Transcript A selection of results from Year 1 Data

Youth Connectedness
Project: A selection of
results from year 1 data
J. Kleeb, J. Pryor, C. Crespo, & P. Jose
[email protected]
6th Australia & New Zealand Health Conference
24th September 2007
Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families
AREAS COVERED
Overview
Higher order patterns
Bullying
Technology
Family
OVERVIEW
We obtained self report surveys from:
2,173 young people
1,889 parents
57 school principals
We sought to over-represent Maori youth - we did by
approx. 10% (= 30% of our sample of young people
overall).
We achieved good representation across school decile,
gender, and age.
We need to geo-code participant addresses before we
report definitively on urban/rural representation.
HIGHER ORDER PATTERNS
Connectedness Domain
Family
.31***
School
.23***
Peers
Community
Wellbeing
R2 = .39
.24***
.04*
(Note: *p<.05, ***p<.001)
All key domains predict
wellbeing while simultaneously
controlling for the effects of other
domains. Family strongest,
community weakest.
GENERAL AGE TRENDS
Family connectedness, school
connectedness and wellbeing decrease
with age.
Peer connectedness remains relatively
stable across age.
Community and technology
connectedness increase with age.
BULLYING OUTCOMES
We measured rates of
being bullied and
victimized both in and
outside school and via
text messages.
For schools we also
measured rates of
witnessing bullying and
anti-bullying initiative
effectiveness.
A selection of outcomes
are presented here.
BULLYING OUTCOMES - GENERAL
 Self-report school bullying decreased as school decile
increased, but not self report school victimization.
 Like traditional bullying, males were more likely to send or
receive a mean text message than females.
 Year 8 (12 to 13 years) appears to be a time when sex and
school decile differences in bullying rates temporarily
disappear (developmental phase?).
 Participants were more likely to be victimised in school
than outside school or via text.
 Rates of being bullied outside school showed a pattern of
decrease with advancing school year.
 Being a bully or a victim was more likely for those who
said they had a boyfriend or girlfriend (holds across age
groups and text bullying).
THE POWER OF TEACHERS?
Post survey focus group participant: ‘teachers need to care,
to watch that bullying doesn’t happen’.
Effectiveness of
school anti-bully
initiative
.36***
.23***
Wellbeing
(.10***)
Quality of
relationship
with teacher
.41***
(.38***)
Partial mediation of the impact of school bullying initiative on
wellbeing by quality of relationship with teacher, sobel = 11.90***.
(Note: ***p<.001)
RATES OF NEUTRALS, BULLIES, VICTIMS & BULLYVICTIMS FOR TRADITIONAL vs. TEXT
Note. Straight frequency reported within the prior month outside of
brackets. Weighted frequency (by cluster analysis) within brackets.
Bully-victim rates (weighted) are higher for text compared to
traditional bullying (text wars?)
Domain overlap: neutral 70.6% (86.6); bully-victim 42.3% (23.3);
bully 18.2% (16.1); victim 16.4% (9.7).
Text bullying clusters demonstrate similar relationships with other
variables as traditional bullying clusters - but typically not as strong.
TRADITIONAL BULLYING CLUSTERS (weighted results)
A sample of findings
 Substance use (particularly cigarettes), truancy and a higher degree
of deviant peer affiliation was more likely in bullies and bully-victims.
 Susceptibility to negative peer influence: neutral<victim<bully<bullyvictim.
 Bully-victims tended to have poorer social skills and used more
negative coping strategies, with those in the neutral group reporting
the highest adjustment in these areas.
 Self harming actions/thoughts were more likely in bullies, victims and
bully-victims than in the neutral group.
 Family conflict was highest in bully-victims. Bullies and victims also
report higher levels of family conflict than the neutral group.
 Victims and bully-victims were least likely to feel they would have
reliable support when in trouble, while bullies reported less guidance
support than those in the neutral group.
 Bullies and bully-victims reported less secure bonding and
reassurance of worth than those in the neutral group.
SCHOOL CELL-PHONE POLICIES - 1
The most common policies were prohibition of use during class
time or handed into the school during the school day. Leniency
increased with school year. Of those who said cell-phones were
not allowed in class time, 30% specified that breaking the rules
resulted in confiscation.
Not allowed at school
School
Year
Must hand in during school hours
10
8
6
Allowed to posses but not to use in
school
Allowed in school but not in class
Allowed/no policy
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
SCHOOL CELL-PHONE POLICIES - 2
We collapsed policies into two groups: 1/ allowed during
the school day and 2/ not allowed. We then examined
mean differences in student data as a function of group
membership.
