Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-lmg95 Total loading time: 1.247 Render date: 2021-10-18T18:45:46.370Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Beyond not bad or just okay: social predictors of young adults’ wellbeing and functioning (a TRAILS study)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2018

J. S. Richards*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Psychiatry, Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion Regulation (ICPE), Groningen, The Netherlands
C. A. Hartman
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Psychiatry, Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion Regulation (ICPE), Groningen, The Netherlands
B. F. Jeronimus
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Psychiatry, Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion Regulation (ICPE), Groningen, The Netherlands University of Groningen, Department of Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands
J. Ormel
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Psychiatry, Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion Regulation (ICPE), Groningen, The Netherlands
S. A. Reijneveld
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Health Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands
R. Veenstra
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, Department of Sociology, Interuniversity Center for Social Science Theory and Methodology (ICS), Groningen, The Netherlands
F. C. Verhulst
Affiliation:
Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Child Psychiatry/Psychology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Child and Adolescent Mental Health Center, Mental Health Services, Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark University of Copenhagen, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Copenhagen, Denmark
W. A. M. Vollebergh
Affiliation:
Utrecht University, Department of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands
A. J. Oldehinkel
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Psychiatry, Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion Regulation (ICPE), Groningen, The Netherlands
*
Author for correspondence: J. S. Richards, E-mail: j.s.klop-richards@umcg.nl
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Various childhood social experiences have been reported to predict adult outcomes. However, it is unclear how different social contexts may influence each other's effects in the long run. This study examined the joint contribution of adolescent family and peer experiences to young adult wellbeing and functioning.

Methods

Participants came from the TRacking Adolescents’ Individual Lives Survey (TRAILS) study (n = 2230). We measured family and peer relations at ages 11 and 16 (i.e. family functioning, perceived parenting, peer status, peer relationship quality), and functioning as the combination of subjective wellbeing, physical and mental health, and socio-academic functioning at age 22. Using structural equation modelling, overall functioning was indicated by two latent variables for positive and negative functioning. Positive, negative and overall functioning at young adulthood were regressed on adolescent family experiences, peer experiences and interactions between the two.

Results

Family experiences during early and mid-adolescence were most predictive for later functioning; peer experiences did not independently predict functioning. Interactions between family and peer experiences showed that both protective and risk factors can have context-dependent effects, being exacerbated or overshadowed by negative experiences or buffered by positive experiences in other contexts. Overall the effect sizes were modest at best.

Conclusions

Adolescent family relations as well as the interplay with peer experiences predict young adult functioning. This emphasizes the importance of considering the relative effects of one context in relation to the other.

Type
Original Articles
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

The social environment plays a crucial role in child development. Parents are the first key figures in children's lives. Later, parental influences remain substantial, but become intertwined with peer influences. Drawn from different theoretical frameworks (e.g. attachment theory, social dynamics and social network theory), these social relations are believed to shape children's emotional and behavioural development through mechanisms including social support, social influence, social engagement and attachment, and access to resources (Berkman et al., Reference Berkman, Glass, Brissette and Seeman2000; Smith and Christakis, Reference Smith and Christakis2008). For example, attachment theory postulates that having secure attachments provides a safe basis, a sense of security and self-esteem, which are regarded to be fundamental for healthy emotional development (Bowlby, Reference Bowlby1973). Indeed, adolescents attaining good quality relationships with parents and friends tend to be generally better adjusted than those with lower quality relations (e.g. Umberson et al., Reference Umberson, Crosnoe and Reczek2010). Early social contexts are also predictive of future adult adjustment. Longitudinal studies have shown that family experiences in adolescence predict multiple facets of functioning in adulthood, including physical and mental health, wellbeing and academic achievement (e.g. Korkeila et al., Reference Korkeila, Kivela, Suominen, Vahtera, Kivimaki, Sundell, Helenius and Koskenvuo2004; Paradis et al., Reference Paradis, Reinherz, Giaconia, Beardslee, Ward and Fitzmaurice2009; Huppert et al., Reference Huppert, Abbott, Ploubidis, Richards and Kuh2010; Harding et al., Reference Harding, Read, Molaodi, Cassidy, Maynard, Lenguerrand, Astell-Burt, Teyhan, Whitrow and Enayat2015). Similar findings have been reported for peer relations, which have been linked to mental health, overall disease risk, (un)employment and academic achievement in adulthood (e.g. Gest et al., Reference Gest, Sesma, Masten and Tellegen2006; Almquist and Brännström, Reference Almquist and Brännström2014; Sakyi et al., Reference Sakyi, Surkan, Fombonne, Chollet and Melchior2015).

Experiences from different social contexts do not act in isolation; ecological and social systems theories (Bronfenbrenner, Reference Bronfenbrenner1979; Hartup, Reference Hartup1989) posit that family and peer environments are interconnected systems, with influences of one system interacting with the other. For example, in line with the ‘dual-hit’ hypothesis, risk effects may be especially salient when negative experiences are present in both family and peer contexts, compared with problems in only one domain (Hazel et al., Reference Hazel, Oppenheimer, Technow, Young and Hankin2014). Alternatively, the stress-buffering model (Cohen and Wills, Reference Cohen and Wills1985; Rutter, Reference Rutter1985) suggests that supportive social environments can buffer stressful experiences or risk factors, such as problematic family or peer relations.

