Peer Attachment A Metaanalytic Review of Gender and Age

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672 DOI 10.
1007/s10964-012-9759-6
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Peer Attachment: A Meta-analytic Review of Gender and Age Differences and Associations with Parent Attachment
Anna Gorrese Ruggero Ruggieri
Received: 27 February 2012 / Accepted: 15 March 2012 / Published online: 3 April 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract In adolescence, peers represent key actors within individual social network. Given the relevance of peer connections and the growing literature examining them, the purpose of this article was to review, through a meta-analytic approach, studies on adolescent and youth peer relationships within the theoretical framework of attachment. First, we synthesized results of 44 studies focused on relationships between parent and peer attachment. Second, we summarized ndings of 54 studies reporting gender differences on peer attachment. Third, we computed an overall effect for age differences on peer attachment documented in 19 studies. Main ndings highlighted that parent attachment is moderately correlated to peer attachment; that females were signicantly more attached to their peers than males; and that the correlation between age and peer attachment was not signicant. This set of ndings was conrmed examining both overall peer attachment as well as specic dimensions of attachment, such as trust and communication. Furthermore, since a signicant heterogeneity was found across studies, we tested the effects of various categorical (i.e., year and language of publication, country, attachment measure) and continuous (i.e., mean age and percentage of females of the sample, number of items of the peer attachment scale)
moderators related to characteristics of the study samples and designs. Implications of these ndings for future research are discussed. A focus on cultural dimensions and on peer attachment processes would be worthwhile to address relevant research questions: How do peer relationships progressively become mature attachment relationships? How is this process shaped for individuals with different parent attachment histories? Keywords Peer attachment Gender Age Parent attachment Meta-analysis
Introduction Peers represent important actors within individuals social network along the entire life span (e.g., Bukowski et al. 1996). This relevance of peer relationships becomes evident in adolescence, when young people start to develop close bonds with individuals external to their family system (Armsden and Greenberg 1987; Furman and Buhrmester 1992; Paterson et al. 1994). Attachment theory provides a valuable framework for understanding how peer relationships develop in adolescence and in later stages (cf. Cassidy and Shaver 2008). Although traditional attachment theory has been focused on child-parent attachment, a growing literature more recently has shown that peers as attachment gures may be inuential sources of social and emotional support (e.g., Laible 2007; Laible et al. 2000; Wilkinson 2010). Thus, given the increasing number of studies focused on peer attachment, the purpose of our article was to review available literature, through a metaanalytic approach, in order to address links between parent and peer attachment, gender differences on peer attachment, and associations between age and peer attachment.
A. Gorrese (&) R. Ruggieri Department of Human, Philosophic, and Education Sciences, University of Salerno, Postbox: Via Ponte Don Melillo, 84084 Fisciano, Salerno, Italy e-mail: agorrese@unisa.it R. Ruggieri e-mail: rruggieri@unisa.it
123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672
651
Peer Attachment Attachment theory provides a useful way to conceptualize the development and role of close relationships. The attachment bond represents a special type of social relationship (Bowlby 1969, p. 376) that may be characterized in terms of development of preferences for certain individuals through repeated contact in a critical context within which the individual organizes emotional experience and regulates felt security (Sroufe and Waters 1977). Individuals must regard their own attachment gures as having an enduring commitment to being available if needed, regardless of changes in time or context (Kobak et al. 2005). While the rst attachment relationships are established with parents, in subsequent moments of the life course individuals can form enduring attachment bonds with people external to their family. With this respect, adolescence is a period in which peer relationships gradually take on more and more of the qualities of full-blown adult attachment relationships. By middle adolescence, close friends become the major source of intimacy and disclosure and are key providers of both emotional and social support (Wilkinson 2004) and sometimes they serve as the primary attachment gure, especially for young people not involved in a long-term romantic relationship (Fraley and Davis 1997). Peer attachment relationships in adolescence differ dramatically from those in infancy, as various new issuesfrom power and control, to gender and sexuality, to the increasing mutual capacity to provide comfort in relationshipsall rise to prominence. Adolescents and young adults peer relationships have great social and emotional importance and have a capacity to set individuals on different trajectories for overall adjustment later in life. There is an established tradition in the research literature on adolescents that has focused on the attachment aspects of non-familial peer relationships (e.g., Armsden and Greenberg 1987; Nada Raja et al. 1992; Laible 2007). A prominent contribution has been provided by Armsden and Greenberg (1987, p. 431) that has hypothesized that the internal working model of attachment gures may be tapped by assessing (1) the positive affective/cognitive experience of trust in the accessibility and responsiveness of attachment gures, and (2) the negative affective/cognitive experiences of anger and/or hopelessness resulting from unresponsive or inconsistently responsive attachment gures. More specically, Armsden and Greenberg proposed to study both adolescent parent and peer attachment focusing on three dimensions: (1) Trust, linked to the to the adolescents trust that parent and peers understand and respect their needs and desires; (2) Communication, concerning adolescents perceptions that parents and peers are sensitive and responsive to their emotional states and
assessing the extent and quality of involvement and verbal communication with them; and (3) Alienation, which refers to adolescents feelings of isolation, anger, and detachment experienced in attachment relationships with parents and peers. Using a sample of 16-to-20-year-olds, Armsden and Greenberg (1987) developed the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA), a self-report scale aimed at assessing the three dimensions of the attachment relationships, as well as a global attachment score. According to their classication criteria, individuals who reported their close relationships with high trust and communication and low alienation scores could be classied as high security individuals, while those who described their peer relationships as characterized by low trust and communication and high alienation scores were classed as low security individuals. The IPPA has been questioned as a proper measure of attachment since it was not designed to differentiate among the attachment patterns delineated by Ainsworth et al. (1978). Nevertheless, a large literature has examined peer attachment relying on Armsden and Greenbergs (1987) conceptualization and measurement that research consistently has shown that securely attached individuals perceive their peer relationships as being characterized by more social support, more intimacy, affection, reliable alliance, companionship, satisfaction, and less negative interaction, such as conict and antagonism (e.g., Laible 2007). Therefore, ndings obtained from self-report measures, such as the IPPA, supported theoretical assumptions of the attachment theory, showing that not only do secure individuals demonstrate an ability to tolerate negative affect while maintaining constructive engagement with others, but they also are able to display positive emotions that enhance social interaction and social competence. Peer and Parent Attachment Relationships Adolescence may be a particularly crucial period for parent attachment relationships. Paterson et al. (1994) supported earlier research that points toward the importance of mothers for attachment related outcomes in adolescence. The quality of the mother-adolescent relationship is linked strongly to attachment security (Allen et al. 2003). Adolescent-father attachment impacts adolescent adjustment in a different way from the mother-adolescent attachment (e.g. Grossmann et al. 2008). The most thorough longitudinal study that tested the predictive power of infant mother and infantfather attachment quality was conducted in Bielefeld, Germany (summarised in Grossmann et al. 2005). This study included observational assessments and/ or interviews with both parents up to age 16 as well as assessments of the children up to age 20. In particular, mothers sensitivity in naturalistic home observations
123
652
during the rst year and fathers sensitivity during challenging play with their 24-month-olds foretold several outcomes up to age 22. In this longitudinal study, researchers also have examined the inuence of parent child relationships during infancy, childhood, and adolescence on young adults attachment and partnership representations. In both of their studies of low-risk samples, they failed to nd one-to-one correspondence between infant patterns of organized attachment in Strange Situation and later attachment or partnership representations. Fathers play sensitivity at age two (though not at age six) was an especially powerful predictor of several attachmentand personality-related child assessments at ages 610, 16, and 22 when it predicted the young adults Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) security. Observed mother infant sensitivity at home was related to the 610-year aggregated child measures, but correlations with later assessments were indirect. The authors were able to demonstrate that maternal and paternal sensitivity (measured differently) as well as ratings of mothers and fathers as supportive attachment gures at 610 years (measured similarly) contributed independently as well as jointly to childs AAI security at age 22, although the relationship with the mother was the strongest predictor of the young adults romantic relationships. Therefore, parent, especially mother, attachment has a strong impact on the development of children and on formation of steady relationships with other signicant people external to the family system. As relationships with parents shift and those with peers gain importance, patterns of attachment may change as well. Specically, reducing the need for physical proximity and the development of the ability to think to future contacts with an attachment gure have presented a real challenge to researchers with respect to the concept of a secure base (e.g. Bowlby 1988). A relationship among peers may be a context that fundamentally alters the meaning and expression of attachment behaviors that previously were directed toward a caregiver. In fact, it is not yet clear whether relationship assessments in adolescence will ultimately closely parallel Ainsworths categorizations of infant attachment relationships (secure, anxious/ambivalent, avoidant attachment styles; Ainsworth et al. 1978), or whether it is necessary to expand upon and modify these to address the complexities of adolescent relationships. Indeed, unlike in infancy and even childhood, what spurs an adolescent to approach an attachment gure only rarely will be fundamental physical safety needs, or the risk of imminent emotional disorganization. Rather, the spurs are now usually other, more subtle needs that may depend on complex interpretive contexts. A large body of research suggests a fairly tight linkage between a secure parent attachment organization and the quality of peer relationships (cf. Allen 2008). However, to date, most studies examining links between parent
