MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7042384974

Parent and peer attachment relationships and non-suicidal self-injury in young adolescents

2014· dissertation· en· W7042384974 sur OpenAlexaff

Notice bibliographique

RevueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2014
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiquePhysics and Engineering Research Articles
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWarrantAssociation (psychology)Peer groupSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsAttachment theoryPoison controlInjury prevention
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) is defined as the deliberate destruction of one's own body tissue without suicidal intent and for purposes not socially sanctioned, thus excluding tattooing and piercing (Favazza, 1998). The high prevalence rate in both clinical and community studies have prompted researchers to explore correlates associated with this behaviour. While a large body of research has documented the role of emotion regulation in NSSI, the social functions have not been as extensively studied and warrant further attention (Muehlenkamp, Brausch, Quigley, & Whitlock, 2013). Scholars have provided consistent evidence that family relationship problems are associated with reports of NSSI. However, most used a composite score to measure the overall quality of attachment (e.g., Gratz, Conrad, & Roemer, 2002; Hilt, Nock, Lloyd-Richardson, & Prinstein, 2008a). As proposed by Parkes and Stevenson-Hinde (1982), attachment is a multifaceted concept comprised of behavioural and cognitive/affective domains. Accordingly, there is a need to further investigate which attachment dimensions (e.g., trust, communication, and alienation) are more predictive of NSSI status. Only one study to date has examined the contribution of several parent attachment dimensions to NSSI among college students (Bureau et al., 2010), but this has not been investigated among young adolescents. In the light of the fact that NSSI has its onset typically during the early teen years (Nock, 2009) and that peers are increasingly influential following the transition to high school (Allen & Land, 1999), additional research examining the association between parent and peer attachment dimensions, and NSSI in early adolescence is needed. In order to address this research gap, the main objectives of the current study were a) to examine group (NSSI/ Non-NSSI) and gender differences in parent and peer attachment dimensions (i.e., trust, communication, and alienation); b) to explore a potential interaction between NSSI status and gender; and c) to investigate the relative contribution of parent attachment versus peer attachment to NSSI status. Participants were 65 adolescents (M age = 12.37, SD = .52; 57% female) who reported engaging in NSSI and a comparison group of adolescents matched on gender and school. Participants completed the How I Deal With Stress questionnaire (HIDS; Heath & Ross, 2007) in order to screen for NSSI. They also completed the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) to examine three attachment dimensions (i.e., trust, communication, and alienation). These self-reported questionnaires were completed during class time in their school classrooms in small groups of 20. Results from a two-way MANOVA indicated that young adolescents who reported engaging in NSSI perceived their relationships with parents and peers more negatively on all attachment dimensions relative to their non-self-injuring counterparts. Furthermore, a logistic regression revealed that parent attachment was more predictive of NSSI status than peer attachment. Overall, this study represents a contribution to the NSSI literature as it extends our knowledge about the relationship between attachment dimensions and NSSI in early adolescence, and suggests that males and females who engage in NSSI are equally affected by quality of communication, the degree of trust, and alienation issues with parents and peers.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,748
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,243
Écart entre enseignants0,230 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Même sujetPhysics and Engineering Research ArticlesTravaux en français237 207