Prior research has shown that family and peer relations can both attenuate and exacerbate each other's effects (Gauze et al., Reference Gauze, Bukowski, Aquan-Assee and Sippola1996; Lansford et al., Reference Lansford, Criss, Pettit, Dodge and Bates2003; Gaertner et al., Reference Gaertner, Fite and Colder2010; Sentse et al., Reference Sentse, Lindenberg, Omvlee, Ormel and Veenstra2010; Véronneau and Dishion, Reference Véronneau and Dishion2010; Trudeau et al., Reference Trudeau, Mason, Randall, Spoth and Ralston2012). However, studies focusing on the effects of adolescent family and peer interplay into adulthood are scarce (see for exceptions Morojele and Brook, Reference Morojele and Brook2001; Pesola et al., Reference Pesola, Shelton, Heron, Munafò, Hickman and van den Bree2015), leaving it unclear whether and how such cross-context interactions may influence each other's effects in the long run. In addition, previous studies investigating cross-context interactions have often focused on certain aspects of social relations measured once or twice within a narrow developmental timeframe. Yet, the relative contribution of family and peer effects may change across adolescence, when the perception of parents as a primary source of support shifts to that of peers (Furman and Buhrmester, Reference Furman and Buhrmester1992). It is therefore highly relevant and informative to assess the effects of these experiences during multiple time points. Moreover, most research on social influences conducted so far has focused on either positive or negative functional outcomes, and often only on specific aspects thereof. This does not capture the complex and multidimensional nature of human functioning. In studies focusing on psychopathology, the absence of mental health problems is often considered as a positive outcome. However, health is more than the absence of disease or illness, rather it is ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing’ (World Health Organization, 2006). Similarly, low positive functioning or wellbeing does not imply the presence of a mental disorder. Hence, assessing one aspect of functioning, such as mental health, does not necessarily give insight into functioning in other domains and, ideally, outcome measures should capture both positive and negative dimensions of several domains of functioning in order to gain insight into an individual's overall functional state (e.g. Westerhof and Keyes, Reference Westerhof and Keyes2010).

This study investigated which family and peer relations during early and middle adolescence (ages 11 and 16) predicted young adult functioning (age 22) in a prospective cohort study of Dutch adolescents. We expanded upon prior research by (a) not only considering long-term main effects, but also the interplay between family and peer environments, (b) including a comprehensive assessment of family and peer relations during two time points in adolescence, (c) adopting a multidimensional approach on functioning – encompassing subjective wellbeing, physical and mental health and socio-academic functioning – and (d) moving beyond a ‘not bad or just OK’ approach by including both positive and negative sides of health and functioning. To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to focus on the long-term effects of cross-context interactions on multidimensional functioning in young adulthood.

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants were selected from the Dutch prospective cohort study TRAILS (TRacking Adolescents’ Individual Lives Survey), which involves bi- or triennial follow-up measurements. Detailed descriptions of TRAILS can be found in previous reports (Ormel et al., Reference Ormel, Oldehinkel, Sijtsema, van Oort, Raven, Veenstra, Vollebergh and Verhulst2012; Oldehinkel et al., Reference Oldehinkel, Rosmalen, Buitelaar, Hoek, Ormel, Raven, Reijneveld, Veenstra, Verhulst, Vollebergh and Hartman2015). Adolescents were recruited from five municipalities in the north of the Netherlands, including both urban and rural areas. Six assessment waves have been completed to date. The present study focused on the first (T1; 2001–2002), third (T3; 2005–2007) and fifth (T5; 2012–2013) wave. A total of 2230 adolescents enrolled at T1 (response rate 76%, mean age 11.1 years, 51% female). The response rates at T3 and T5 were, respectively, 81% (n = 1816, mean age 16.3, 52% female) and 80% (n = 1778, mean age 22.3, 53% female). The study was approved by the Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO). Participants were treated in accordance with APA ethical standards and the Declaration of Helsinki, and all measurements were carried out with their adequate understanding and written consent.

Measures

Below, a brief description of the included measures is given, while more detailed information, including references for their validation, is provided in the online Supplementary material. An overview of the measures used in this study including information on informant, number of items and internal consistency, can be found in Table 1 (the scale scores represent the mean item score).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of study variables

A, adolescent; P, parent.

a Strongly agree–strongly disagree.

b Never–(almost) always/very often.

c Reliability questionnaire about father/mother.

d Bad–good.

e Very unhappy–very happy.

f Very unsatisfied–very satisfied.

g Not true–very or often true.

h Primary–university.

i No occupation–full-time occupation.

j Reliability adolescent/parent report.

Family functioning and parenting (T1 and T3)

Family dysfunction was assessed at T1 and T3 using the general functioning scale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD; Epstein et al., Reference Epstein, Baldwin and Bishop1983). Parenting at T1 was measured using a short version of the Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran (My Memories of Upbringing) for Children (EMBU-C) (Markus et al., Reference Markus, Lindhout, Boer, Hoogendijk and Arrindell2003). The participants reported on perceived warmth, overprotection and rejection. As answers for both parents were highly correlated (r = 0.67–0.81), these were combined to mean scores.

At T3, adolescents rated parental control (based on Stattin and Kerr, Reference Stattin and Kerr2000) and parental reactions to youth wrongdoing for both parents (based on Tilton-Weaver et al., Reference Tilton-Weaver, Kerr, Pakalniskeine, Tokic, Salihovic and Stattin2010; see online Supplementary Table S1, for included items). Parental reactions consisted of the subscales angry outbursts, guilt inducing and problem-solving reactions. Measures of both parents were highly correlated (r = 0.63–0.74) and therefore combined into one mean score.

Peer status, affection and relationship quality (T1 and T3)

Perceived peer status and affection at T1 were assessed using the Social Production Functions Questionnaire (SPF; Ormel et al., Reference Ormel, Lindenberg, Steverink and Vonkorff1997).

At T3, the relationship quality with peers was measured using a friendship-network interview conducted by trained researchers (based on Poulin and Pedersen, Reference Poulin and Pedersen2007). Adolescents could nominate up to seven friends, and reported on emotional support, practical help and fights for each friend (see online Supplementary Table S2).

