Peer attachment in adolescence: What are the individual and relational associated factors?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The quality of peer attachment in adolescence is an important determinant of psychosocial adjustment. To date, few clear conclusions can be drawn about the most important factors associated with the quality of peer attachment. This study aimed to identify the most important individual and relational factors associated with peer attachment quality, and to establish their relative contribution. Early adolescents ( N = 634, 45.7% girls), 11.29 years on average at the first measurement time, participated in the longitudinal study. Individual and relational factors were measured at T1; parent and peer attachment quality were measured at T2, 2 years later. First, a multiple linear regression analysis was performed using the global score for peer attachment as the outcome variable. Second, a path model, including the three specific attachment dimensions (trust, communication, and alienation), was tested. The invariance of the models by sex was also examined. The analyses showed that peer attachment was associated positively with the adolescent–parent attachment relationship, the adolescent's age, as well as the teacher–student relationship, and associated negatively with the presence of internalizing behavior problems and social rejection. These variables helped explain 21.3% of the total variance. Give or take a few nuances, these same variables were also related to the three specific peer attachment dimensions. Sex differences were observed for the associated factors of these specific dimensions. This study highlights the importance of certain relational variables, in both family and school contexts, as correlates of peer attachment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it