.09-.22*Preoccupation X Maternal Undermining Relatedness
.01.05.09Maternal Undermining Relatedness
.03.04.18*Teen Preoccupation
.008.01-.09Race
.002.002-.05Gender
∆r2r2β
Regressions Predicting Serious Delinquency
+p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001
Figure 1: Prediction of Internalizing Outcomes
-0.10
0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
Low High
High Preoccupation
Low Preoccupation
Maternal Undermining Relatedness
Tee
n In
tern
aliz
ing
Ou
tco
mes
Figure 2: Prediction of Serious Delinquency
-0.7-0.6
-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1
0
0.10.2
Low High
High Preoccupation
Low Preoccupation
Maternal Undermining Relatedness
Tee
n S
erio
us
Del
inq
uen
cy
ConclusionThese findings suggest that for preoccupied adolescents, a parenting strategy can be
associated with different outcomes than might be expected for non-preoccupied teens.
When mothers strongly undermine relatedness, the differences in internalizing outcomes
and serious delinquency between preoccupied and non-preoccupied teens dramatically
decreased. Thus, behaviors that undermine relatedness may have the effect of causing non-
preoccupied teens to question their relationships with their mothers, thereby making them
more similar to preoccupied teens who might be exhibiting internalizing symptoms and/or
delinquent behaviors as distress calls for the mother’s attention.
For preoccupied teens, a mother with higher levels of undermining relatedness is still
actively participating in the relationship and this participation may lead to the teen
restricting their distress calls for maternal attention (in the forms of internalizing symptoms
and/or delinquent behaviors).
These results highlight the importance of including characteristics of the family relationship
in investigations of the psychosocial consequences of attachment models.
ReferencesAchenbach, T.M. & Edelbrock, C.S. (1979) The child behavior profile: II, boys aged 12-16 and girls aged 6-11 and 12-16. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(2), 223-233.
Allen, J. P., Hauser, S., Bell, K. L., Boykin, K. A., & Tate, D. C. (1995). The autonomy and relatedness coding system: A scoring manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Allen, J. P., Hauser, S., Eickholt, C., Bell, K., & O’Connor, T. (1994). Autonomy and relatedness in family interactions as predictors of expressions of negative adolescent affect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4,535-552.
Allen, J. P. &Land, D. (1998). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy and P.R. hver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment:Theory, research, and clinical applications.(pp.319-335). New York, NY, USA: The Guilford Press.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York, NY, USA,Basicbooks, Inc.
Dozier, M. and S. W. Lee (1995). “Discrepancies between self- and other-report of psychiatric symptomatology: Effects of dismissing attachment strategies.” Development & Psychopathology 7(1): 217-226.
Elliott, D.S. & Ageton, S.S. (1980) Reconciling race and class differences in self reported and official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45, 95-110.
George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1996). Adult Attachment Interview. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley (third edition).
References (cont.)
Kobak, R. R., Sudler, N., Gamble, W. (1991). Attachment and depressive symptoms during adolescence: A developmental pathways analysis. Development & Psychopathology, 3, 461- 474.
Kobak, R. and H. Cole (1994). Attachment and meta-monitoring: Implications for adolescent autonomy and psychopathology. Disorders and dysfunctions of the self. Rochester Symposium on Developmental Psychopathology. D. T. S. L. Cicchetti. Rochester, NY, USA, University of Rochester Press. 5: 267-297.
Main, M., N. Kaplan, et al. (1985). “Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 50(1-2): 66-104.