attachment and peer relations have been conducted with children and have paid attention to various facets on peer relations without focusing on peer attachment (see Schneider et al. 2001 for an extensive qualitative and quantitative review). For what concerns the specic interconnections between parent and peer attachment, consistent evidence suggests that parentchild attachment is related to friend attachment (e.g., Armsden and Greenberg 1987; Di Tommaso et al. 2005; Laible 2007; Nada Raja et al. 1992). For example, Wilkinson (2004) noted that the quality of the attachment relationship established between adolescents and their parents tends to inuence the quality of peer attachment relationships that they form. This evidence lends support to the view that internal working models may establish patterns of interpersonal relationships in an individuals psychosocial sphere. Ma and Huebner (2008) have argued that there are signicant changes made in the organization of attachment systems during adolescence and that the effects of peers may overshadow adolescents needs for parental involvement (e.g., Hazan and Shaver 1994). In this study, we reviewed literature on parent and peer attachment by focusing on global attachment as well as on associations between specic dimensions of parent and peer bonds, such as trust, communication, and alienation. We further examined potential variables (i.e., moderators) that could explain differences in these links. Gender Differences on Peer Attachment When studying close relationships, it is crucial to consider the ways in which males and females differ. There is evidence suggesting that boys and girls exhibit different behavioral patterns in their relationships, with boys stressing independence and girls emphasizing relatedness (Cross and Madson 1997). Ma and Huebner (2008) noted thatalthough the majority of the research shows that parent attachment is stronger in girlsgirls may also be more likely than boys to draw support from other sources, such as their peers. In fact, Claes (1992) found that adolescent males and females had similar numbers of peer relationships, but females were more strongly connected with their peers. Similarly, consistent evidence showed that females are more attached to their peers than males (e.g., Gullone and Robinson 2005; Henrich et al. 2001; Nelis and Rae 2009; Richards et al. 2010; Sund and Wichstrm 2002). More specically, they display higher trust in their friends and a more deep communication with them (e.g., Gullone and Robinson 2005; Nada Raja et al. 1992; Ruijten et al. 2011; Song et al. 2009). While gender differences on general peer attachment as well as on trust and communication seemed to be well established, differences on alienation are less consistent (e.g., Nada Raja et al. 1992;
123
653
Ruijten et al. 2011; Song et al. 2009). In particular, some studies reported that males were more alienated than females (Gullone and Robinson 2005; Lapsley et al. 1990; Pace et al. 2011) while most studies reported no signicant gender differences (e.g., Guarnieri et al. 2010; Muris et al. 2001; Nada Raja et al. 1992; Nickerson and Nagle 2004; Noppe and Noppe 1997; Ridenour et al. 2006; Ruijten et al. 2011; San Martini et al. 2009), with few studies reporting that females were more alienated than males (e.g., Song et al. 2009). In this study, we used a meta-analytic approach to synthesize literature on gender differences and to test which moderators could explain variations in the effects reported in previous studies. Age Differences on Peer Attachment In late childhood and early adolescence, the attachment system and the social representations of people and of relationships change drastically. The adolescents social world expands to include peers, romantic partners, and social groups, and there is a progressive differentiation and diversication of the attachment behavioral system (Allen 2008). Research suggests that the process of transferring attachment functions to peers is complex and gradual and this transition may be incomplete in early adolescence (Cassidy and Shaver 2008). Whereas trajectories of parental attachment have been unraveled in longitudinal investigations (e.g., Buist et al. 2002), there is a dearth of longitudinal studies focused on peer attachment. Furthermore, studies examining correlations between peer attachment and age as well as crosssectional comparisons of attachment levels reported by individuals of different ages have produced inconsistent ndings, with some studies documenting a positive relationships between age and attachment (e.g., Gallego et al. 2011; Gullone and Robinson 2005), some studies reporting a negative link (e.g., Elmore and Huebner 2010; Ma and Huebner 2008), and other studies reporting the lack of a signicant association (e.g., Paterson et al. 1994; Wong 1998). More specically, inconsistent results were found in each age group examined in the various studies: age range 815 years (Elmore and Huebner 2010; Gullone and Robinson 2005; Nickerson and Nagle 2004); and age range 1319 years (Gallego et al. 2011; Paterson et al. 1994; San Martini et al. 2009; Wilkinson 2008, study 1; 2010). Additionally, in the older samples with a mean age of 18.6 (Felsman and Blustein 1999) and 21.4 (Kelley et al. 2010) years, no signicant associations between age and peer attachment were detected. Up to now, it is not clear which factors could account for these inconsistent ndings. Therefore, a meta-analytic approach is the most suitable way to synthesize the available evidence and to individuate possible moderators of these contradictory ndings.
The Present Study The purpose of the present study was to review, using a meta-analytic approach, literature on peer attachment with a specic focus on three issues. Specically, in the rst meta-analysis we investigated associations between parent and peer attachment; in the second meta-analysis we examined gender differences; and in the last meta-analysis we analyzed age differences. In order to provide a complete overview of available evidence, in each meta-analysis we took into account multiple outcomes by focusing not only on global peer attachment but also on specic dimensions of peer attachment, such as trust, communication, and alienation (cf. Armsden and Greenberg 1987). We expected signicant associations between parent and peer attachment, with individuals highly attached to their parents more likely to report a strong attachment also to their peers (Armsden and Greenberg 1987; Di Tommaso et al. 2005; Laible 2007; Nada Raja et al. 1992; Wilkinson 2004). In line with the literature, we hypothesized signicant gender differences on peer attachment, with females being more attached to their peers than their male counterparts (e.g., Gullone and Robinson 2005; Henrich et al. 2001; Nada Raja et al. 1992; Nelis and Rae 2009; Richards et al. 2010; Ruijten et al. 2011; Song et al. 2009; Sund and Wichstrm 2002). Unlike for gender, we could not make any specic hypothesis regarding age differences, given the contradictory results reported in the literature (e.g., Elmore and Huebner 2010; Gallego et al. 2011; Gullone and Robinson 2005; Paterson et al. 1994; Wong 1998). A main advantage of the meta-analytic approach is that, combining a large number of studies, there is the power to test variables that could moderate the phenomenon under investigation (Cooper et al. 2009). In particular, we considered in each meta-analysis a set of potential moderators that could explain differences in the reported results. A rst group of moderators was related to the characteristics of the samples: mean age, composition of the samples in terms of gender and ethnic distributions (expressed in terms of percentage of females and ethnic minorities present in the samples, respectively), type of samples (i.e., community or non-community samples), and country from which the samples were drawn. The second class of moderators was related to the methodological characteristics of the studies. Specically, we analyzed whether the type of measure used to measure attachment could explain differences in the ndings. A nal group of moderators was related to the type of publication: year and language of publication. In other words, we tested whether results of publications appeared in different periods and languages (i.e., English and non-English) were comparable. It is worth testing whether the language of publication is a signicant moderator since consistent evidence indicates
123
654
that studies with signicant results in line with hypotheses are more likely to be published in English, whether non-signicant results, or ndings not in line with expectations, are more likely to be published in other languages (Rothstein et al. 2005).
From this rst selection a total of 192 were selected and screened in the full-text to examine whether they respected the eligibility criteria for each of the planned meta-analysis. We nally retained 65 articles. Data Extraction
Method Selection of Studies In June 2011 we searched for journal articles explicitly focused on peer attachment. We used three search strategies to systematically collect studies. First, we searched in the electronic databases PsycINFO, PsycArticles, ERIC (Education Resource Information Center), Medline, Web of Science (SSCI; Social Science Citation Index) using the keywords (peer* attach*) or (friend* attach*) or (attach* peer*) or (attach* friend*) that could have been reported in any part of the text. Second, we searched in the website of journals deemed most likely to publish peer attachment studies if they had published further ahead-of-print articles that matched our inclusion criteria.1 Third, we searched in the references of the collected journal articles for further relevant studies. Our search was not limited to Englishlanguage publications. Results of the search strategies and the selection processes are reported in details in the Prisma diagram (Moher et al. 2009) reported in Fig. 1. As can be seen, we found 2,074 articles and from this initial set we removed 454 duplicates. We screened the remaining 1,620 articles. In a rst step, the selection was based on titles and abstracts of the retrieved references. Our inclusion criteria were broad and aimed at including any empirical article focused on peer attachment. The rst author checked all the references. We established both inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. Specically, in order to provide inter-rater reliability the second author rated a subsample of studies (k = 400) and percentage of agreement between the two raters was computed. Inter-rater reliability was found to be very high (around 95 %) and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Intra-rater reliability was established with the rst author re-analyzing all references after three weeks from the rst evaluation. Also intra-rater reliability was very high (around 97 %).
1
After the articles were selected and the decision was nalized, the authors coded each study to extract data for the meta-analyses. The complete coding process was conducted by the rst author. Further, a subset of studies was also coded by the second author to compute inter-rater reliability. Percentage of agreement was found to be very high (around 98 %) and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. We extracted from each study data regarding: (a) sample characteristics (i.e., total sample size, number of males and females, age, percentage of ethnic groups, country in which the study was conducted, type of sample: community or other type); (b) design (i.e., type of design: cross-sectional vs. longitudinal, measure used to assess attachment: name of the scale, number of items); (c) characteristics of the publication (i.e., year and language of publication); and (d) data necessary to compute an effect size for each study. Statistical Methods We conducted statistical analyses using the computer software program comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA), Version 2.2.057 (Borenstein et al. 2009). For each study an effect size was computed. For the rst meta-analysis on relationships between parental and peer attachment, effect sizes were reported as correlations. In the second metaanalysis on gender differences, we computed Cohens d based on the difference between attachment scores of females and males. Thus, positive effect sizes indicate that females are more attached to peers than males. For the third meta-analysis on age differences, effect sizes were reported as correlations between age and attachment. For each effect size its 95 % condence interval (CIs) was computed. In each meta-analysis an overall effect size was computed using the random-effects model (Borenstein et al. 2009), since it is a conservative approach to account for different sources of variation among studies (i.e., withinstudy variance and between-studies variance). According to Cohens (1988) criteria, d \ 0.20 are considered small effects, ds of about 0.50 moderate effects, and ds of about 0.80 large effects. Similarly, correlations of .10, .25, and .45 are considered small, moderate, and large effects, respectively. In each meta-analysis, we looked for potential outliers (i.e., effect sizes with standardized residuals higher than |2|). We examined the stability of the results with a one study removed procedure in which it is analyzed