Multidimensional functioning (T5)

Indicators for overall young adult functioning included measures assessing positive and negative functioning using existing questionnaires and questionnaires developed by TRAILS.

Positive functioning. Physical health and general happiness were reported in questionnaires developed by TRAILS. Satisfaction was assessed with a question on general life satisfaction combined with questions regarding work (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire [COPSOQ]; Kristensen et al., Reference Kristensen, Hannerz, Høgh and Borg2005) and/or romantic relationship satisfaction (Investment Model Scale [IMS]; Rusbult et al., Reference Rusbult, John and Agnew1998) if applicable. Positive affect was measured using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson et al., Reference Watson, Clark and Tellegen1988; MacKinnon et al., Reference MacKinnon, Jorm, Christensen, Korten and Jacomb1999). Items from the Adult Behaviour Checklist (ABCL; Achenbach and Rescorla, Reference Achenbach and Rescorla2003) personal strengths subscale were used for positive social functioning and personal achievement. Educational attainment was measured with two questions on the highest diploma obtained or on the current educational level if still at school (Veldman et al., Reference Veldman, Bültmann, Stewart, Ormel, Verhulst and Reijneveld2014). Finally, daily occupation assessed whether participants were currently working and/or studying full-time (3), part-time (2), or had no occupation (1).

Negative functioning. Negative affect was assessed with the PANAS (Watson et al., Reference Watson, Clark and Tellegen1988; MacKinnon et al., Reference MacKinnon, Jorm, Christensen, Korten and Jacomb1999). The Adult Self Report (ASR) and ABCL were used to assess mental health problems (Achenbach and Rescorla, Reference Achenbach and Rescorla2003). For affective problems, the mean scores of the depressive and anxiety problems of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 4th edition (DSM-IV) subscales (ASR and ABCL) were combined. Finally, the DSM-IV subscales attention (deficit hyperactivity) problems, antisocial personality problems and avoidant personality problems were included.

Covariates

Socio-economic status (SES) was determined by parental educational and occupational levels and family income at T1. Parental educational level was summarized in five categories. Occupational level was based on the International Standard Classification of Occupations (Ganzeboom and Treiman, Reference Ganzeboom and Treiman1996). Low family income was defined as a monthly net family income of less than €1135 per month, which approximately amounts to a welfare payment. Based on parental reports on their marital status, we included whether participants lived in a one-parent or two-parent household at T1. Finally, mental health at T1 was assessed using the mean total problems scores of the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) and Youth Self Report (YSR) (Achenbach and Rescorla, Reference Achenbach and Rescorla2001).

Statistical analysis

First, confirmatory factor analysis was performed to assess the measurement model fit of young adult functioning. Two first-order latent variables were created for positive and negative functioning, which together formed the second-order variable of overall multidimensional functioning at T5. In order to accomplish model identification with two indicators of multidimensional functioning, the factor loadings for positive and negative functioning were constrained to be equal in strength, after reversing the scores for negative functioning, such that a higher score indicated less negative functioning. We allowed for correlated residuals between observed variables measured by the same instrument.

Next, structural equation models (SEM) were used to examine which social experiences during adolescence predicted later functioning. Measures of the social environment (i.e. general family functioning, perceived parenting, peer status and peer relationship quality) at ages 11 (T1) and 16 (T3) were included as potential predictors of functioning at age 22 (T5). In addition to main effects, the model included cross-sectional and longitudinal interactions between the family and peer environments to investigate potential exacerbating or attenuating effects on later functioning. Note that ideally the same measures of family and peer experiences should be included for comparing T1 and T3 effects. In our study, this was only possible for family functioning. Separate analyses were carried out for overall multidimensional functioning (model 1; Fig. 1a) and for positive and negative functioning (model 2; Fig. 1b) in order to compare whether effects found in overall functioning were also present for positive or negative functioning. More parsimonious models were derived with manual backward selection by excluding the least significant main or interaction effect considering all coefficients until reaching p < 0.05 for all included effects (with exception of non-significant main effects corresponding to significant interaction effects).

Fig. 1. Schematic overview of the structural equation models assessing effects of the social environment on the second-order latent variable multidimensional functioning (a) and the two first-order latent variables positive and negative functioning (b). For ease of interpretation, cross-sectional and longitudinal interaction effects between family and peer environments were omitted.

Model estimation was based on maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) in Mplus version 7.31 (Muthén and Muthén, Reference Muthén and Muthén2015). MLR is capable of handling missing data as well as skewed distributions of outcome variables, issues both present in our data. MLR only excludes participants with missing data on all variables (n = 2), thus the sample size for the final models was n = 2228. Model fit was examined by the following criteria: the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI) and the standardized root mean residual (SRMR). A fit is considered acceptable to good when the model achieves >0.90 on the CFI, <0.10 on RMSEA and <0.09 on SRMR (Hu and Bentler, Reference Hu and Bentler1999).

Considering the large number of tests performed, we applied a correction for multiple testing based on the effective number of independent tests (M eff) (Li and Ji, Reference Li and Ji2005). The M eff was calculated separately for the number of outcome and predictor variables present in the full models using the eigenvalues of the corresponding correlation matrices (see online Supplementary Tables S3 and S4 for more information). This resulted in a total number of 75 tests (1.47 × 51 = 74.97) and a corresponding p value threshold of 0.05/75 = 0.00066. To avoid being overly conservative, we discuss both robustly (i.e. those effects surviving multiple testing correction: p < 0.00066) and nominally (p < 0.05) significant results. The latter should be interpreted with particular caution as replication is necessary. Significant interaction effects were probed using the Johnson–Neyman procedure (Johnson and Fay, Reference Johnson and Fay1950). This procedure allows us to model interactions between two continuous variables using regions of significance, thereby showing at which levels of a variable the effect of the other variable is significant.

