Peer problems and prosocial behaviours across development: Associations with anxiety and depression in emerging adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peer problems in childhood and adolescence are associated with anxiety and depression in emerging adulthood. However, it remains unclear whether prosocial behaviours reduce this risk and whether these associations remain after adjusting for familial factors, including genetics. The present study examined how the development of peer problems and prosocial behaviours across childhood and adolescence were associated with anxiety and depression in emerging adulthood, and whether these associations remained when using a monozygotic twin difference design. The study included up to 31,016 participants (50.4 % female) from the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS; N = 19,758) and the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC; N = 11,258), with sample sizes varying across analyses based on data availability. Repeated data were collected from ages 4 to 26/28 (TEDS/ALSPAC). Results from latent growth curve and path analyses showed that higher initial levels of peer problems and prosocial behaviours in childhood, as well as more persistent peer problems and prosocial behaviours during childhood, increased risk for anxiety and depression in emerging adulthood. Associations with peer problems remained significant after adjusting for familial factors using monozygotic twin difference scores, suggesting that individual-specific experiences, like children's responses to peer problems, may explain why peer problems increase risk for later anxiety and depression. In contrast, associations with prosocial behaviours did not remain significant after adjusting for familial factors, indicating that whilst prosocial behaviours in childhood were associated with higher levels of anxiety and depression in emerging adulthood, this was largely explained by genetic or environmental factors shared within the family.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".