Specically, we controlled these journals: Child Development, Developmental Psychology, Development and Psychopathology, International Journal of Behavioral Development, Journal of Adolescence, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Personality and Individual Differences, Personal Relationships, Social Development. These journals were selected since they were the 10 journals on which most articles on peer attachment had appeared.
123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672 Fig. 1 Prisma diagram
655
Records identified through database searching (n = 2072 of which Psycinfo = 532; Psycarticles = 32; Eric = 76; Medline = 73; Web of science (SSCI) = 1359)
Additional records identified through other sources (n = 2)
Records after duplicates (454) removed (n = 1620)
Records screened in the title and abstract (n=1620 )
Records excluded (n =1428)
Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n = 192)
Full-text articles excluded, with reasons (n = 71 excluded since not focused on peer attachment, n = 56 excluded because of missing data to compute effect sizes)
Articles included in quantitative syntheses (n = 65)
Studies included in metaanalysis 1 on associations with parent attachment (n = 40 reporting 44 studies)
Studies included in metaanalysis 2 on gender differences (n = 48 reporting 54 studies)
Studies included in metaanalysis 3 on age differences (n =19 reporting 19 studies)
whether the overall effect size changes signicantly when the combined effect sizes are calculated after the removal of each effect size (Borenstein et al. 2009). If the results with and without the potential outliers were comparable, the potential outliers were not excluded from the analyses. For the purpose of establishing whether the results of studies were consistent, tests of heterogeneity were included using both Q and I2 statistics. A signicant Q value indicates the lack of homogeneity of results among studies. I2 estimates the proportion of observed variance that reects real differences in effect sizes, with values of 25, 50, and 75 % that might be considered as low, moderate, and high, respectively (Higgins et al. 2003). In each meta-analysis, we tested for potential moderators of the overall results. Examined categorical moderators were: year of publication (that in a second step was recoded in: up to 1999 vs. from 2000 to cover a similar number of years in each category), country of the study (recoded in: North America vs. other countries), language of publication (recoded in: English vs. other languages), type of sample (community vs. clinical), and measure of attachment (recoded in: IPPA vs. other scales). A further
categorical moderator, the type of design (cross-sectional vs. longitudinal) could not be tested due to a limited number of longitudinal studies (Elmore and Huebner 2010; Gallego et al. 2011). Continuous moderators taken into account were: mean age of the participants, percentage of females in the sample, percentage of ethnic minorities in the sample, number of items included in the attachment measures. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were used to test categorical and continuous moderators, respectively (Borenstein et al. 2009). Moderators were tested when there were data from at least 2 studies for each level of the moderator. Finally, we conducted two publication bias analyses to control for the fact that published studies may have a larger mean effect size than unpublished ones (Rothstein et al. 2005). First, we used the trim and ll procedure, that is a technique that evaluates the effect of potential data censoring on the result of the meta-analyses (Duval and Tweedie 2000). By adopting this method, a funnel plot is constructed of each studys effect size against the standard error. These plots should be shaped as a funnel if no publication bias is present. Nevertheless, since smaller or
123
656
non-signicant studies are less likely to be published, studies in the bottom left-hand corner of the plot are often omitted. The k studies considered to be symmetrically unmatched are trimmed. These trimmed studies are then replaced and their missing counterparts imputed as mirror images of the trimmed studies. This allows for the computation of an adjusted effect size and CI. There is no evidence of publication bias when there are not asymmetrical studies or when the asymmetrical studies are few and the adjusted effect size is very similar to the observed effect size. The second method we used to evaluate publication bias was the fail-safe number (Rosenthal 1979). Thus, when we found signicant effect sizes we calculated the number of studies with a non-signicant result that would be required to bring the combined effect size to be non-signicant. Rosenthal (1979) proposed a fail-safe N higher than (5k ? 10) as supporting ndings robustness (where k refers to the number of studies included in each meta-analysis).
categorical moderators and Table 3 for continuous moderators) revealed a number of signicant results. Specically, the language of publication and the country in which the studies had been conducted were signicant moderators for the correlations between mother and peer attachment (i.e., studies published in English and those conducted in North America reported larger correlations). Additionally, the number of items of the attachment measure was a signicant moderator for the correlations between parent communication and peer trust, parent trust and peer alienation, and parent communication and peer alienation (i.e., studies with shorter scales detected larger effect sizes). Meta-analysis on Gender Differences on Peer Attachment A total of 48 articles reported 54 studies on comparisons of females and males peer attachment. Characteristics of these articles are reported in Table 4. The outcomes of gender differences were: total peer attachment, trust, communication, alienation, and a combined measure of trust and communication. As can be seen in Table 5, ndings of the meta-analysis conducted on each outcome revealed that females were signicantly more attached to their peers than males. The overall effect size of this gender difference (d = .51) was medium and was drawn from 43 studies involving a total of 11,560 females and 9,492 males. Signicant gender differences also were found on specic dimensions of attachment: females reported higher peer trust (d = .36) and communication (d = .70) than males. A similar pattern also was found in 3 studies using a combined measure of trust and communication (d = .44, p = .06). On the contrary, differences on alienation, showing that males reported slightly higher scores than females, were not signicant. Using the one study removed function, we found that these results were very stable and any potential outlier was not excluded from analyses. The trim and ll method indicated, for each outcome, that no studies should be trimmed because of asymmetry, with a unique exception (i.e., in the metaanalysis on trust, 5 studies were trimmed and the new adjusted effect size was .28, with a range from .18, .38). The fail-safe numbers indicated the absence of publication bias. In fact, to bring the signicant results we reported to be non-signicant, it would have been necessary to include additional 10,848, 636, and 1,721 unpublished studies to the studies on peer attachment, trust, and communication, respectively. Heterogeneity among studies in each set of analyses was signicant. Results of moderator analyses (see Table 5 for results of analyses of categorical moderators and Table 3 for ndings regarding continuous moderators) revealed a
Results Meta-analysis on Associations between Parent and Peer Attachment A total of 40 articles reporting 44 studies documenting correlations between parent and peer attachment were included in the analyses (see Table 1). As reported in Table 2, ndings indicated that overall parent and peer attachment were positively related (r = .27). More interestingly, the correlation between mother and peer attachment (r = .31) was signicantly higher (Q (1) = 3.91, p \ .05) than the correlation between father and peer attachment (r = .22). In addition, correlations between specic dimensions of parent and peer attachment were found to be signicant, with the only exception of correlations among peer alienation and dimensions of parent attachment. Using the one study removed function, we found that these results were very stable and any potential outlier was not excluded from analyses. The trim and ll method revealed that for most outcomes no studies should be trimmed, while for few outcomes 13 studies should be trimmed. However, in these latter cases the adjusted and observed values were almost overlapped, suggesting the absence of publication bias. Also the fail-safe numbers indicated the absence of publication bias (e.g., to nullify the signicant correlation between parent and peer attachment it would be necessary to include 6,167 additional unpublished studies to the 31 studies considered in this meta-analysis). Heterogeneity among studies was signicant for most outcomes. Results of moderator analyses (see Table 2 for
123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672 Table 1 Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis on associations between parent and peer attachment Source Allen et al. (2007) Alvarez-Rivera and Fox (2010) Armsden and Greenberg (1987); study 1 Armsden and Greenberg (1987); study 2. Baiocco et al. (2009) Bilgin and Akkapulu (2007) Brack et al. (1993) Coleman (2003) Dekovic (1999) Di Tommaso et al. (2005) sample a_Canadians Di Tommaso et al. (2005) sample b_Chinese Eberhart and Hammen (2006) Elmore and Huebner (2010) Engels et al. (2002) Fallu et al. (2010) Fass and Tubman (2002) Felsman and Blustein (1999) Formoso et al. (2000) Furman et al. (2002) Greenberg et al. (1983) Kamenov and Jelic (2005) Kelley et al. (2010) Laible et al. (2000) Laible et al. (2004) Laible (2007) Lapointe and Legault (2004) Lapsley et al. (1990) Ma and Huebner (2008) Meeus et al. (2002) Nada Raja et al. (1992) Nickerson and Nagle (2004) Noppe and Noppe (1997) Noom et al. (1999) Penagos et al. (2006) Rosenfarb et al. (1994) Ruijten et al. (2011) N Mean age 167 298 179 86 1,000 194 60 67 508 164 59 97 399 508 1,037 357 147 284 68 213 210 572 89 246 117 210 253 587 148 976 303 95 400 1,435 156 455 38.94 14.3 19.38 12.56 15 15 11.58 17.4 15 15.4 21 21.44 16 18.6 19.60 78.81 51.69 70 55.56 53.33 41.5 60 48.65 49 52.48 58.95 52.25 50.8 100 55.82 2.2 10 57 68.24 5.4 44.76 47 85 20.7 18.615 13.3 18.7 11.06 14.76 20.5 21.2 17.92 11.41 14.7 14.29 16.23 18.9 18.6 17 % females 52.1 54 63 62.79 50 74.2 80 46.27 50 72.6 60.3 100 60.4 50 0 71.4 67.35 61 50 37.09 0 84.3 38 72.5 37 9 0 100 54 56.8 7 25 20 % of ethnic minorities 48 Language English English English English Italian English English English English English English English English English English English English English English English English English English English English French English English English English English English English Spanish English English Country USA Portorico USA USA Italy Turkey USA USA Netherlands Canada Canada USA USA Netherlands Canada USA USA USA USA USA Croatia USA USA USA USA Canada USA USA Netherlands New Zealand USA USA Netherlands Colombia USA Netherlands Type of sample Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Other* Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Other** Community Measure IPPA Scale of Hirschi (1969) IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA Ad hoc measure IPPA IPPA IPPA Friendship interview based on AAI Greenberg et al. (1983) ECR IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA People in my life (Cook et al. 1995) IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA 4 36 25 12 12 25 25 7 12 3 4 7 7 12 25 25 7
657
N items 25 11 7 25 7 25 25 25 12 25 25 29 12 12 6 25 25 9
123
658 Table 1 continued Source N Mean age 153 789 404 1,998 329 347 490 495 16.5 15.96 17.19 15.27 16.84 17.14 16.15 16.41 % females 39 55.51 76.2 52.8 55.3 74.6 74.9 46.3 7.9 13 10 % of ethnic minorities 93 Language Country
Type of sample Other*** Community Community Community Community Community Community Community
Measure
N items
Salzinger et al. (2007) San Martini et al. (2009) Wilkinson and Walford (2001) Wilkinson (2004); study 1 Wilkinson (2004); study 2 Wilkinson (2004); study 3 Wilkinson (2008); study 1 Wilkinson (2010)
English Italian English English English English English English
USA Italy Australia Norway Australia Australia Australia Australia
IPPA IPPA IPPA Ad hoc measure Ad hoc measure IPPA AFAS IPPA
24 6 25 7 7 25 30 25
* Alcohol-abusing parents individuals; ** women classied as having bipolar disorder or unipolar depression or as non-psychiatric controls; *** adolescent physical abuse IPPA Inventory of Parent and Peer attachment (Armsden and Greenberg 1987), ECR Experiences in Close Relationship Inventory (Brennan et al. 1998), AFAS Adolescent Friendship Attachment Scale (Wilkinson 2008)