Sensitivity analyses

Differences in sex, SES and family structure have been associated with both social environments and functioning (e.g. Rose and Rudolph, Reference Rose and Rudolph2006; Bramlett and Blumberg, Reference Bramlett and Blumberg2007; Almquist et al., Reference Almquist, Modin and Östberg2010), and may therefore act as potential confounders. In addition, the association between social factors and functioning can be bidirectional, that is, early mental health problems may give rise to problems with family and peers as well (Meeus, Reference Meeus2016). Therefore, following our main analyses, we tested whether robustly and nominally significant effects remained present while controlling for sex, SES, number of parents and mental health at age 11, and tested for potential sex moderation effects.

Results

Bivariate correlations and a graphical overview of the final SEM models including factor scores for multidimensional and positive or negative functioning are presented in the online Supplementary material (Table S5 and Figs S1 and S2). The confirmatory factor analysis of functioning measures showed that the measurement model provided a good fit to the data (χ2 401.91; RMSEA 0.07; CFI 0.94; SRMR 0.06). All factor loadings were significant (p < 0.001) and ranged between 0.19 and 0.76 for positive functioning and 0.53 and 0.90 for negative functioning. Factor loadings for multidimensional functioning were estimated as 0.91 for both positive and negative functioning.

Multidimensional functioning

Table 2 shows the standardized regression coefficients of the final SEM models. Together, adolescent family and peer experiences explained 12–15% of the variance in functioning at age 22. Multidimensional functioning was robustly predicted by T1 parental overprotection and T3 parental anger. Nominally significant associations were found with T1 family dysfunction, T1 parental warmth and T3 parental guilt inducing. Two interaction effects were found in which peer effects depended on family experiences. First, the effect of T3 peer fighting depended on T3 parental control; only when parental control was low did peer fighting significantly predict worse functioning (z-score <−0.06). This negative effect became stronger as parental control decreased (see Fig. 2a). Second, the positive effect of T1 peer status depended on T3 family dysfunction, and was only significant when family dysfunction was low (Fig. 2b). Here, peer status was a stronger predictor for later functioning when family dysfunction decreased. Note that these interactions were nominally significant; none survived correction for multiple testing.

Fig. 2. Johnson–Neyman plots showing (a) the conditional effect of T3 peer fighting for T3 parental control and (b) of T1 peer status for T3 family dysfunction on young adult multidimensional functioning. The non-shaded area indicates regions-of-significance.

Table 2. Results of structural equation models predicting young adult functioning

Structural equation models are based on maximum likelihood with robust standard error estimation (MLR), sample size n = 2228. For ease of interpretation, scores for negative functioning were reversed back such that a higher score indicates more negative functioning. Significant effects surviving the correction for multiple testing (p < 0.00066) are shown in bold.

Positive and negative functioning

Family and peer effects on positive and negative functioning showed both general and specific effects. The effect of T3 parental guilt inducing was found on both positive and negative functioning. The direct effects of T1 parental warmth, T1 parental overprotection and T3 family dysfunction appeared to be specific for positive functioning, whereas the effects of T1 family dysfunction and T3 parental anger were found for negative functioning only. In addition, positive functioning was nominally significantly predicted by parental problem solving, which did not have an effect on either multidimensional or negative functioning.

Associations were also found with T1 family dysfunction for positive functioning, and T1 overprotection and T3 family dysfunction for negative functioning, however these interacted with peer experiences. For negative functioning, two interactions similar to those found for multidimensional function were present (Figs 3d and 3e). In addition, negative functioning was predicted by an interaction effect between T1 peer affection and T1 parental overprotection; the negative effect of parental overprotection attenuated as peer affection increased and was no longer significant at high levels of peer affection (Fig. 3f). For positive functioning, three interactions were significant. Peer status predicted functioning only when T1 parental rejection or T1 family dysfunction was low (Figs 3a and 3b); and T3 peer fighting predicted poor functioning only when parental rejection was high (Fig. 3c). Here too interactions were found to be nominally significant at the most.

Fig. 3. Johnson–Neyman plots showing (a) the conditional effect of T1 peer status for T1 parental rejection, (b) of T1 peer status for T1 family dysfunction, and (c) of T3 peer fighting for T1 parental rejection on young adult positive functioning, and (d) the conditional effect of T3 peer fighting for T3 parental control, (e) of T1 peer status for T3 family dysfunction, and (f) of T1 parental overprotection for T1 peer affection on young adult negative functioning (c). The non-shaded areas indicate regions-of-significance. For ease of interpretation, scores for negative functioning were reversed back such that a higher score indicates more negative functioning.

Sensitivity analyses

Most effects remained equal in strength, as well as statistically significant when controlling for sex, SES or number of parents in the final models, although a few dropped to non-significance (see Supplementary Tables S6–S8). In contrast, controlling for T1 mental health problems generally reduced the number of significant effects. Nearly all T1 effects became non-significant, with the exception of parental warmth for positive functioning. Additionally, for T3, the effects of family dysfunction on positive functioning and the interaction family dysfunction × T1 peer status on multidimensional functioning became non-significant (p > 0.07). Similar results were found when simultaneously controlling for all potential confounders. Finally, no sex moderation effects survived the correction for multiple testing.

Discussion

This study examined to which extent family and peer experiences during adolescence jointly predict wellbeing and functioning in young adulthood. The results showed that 12–15% of the variance in functioning at age 22 was explained by adolescent family and peer experiences, of which family relations during early and mid-adolescence (ages 11 and 16) were most predictive. Young adolescents reporting less negative family experiences overall demonstrated better adjustment in young adulthood. Peer experiences did not independently predict functioning. Furthermore, certain family and peer experiences appeared interdependent in their prediction of later functioning.

