MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7042384974

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

2014· dissertation· en· W7042384974 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhysics and Engineering Research Articles
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWarrantAssociation (psychology)Peer groupSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsAttachment theoryPoison controlInjury prevention
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicPhysics and Engineering Research ArticlesFrench-language works237,207