number of signicant results. Specically, the measure used to assess attachment was a signicant moderator for the effect sizes of gender differences on both total peer attachment and trust (i.e., studies conducted with the IPPA reported larger gender differences than studies conducted with other attachment measures). Furthermore, the year of publication and the country in which the studies had been conducted were signicant moderators for the effect sizes of gender differences on communication (i.e., studies published more recently and those conducted outside North America reported larger gender differences). Additionally, the number of items of the attachment measure was a signicant moderator for the effect size of gender differences on the combined trust and communication dimension (i.e., studies with shorter scales detected larger effect sizes). Meta-analysis on Age Differences on Peer Attachment A total of 19 studies reported data about correlations between age and peer attachment (see Table 6). As can be seen in Table 7, ndings revealed that the correlation between age and peer attachment, as well as the correlations between age and specic attachment dimensions (trust, communication, alienation, and a combined measure of trust and communication), were not signicant. No potential outliers were detected and using the one study removed function we found that results were very stable. The trim and ll method indicated, for each outcome, that no studies should be trimmed. Heterogeneity among studies in each set of analyses was signicant. Results of moderator analyses (see Table 7 for categorical moderators and Table 3 for continuous moderators) indicated few signicant results. In particular, the country in which the studies had been conducted was a signicant moderator for the effect size of peer attachment
(i.e., studies conducted outside North America reported a stronger positive correlation between age and peer attachment). Additionally, the gender composition of the sample was a signicant moderator for the effect sizes of communication and alienation (i.e., in studies with a higher number of females the effect size on communication was slightly stronger while the effect size on alienation was slightly smaller).
Discussion Among the most important human needs is the need to establish close, enduring emotional bonds with others to feel secure and explore the world with condence (Ainsworth et al. 1978, 1989; Bowlby 1973, 1980). In adolescence, peers attachment plays a unique role in serving as sources of emotional support, safe havens, and proximity seeking (Fraley and Davis 1997; Nickerson and Nagle 2005). This may be especially important in early and middle adolescence when the developmental changes in the attachment organization determine the consequent transformation of parentchild relationships. As development continues, early attachment, later family experiences, and peer bonds provide foundation for the intimate relationships of adulthood (Sroufe et al. 2005). Adolescent attachment relationships differ from infantparent attachments since they are transformed from external, observable interactions to internally represented beliefs and expectations, where felt security becomes central (Sroufe and Waters 1977). Security in adolescent attachment depends on history of secure emotional organization and freedom to explore, communicate openly, rely on the help of others in times of distress, and evaluate past and present attachment relationships with signicant others. In
123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672 Table 2 Meta-analytic results of associations between parent and peer attachment Outcome Parent and peer attachment Year of publication Up to 1999 From 2000 Language English Other languages Country North America Other countries Measure IPPA Other scales Mother and peer attachment Year of publication Up to 1999 From 2000 Language English Other languages Country North America Other countries Type of sample Community Clinical Father and peer attachment Year of publication Up to 1999 From 2000 Language English Other languages Country North America Other countries Parent and peer trust Parent communication and peer trust Parent alienation and peer trust Parent and peer communication Parent trust and peer communication Parent alienation and peer communication Parent and peer alienation Parent trust and peer alienation Parent communication and peer alienation
a
659
k 31 5 26 29 2 19 12 22 9 10 4 6 8 2 6 4 8 2 9 4 5 7 2 5 4 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5
N 11,843 1,878 9,965 10,633 1,210 4,581 7,262 6,897 4,946 4,084 763 3,321 2,168 1,916 1,612 2,472 3,356 728 3,457 763 2,694 1,596 1,861 1,040 2,417 2,915 2,767 2,767 2,915 2,767 2,767 2,767 2,767 2,767
r (95 % CI) .27*** (.23, .32) .27*** (.17, .36) .28*** (.22, .33) .28*** (.23, .33) .14 (-.18, .44) .29*** (.21, .36) .26*** (.20, .31) .30*** (.24, .35) .22*** (.13, .31) .31*** (.24, .36) .29*** (.21, .37) .31*** (.23, .39) .34*** (.26, .40) .22*** (.18, .26) .38*** (.32, .44) .22*** (.18, .26) .30*** (.23, .37) .34*** (.27, .40) .22*** (.18, .28) .19*** (.09, .29) .24*** (.18.30) .23*** (.15, .31) .22*** (.17, .26) .27*** (.16, .38) .20*** (.17, .24) .30*** (.26, .34) .26*** (.20, .31) -.25*** (-.37, -.18) .27*** (.22, .31) .21*** (.17, .24) -.15*** (-.21, -.09) .27 (-.06, .55) -.19 (-.40, .05) -.13 (-.31, .05)
Q 205.82*** 14.70** 189.65*** 184.49*** 19.76*** 134.30*** 69.96*** 118.41*** 71.90*** 32.80*** 4.30 28.46*** 20.24** 0.74 7.00 0.75 28.22*** 0.54 15.75* 4.99 9.36 15.05* 4.69 9.29 2.22 6.13 7.51 15.59** 7.88 3.06 8.76 311.07*** 152.09*** 96.73***
I2 85.42
Contrasta
0.02 72.78 86.81 0.71 84.82 94.94 0.40 86.60 84.28 1.87 82.27 88.87 72.56 0.10 30.25 82.43 7.25** 65.41 0 17.38*** 28.58 0 0.55 75.20 0 49.21 0.80 39.86 57.26 0.10 60.13 0 1.26 56.93 0 18.38 46.78 74.83 36.62 0 54.31 98.71 97.37 95.85
k number of studies, r correlation, CI condence interval, Q and I2 heterogeneity statistics Contrast between subsets of studies, noted in Q * p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001
123
660
Table 3 Results of meta-regressions for the meta-analyses on gender differences, age differences, relationships between parent and peer attachment Outcome Mean age of the sample k Meta-analysis on parent and peer attachment Parent and peer attachment Mother and peer attachment Father and peer attachment Parent and peer trust Parent communication and peer trust Parent alienation and peer trust Parent and peer communication Parent trust and peer communication Parent alienation and peer communication Parent and peer alienation Parent trust and peer alienation Parent communication and peer alienation Meta-analysis on gender differences Peer attachment Trust Communication Alienation Trust and communication combined Meta-analysis on age differences Peer attachment Trust Communication Alienation k number of studies, b standardized beta
a
Percentage of females in sample k b
Percentage of ethnic minorities in the sample k b
Number of items of the peer attachment scale k b
27 9 8 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 41 15 12 13 3 15 4 4 5
.00 -.00 .00 -.00 -.00 -.02 -.01 -.01 -.01 -.02 -.01 -.01 -.01 .02 -.03 -.01 -.11 .00 -.01 -.03 .02
30 10 9 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 43 15 12 13 3 15 4 4 5
.00 .00 .00 .01 -.00 -.00 .00 .00 -.00 .03 -.02 -.01 -.00 .01 .01 -.01 -.04 .00 .01 .02* -.02*
20 5 5 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 27 3 2 4 11
-.00 .00 .00 .00 -.00 -.00 -.00 .00 -.01 .00 -.00 -.01 -.00 -.00 -.01 .00 -.00
30 10 9 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 42 15 12 13 3 15
a
.00 -.00 -.00 .01 -.02* -.02 -.01 -.00 -.00 -.04 -.15*** -.12*** -.00 .01 .04 .06 -.10* .00 .04 .03
4 5
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001 This predictor could not be tested due to lack of variation in its levels (all the studies reported that same number of items)
studying transformations in adolescent relationships with parents and friends, Armsden and Greenberg (1987) proposed that trust, communication, and alienation are important constructs to study, since these relationship features are central to attachment theory. In this article we presented three meta-analyses in order to systematically review literature on peer attachment. Specic questions we addressed were how parent and peer attachment are interrelated and which are main gender and age differences on peer attachment. We focused both on global attachment as well as on specic dimensions of attachment represented by trust, communication, and alienation. Now we will discuss the main ndings of our meta-analytic approach and, moving from them, offer suggestions to guide research toward a more contextually sensitive, integrative understanding of dynamic, reciprocal processes between parent attachment and close relationships with peers.
Parent and Peer Attachment Attachment theory posits that attachments to parents and the internal working models of these relationships continue to be inuential into adolescence and adulthood (Bowlby 1988). Internal working models have a fundamental role not only in inuencing information processing by guiding cognition, memory, attention, also affecting the creation and nature of subsequent social relationships. These models also shape and inuence emotional and behavioral regulation (Zimmermann 1999). In line with attachment theory, ndings of our rst metaanalysis revealed that individuals who report secure relationships with parents tend also to exhibit secure relationships with close friends. Adolescents security of attachment with their parent is associated with having secure working models of friendships, as well as greater capacity for both closeness and separateness in relationships with friends
123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672 Table 4 Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis on gender differences Source Armsden and Greenberg (1987); study 2 Baiocco et al. (2009) Blain et al. (1993) Claes (1992) Coleman (2003) de Jong (1992) Di Filippo and Overholser (2000) Di Tommaso et al. (2005) sample a_Canadians Di Tommaso et al. (2005) sample b_Chinese Fass and Tubman (2002) Felsman and Blustein (1999) Formoso et al. (2000) Gallego et al. (2011) Garriott et al. (2010) Gonzales et al. (1996) Greenberg et al. (1983) Guarnieri et al. (2010) Gullone and Robinson (2005) Han and Lee (2011) Henrich et al. (2001) Kelley et al. (2010) Laible et al. (2000) Laible et al. (2004) Lapointe and Legault (2004) Lapsley et al. (1990) Ma and Huebner (2008) McElhaney et al. (2006) Muris et al. (2001) Nada Raja et al. (1992) Nelis and Rae (2009) Nickerson and Nagle (2004) Noppe and Noppe (1997) OKoon (1997) Pace et al. (2011) Paterson et al. (1994) Pierro et al. (1996) N Mean age 86 1,000 216 349 67 126 59 164 59 357 147 284 90 82 120 213 784 281 134 499 572 89 246 210 253 587 71 155 976 476 303 95 167 1,059 493 317 19.38 12.56 15.9 12.8 15 15.9 11.58 17.4 17 15.66 15.9 15 18.6 17 20.8 15.92 11.06 18.5 15.6 20.5 21.2 20.7 18.61 13.3 13.1 21.59 13.7 15.4 15.07 12.4 21.44 11.98 21.44 16 18.6 % females 62.79 50 66.2 51.29 46.27 59.52 58 72.6 60.3 71.4 67.35 61 61.11 68 65 37.09 48.09 55.87 57.3 51.10 78.81 51.69 70 53.33 41.5 60 43.66 43.87 49 64.7 52.48 58.95 56.89 58.81 51.32 46.7 10 12 22 5.4 57 58 100 51 44.76 47 85 26.2 24 0 100 84.3 38 72.5 100 100 9 % of ethnic minorities 20 Language English English English English English English English English English English English English Spanish English English English English English English English English English English French English English English English English English English English English English English Italian Country USA Italy Canada Canada USA USA USA Canada Canada USA USA USA Spain USA USA USA Italy Australia USA USA USA USA USA Canada USA USA USA Netherlands New Zealand North of Ireland USA USA USA Italy New Zealand Italy Type of sample Community Community Community Community Community Community Other * Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Other** Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Measure of attachment IPPA IPPA IPPA Scale of Greenberg et al. (1983) IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA Scale of Greenberg et al. (1983) IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA AQ People in my life (Cook et al. 1995) IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA 7 7 25 6 25 11
661
N items 25 25 25 18 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 9 21 18 28 4 6 7 25 25 25 12 12 25 7 12 25 7 4
123
662 Table 4 continued Source N Mean age 946 2,775 320 455 153 789 513 588 2,465 2,006 329 347 490 495 319 83 106 315 11.02 14.3 16.5 15.96 15.43 17.3 13.7 15.27 16.84 17.14 16.15 16.41 14.40 14.40 14.61 16 15 % females 48.84 49.91 42.2 55.82 39 55.51 56.92 46.4 50.8 52.8 55.3 74.6 74.9 46.3 58 54 37 49 7.9 13 0 100 100 100 2.7 41.6 2.2 93 % of ethnic minorities Language Country