Parental overprotection and negative parental reactions robustly predicted future functioning, which is in line with previous research (e.g. Huppert et al., Reference Huppert, Abbott, Ploubidis, Richards and Kuh2010; Tilton-Weaver et al., Reference Tilton-Weaver, Kerr, Pakalniskeine, Tokic, Salihovic and Stattin2010; Baker and Hoerger, Reference Baker and Hoerger2012). Parental overprotection is thought to limit a child's opportunity to independently explore the world and to develop healthy self-regulating and coping strategies (Thomasgard and Metz, Reference Thomasgard and Metz1993). Similarly, negative parental reactions to misbehaviour, such as anger, are thought to increase feelings of being restricted and decrease feelings of connectedness (Tilton-Weaver et al., Reference Tilton-Weaver, Kerr, Pakalniskeine, Tokic, Salihovic and Stattin2010). Our findings are in agreement with the McMaster model of family functioning, which considers affective responsiveness and involvement as core functions of families; with inappropriate responses and involvement viewed as detrimental for a child's development (Epstein et al., Reference Epstein, Bishop and Levin1978).

In line with ecological and social systems theories, we found that the effects of peer contexts can depend on the family context and vice versa (Bronfenbrenner, Reference Bronfenbrenner1979; Hartup, Reference Hartup1989). For example, the negative effect of peer fighting was absent in case of high parental control or low parental rejection. In addition, the negative effect of parental overprotection was no longer significant at high levels of peer affection. This suggests both family and peer contexts may function as ‘buffers’, in line with previous studies on adolescent functioning (Gauze et al., Reference Gauze, Bukowski, Aquan-Assee and Sippola1996; Lansford et al., Reference Lansford, Criss, Pettit, Dodge and Bates2003; Gaertner et al., Reference Gaertner, Fite and Colder2010; Sentse et al., Reference Sentse, Lindenberg, Omvlee, Ormel and Veenstra2010; Véronneau and Dishion, Reference Véronneau and Dishion2010; Trudeau et al., Reference Trudeau, Mason, Randall, Spoth and Ralston2012). According to the stress-buffering model, supportive social contexts – such as positive parenting characterized by low levels of rejection – can protect against the adverse effects of stressful events by attenuating the appraisal of stress. That is, the observation that others are willing to invest in a person may help to decrease the experience of stress (Cohen and Wills, Reference Cohen and Wills1985). Note that these effects can also be interpreted as reflecting a dual-hit pattern, in which negative family or peer effects are particularly relevant when experiences in the other context are negative as well. This is line with the idea that the same variable can act both as buffer and risk factor, depending on what ‘side of the coin’ is focused on (Lösel and Farrington, Reference Lösel and Farrington2012).

Finally, we found that the positive effect of peer status was only present in the absence of negative family experiences, including low parental rejection and family dysfunction. As such the positive effect of peer status does not appear to be able to compete with negative family experiences. Together these findings suggest that family and peer experiences can interact in different ways. Risk factors in one context can be exacerbated by negative experiences or buffered by positive experiences in the other context, and protective factors in one context can be overshadowed by negative experiences in the other context. Furthermore, interactions between parent and peer contexts appear to be circumscribed, that is, holding for some aspects of family and peer experiences, but not for others. As none of the interaction effects survived the correction for multiple testing, future studies are necessary to investigate the robustness of these findings.

When comparing the relative contribution of family and peers on future functioning, we primarily found family effects. That is, when taking both contexts into account, the type of peer relations we measured at ages 11 and 16 did not seem incremental to the predictive ability of family experiences for young adult functioning. As such, our findings suggest that adolescent family experiences may be more important for future functioning than adolescent peer relations. So far, little research has considered adolescent family and peer relations in one model when predicting (young) adult adjustment. Moreover, studies that have done so often included other aspects of social relations than studied here, such as deviant peer behaviours or romantic relations, or focused specifically on substance abuse as outcome, making it difficult to compare results. For example, in line with our findings, two studies reported stronger family than peer effects for positive social relations and autonomy support (der Giessen et al., Reference Der Giessen, Branje and Meeus2014; Jones et al., Reference Jones, Hill, Epstein, Lee, Hawkins and Catalano2016). Seemingly inconsistent with our study is that Jones et al. (Reference Jones, Hill, Epstein, Lee, Hawkins and Catalano2016) reported particularly strong effects of peer drug abuse on future functioning. This suggests that the relative contributions of family and peer relations on future adjustment are likely to depend on the type of peer factors (e.g. peer relationship quality v. deviant peer behaviours).

In addition to the kind of peer factors involved, the relative importance of family and peer relations may also depend on developmental timing. Whereas some have argued that adolescence marks a shift from parents to peers as the primary source of support (Furman and Buhrmester, Reference Furman and Buhrmester1992), others have emphasized the continued importance of the family environment (Raja et al., Reference Raja, McGee and Stanton1992). In agreement with the latter, our findings stress the role of family experiences at both ages 11 and 16. Although the use of different measures over time prevents us from drawing firm conclusions. Possibly, the importance of peer relationship quality for adult functioning has shifted from adolescence towards young adulthood. In recent decades, the period of adolescence has lengthened, with a protracted transition into adulthood in terms of leaving the parental home and becoming financially independent (Steinberg, Reference Steinberg2014). It is plausible that peers matter most in this transition to independence and beyond. Indeed, studies have shown that the effects of adolescent peer relations are mediated by current (romantic) peer relations in young adulthood (Englund et al., Reference Englund, Kuo, Puig and Collins2011; Jones et al., Reference Jones, Hill, Epstein, Lee, Hawkins and Catalano2016). Overall, considering the scarcity of studies comparing the synergy of long-term family and peer effects, further research, also beyond the traditional end of adolescence, is warranted.