RESULTS
Lower decile schools were more likely to fall into the ‘not
allowed’ category.
Controlling for school year and decile, we also found that the
‘not allowed’ category (compared to allowed) was associated
with higher levels of text traffic on both school days and
weekends and higher rates of text bullying – both sent and
received.
FOCUS GROUP
Results were reported to a post-survey focus group of 13
to 16 year olds who indicated that being told they cannot
have a cell phone makes them want to use it more and
banning serves to create ‘hidden’ use (which can’t be
monitored).
INTERNET – KEY FINDINGS - 1
Internet use, having net friends and using the net to maintain
Proximal/distal ties showed a robust linear increase with age.
Note: All values are percentages
Females used the internet to maintain proximal and
distal ties more often than males.
INTERNET – KEY FINDINGS - 2
 Within internet users, those with net friends chatted on
the net with known others more often than those
without net friends, suggesting a strong tendency to
accrue ‘stranger’ friendships via social networking with
known others.
 Those with net friends spent more time gaming than
those without net friends.
 High risk rates for negative peer influence and
externalization, by level of internet engagement:
 non-net users: 31%
 net users without net friends: 26%
 those with net friends: 50%
 The ‘net friends’ group also showed a pattern of having
the poorest outcomes across a wider range of family,
school, peer and wellbeing indicators (age, sex, decile
controlled for).
NET FRIENDS vs. TRADITIONAL FRIENDS
 Young people rated traditional friend’s support higher
than net friend support – however, 10-11 year olds
made less of a distinction between support from the
two sources (r = .42), while 14 to 15 years made the
most distinction (r = .19).
 The positive impact of net friend support on wellbeing
lost significance when its effects were considered in
tandem with traditional friend support.
 Higher levels of net friend support were associated
with a greater susceptibility to being influenced by
others, while the opposite was true for traditional
friend support.
Family Data
Who participated in the family survey?
- 1889 parents/caregivers answered our survey
(Mothers: 1342; Fathers: 254)
- Different family structures in our sample
Family structure
Intact
Lone
Step/complex
Extended
Other
Total
n
1150
454
205
72
8
1889
Family dimensions
• Cohesion
• Identity
• Mutual activities
• Autonomy
• Monitoring and Supervision
• Conflict
Family perceptions
• 1 Family
Young person
• 2 “Informants”
Parent/caregiver
Parents/caregivers’ and young people’s views
on family
Dimension
Significant differences
Cohesion
Parents > Young people (M/S)
Identity
Parents > Young people (M/S)
Mutual activities
Parents > Young people (M/S)
Autonomy
Parents > Young people (M/L)
Monitoring and supervisionParents > Young people (M/L)
Conflict
No differences
(Effect Size: S = small, M = medium, L = large)
Family structure: how it matters
• Looking beyond outcomes’ mean differences
• Family structure: a moderator
Family
dimensions
Young people’s
outcomes
Family
structure
Links between family dimensions and cigarette
smoking
RQ: Is the link between family dimensions (mutual activities,
monitoring/supervision, and conflict) and smoking equally
important for young people in all family structures?
Family Mutual
Activities
Family Monitoring
and Supervision
- .03*
Young people’s
cigarette
consumption
- .18**
.10**
Family Conflict
Family
structure
(Note: *p<.05, **p<.01)
Mutual activities and smoking:
Lone cf Intact families
Figure 1. Family structure (lone cf intact families) as a moderator between family
mutual activities and young people’s cigarette consumption.
Mutual activities and smoking:
Step cf Intact families
Figure 2. Family structure (step cf intact families) as a moderator between family
mutual activities and young people’s cigarette consumption.
Monitoring/supervision and smoking:
Extended cf Intact families
Figure 3. Family structure (extended cf intact families) as a moderator
between family monitoring and supervision and young people’s cigarette
consumption.
Conclusion - General links
In relation to cigarette consumption…
• Family mutual activities have a negative association
with cigarette consumption (ie., higher activities’
levels = lower consumption)
• Family monitoring/supervision have a negative
association with cigarette consumption (ie., higher
monitoring/supervision = lower consumption)
• Family conflict has a positive association with
cigarette consumption (ie., higher conflict levels =
higher consumption)
Conclusion - Moderation links
In relation to cigarette consumption…
• Family mutual activities are especially important
for young people in lone and step families
• Family monitoring/supervision is especially
important for young people in extended families
• Family structure did not moderate the relationship
between family conflict and smoking.