Type of sample Community Community Community Community Other Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community Community
Measure of attachment IPPA IPPA People in my life (Cook et al. 1995) IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA Ad hoc measure Ad hoc measure IPPA AFAS IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA Scale of Hirschi (1969)
N items
Richards et al. (2010); study 1 Richards et al. (2010); study 2 Ridenour et al. (2006) Ruijten et al. (2011) Salzinger et al. (2007) San Martini et al. (2009) nchez-Queija and Oliva Sa (2003) Song et al. (2009) Sund and Wichstrm (2002) Wilkinson (2004); study 1 Wilkinson (2004); study 2 Wilkinson (2004); study 3 Wilkinson (2008); study 1 Wilkinson (2010) Wissink et al. (2009) sample a_Dutch Wissink et al. (2009) sample b_Maroccans Wissink et al. (2009) sample c_Turkish Wong (1998)
English English English English English Italian Spanish English English English English English English English English English English English
New Zealand New Zealand USA Netherlands USA Italy Spain China Norway Norway Australia Australia Australia Australia Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Canada
12 12 7 7 24 6 21 7 6 7 7 25 30 25 4 4 4 4
IPPA Inventory of Parent and Peer attachment (Armsden and Greenberg 1987), AFAS Adolescent Friendship Attachment Scale (Wilkinson 2008), AQ Attachment Questionnaire (Hazan and Shaver 1987) * Psychiatric inpatients, ** alcohol-abusing parents individuals
(Furman et al. 2002). These results indicate that friends do not replace family bonds during adolescence (Greenberg et al. 1983; Paterson et al. 1994) and that adolescents who have a strong attachment to their parents also are able to establish a strong bond with their friends. In particular, our results showed that peer attachment is more interwoven to mother than to father attachment. This result is consistent with evidence obtained from research on child attachment and suggests that similar patterns also are going on in adolescence (cf. Allen et al. 2003). Bowlby (1988, p. 129) considered this issue for the rst time in his last theoretical volume: As yet too little is known about how the inuence on personality development of interactions with the mother compares with those with the father. It would hardly be surprising were different facets of personality, manifest in different situations, to be inuenced differently. In addition their respective inuences on males may be expected to differ from that of their respective inuence on females. It is clearly a complex area that will
require much research. Meanwhile it seems likely that, at least during the early years of an individuals life, the model of self-interacting with mother is the more inuential of the two. This would hardly be surprising, since in every culture known, children interact far more with the mother than with the father. A communication about emotions has the potential to foster the childs feelings of security, exploration of his/her inner world, and effectiveness in coping with negative emotions (Bowlby 1988). In contrast, exchanges in which the attachment gure censures, negates, or distorts the childs emotional experience are expected to have negative consequences for child wellbeing due to conicting working models (e.g., what is experienced versus what is said), impoverished exploration of attachment-related thoughts and feelings, and difculty integrating and updating working models of self and other. Parent- adolescent affective mutuality (i.e., the balanced, free-owing verbal and nonverbal exchange of emotions) may be an important interpersonal process through which
123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672 Table 5 Meta-analytic results of gender differences on peer attachment Outcome Peer attachment Year of publication Up to 1999 From 2000 Language English Other languages Country North America Other countries Type of sample Community Clinical Measure IPPA Other scales Trust Year of publication Up to 1999 From 2000 Country North America Other countries Measure IPPA Other scales Communication Year of publication Up to 1999 From 2000 Country North America Other countries Measure IPPA Other scales Alienation Year of publication Up to 1999 From 2000 Language English Other languages Country North America Other countries 4 9 455 - 516 2,743 - 2,531 -.09 (-.33, .15) -.10 (-.30, .09) 9.84* 88.67*** 69.52 90.98 11 2 2,612 - 2,527 586 - 520 -.13 (-.31,.05) .05 (-.22, .32) 87.69*** 4.28* 88.60 76.63 0.01 10 2 13 4 9 2,756 - 2,549 294 - 329 3,198 - 3,047 765 - 835 2,433 - 2,212 .73*** (.59, .88) .55*** (.33, .78) -.10 (-.25, .05) -.08 (-.33, .16) -.10 (-.31, .01) 49.25*** 1.89 99.81*** 13.58** 84.10*** 81.72 47.01 87.98 0.01 77.90 90.49 1.16 4 8 455 - 516 2,595 - 2,362 .53*** (.40, .67) .77*** (.61, .93) 3.19 44.85*** 6.00 84.39 1.77 3 9 617 - 666 2,433 - 2,212 .54*** (.43, .66) .75*** (.60.91) 1.39 45.36*** 0.00 82.36 13 2 12 3,025 - 2,788 294 - 329 3,050 - 2,878 .40***(.31, .48) .11 (-.12, .35) .70*** (.58, .83) 25.34* 2.11 53.40*** 52.65 52.63 79.40 4 11 455 - 516 2,864 - 2,601 .27* (.05, .49) .39*** (.30, .49) 8.49* 24.49** 64.67 59.16 3 12 617 - 666 2,702 - 2,451 .33*** (.16.51) .37*** (.26.47) 3.36 31.42** 40.43 65.00 0.96 34 9 15 8,862 - 7,274 2,698 - 2,218 3,319 - 3,117 .56*** (.47, .66) .30*** (.22, .39) .36*** (.27-45) 273.46*** 11.83 36.06** 87.93 32.40 61.18 0.12 40 3 11,016 - 9,253 544 - 239 .51*** (.42,.60) .38*** (.24, .53) 336.90*** 1.04 88.42 0.00 38 5 26 17 10,163 - 8,287 1,397 - 1,205 3,516 - 2,499 7,044 - 6,993 .51*** (.43, .60) .45** (.12, .79) .50*** (.42, .58) .51*** (.36, .66) 259.44*** 61.99*** 51.18** 289.91*** 85.74 93.55 0.01 51.15 94.48 2.30 11 32 1,542 1,360 10,018 8,132 .45*** (.33, .57) .52*** (.42, .62) 21.28* 313.34*** 53.01 90.10 0.12 k Number of females number of males 11,560 - 9,492 d (95 % CI) .51*** (.42, .59) Q I2
663
Contrasta
43
341.20***
87.69 0.75
15.38***
4.87*
4.57*
5.06*
123
664 Table 5 continued Outcome k Number of females number of males d (95 % CI)
I2
Contrasta
Measure IPPA Other scales Trust and communication combined 11 2 3 2,904 - 2,718 294 - 329 383 - 365 -.13 (-.30, .05) .04 (-.12, .20) .44 (-.03, .91) 93.30*** 0.30 17.05*** 89.28 0 88.27
1.95
k number of studies, d standardized difference in means, CI condence interval, Q and I2 heterogeneity statistics * p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001
a
Contrast between subsets of studies, noted in Q
Table 6 Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis on age differences on peer attachment Source Claes (1992) Elmore and Huebner (2010) Felsman and Blustein (1999) Gallego et al. (2011) Greenberg et al. (1983) Gullone and Robinson (2005) Kelley et al. (2010) Laible et al. (2000) Lapsley et al. (1990) Ma and Huebner (2008) Nickerson and Nagle (2004) Paterson et al. (1994) Pierro et al. (1996) Salzinger et al. (2007) San Martini et al. (2009) Song et al. (2009) Wilkinson (2008); study 1 Wilkinson (2010) Wong (1998) N Mean age 15.92 11.41 18.615 13.1 15.4 12.4 21.44 16 19.38 12.56 11.58 15.9 15 16.5 15.96 17.3 16.15 16.41 16 % females 51.29 60.4 67.35 61.11 37.09 55.87 78.81 51.69 41.5 60 52.48 51.32 46.7 39 55.51 46.4 74.9 46.3 49 7.9 13 100 93 57 44.76 47 56.8 38 9 % of ethnic minorities Language English English English Spanish English English English English English English English English Italian English Italian English English English English Country Canada USA USA Spain USA Australia USA USA USA USA USA New Zealand Italy USA Italy China Australia Australia Canada Type of sample Community Community Community Community Community Community Other* Community Community Community Community Community Community Other** Community Community Community Community Community Measure Scale of Greenberg et al. (1983) IPPA IPPA IPPA Scale of Greenberg et al. (1983) IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA People in my life (Cook et al. 1995) IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA IPPA AFAS IPPA Scale of Hirschi (1969) N items 18 12 25 21 4 7 25 12 7 12 7 25 11 24 25 7 30 15 4
349 399 147 90 213 281 572 89 253 587 303 493 317 153 789 588 490 495 315
22
* Alcohol-abusing parents individuals,** physical abuse IPPA Inventory of Parent and Peer attachment (Armsden and Greenberg 1987), AFAS Adolescent Friendship Attachment Scale (Wilkinson 2008)
attachment security is associated with intrapersonal competencies. However, more attention on processes or mechanisms trough which mother attachment may inuence adolescent peer relationships is needed (Allen and Miga 2010). More recent studies emphasize the notion that mothers and fathers roles as attachment gures and their inuences on
child outcomes may be different and complementary. At the same time, calls for a family approach to attachment studies are increasing (e.g., Bretherton 2010 for a review). Concluding, future studies are necessary to further disentangle family dynamics by which a secure mother attachment may foster enduring peer relationships that, in turn, can promote adolescent adjustment.
123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672 Table 7 Meta-analytic results of age differences on peer attachment Outcome Peer attachment Year of publication Up to 1999 From 2000 Language English Other languages Country North America Other countries Type of sample Community Clinical Measure IPPA Other scales Trust Communication Alienation Trust and communication combined 11 4 4 4 5 2 4,095 1,321 1,425 1,425 1,742 666
2
665
k 15 4 11 13 2 9 6 13 2
N 5,416 1,168 4,248 4,537 879 2,778 2,638 4,691 725
r (95 % CI) .03 (-.04, .09) .01 (-.04, .07) .03 (-.06, .12) .02 (-.05, .09) .10 (-.14, .33) -.04 (-.09, .01) .11* (.00, .22) .04 (-.04, .11) -.02 (-.09, .06) .04 (-.05, .13) -.00 (-.06, .05) .02 (-.14, .17) .08 (-.10, .26) -.02 (-.12, .08) -.06 (-.18, .05)
Q 78.26*** 1.27 76.39*** 73.17*** 3.42 16.60* 28.13*** 77.43*** 8.76 78.09*** 0.15 20.60*** 28.28*** 14.50** 2.39
I2 82.11
Contrasta
0.11 0.00 86.91 0.43 83.60 70.80 5.91* 51.81 82.23 1.01 84.50 0.00 0.73 87.19 0.00 85.44 89.39 72.41 58.22
k number of studies, r correlation, CI condence interval, Q and I heterogeneity statistics * p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001
a
Contrast between subsets of studies, noted in Q
Gender Patterns on Peer Attachment The focus of our second meta-analysis was related to gender differences on peer attachment. We synthesized data reported in more than fty papers and, in line with our hypotheses, we found that girls were more attached to their peers than boys. Similarly, girls reported higher scores on two core dimensions of attachment relationships (Armsden and Greenberg 1987), such as trust and communication. Thus, we found consistent gender differences on peer attachment. Our results support a wide corpus of evidence showing differences in adolescent males and females experiences of peer relationships (Rose and Rudolph 2006 for a review). Girls friendships typically are deeper and more interdependent than are those of boys; moreover, in their friendships girls reveal more empathy, a greater need for nurturance, and the desire for and ability to sustain intimate relationships. Boys, in contrast, tend to place relatively more emphasis on having a congenial companion with whom their share an interest in sports, hobbies, or other activities, and they are also more cooperative (cf. Scholte and van Aken 2006). Therefore, a convergent literature
highlights that girls report more intimacy and self- disclosure than boys in their friendships (e.g. Furman and Buhrmester 1992). It may be very productive to investigate in more detail the processes by which males and females form attachment bonds. Research must identify the ways by which major contextual factors (e.g. cultural norms, ethnic background, and socio-economic circumstances) shape the modalities by which individuals form close relationships. Among studies included in the meta-analysis, a few researchers included ethnic group comparisons in their research designs, but they rarely examined the specic culture or characteristics of ethnic group experience. A closer look at cultural inuences on gender differences may further improve this research eld. Furthermore, gender differences on peer attachment can be understood in the context of gender differences on emotion regulation. Some researchers have suggested that the links between attachment security versus insecurity and functioning in close relationships with peers may be a result of generalized comfort in handling ones own emotional reactions in challenging situations (e.g. Zimmermann et al. 2001). During adolescence, adaptive
123
666