We looked whether the effects found for overall multidimensional functioning were also present for positive or negative functioning. Most effects appeared similar for both sides of functioning. However, effects of parental warmth and parental problem solving – the only two positively framed family experiences – seemed to be specific for positive functioning, while parental anger specifically predicted negative functioning. This might suggest that positive social experiences may be especially relevant for predicting young adult positive adjustment, while negative experiences are more relevant for negative functioning. Such a pattern of specificity is not unlikely considering that positively framed experiences and behaviours usually tend to be skewed to (i.e. contain more variance in) the positive side of the distribution, and negatively framed variables to the negative side. That said, positive functioning was also predicted by negative social experiences, thus negative experiences and behaviours do not merely predict negative outcomes. In all, our findings are in line with the idea that mental health problems and wellbeing can have both overlapping and distinctive correlates (e.g. Kinderman et al., Reference Kinderman, Tai, Pontin, Schwannauer, Jarman and Lisboa2015; Patalay and Fitzsimons, Reference Patalay and Fitzsimons2016), and suggests that targeting predictors of one domain shall not necessarily benefit the other.

Strengths and limitations

This study should be viewed in light of certain strengths and limitations. Strong points include the longitudinal prospective study design and multidimensional approach encompassing positive and negative functioning. Moreover, we extended previous literature by accounting for both family and peer factors, which were measured at two developmentally relevant time points in adolescence. Some limitations should be noted as well. First, although we included multiple informants when possible, most data were based on self-reported questionnaires. Observational measures of social experiences and adult functioning would have been a valuable addition. Nevertheless, it can be argued that the way a person perceives social relations is likely to be more important for one's development compared with actual, but unperceived social experiences (e.g. Laceulle et al., Reference Laceulle, Jeronimus, Aken and Ormel2015). Second, except for family dysfunction, different measures of the social environment were used in TRAILS at each time point. Consequently, we were unable to investigate whether specific aspects of social experiences, such as parental overprotection or peer popularity, have the same influence in early and mid-adolescence. Third, several factors may mediate the associations found between adolescent social experiences and later functioning which have not been investigated in the current study. Future research is needed to investigate such mediating factors in more detail.

Another issue that should be pointed out is that while our longitudinal design allows for temporal ordering, we cannot infer causality from the reported findings. It is certainly plausible that the adolescent social experiences studied here are a direct cause of later maladjustment; however, they can also be markers of true underlying causal factors of later functioning, such as genetic predisposition or prior maladjustment. To account for potential reverse causality, we performed sensitivity analyses with baseline mental health problems included in the model. Although correcting for functioning before age 11 would have been preferable, such measures were not available within our sample. The results showed that most effects during mid-adolescence were not the result of initial levels of functioning. However, most social experiences in early adolescence and the interplay between parental control and peer fighting no longer predicted future functioning. As such, here we cannot rule out the possibility that mental health at age 11 may have caused problems in adolescent family and peer relations. The sensitivity analyses further showed that overall differences in sex, SES or number of parents do not explain the found effects either. Further longitudinal research including multiple assessments of functioning over time is necessary to elucidate the potential mechanisms that play a role in the link between early social experiences and later functioning.

To conclude, the results indicate that both family and peer relations during adolescence can be predictive for young adult functioning, but that especially adolescent family experiences, such as parental overprotection and family dysfunction, are associated with young adult functioning. The findings further suggest that certain family and peer experiences are interdependent in their prediction of later functioning, which highlights the importance of considering the relative effects of one context in relation to the other. Nevertheless, despite a comprehensive assessment, adolescent family and peer experiences played a modest role in predicting young adult functioning. Thus, having negative family or peer experiences during adolescence does not necessarily mean one will function worse in young adulthood. At least, for adolescents growing up in fairly normal circumstances such as the participants included in this study from the TRAILS population cohort. That is, more extreme social experiences, especially at the adverse end, may have a greater predictive value for later functioning than the effects found here suggest. Future studies are necessary to further investigate whether the relative contribution and interdependence of families and peers holds true for other social experiences as well.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718001976.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to everyone who participated in the TRAILS study or worked on the project to make this study possible.

Financial support

This research is part of the TRacking Adolescents’ Individual Lives Survey (TRAILS). Participating centres of TRAILS include the University Medical Center and University of Groningen, the University of Utrecht, the Radboud Medical Center Nijmegen and the Parnassia Bavo group, all in the Netherlands. TRAILS has been financially supported by various grants from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research NWO (Medical Research Council program grant GB-MW 940-38-011; ZonMW Brainpower grant 100-001-004; ZonMw Risk Behavior and Dependence grant 60-60600-97-118; ZonMw Culture and Health grant 261-98-710; Social Sciences Council medium-sized investment grants GB-MaGW 480-01-006 and GB-MaGW 480-07-001; Social Sciences Council project grants GB-MaGW 452-04-314 and GB-MaGW 452-06-004; NWO large-sized investment grant 175.010.2003.005; NWO Longitudinal Survey and Panel Funding 481-08-013 and 481-11-001), the Dutch Ministry of Justice (WODC), the European Science Foundation (EuroSTRESS project FP-006), Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure BBMRI-NL (CP 32) and the participating universities.

Conflict of interest

Dr Verhulst is a contributing author of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment, from which he receives remuneration. All other authors report no financial interests or potential conflicts of interest.