emotion regulation capacities grow and develop most effectively in the context of secure attachment relationships. Indeed, research also has shown that attachment style moderates the choice of proximity seeking or support seeking as an emotion regulation strategy (Seiffge-Krenke and Beyers 2005). Attachment security predisposes a person to seek comfort and assistance from both informal sources of support (e.g., parents, friends) and formal sources (e.g., teachers, counselors) and this tendency also can be seen in the methods used by secure people to cope with stressful events (Mikulincer et al. 2003). Gender differences in coping and emotion regulation typically have been found for seeking social support also in adolescence: female adolescents reported higher scores than male adolescents (e.g., Hampel and Petermann 2005; SeiffggeKrenke 1995). Gender differences in attachment security appear to be linked to different styles of emotion regulation between females and males. At the same time, it also seems likely that numerous other factorsas gender socialization experiencescould inuence gender differences on peer attachment. In attachment security, it may be that a gender-related process (e.g., emotion regulation) drives the variation in attachment security, which drives the variation in attributions, emotions, and coping strategies, and these, in turn, drive the variation in friendship attachment quality. On the other hand, it also may be that something about being a boy or a girl is related to attachment security, emotion regulation and friendship attachment quality, regardless of the relationship between attachment and emotion regulation or between emotion regulation and friendship attachment quality. Age and Peer Attachment In the third meta-analysis, we sought to clarify age differences on peer attachment, given the contradictory ndings reported in the literature. Our results showed a nonsignicant correlation between age and peer attachment. However, this result should be considered with caution, especially considering two limits of the studies included in this meta-analysis. First, most studies focused on a small age range limited to adolescent years. Second, studies were conducted with cross-sectional designs. Thus, in the present article, we were not able to complete an examination of dynamic processes that are involved in the development and evolution of peer relationships over time. Therefore, in order to gain a better understanding of development of attachment, longitudinal studies on a wider age period, moving from childhood to adulthood, are needed. As noted by Allen (2008, p. 423), rather than wading into the semantic quagmire of delineating the precise conditions under which a given relationship beyond
infancy becomes an attachment relationship, it may make more sense to recognize that adolescent relationships increasingly take on critical attachment functions, even if such functions are neither as synchronous nor as intense as they were in earlier relationships with parents. A focus on peer attachment processes (as opposed to the presence or absence of peer attachment relationships) would be worthwhile to address relevant research questions: How do peer relationships progressively become mature attachment relationships? How is this process shaped for individuals with different parent attachment histories? Which facets of attachment behavior come online earliest in adolescent peer relationships? What happens when adolescents form prematurely (or delayed) peer attachment relationships? Addressing these questions would increase our understanding of the development of peer attachment during adolescence as well as in other stages of life. Time itself represents another variable largely neglected by investigators, since little attention is given to the specic features of the examined age groups. Adolescence and young adulthood are distinct phases of the lifespan that carry with them different goals, priorities, competencies, roles, and responsibilities that may shape attachment behavior both, for instance, in terms of how much emotional support is requested and from whom the support is sought. Peer attachment behavior may evolve over the course of adolescence as young adulthood: individuals enter and gain experience in new types of peer relationships, they reorder the salience of various afliations (e.g., friendship groups vs. romantic attachments), or they form more stable peer close relationships. Therefore, more studies focused on how peer attachment relationships change in accordance with the developmental tasks specic to each phase of the life span are needed. Theoretically, we would expect changes in the frequency of behaviors commonly associated with the attachment, caregiving, and afliative system. Such changes should be evident in comparisons of the same relationship over time and comparisons of different relationships. For example, we expect that, as they grow older, individuals in most Western cultures increasingly engage in attachment, caregiving, and afliative behaviors with romantic partners, and they would increasingly turn to romantic partners as compared to friends (Furman and Wehner 1994). Indeed, consistent evidence suggests that, in adulthood, attachment-related behaviors become increasingly directed to a romantic partner for the majority of individuals (e.g. Fraley and Davis 1997). Limitations of the Study Our set of meta-analyses should be considered in light of two main limitations. First, we limited our meta-analyses to
123
667
journal articles. Thus, we did not include the gray literature (e.g., unpublished studies, abstracts from conference proceedings). On the one hand, including only articles ensures that higher quality, peer-reviewed studies were included in the meta-analysis; conversely, excluding unpublished studies is likely to introduce an upward bias into the size of the effects found, which means that calculated effect sizes are likely to be larger (Rothstein et al. 2005). To address this limitation, we evaluated potential publication bias with the trim and ll method and the fail-safe number. Both methods did not indicate the presence of publication bias. Nevertheless, it would be worthwhile if future systematic review could include also the gray literature. Second, each of the moderators was examined in separate analyses due to the small number of studies for each outcome and for each level of the moderator. The literature on peer attachment is increasing and, in the future, it would be interesting to test also the interactive effects of various moderators. In this way, it could be possible to account for sources of heterogeneity of study ndings and further clarify which factors can explain variations in the strength of association between parent and peer attachment, as well as shedding light on variables that could account for stronger gender and age differences on peer attachment. Directions for Future Research Based on the ndings from this series of meta-analyses, we have identied several areas in need of further research. First, as shown by the results of some of the moderator analyses, indicating differences in results of studies conducted in North America and in other countries, there could be cultural differences in the meaning of peer attachment. We tried partially to address this issue by examining whether the percentage of ethnic minorities in the sample could be a moderator. Unfortunately, the power of these moderator analyses was limited by the fact that many studies did not report any information about the ethnic composition of the samples. Therefore, future studies need to have more racial diversity and to investigate empirically cultural differences on peer attachment. In addition, there is the need to understand fully the similarities and differences between culture operationalized as country and culture operationalized as a persons attitudes and beliefs. Variability of culture beliefs within a country may either limit the generalizability of studies in which culture is operationalized as country, or mask interesting cultural effects. One may nd that the overall cultural effect is modulated by the degree to which individuals hold the dominant cultural beliefs. Therefore, it is important to have both transcultural studies as well as studies on the individual differences of cultural beliefs within countries to fully understand the effects of culture on peer attachment.
Bowlby (1988, p. 4) argued that a feature of attachment behavior of the greatest importance clinically, and present irrespective of the age the individual concerned, is the intensity of the emotion that accompanies it, the kind of emotion aroused depending on how relationship between the individual attached and the attachment gures is faring. If it goes well, there is joy and sense of security. If it is threatened, there is jealousy, anxiety and anger. If broken there is grief and depression. Security of attachment is thought to be associated with the ability to be able to freely perceive and experienceas well as openly express and communicateboth positive and negative feelings. This ability can thus help secure individuals in using their own appraisals of their emotional reactions to guide their behaviors, and also aids in clear and consistent communication of their emotional reactions to signicant others. Since the expression of emotions is linked strongly to cultural standard and norms, it appears even clearer why future studies should have a stronger focus on cultural dimensions. For example, Japanese control (e.g. neutralize, mask, etc.) not only the display of negative feelings, but also feelings of happiness more than do Americans (Matsumoto et al. 1998). If the formation of attachment is related to the degree to which individuals agree with the expectations of their culture, it could be possible to hypothesize that in cultures in which the non-expression and emotional control are valued more, emotion suppression can result in less negative or even positive outcomes, especially if interpreted as a proof of the ability to control undesired emotions. A more integrated perspective depends upon the application of different levels of analysis (intrapersonal, interpersonal, social, cultural, motivation, temperament) considered in their mutual interconnections. Second, the ndings of our meta-analyses were based on self-report data. Moderator analyses showed that the type of scale (IPPA vs. other scales) used to measure attachment along with the length of the scale were signicant predictors of some effect sizes. In particular, studies conducted with the IPPA and with scales with a lower number of items were more likely to report larger effect sizes. There is some controversy in the literature about using self-report measures for attachment. Since attachment is thought to be a mental representation of ones emotional bonds and past experiences in relationships, it is thought that the best way to measure attachment is through narratives that tap into the implicit representations of the mind (for a review of different measures of attachment, see Shaver and Mikulincer 2004). Using narrative methodologies, it is possible to analyze more in-depth the level of explicit, conscious, and deliberate information processing that occurs in the process of attachment to peers. On the basis of attachment theory, there are different types of internal working models, which differ in their degree of automaticity (Bretherton and
123
668
Munholland 2008). Working models developed earlier in life are assumed to be more unconscious and automatic than those developed more recently (Bowlby 1973). Therefore, future studies should include a larger array of methods to assess peer attachment at different levels (explicit and conscious vs. implicit and unconscious). More specically, researchers should employ a variety of methods, including questionnaires, daily logs, heart rate monitoring, stress tasks, anthropometric assessments, experimental priming of mental representations of attachment gures, and behavioral observations, to capture different dimensions of peer attachment. In particular, researchers should consider (1) the assumptions underlying each technique and the conceptual connection between a technique and the concepts and propositions of attachment theory and (2) the relationship domain to be investigated (e.g., best friend, close friend, romantic partner). A further issue that deserves further consideration is the extent to which adolescents have access to gures to fulll attachment needs in an extended hierarchical network. Almost all self-report measures of attachment rely on self-identied attachments and are not based on structural analyses of persons in the individuals social environment. Future research should access more extensive information on friendship details for describing the wider attachment network. Third, cross-sectional data prevent investigating the trajectories (i.e. change and/or stability) of peer attachment over time. If the friend attachment constitutes a vital experience which evolves during time, researchers need to monitor its various phases of development together with the other ties that the individual maintains within the family and social network. Thus, longitudinal designs are desirable for future research to address the following research questions: How do peer relationships gradually take on attachment functions? How does peer attachment develop over adolescence and adulthood? Are friend attachments almost always restricted to non-familial, same age peers? Given the centrality of peer attachment in adolescence, it is worthwhile addressing these questions to gain a better understanding of youth friendships. Fourth, available studies deal with general peer attachment, without paying enough attention to the extent to which gender composition of peer relationships can inuence peer dynamics (Buhrke and Fuqua 1987; Diamond 2002, Mikulincer and Selinger 2001). It is and Dube worthwhile to examine how and to what extent attachment relationships vary in peer relationships limited to male or female friendships and to examine what happens in mixedgender bonds, between males and females. Thus, future research might further clarify the cultural role of gender on peer relationships, examining also the nature of attachment relationships between males and females and same-gender close friendships.
Conclusion Peer relationships become the central arena in which attachment processes are likely to play out during adolescence and beyond. This study aimed to provide more insight into mechanism that link functioning in family relationships and peers systems. With this respect, ndings of our meta-analytic review showed that parent attachment (especially mother attachment) and peer attachment are moderately interrelated. Furthermore, we found that girls are more attached to their peers than males. Third, correlations between age and attachment were not signicant but, before drawing denitive conclusions on this issue, more longitudinal studies are needed. Findings from this study have several important implications for redirecting our attention to a gaping hole that remains in research on adolescent attachment. Social competencies in peer large groups and in close relationships are conceptually and empirically related, but there are important differences between the constructs, especially with regard to the exchange of intimacy. Therefore, it may make more sense to think of the attachment system as expanding and evolving into multiple new forms in adolescenceranging from attachment functions appearing temporarily in passing relationships to complex new varieties of long-term peer bonds (Allen 2008). The longer peer relationships last, the more likely peers can serve attachment functions (Fraley and Davis 1997; Nickerson and Nagle 2005).
References References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analyses
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709716. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Allen, J. P. (2008). The attachment system in adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 419435). New York: Guildford Press. Allen, J. P., McElhaney, K. B., Land, D. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Moore, C. M., OBeirne-Kelley, H., et al. (2003). A secure base in adolescence: Markers of attachment security in the motheradolescent relationship. Child Development, 74, 292307. Allen, J. P., & Miga, E. M. (2010). Attachment in adolescence: A move to the level of emotion regulation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 181190. *Allen, J. P., Porter, M., McFarland, C., McElhaney, K. B., & Marsh, P. (2007). The relation of attachment security to adolescents paternal and peer relationships, depression, and externalizing behavior. Child Development, 78, 12221239.
123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672 *Alvarez-Rivera, L., & Fox, K. (2010). Institutional attachments and self control: Understanding deviance among Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 666674. *Armsden, G., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: Individual differences and their relation to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427454. *Baiocco, R., Laghi, F., & Paola, R. (2009). Le scale IPPA per lattaccamento nei confronti dei genitori e del gruppo dei pari in adolescenza: Un contributo alla validazione italiana [The IPPA scales on parent and peer attachment in adolescence: A contribution to the Italian validation]. Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo, XIII, 2, 355383. *Bilgin, M., & Akkapulu, E. (2007). Some variables predicting social self-efcacy expectation. Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 777788. *Blain, M. D., Thompson, J. M., & Whiffen, V. E. (1993). Attachment and perceived social support in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence Research, 8, 226241. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. Vol. 3: Loss: Sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. Parentchild attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books. *Brack, G., Gay, M. F., Matheny, K. B. (1993). Relationships between attachment and coping resources among late adolescents. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 212215. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measures of adult romantic attachment. An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 4676). New York: Guilford. Bretherton, I. (2010). Fathers in attachment theory: A review. Early Child Development and Care, 180, 923. Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 102130). New York: Guilford. Buhrke, R. A., & Fuqua, D. R. (1987). Sex differences in same- and cross-sex supportive relationships. Sex Roles, 17, 339352. , M., Meeus, W., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2002). Buist, K. L., Dekovic Developmental patterns in adolescent attachment to mother, father and sibling. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 167176. Bukowski, W. M., Newcomb, A. F., & Hartup, W. W. (Eds.). (1996). The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed.). New York: Guildford Press. *Claes, M. E. (1992). Friendship and personal adjustment during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 3955. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press. *Coleman, P. K. (2003). Perceptions of parent-child attachment, social self-efcacy, and peer relationships in middle childhood. Infant and Child Development, 12, 351368. Cook, E. T., Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche, C. A. (1995). People in my life: Attachment relationships in middle childhood. Poster presented at the conference of the society for research in child development, Indianapolis (USA).
669 Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construal theory and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 537. *de Jong, M. L. (1992). Attachment, individuation, and risk of suicide in late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 357373. , E. M. (2002). Friendship and attachment Diamond, L. M., & Dube among heterosexual and sexual-minority youths: Does the gender of your friend matter? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 151166. *Di Filippo, J. M., & Overholser, J. C. (2000). Suicidal ideation in adolescent psychiatric inpatients as associated with depression and attachment relationships. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 155166. *Di Tommaso, E., Brannen, C., & Burgess, M. (2005). The universality of relationship characteristics: a cross-cultural comparison of different types of attachment and loneliness in Canadian and visiting Chinese students. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 5767. , M. (1999). Risk and protective factors in the development *Dekovic of problem behavior during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 667685. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric trim and ll method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of American Statistical Association, 95, 8998. *Eberhart, N. K, & Hammen, C. L. (2006). Interpersonal predictors of onset of depression during the transition to adulthood. Personal Relationships, 13, 195206. *Elmore, G. M., & Huebner, E. S. (2010). Adolescents satisfaction with school experiences: Relationships with demographics, attachment relationships, and school engagement behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 525537. , M., & Meeus, W. (2002). Parenting *Engels, R. C. M. E., Dekovic practices, social skills and peer relationships in adolescence. Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 318. ` re, F. N., Descheneaux, A., Vitaro, F., & *Fallu, J. S., Janozs, M., Brie Tremblay, R. E. (2010). Preventing disruptive boys from becoming heavy substance users during adolescence: a longitudinal study of familial and peer-related protective factors. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 10741082. *Fass, M. E., & Tubman, J. G. (2002). The inuence of parental and peer attachment on college students academic achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 561573. *Felsman, D. E., & Blustein, D. L. (1999). The role of peer relatedness in late adolescent career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 279295. *Formoso, D., Gonzales, N. A., & Aiken, L. S. (2000). Family conict and childrens internalizing and externalizing behavior: protective factors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 175199. Fraley, R. C., & Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131144. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103115. *Furman, W., Simon, V., Shaffer, L., & Bouchey, H. (2002). Adolescents working models and styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child Development, 73, 241255. Furman, W., & Wehner, E. A. (1994). Romantic views: Toward a theory of adolescent romantic relationships. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & G. P. Gullota (Eds.), Advances in adolescent development: Volume 6, Relationships during adolescence (pp. 168195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
123
670 *Gallego, I. D., Delgado, A. O., & Sanchez-Queija, I. (2011). Peer attachment during adolescence and emerging adulthood. Anales De Psicologia, 27, 155163. *Garriott, P. O., Love, K. M., Tyler, K. M., Thomas, D. M., RoanBelle, C. R., & Brown, C. L. (2010). Testing an attachment model of Latina/o college students psychological adjustment. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32, 104117. *Gonzales, N. A., Cauce, A. M., Friedman, R. J., & Mason, C. A. (1996). Family, peer, and neighborhood inuences on academic achievement among African-American adolescents: One-year prospective effects. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 365387. *Greenberg, M. T., Siegel, J. M., & Leich, C. J. (1983). The nature and importance of attachment relationships to parents and peers during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12, 373386. Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., & Kindler, H. (2005). Early care and the roots of attachment and partnership representation in the Bielefeld and Regensburg longitudinal studies. In K. E. Grossmann, K. Grossmann, & E. Waters (Eds.), Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The major longitudinal studies (pp. 98136). New York: Guilford Press. Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Kindler, H., & Zimmermann, P. (2008). A wider view of attachment and exploration. The inuence of mothers and fathers on development of psychological security from infancy to young adulthood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed) (pp. 857879). New York: Guildford Press. *Guarnieri, S., Ponti, L., & Tani, F. (2010). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA): A study on the validity of styles of adolescent attachment to parents and peers in an Italian sample. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 17, 103130. *Gullone, E., & Robinson, K. (2005). The Inventory Of Parent And Peer Attachment-Revised (IPPA-R) for children: A psychometric investigation. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 12, 6779. *Han, M., & Lee, M. (2011). Risk and protective factors contributing to depressive symptoms in Vietnamese American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 52, 154166. Hampel, P., & Petermann, F. (2005). Age and gender effects on coping in children and adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 7383. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511524. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 122. *Henrich, C. C., Sidney, J. B., Kuperminc, G. P., Zohar, A., & Leadbeater. (2001). Levels of interpersonal concerns and social functioning in early adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 4867. Higgins, J., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 327, 557560. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. ., & Jelic , M. (2005). Stability of attachment styles *Kamenov, Z across students romantic relationships, friendships and family relations. Review of Psychology, 12, 115123. *Kelley, M. L., Braitman, A., Henson, J. M., Schroeder, V., Ladage, J., & Gumienny, L. (2010). Relationships among depressive mood symptoms and parent and peer relations in collegiate