References

Achenbach, T and Rescorla, L (2001) ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont.Google Scholar
Achenbach, T and Rescorla, L (2003) Manual for ASEBA Adult Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont.Google Scholar
Almquist, Y and Brännström, L (2014) Childhood peer status and the clustering of social, economic, and health-related circumstances in adulthood. Social Science & Medicine 105, 6775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Almquist, Y, Modin, B and Östberg, V (2010) Childhood social status in society and school: implications for the transition to higher levels of education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 31, 3145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C and Hoerger, M (2012) Parental child-rearing strategies influence self-regulation, socio-emotional adjustment, and psychopathology in early adulthood: evidence from a retrospective cohort study. Personality and Individual Differences 52, 800805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berkman, L, Glass, T, Brissette, I and Seeman, T (2000) From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science & Medicine 51, 843857.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowlby, J (1973) Attachment and Loss. Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and Anger. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bramlett, MD and Blumberg, SJ (2007) Family structure and children's physical and mental health. Health Affairs 26, 549558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bronfenbrenner, U (1979) The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, S and Wills, T (1985) Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin 98, 310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Der Giessen, D, Branje, S and Meeus, W (2014) Perceived autonomy support from parents and best friends: longitudinal associations with adolescents’ depressive symptoms. Social Development 23, 537555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englund, M, Kuo, S, Puig, J and Collins, A (2011) Early roots of adult competence. International Journal of Behavioral Development 35, 490496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epstein, NB, Bishop, D and Levin, S (1978) The McMaster model of family functioning. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 4, 1931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, NB, Baldwin, LM and Bishop, DS (1983) The McMaster Family Assessment Device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 9, 171180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furman, W and Buhrmester, D (1992) Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development 63, 103115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaertner, A, Fite, P and Colder, C (2010) Parenting and friendship quality as predictors of internalizing and externalizing symptoms in early adolescence. Journal of Child and Family Studies 19, 101108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganzeboom, H and Treiman, DJ (1996) Internationally comparable measures of occupational status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations. Social Science Research 25, 201239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauze, C, Bukowski, WM, Aquan-Assee, J and Sippola, LK (1996) Interactions between family environment and friendship and associations with self-perceived well-being during early adolescence. Child Development 67, 22012216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gest, S, Sesma, A, Masten, A and Tellegen, A (2006) Childhood peer reputation as a predictor of competence and symptoms 10 years later. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 34, 507524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harding, S, Read, UM, Molaodi, OR, Cassidy, A, Maynard, MJ, Lenguerrand, E, Astell-Burt, T, Teyhan, A, Whitrow, M and Enayat, ZE (2015) The Determinants of young Adult Social well-being and Health (DASH) study: diversity, psychosocial determinants and health. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 50, 11731188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartup, W (1989) Social relationships and their developmental significance. American Psychologist 44, 120126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazel, N, Oppenheimer, C, Technow, J, Young, J and Hankin, B (2014) Parent relationship quality buffers against the effect of peer stressors on depressive symptoms from middle childhood to adolescence. Developmental Psychology 50, 2115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, L and Bentler, P (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huppert, FA, Abbott, RA, Ploubidis, GB, Richards, M and Kuh, D (2010) Parental practices predict psychological well-being in midlife: life-course associations among women in the 1946 British birth cohort. Psychological Medicine 40, 15071518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, P and Fay, L (1950) The Johnson-Neyman technique, its theory and application. Psychometrika 15, 349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, TM, Hill, KG, Epstein, M, Lee, JO, Hawkins, JD and Catalano, RF (2016) Understanding the interplay of individual and social-developmental factors in the progression of substance use and mental health from childhood to adulthood. Development and Psychopathology 28, 721741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinderman, P, Tai, S, Pontin, E, Schwannauer, M, Jarman, I and Lisboa, P (2015) Causal and mediating factors for anxiety, depression and well-being. The British Journal of Psychiatry: The Journal of Mental Science 206, 456460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korkeila, K, Kivela, S-L, Suominen, S, Vahtera, J, Kivimaki, M, Sundell, J, Helenius, H and Koskenvuo, M (2004) Childhood adversities, parent-child relationships and dispositional optimism in adulthood. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 39, 286292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, TS, Hannerz, H, Høgh, A and Borg, V (2005) The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire – a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 31, 438449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laceulle, OM, Jeronimus, BF, Aken, MAG and Ormel, J (2015) Why not everyone gets their fair share of stress: adolescent's perceived relationship affection mediates associations between temperament and subsequent stressful social events. European Journal of Personality 29, 125137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lansford, J, Criss, M, Pettit, G, Dodge, K and Bates, J (2003) Friendship quality, peer group affiliation, and peer antisocial behavior as moderators of the link between negative parenting and adolescent externalizing behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence 13, 161184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, J and Ji, L (2005) Adjusting multiple testing in multilocus analyses using the eigenvalues of a correlation matrix. Heredity 95, 221227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lösel, F and Farrington, D (2012) Direct protective and buffering protective factors in the development of youth violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 43, S8S23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacKinnon, A, Jorm, A, Christensen, H, Korten, A and Jacomb, P (1999) A short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: evaluation of factorial validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample. Personality and Individual Differences 27, 405416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, M, Lindhout, I, Boer, F, Hoogendijk, T and Arrindell, W (2003) Factors of perceived parental rearing styles: the EMBU-C examined in a sample of Dutch primary school children. Personality and Individual Differences 34, 503519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meeus, W (2016) Adolescent psychosocial development: a review of longitudinal models and research. Developmental Psychology 52, 19691993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morojele, NK and Brook, JS (2001) Adolescent precursors of intensity of marijuana and other illicit drug use among adult initiators. The Journal of Genetic Psychology 162, 430450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muthén, LK and Muthén, BO (2015) Mplus User's Guide, 7th Edn. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Oldehinkel, A, Rosmalen, J, Buitelaar, J, Hoek, H, Ormel, J, Raven, D, Reijneveld, S, Veenstra, R, Verhulst, F, Vollebergh, W and Hartman, C (2015) Cohort profile update: the TRacking Adolescents’ Individual Lives Survey (TRAILS). International Journal of Epidemiology 44, 7676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormel, J, Lindenberg, S, Steverink, N and Vonkorff, M (1997) Quality of life and social production functions: a framework for understanding health effects. Social Science & Medicine 45, 10511063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ormel, J, Oldehinkel, AJ, Sijtsema, J, van Oort, F, Raven, D, Veenstra, R, Vollebergh, WA and Verhulst, FC (2012) The TRacking Adolescents’ Individual Lives Survey (TRAILS): design, current status, and selected findings. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 51, 10201036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paradis, A, Reinherz, H, Giaconia, R, Beardslee, W, Ward, K and Fitzmaurice, G (2009) Long-term impact of family arguments and physical violence on adult functioning at age 30 years: findings from the Simmons Longitudinal Study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 48, 290298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patalay, P and Fitzsimons, E (2016) Correlates of mental illness and wellbeing in children: are they the same? Results from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 55, 771783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pesola, F, Shelton, K, Heron, J, Munafò, M, Hickman, M and van den Bree, M (2015) The developmental relationship between depressive symptoms in adolescence and harmful drinking in emerging adulthood: the role of peers and parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 44, 17521766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poulin, F and Pedersen, S (2007) Developmental changes in gender composition of friendship networks in adolescent girls and boys. Developmental Psychology 43, 1484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raja, S, McGee, R and Stanton, W (1992) Perceived attachments to parents and peers and psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 21, 471485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, A and Rudolph, K (2006) A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin 132, 98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rusbult, CE, John, M and Agnew, CR (1998) The Investment Model Scale: measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships 5, 357387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutter, M (1985) Resilience in the face of adversity. Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. The British Journal of Psychiatry 147, 598611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sakyi, K, Surkan, P, Fombonne, E, Chollet, A and Melchior, M (2015) Childhood friendships and psychological difficulties in young adulthood: an 18-year follow-up study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 24, 815826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sentse, M, Lindenberg, S, Omvlee, A, Ormel, J and Veenstra, R (2010) Rejection and acceptance across contexts: parents and peers as risks and buffers for early adolescent psychopathology. The TRAILS study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 38, 119130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, K and Christakis, N (2008) Social networks and health. Annual Review of Sociology 34, 405429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stattin, H and Kerr, M (2000) Parental monitoring: a reinterpretation. Child Development 71, 10721085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinberg, L (2014) Age of Opportunity: Lessons From the New Science of Adolescence. Boston e Nova York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Thomasgard, M and Metz, P (1993) Parental overprotection revisited. Child Psychiatry and Human Development 24, 6780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tilton-Weaver, L, Kerr, M, Pakalniskeine, V, Tokic, A, Salihovic, S and Stattin, H (2010) Open up or close down: how do parental reactions affect youth information management? Journal of Adolescence 33, 333346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trudeau, L, Mason, WA, Randall, GK, Spoth, R and Ralston, E (2012) Effects of parenting and deviant peers on early to mid-adolescent conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 40, 12491264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Umberson, D, Crosnoe, R and Reczek, C (2010) Social relationships and health behavior across life course. Annual Review of Sociology 36, 139157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veldman, K, Bültmann, U, Stewart, R, Ormel, J, Verhulst, F and Reijneveld, S (2014) Mental health problems and educational attainment in adolescence: 9-year follow-up of the TRAILS study. PLoS ONE 9, e101751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Véronneau, M-HH and Dishion, TJ (2010) Predicting change in early adolescent problem behavior in the middle school years: a mesosystemic perspective on parenting and peer experiences. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 38, 11251137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, D, Clark, L and Tellegen, A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 1063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westerhof, G and Keyes, C (2010) Mental illness and mental health: the two continua model across the lifespan. Journal of Adult Development 17, 110119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (2006) Constitution of the World Health Organization. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of study variables