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672 children of alcoholics. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 204212. Kobak, R. R., Rosenthal, N., & Serwik, A. (2005). The attachment hierarchy in middle childhood: Conceptual and methodological issues. In K. A. Kerns & R. A. Richardson (Eds.), Attachment in middle childhood (pp. 7188). New York: Guilford Press. *Laible, D. (2007). Attachment with parents and peers in late adolescence: Links with emotional competence and social behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 11851197. *Laible, D., Carlo, G., & Raffaelli, M. (2000). The differential relations of parent and peer attachment to adolescent adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 4559. *Laible, D., Carlo, G., & Roesch, S. (2004). Pathways to self-esteem in late adolescence: The role of parent and peer attachment, empathy, and social behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 703716. *Lapointe, J. M., & Legault, F. (2004). Relationships with environment and psychosocial adaptation to secondary school. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science-Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 36, 244254. *Lapsley, D. K., Rice, K. G., & FitzGerald, D. P. (1990). Adolescent attachment, identity, and adjustment to college: Implications for the continuity of adaptation hypothesis. Journal of Counseling & Development, 68, 561565. *Ma, C. Q., & Huebner, E. S. (2008). Attachment relationships and adolescents life satisfaction: Some relationships matter more to girls than boys. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 177190. Matsumoto, D., Takeuchi, S., Andayani, S., Kouznetsova, N., & Krupp, D. (1998). The contribution of individualism versus collectivism to cross-national differences in display rules. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 147165. *McElhaney, K. B., Immele, A., Smith, F. D., & Allen, J. P. (2006). Attachment organization as a moderator of the link between friendship quality and adolescent delinquency. Attachment Human Development, 8, 3346. *Meeus, W., Oosterwegel, A., & Vollebergh, W. (2002). Parental and peer attachment and identity development in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 93106. Mikulincer, M., & Selinger, M. (2001). The interplay between attachment and afliation systems in adolescents same-sex friendships: The role of attachment style. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 81106. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment, theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77102. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(6), e1000097. *Muris, P., Meesters, C., van Melick, M., & Zwambag, L. (2001). Self-reported attachment style, attachment quality, and symptoms of anxiety and depression in young adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 809818. *Nada Raja, S., McGee, R., & Stanton, W. (1992). Perceived attachment to parents and peers and psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 471485. *Nelis, S. M., & Rae, G. (2009). Brief report: Peer attachment in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 443447. *Nickerson, A. B., & Nagle, R. J. (2004). The inuence of parent and peer attachments on life satisfaction in middle childhood and
123
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672 early adolescence. Social Indicators Research, 66, 3560. Nickerson, A. B., & Nagle, R. J. (2005). Parent and peer attachment in late childhood and early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 223249. , M., & Meeus, W. H. J. (1999). Autonomy, *Noom, M. J., Dekovic attachment and psychosocial adjustment during adolescence: A double-edged sword? Journal of Adolescence, 22, 771783. *Noppe, I. C., & Noppe, L. D. (1997). Evolving meanings of death during early, middle, and later adolescence. Death Studies, 21, 253275. *OKoon, J. (1997). Attachment to parents and peers in late adolescence and their relationship with self-image. Adolescence, 32, 471482. *Pace, C. S., Martini, P. S., & Zavattini, G. C. (2011). The factor structure of the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA): A survey of Italian adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 8388. *Paterson, J. E., Field, J., & Pryor, J. (1994). Adolescents perceptions of their attachment relationships with their mothers, fathers, friends. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 579600. guez, M., Carrillo, S., & Castro, J. (2006). Apego, *Penagos, A., Rodr nticas y autoconcepto en adolescentes Bogotanos relaciones roma [Attachment, romantic relationships and self-concept of adoles ]. Universitas Psychologica, 5, 2136. cents from Bogota *Pierro, A., Bonaiuto, M., Ercolani, A. P., Perucchini, P., & Claes, M. : Un (1996). Rete sociale delladolescente e immagine di se modello di equazioni strutturali per variabili latenti. [Adolescent social network and self-image: Structural equations models for latent variables] Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, XXIII, 275292. *Richards, R., McGee, R., Williams, S. M., Welch, D., & Hancox, R. J. (2010). Adolescent screen time and attachment to parents and peers. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164, 258262. *Ridenour, T. A., Greenberg, M. T., & Cook, E. T. (2006). Structure and validity of People in my life: A self-report measure of attachment in late childhood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 10371053. Rose, A., & Rudolph, K. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship process: Potential trade-offs for emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98131. *Rosenfarb, I. S., Becker, J., & Kahn, A. (1994). Perceptions of parental and peer attachments by women with mood disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 637644. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The le drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638641. Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (Eds.). (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley. *Ruijten, T., Roelofs, J., & Rood, L. (2011). The mediating role of rumination in the relation between quality of attachment relations and depressive symptoms in non-clinical adolescents. Journal of Child Family Studies, 20, 452459. *Salzinger, S., Rosario, M., & Feldman, R. S. (2007). Physical child abuse and adolescent violent delinquency: The mediating and moderating roles of personal relationships. Child Maltreatment, 3, 208219. *San Martini, P., Zavattini G. C., & Ronconi, S. (2009). Linventario per lattaccamento ai genitori e ai pari (IPPA: Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment). Unindagine psicometrica su un campione italiano di adolescenti. [The Inventory of Parent and
671 Peer Attachment (IPPA): A psychometric investigation of an Italian sample of adolescents]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, XXXVI (1), 199225. nchez-Queija, I., & Oliva, A. (2003). V nculos de apego con los *Sa padres y relaciones con los iguales durante la adolescencia [Attachment to parents and peer relationships during adolescence]. Revista de Psicologa Social, 18, 7186. Schneider, B. H., Atkinson, L., & Tardif, C. (2001). Child-parent attachment and childrens peer relations: a quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 37, 86100. Scholte, R. H. J., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2006). Peer relations in adolescence. In S. Jackson & L. Goossens (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent development (pp. 175199). New York: Psychology Press. Seiffgge-Krenke, I. (1995). Stress, coping and relationships in adolescence. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Seiffge-Krenke, I., & Beyers, W. (2005). Coping trajectories from adolescence to young adulthood: Links to attachment state of mind. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 561582. Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2004). What do self-report attachment measures assess? In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 1754). New York: Guilford Press. *Song, H. R., Thompson, R. A., & Ferrer, E. (2009). Attachment and self-evaluation in Chinese adolescents: Age and gender differences. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 12671286. Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Collins, W. A. (2005). Placing early attachment experiences in developmental context. The Minnesota longitudinal study. In K. E. Grossmann, K. Grossmann, & E. Waters (Eds.), Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The major longitudinal studies (pp. 4870). New York: Guilford Press. Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development, 48, 11841199. *Sund, A. M., & Wichstrm, L. (2002). Insecure attachment as a risk factor for future depressive symptoms in early adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 14781485. *Wilkinson, R. B. (2004). The role of parental and peer attachment in the psychological health and self-esteem of adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 479493. *Wilkinson, R. B. (2008). Development and properties of the Adolescent Friendship Attachment Scale. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 10, 12701279. *Wilkinson, R. B. (2010). Best friend attachment versus peer attachment in the prediction of adolescent psychological adjustment. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 709717. *Wilkinson, R. B., & Walford, W. A. (2001). Attachment and personality in the psychological health of adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 473484. , M., Meijer, A. M. (2009). Adolescent *Wissink, I. B., Dekovic friendship relations and developmental outcomes ethnic and gender differences. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 405425. *Wong, S. K. (1998). Peer relations and Chinese-Canadian delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 27, 641659. Zimmermann, P. (1999). Structure and functions of internal working models of attachment and their role in emotion regulation. Attachment and Human Development, 1, 291306. Zimmermann, P., Maier, M., Winter, M., & Grossmann, K. E. (2001). Attachment and emotion regulation of adolescents during joint problem-solving with a friend. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 331342.
123
672
J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672 Ruggero Ruggieri is an Assistant Professor at the University of Salerno, Italy. He received his Ph.D. in Community Psychology from the University of Lecce. His major research interests include decision making processes, mind models, emotion regulation, clinical and culture psychology.
Author Biographies
Anna Gorrese is an Assistant Professor at the University of Salerno, Italy. She received her Ph.D. in Methodology of Educational Research from the University of Salerno. Her major research interests include attachment relationships, emotion regulation, and decision making.
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Peer Attachment A Metaanalytic Review of Gender and Age

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Peer Attachment A Metaanalytic Review of Gender and Age

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672 DOI 10.

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672 Fig. 1 Prisma diagram

Additional records identified through other sources (n = 2)

Records after duplicates (454) removed (n = 1620)

Records screened in the title and abstract (n=1620 )

Records excluded (n =1428)

Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n = 192)

Articles included in quantitative syntheses (n = 65)

Studies included in metaanalysis 1 on associations with parent attachment (n = 40 reporting 44 studies)

Studies included in metaanalysis 2 on gender differences (n = 48 reporting 54 studies)

Studies included in metaanalysis 3 on age differences (n =19 reporting 19 studies)

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672

English Italian English English English English English English

USA Italy Australia Norway Australia Australia Australia Australia

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672

Percentage of females in sample k b

Percentage of ethnic minorities in the sample k b

Number of items of the peer attachment scale k b

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672

Contrast between subsets of studies, noted in Q

N 5,416 1,168 4,248 4,537 879 2,778 2,638 4,691 725

Contrast between subsets of studies, noted in Q

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:650672

Potrebbero piacerti anche