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Schematic overview of the structural equation models assessing effects of the social environment on the second-order latent variable multidimensional functioning (a) and the two first-order latent variables positive and negative functioning (b). For ease of interpretation, cross-sectional and longitudinal interaction effects between family and peer environments were omitted.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Johnson–Neyman plots showing (a) the conditional effect of T3 peer fighting for T3 parental control and (b) of T1 peer status for T3 family dysfunction on young adult multidimensional functioning. The non-shaded area indicates regions-of-significance.

Figure 3

Table 2. Results of structural equation models predicting young adult functioning

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Johnson–Neyman plots showing (a) the conditional effect of T1 peer status for T1 parental rejection, (b) of T1 peer status for T1 family dysfunction, and (c) of T3 peer fighting for T1 parental rejection on young adult positive functioning, and (d) the conditional effect of T3 peer fighting for T3 parental control, (e) of T1 peer status for T3 family dysfunction, and (f) of T1 parental overprotection for T1 peer affection on young adult negative functioning (c). The non-shaded areas indicate regions-of-significance. For ease of interpretation, scores for negative functioning were reversed back such that a higher score indicates more negative functioning.

Supplementary material: File

Richards et al. supplementary material

Richards et al. supplementary material 1

Download Richards et al. supplementary material(File)
File 685 KB
You have Access
Open access
2
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Beyond not bad or just okay: social predictors of young adults’ wellbeing and functioning (a TRAILS study)
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Beyond not bad or just okay: social predictors of young adults’ wellbeing and functioning (a TRAILS study)
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Beyond not bad or just okay: social predictors of young adults’ wellbeing and functioning (a TRAILS study)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *