Social Networks and Social Support in Childhood and Adolescence [Reprint 2010 ed.] 9783110866377, 9783110143607

Citation preview

Mouton Grammar Library A Grammar of Lao

W DE

G

Mouton Grammar Library 38

Editors Georg Bossong Bernard Comrie Matthew Dryer

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Prevention and Intervention in Childhood and Adolescence 16

Special Research Unit 227 - Prevention and Intervention in Childhood and Adolescence An interdisciplinary project of the University of Bielefeld conducted by Prof. Dr. Günter Albrecht, Prof. Dr. Otto Backes, Prof. Dr. Michael Brambring, Prof. Dr. Detlev Frehsee, Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Heitmeyer, Prof. Dr. Klaus Hurrelmann (Coordinator), Prof. Dr. Franz-Xaver Kaufmann, Prof. Dr. Hans-Uwe Otto, Prof. Dr. Helmut Skowronek

Social Networks and Social Support in Childhood and Adolescence Edited by Frank Nestmann and Klaus Hurrelmann

W DE

G Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1994

Frank Nestmann Professor of Education, Technical University of Dresden, Germany Klaus Hurrelmann Professor of Sociology and Public Health, University of Bielefeld, Germany With 24 figures and 35 tables

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Social networks and social support in childhood and adolescence / edited by Frank Nestmann and Klaus Hurrelmann. - (Prevention and intervention in childhood and adolescence ; 16) "Special Research Unit 227 - Prevention and Intervention in Childhood and Adolescence" — Prelim, p. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 3-11-014360-7 (acid-free paper) 1. Children - Social networks. 2. Teenagers - Social networks. 3. Social networks, l. Nestmann, Frank, 1941 II. Hurrelmann, Klaus. III. Sonderforschungsbereich 227 - Prevention und Intervention im Kindes- und Jugendalter. IV. Series. HQ767.9.S6618 1994 305.23-dc20 94-544 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - Cataloging-in-Publication Data Social networks and social support in childhood and adolescence / ed. by Frank Nestmann and Klaus Hurrelmann. Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 1994 (Prevention and intervention in childhood and adolescence ; 16) ISBN 3-11-014360-7 NE: Nestmann, Frank [Hrsg.]; GT

© Copyright 1994 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printing: WB-Druck, Rieden. - Binding: D. Mikolai, Berlin. - Cover Design: Hansbernd Lindemann, Berlin. Photo: Ullstein-Bilderdienst, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Preface The present volume in the series of publications by the Special Research Unit on Prevention and Intervention in Childhood and Adolescence at the University of Bielefeld addresses a previously underdeveloped and undervalued area within the well-established field of social network and social support. The importance of the family and nonfamily networks and social support relationships of children and adolescents for their development and socialization, for their well-being and health has long been hypothesized. Nonetheless, childhood and adolescence - compared to adulthood and old age - have remained phases of the life cycle that have received little attention from support research. In turn, research on childhood and adolescence has been slow to take up the concepts of social networks and social support. For a long time, they remained unconsidered in concepts of friendship and the peer group. The authors of this volume, which represents the outcome of international networks of exchange and regular conferences held by the Special Research Unit, have tried to overcome these deficits in these original papers, to link together the often uncoordinated and parallel lines of research, and to clarify the status of social support in childhood and adolescence theoretically, empirically, and with reference to practical intervention. For the first time in such an interdisciplinary grouping, psychologists, sociologists, educational scientists, social workers, and health scientists from various countries met to discuss network structures and resources, support processes and transactions, supportive behavior, and the emotional and cognitive roles of social support with reference to children and adolescents. Both the theoretical treatments and the empirical studies presented here try to meet the demands of a multidimensional and interactional concept of social support in its development-related and social-ecological settings. The papers can be grouped under the following headings: 1. Theoretical and methodological explanations and reorientations of social support research in childhood and adolescence. 2. Approaches toward an integration of the concepts of social competence, helping behavior, and social support. 3. Studies on the supportive roles of families, peers, further networks, and professional welfare systems. 4. Analyses of the role of networks and support for children and adolescents in stressful life situations. 5. The embeddment of social support structures and processes in various cultural, sociocultural, and social-ecological environments.

VI

Preface

We wish to thank all the contributors for their work, and the German Research Association for the funding that made the exchange and the conferences possible. We particularly wish to thank Jonathan Harrow for his assistance in editing the content and style of the texts as well as his careful translations of several papers. We also wish to thank Hildegard Liermann and Silke Gerwing for their support in planning the daily running of the conference as well as their editorial help in organizing this book, and finally, Inge Pautz for her great variety of organizational assistance.

March, 1994, Bielefeld

Frank Nestmann Klaus Hurrelmann

Contents Contributors

X

1. Child and Adolescent Research as a Challenge and Opportunity for Social Support Theory, Measurement, and Intervention: And Vice Versa Frank Nestmann and Klaus Hurrelmann

1

Parti Social Support in Childhood and Adolescence - Theoretical Perspectives 2. How Does Social Support Function in Childhood? Brenda K. Bryant

23

3. Convoys of Attachment and Social Relations in Children, Adolescents, and Adults Toni C. Antonucci and Hiroko Akiyama

37

4. Social Support in the Relationships Between Older Adolescents and Adults Benjamin H. Gottlieb and John C. Sylvestre

53

5. Children's Friendships and Peer Culture: Implications for Theories of Network and Support James Youniss

6. Social Support During Adolescence: Methodological and Theoretical Considerations Ana Man Cauce, Craig Mason, Nancy Gonzales, Yumi Hiraga, and Gloria Liu

75

89

Part II Social Support, Social Competence, and Prosocial Behavior 7. Social Support and Social Competences: Some Theoretical and Empirical Contributions to Their Relationship Bernd Röhrle and Gert Sommer

Ill

8. The Transactional Relations Between Social Support and Children's Competence Marcel A.G, van Aken

131

Contents 9. Socialization, Social Support, and Social Competence in Adolescence: The Individual in Perspective Sandy Jackson

149

10. On the Interface Between Social Support and Prosocial Behavior: Methodological and Theoretical Implications Hans W. Bierhoff

159

Part III Supportive Functions of Parents and Peers 11. Social Relationships and Support Among Peers During Middle Childhood Hans Oswald, Lothar Krappmann, Hans Uhlendorff, and Karin Weiss

171

12. Children's Social Networks and the Development of Social Competence: A Longitudinal Analysis Mechthild Gödde and Anette Engfer

191

13. The Role of Parents and Peers in the Sexual and Relational Socialization of Adolescents Manuela du Bols-Reymond and Janita Raves loot

217

14. Psychosocial Problems and Social Support in Adolescence Wim Meeus

241

15. Analyzing the Strength of Supportive Ties in Adolescent Social Supports John L. Cotterell

257

Part IV Social Support in Stressful Family Conditions 16. Family Socialization of Threat Appraisal and Coping: Coaching, Modeling, and Family Context Wendy Kliewer, Irwin Sandler, and Sharlene Wolchik

271

17. Social Support Issues for "Latchkey" and Supervised Children Deborah Belle

293

Contents

IX

18. The Social Networks of Adolescents and Their Mothers: Influences on Blacks and Whites in Single- and Two-Parent Families Barton J. Hirsch, Rebecca Boerger, Alexis Engel Levy, and Maureen Mickus 305 19. Social Support in Single-Parent Families: Children as Sources of Support Frank Nestmann and Gabriele Niepel

323

20. Social Support in Chronically Sick Children and Their Families Christine Eiser

347

Part V Cultural and Sociocultural Backgrounds of Social Support 21. The Sociocultural Environment as a Source of Support Inge Bö 22. Family and Peer Support of Israeli and German Adolescents Georg Neubauer, Jürgen Mansel, Arza Avrahami, and Michael Nathan

363

. , . 385

23. Supportive Interactions in Cultural Context Anne Marie Tietjen

395

24. Parentless Friends: A Cross-Cultural Examination of Networks Among Street Children and Street Youth Judith Ennew

409

Part VI Conclusion 25. Issues Concerning Social Support in Childhood and Adolescence Marcel A.C. van Aken, John C. Coleman, and John L. Cotterell

429

Contributors Marcel A.G. van Aken Max-Planck Institut für psychologische Forschung, Leopoldstraße 24, 80802 München, Germany

Brenda K. Bryant Division of Human Development, University of California, Davis, California 95616, U.S.A

Hiroko Akiyama The University of Michigan Survey Research Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1248, U.S.A.

Ana Man Cauce Department of Psychology, NJ-25 University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, U.S.A.

Toni C. Antonucci The University of Michigan Survey Research Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1248, U.S.A. Arza Avrahami Institute of Research on Kibbutz Education, University of Haifa, Oranim, Tivon, 36910 Israel Deborah Belle Dept. of Psychology Boston University, 64 Cummington St., Boston, MA 0221/5, U.S.A. Hans W. Bierhoff Ruhr Universität Bochum Fakultät für Psychologie, GAFO 04/916, Postfach 102148, 44789 Bochum l, Germany Rebecca Boerger School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, 2003 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, U.S.A Inge Bö Rogaland University Centre, P.O.B. 2557, N-4004 Stavanger, Norway Manuela du Bois-Reymond Rijksuniversiteit Leiden Faculteit sociale Wetenschappen Sectie J & J, Wassenaarsweg 52, Postbus 9555, 2300RB Leiden, Netherlands

John C. Coleman Trust for the Study of Adolescence, 23 New Road, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 IWZ, Great Britain John L. Cotterell Department of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia Christine Eiser Dept. of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, EX4 4Q9, Great Britain Anette Engfer Gesamthochschule Paderborn, Warburgerstr. 100, 33098 Paderborn, Germany Judith Ennew The Old Store, High Street, Brinkley, Newmarket, CB8 OSE, Great Britain Mechthild Gödde FFP, Arabellastr. 1, 81925 München, Germany Nancy Gonzales Department of Psychology, NJ-25 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195, U.S.A. Benjamin H. Gottlieb Psychology Department, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario - Canada NIG 2WI Yumi Hiraga Department of Psychology, NJ-25 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195, U.S.A.

Contributors Barton J. Hirsch School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, 2003 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, U.S.A Klaus Hurrelmann Sonderforschungsbereich Prävention und Intervention im Kindes und Jugendalter, SFB 227, Universität Bielefeld, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany Sandy Jackson Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, Netherlands

XI

Maureen Mickus School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, 2003 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, U.S.A Michael Nathan Institute of Research on Kibbutz Education, University of Haifa, Oranim, Tivon, 36910 Israel Frank Nestmann Institut für Sozialpädagogik und Sozialarbeit, Fakultät für Erziehungswissenschaften, TU Dresden, Weberplatz 5, 01217 Dresden, Germany

Wendy Kliewer Arizona State University, Program for Prevention Research, Tempe, AZ 852871108, U.S.A

Georg Neubauer Fakultät f. Pädagogik, Universität Bielefeld, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany

Lothar Krappmann Freie Universität Berlin, Fachbereich Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswissenschaften, Institut für Soziologie der Erziehung, Amimallee 11, 14195 Berlin, Germany

Gabriele Niepel Projektgruppe Sozialökologische Forschung und Beratung, Fakultät f. Pädagogik, Universität Bielefeld, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany

Gloria Liu Department of Psychology, NJ-25 University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, U.S.A.

Hans Oswald Freie Universität Berlin, Fachbereich Erziehungs-und Unterrichtswissenschaften, Institut für Soziologie der Erziehung, Amimallee 11, 14195 Berlin, Germany

Alexis Engel Levy School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, 2003 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, U.S.A Jürgen Mansel Fakultät f. Pädagogik, Universität Bielefeld, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany

Janita H, Ravesloot Rijksuniversiteit Leiden Fakulteit sociale Wetenschappen Sectie J & J, Wassenaarsweg 52, Postbus 9555, 2300RB Leiden, Netherlands

Craig Mason Department of Psychology, NJ-25 University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, U.S.A.

Bernd Röhrle Fachbereich Psychologie, PhilippsUniversität Marburg, Gutenbergstr. 18, 35037 Marburg/Lahn, Germany

Wim Meeus Vakgoep Jeugd, gezin en levensloop, Postbox 80.140, 3508 TC Utrecht, Netherlands

Irwin Sandler Arizona State University, Program for Prevention Research, Tempe, AZ 852871108, U.S.A

Contributors Gert Sommer Fachbereich Psychologie, PhilippsUniversität Marburg, Gutenbergstr. 18, 35037 Marburg/Lahn, Germany John C. Sylvestre Psychology Department, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario - Canada NIG 2WI Anne Marie Tietjen 1201 llth St. Suite 201, Bellingham, WA 98225 or: 1535 Humboldt St., Bellingham, WA 98225, U.S.A. Hans Uhlendorff Freie Universität Berlin, Fachbereich Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswissenschaften, Institut für Soziologie der Erziehung, Amimallee 11, 14195 Berlin, Germany

Karin Weiss Freie Universität Berlin, Fachbereich Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswissenschaften, Institut für Soziologie der Erziehung, Amimallee 11, 14195 Berlin, Germany Sharlene Wolchik Arizona State University, Program for Prevention Research, Tempe, AZ; 852871108 U.S.A James Youniss Life Cycle Institute, Catholic University, Washington DC 20064, U.S.A.

l Child and Adolescent Research as a Challenge and Opportunity for Social Support Theory, Measurement, and Intervention: And Vice Versa Frank Nestmann, University of Dresden, FRG Klaus Hurrelmann, University of Bielefeld, FRG

L Introduction Since the 1970s, more and more empirical studies as well as theoretical conceptions of prevention and intervention in childhood and adolescence have realized and taken into account the social relations of children and adolescents as an important variable for their development, socialization, and health. More than before, social bonds of children beyond the mother-child relation and the primary family have been studied in different research areas. Social networks and social support have become a focus of attention and an independent field of research. The concepts of social network and social support have increasingly found then· way into the theory, research, and practice of social, psychosocial, and health work with children and adolescents. As in other areas of educational and psychological research, research on childhood and adolescence has a tradition of studying social relationships and their positive effects on identity formation and role taking, as well as on health and well-being. In educational psychology and social psychology, in developmental psychology and educational science, we find numerous precursors of network and support models, for example, in classical group dynamics, in Sullivan's or Bowlby's theories on companionship or attachment needs, or in the work of Moreno. However, a convergence into network- and support-oriented research on childhood and adolescence has been a relatively late development It is only happening today. Conversely, it has also taken a long time for children and adolescents to become objects of network and support research. For example, the first anthology on Children's Social Networks and Social Supports, edited by Deborah Belle, was only published in 1989. A field of research that otherwise has addressed adult men and women, the aged, the greatest variety of at-risk groups and

Frank Nestmann and Klaus Hurrelmann

disease groups, all ethnic minorities, and so forth in an uncountable number of studies has been relatively late in recognizing children and adolescents as important target groups. We would like to ask why this is so, that is, why social support in childhood and adolescence is now notably more attractive than it was only a few years ago, and why it has taken so long for children and adolescents to become a central target of social support research. We will also discuss why this current but late development is not only a great challenge but also an opportunity for growth in both network and support research as well as in research on childhood and adolescence. Although we recognize the usual time lag of several years, in which developments in the United States at the end of the 1980s are only seen in Europe at the beginning of the 1990s, we shall assume that developmental courses and backgrounds have been relatively similar. We can account for some of the attractiveness of the network and support concept for research on childhood and adolescence - despite the delays in its implementation - by initially repeating reasons that have been formulated for the boom in social support research in general: 1. the detection and confirmation of the potential of social resources for the protection of health and the prevention of disease; 2. the fact that the whole of society views mutual help and support as a desirable quality and wants its members to be socialized in such a way; 3. the resulting opportunities to engage in more life-world-related and less alienated professional intervention; 4. new prevention perspectives concentrating on social relations that buffer stress and maintain health; 5. but also considerations on the possibility of cutting costs on expensive professional services by fostering everyday support and lay help. These frequently assumed reasons for interest in support from social networks also apply to work with children and adolescents. On the other hand, we could state that social support research today deals with children and adolescents, because we know that both social networks and support systems as well as the persons who interact within them have histories. Networks and supports develop and are developed, just like each individual support orientation, attitude to seeking assistance, and ability to provide assistance. Today, we can assume that social support systems already impact on children's lives in infancy; that they are also already formed in the child's mother-child relationship. We know that children and adolescents' experiences of support continue to influence their later networks and their roles as receivers and providers of social support in adulthood and old age. Children and adolescents experience network structures, the qualities of relationships,

Challenge for Social Support

3

the giving of support, and its normative and interpretative framing conditions within and outside their families, and these experiences remain important throughout their lives. For example, they either learn or do not learn how to assemble, use, and value networks, and to give, seek, accept, and appreciate support. Hence, all our knowledge about networks and social support in adults is also dependent on knowledge about networks and social support in childhood and adolescence as well as on how they develop across the entire life span. In 1988, Vaux presented a detailed report on how social networks, supportive behavior, support appraisal, support functions, and support transactions are marked not only by changes but also by remarkable continuities throughout our lives. However, the interest of social support research in children and adolescents cannot just take the perspective of a "prestage" or "imprinting" of adult networks and supports, but must focus primarily on the various functions that social networks and social support have in childhood and adolescence itself. Here we only want to mention two functions that make networks and support especially attractive to childhood and adolescent research. These are the more general socialization functions and the more specific protective functions of social networks.

2. Socialization Functions Tamara Hareven's (1989) work demonstrates impressive historical trends in the familial and nonfamilial networks of children and adolescents. These trends provide an important impetus to the study of decisive changes and completely new patterns of social relationships and then· functions for socialization. The decline of the traditional nuclear family, the increase in one-parent families, the quantitative decline in relationships to relatives or the changes in their structure, the reduction in the number of siblings, and so forth are only some of the changes affecting many children and adolescents in Western societies. In addition, the more frequent and more fundamental change hi both formal and informal social networks caused by mobility or migration impacts on many of today's children and their social networks. Furthermore, whether both parents work or are unemployed also affects everyday social relationships. On the other hand, the increasing flexibility and fluctuation of social bonds in formal institutions such as kindergartens with rotating personnel shifts and a high turnover of children, or in schools that use course systems instead of fixed classes also influence the structure, content, quality, and normative content of social networks and support relationships. In what form and with what effects these changes influence child and adolescent socialization are questions that research on childhood and adolescence has to address today - theoretically, empirically, and practically. Not only formal institutions hi

Frank Nestmann and Klaus Hurrelmann

education and vocational training but also in leisure time and the field of social welfare and health care are everywhere voicing their concern about the problems and difficulties they are having in continuing to successfully fulfill their classical functions and tasks in the light of these decisive structural changes. This raises the question as to how other structures of institutional support will be better able to keep up with changing living relationships and needs, and where, as well as how, modified or new formal and informal systems can take over socialization tasks more appropriately. The particular situation in East Germany since reunification reveals these problems most clearly: The very rapid change in the structures of the social macrosystem has been accompanied by drastic changes in the meta- and microlevels of social relationships as well. There has been a shift in social networks of children, adolescents, and adults in both institutional and private domains. Places in public childcare institutions, for example, have also disappeared as well as the comprehensive state youth organization that had such a decisive influence on the everyday life of children and adolescents. Previous working mothers are now, like many fathers, unemployed and at home. Their colleague networks seem to be destroyed. Hence, familial networks have actually been reinforced, but it seems that they are often overwhelmed by the unfamiliar daily childrearing tasks and socialization demands that are now requiring their attention. In addition, there is also an increase in the number of poor families and so of poor children and adolescents, in particular in single-parent families - a phenomenon that we are also hearing about more frequently from the United States in recent times. We do not know how such childhood poverty affects children's networks and support systems. A very specific experience of many persons in East Germany is a retrospective awareness of the ambivalences and contradictions in their previous social relationships and even their close personal commitments. It seems that they were often not just binding friendships and protective support systems but also instruments of reciprocal control and espionage. The possible impact of such negative experiences on network orientations and attitudes to seeking assistance in adults as well as children and adolescents remains to be studied. Do they reduce reciprocal social support, for example, to the narrowest family circles, and are weak ties that one has learned to mistrust made and used with more caution? We are confronted with the task of finding out how and where the previous formal structures for building relationships can and must be replaced by new institutionalized services that will permit and stimulate active social contacts and network bonds. And where are everyday networks retained, and where, perhaps, do even new ones arise spontaneously in and after such an upheaval? The first comparative network studies (Kraus & Straus, 1992) have shown that many adolescents' formerly important working place networks disappeared because of company bankruptcies and the loss of jobs. Close family networks on the other hand became even stronger and more highly valued than in West Germany. East German adolescents also seem to value their still existing friendship networks very much, and they are more existential subcultures and emotional resources for them than they are for their

Challenge for Social Support

5

Western counterparts. They develop an identity of conformity in these stable relationships, which they feel a more "passive" part of. West German boys and girls perceive themselves as more "active" builders of their friendship nets and use them "experimentally" and as an audience and stage to develop and perform "unique" personel characteristics and "typical" life-styles and roles within them. We can see that network research findings also will give us some hints on how to interpret the ongoing racist and right-wing youngster riots in East and West Germany and how to prevent and intervene in specifically appropriate ways. These are issues that also require the particular attention of research on childhood and adolescence.

3. Protective Functions A second decisive reason for the present interest of research on childhood and adolescence in social support is naturally also the increasing psychological demands and strains that confront children and adolescents hi many areas of their lives. These include academic demands or increasing problems of orientation, poor time budgeting, as well as health risks and disease risks through increasing chronic, mental, and pychosomatic disorders from earliest childhood onward. Also hi the fields of accident risk, drug abuse, and prescription drug abuse, as well as stress in the family, school, and leisure-time, social support from social networks is gaining hi popularity as both a theoretical concept and as a guide for practice because of its potential protective and buffer functions. We ask ourselves whether, apart from individual coping competences, above all, social immune systems can support children and adolescents. Can they prevent, intervene, and rehabilitate, and can they become something like a "protective escort" for childhood development with its various risk and crisis phases, as, for example, Tony Antonucci's convoy model may suggest (Antonucci, 1985; Antonucci & Akiyama, this volume). We think, as Heller et al. (1986) have pointed out, that social support from our social networks can buffer stress and can improve coping through different forms of emotional, informational, practical, and appraisal helping behavior - in adulthood but also hi childhood and adolescence. On the other hand, support will be protective and will improve well-being through the "psychological" effects of the mere presence of others preventing isolation, the effects of being a valued part of a network, receiving signs of love and understanding, and being sure of receiving help when needed. In childhood and adolescence too, maybe even more than in later life, this will foster self-esteem and selfassurance, and feelings of worth but also of security and control over oneself and the environment, and in this way will help to maintain, protect, promote, and restore health.

Frank Nestmann and Klaus Hurrelmann

What we still have to find out is: Which systems and which resources and provisions can help best to support children and adolescents of different age and gender and from different economic and social backgrounds in which stressful situations?

4. Childhood and Support Research - as Opportunities for Development We shall now leave behind these two aspects of the socialization and the protection of children and adolescents in social networks, the main topics of the following contributions, and turn to why social support research and research on childhood and adolescence have been almost exclusively so hesitant in approaching one another, and why this restraint is simultaneously a challenge and a growth potential for both disciplines - social support research and research on childhood and adolescence - because it compels a change of perspective and new orientations. Our premise is that this relatively late convergence can also bring advantages. For example, many errors and short circuits in earlier social support research no longer need to be repeated hi its present integration into research on childhood and adolescence, because we can now proceed on the basis of theoretically, methodologically, and practically elaborated model concepts. In her introduction to Children's Social Networks and Social Supports, Deborah Belle (1989) notes that it is ironic that specifically children, who have such a great need of instrumental assistance and emotional support from then" social environments, have long remained a rather neglected theme of social support research. She has suggested two reasons for this reticence: 1. the methodological restriction of dominant support and network research to assessment methods that are inappropriate for children, such as scales and questionnaires; 2. the rather narrow perspective of, for example, developmental and clinical pychology on the social relationships of children. Probably because of the focus on early childhood, children's social networks have long been restricted to the closest family circle, that is, initially to mother-child dyads, and they have also been treated as a rather unimportant derivate of parental networks. On the other hand, both of these restrictions and contact barriers are good examples of possible reciprocal impulses that could lead to a much-needed reorientation and reform on both sides. The one-track methods of social support research hi general, in research designs using cross-sectional and retrospective studies, and in data collection with scales and questionnaires, have long been criticized (Depner et al., 1984; Nestmann, 1991; Shumaker & Brownell, 1984); unfortunately, often without successfully bringing about any changes. However, network and support research on children and adolescents requires different

Challenge for Social Support

7

methods, particularly when we are interested not only in network structures but also in relational content and processes, subjective interpretations of those involved, as well as actual support interactions. Hence, we should not rely solely on either child questionnaires or on parental reports on what they think and feel their children think, feel, or do. Attempts to assess support in a way that is appropriate to children and adolescents should at least consider the criteria and tips formulated by Cauce et al. (1990) or Wolchik et al. (1989) that markedly differ from existing support scales for adults. But an adequate study of the networks and support of children also calls for the application of other and more creative assessment strategies and methods in the framework of real-life studies and longitudinal studies. Longitudinal studies have been called for repeatedly and are indispensible if we want to study developmental processes. Qualitative methods, observation, and other nonreactive procedures, microanalyses of behavior, and also embedding assessment procedures in other methodological framing conditions such as play, discovery, and adventure, peer-group life, or even actual crisis are important. For example, Belle et al. (1987), Bryant (1985), and Tietjen (1989) have already gained interesting experiences with unconventional procedures for measuring the networks and supports of children, and some of the empirical studies in this volume take one step further in this direction. But a lot remains to be done. Hence, our present thesis is that social support research in general can be guided toward other designs and the development of alternative and complementary assessment methods through the requirements of the study population of children and adolescents. It will not be able to avoid having to overcome previous methodological limitations and deficits and will receive new impulses in its general methodological orientations. From an overwhelming boom of empirical research, we know that social support works - it buffers from stress and it promotes and protects health (House, 1987). But if we want to learn how, why, and when it works we need those methodological improvements that childhood research forces us to make. For childhood researchers, on the other hand, working with the concept of networks and social support compels them to go beyond the barriers of the microsystem level of mother-child dyads or parent-siblings-child systems. The direct and indirect importance for childhood development of the meso- and exosystem levels of social networks introduced into the scientific discussion by Bronfenbrenner (1979) and Garbarino et al. (1978) are becoming increasingly significant and can no longer be ignored. The effects of entire social networks on socialization and as protectors and buffers become apparent and extend our perspectives beyond close family and close peer contacts. Alongside looser, further, and also indirect influences of networks, that is, "weak ties" (Granovetter 1973), dealing with children and adolescents additionally reveals the relevance of sources of socialization and protective support that have previously been mostly ignored in both childhood and support research. Completely unjustifiably underestimated sources of support such as babysitters and childminders, such as pets, dolls,

Frank Nestmann and Klaus Hurrelmann

pop idols, and movie stars, musical, fairytale, or other fictitious characters, may well gain socializing, health-promoting, and stress-buffering importance for children and adolescents, perhaps particularly when traditional everyday and formal structures and qualities of relationships change. In doing this we may also avoid one crucial mistake support and network research in adult life makes and has made for years. As Felton and Shinn (1992) point out, from a community psychologist's point of view, the concepts of social network and social support tend to be reduced to individual-level concepts - despite their extra-individual nature. Many researchers concentrate and limit their attention on dyadic ties to key persons, personal support perceptions, and feelings of the individual, or they even treat network and support like stable personality traits. Definition and measurement biases seem to have pulled away network and support concepts from social structure and relational transaction to individualistic psychologizing (Lieberman, 1989). Felton and Shinn (1992) propose that social support and network research should "expand notions of social support to encompass social integration . . . examine the role of groups and settings as social network ' members' . . . " and "explore functional and structural characteristics of social networks as independent and dependent measures" (p. 103). We should consider this in childhood and adolescent support research to regain a full understanding of the extra- and intraindividual potentials of the concepts. These are not the only new fields of research: An interactional approach to networks and support systems requires children and adolescents to be viewed not only as targets and recipients but also, and above all, as sources and providers of various qualities of support. A perspective directed toward exchange and reciprocal processes must also replace the one-sided emphasis on the receiver hi social support research on children and adolescents. When and in what way children give social support to other children, adults, pets, and so forth, and with what socializing, protective, and buffer effects for both receivers and providers - these are issues that have scarcely been touched on as yet. Negligence of support provision and the supporters's perspective seem to be further examples of social support research deficits in general, which become apparent in support research in childhood and adolescence (Shumaker & Brownell, 1984). On the other hand, we can see a current perspective of extended interactive support models that is encouraging research on childhood and adolescence to also observe the active roles - and not only the reactive and passive roles - that children play in social networks and support processes. Dealing with children and adolescents also reveals a further challenge to support research from a conceptual and theoretical perspective: There is a need to discriminate the already repeatedly differentiated general functions of socialization from specific protective

Challenge for Social Support

9

functions. As repeated criticisms of research on adults have also shown, there is a need for theoretical growth in this field as well. Particularly in children and adolescents, there is interest in how networks socialize and how they support (or do not support), that is, how socialization and support are linked together - in everyday life and in specific developmental demands and crises. We also have to ask in what way does, for example, social support develop in relation to personal coping and coping styles? Is this a parallel process of development, or is development of the ability to construct and maintain networks, to seek and to give social support, only one aspect of personal coping skills? We still find a great confusion of ideas and termini in the social support discussion in general (Newcomb, 1990). As, given the present state of the art, it is necessary to discover and better understand the way in which social relations influence human well-being and health in the life cycle, we have to clarify concepts to guide operationalization and measurement in research. House et al. (1988) propose a differentiation of structures and processes of support. Social integration and isolation refer to the existence and quantity of personal ties, whereas social network refers to the structure of relationships (e.g., density, reciprocity). From these structural qualities, they distinguish the relational content, which refers to the functional nature and quality of ties and networks. Social support is just one such content quality or function - positive for our health. They point out that at least two other forms of relational content we always have to bear in mind are relational demands and conflicts - the negative side of social bonds - and social regulation and control, which may be health promoting or health damaging. Although all these structures and processes are linked together in the ecology of daily life and of development in childhood and adolescence, more efforts should be made to disentangle these variables as well as their specific determinants and consequences in child and adolescent networks. One last look at the demands that working with children and adolescents place on practical concepts of intervention and prevention: In general, support research in recent years has shown that suitable and appropriate interventions in social networks and support cannot be derived directly and unequivocally from network and support theory (Gottlieb, 1987). Attempts to transform support theory into support practice have frequently been problematic. They fail, do not have the desired outcome, or even have undesirable side effects, and they leave many issues unexplained, such as the priority in applying the various possible strategies, as Gottlieb (1985) has demonstrated in children of divorce. Because we still know little about networks and social support in children and adolescents, particularly about subjective perceptions and attitudes as well as relational qualities and actual support interactions, it is even more difficult to develop adequate concepts to mobilize support and to make sources and provisions of support fit the needs. Here we must also take into account differences in age, socioeconomic status, and gender of givers and receivers and, in particular, programs must be adjusted to specific ecological life conditions. It seems that it is precisely in work with

10

Frank Nestmann and Klaus Hurrelmann

children and adolescents that there is a more compelling and even greater challenge to develop suitable models of prevention and intervention that fit the particular person and situation. Bearing relational demands and regulating and controlling functions in mind, and in view of the different personal and social resources available in each case, we should carefully weigh the question regarding whether and which prevention and intervention activities are necessary immediately and, above all, in the long term, and which activities might possibly damage the development of autonomy and individual strengths. In addition, children and adolescents seem to be more awkward and obstinate targets for professional intervention and prevention activities than adults, and it is even harder to disentangle them from their social and natural environments. Hence, our professional intervention must also pay more attention to this person-environment transaction, and this requires both specific knowledge on these relationships and increased creativity hi developing practical intervention strategies and concepts. Our own studies have shown that this practice is completely underdeveloped in the example of German psychosocial care of adults as well as children (Nestmann & Niepel, 1992). While systematic field experiments to isolate features of programs that maximize supportiveness and preventive impact for adolescents are yet to be conducted, a survey of existing programs by Price et al. (1993) allows a basis for some preliminary conclusions. The authors summarize major characteristics of successful social support programs for adolescents: Empathy with adolescent goals and aspirations. Gottlieb (1988) has observed that if a program is not seen by adolescents as relevant to their needs and aspirations, the likelihood of participation will be low. Erickson (1988) and Hedin (1988) have both noted that programs that readily acknowledge a partnership with youth are much more likely to be effective than those that offer support primarily aimed at the control of behavior. Such a partnership orientation is more likely to communicate a sense of positive reward and minimize the message that adolescent behavior is inevitably a problem or that young people cannot make important positive contributions. Insight into interrelated problems and needs. lessor (1982) summarizes longitudinal studies of problem behavior in adolescence by concluding that many adolescent problems do not occur in isolation, but, instead, tend to occur together. Problem clustering may reflect the fact that two or more different problems, such as drug use and school failure, are likely to occur together in a single individual or that problems may be interrelated causally, for example, when alcohol and tobacco use complicate pregnancy and place an infant at risk. Intervention programs are effective when they take the background of problem development into account. Opportunities for growth and mastery. A number of authors have argued that supportive relationships that allow opportunities for adolescents to give as well as take may be

Challenge for Social Support

11

particularly beneficial. Programs that do not provide opportunities for active participation may undercut their potential effectiveness. Programs that employ active and experiential learning techniques are more successful compared with those that require only passive listening and learning (Price et al., 1993, p. 496). Responsiveness to adolescent development. The review of Price et al. (1993, p. 497) shows that one-shot programs of brief duration are not likely to produce the expected benefits of programs of longer duration and continuity that provide support before and during adolescent development. Programs of longer duration have the dual advantage of establishing long-term relationships and providing support over a larger portion of the course of adolescent development. These programs take information about the developmental characteristics of adolescents into account. Linking supporters and committing resources. Programs that foster relationships between the various supporters of adolescents are more likely to be effective. Programs aimed at preventing school failure that involve both parent and teacher (Bry, 1982) appear to be more effective than programs that involve only one member of the role set. Similarly, programs for pregnant teenagers that involve both a visiting nurse and a friend (Olds, 1988) provide an example of this special quality. It may be that programs that intentionally encourage secondary ties have particular advantages since they involve and mobilize larger portions of the social world of the adolescent Price and Lorion (1989) have noted that the receptivity of the host organization such as a school or health clinic is a critical but frequently overlooked factor in the development and implementation of effective preventive programs. Using school, community, and peers as intervention forces. It is clear from the report of Price et al. (1993) that schools can provide a range of opportunities for programs to support adolescents in the critical years when educational attainment and health behaviors are being shaped: Programs to encourage peer, parent and teacher support can have positive effects on school achievement, self-esteem, as well as school discipline and dropout problems. Peer and school support programs that help to resist pressure to smoke and provide access to health care can have preventive impacts on adolescent health . . . . Schools can become sources of support and caring rather than institutions that are indifferent to the educational, health and emotional needs of young adolescents. The programs reviewed here suggest some of the ways in which social support can be mobilized in schools to enhance adolescent health and education, (p. 506)

12

Frank Nestmann and Klaus Hurrelmann

Additionally, the community - whether defined in terms of geographical space, as a political unit, or in terms of a network of associations - remains a critical locus in which the developmental tasks of adolescents are linked to the activities of everyday life: The community provides the adolescent an arena between the institutions of family and school on the one hand and those of the wider world on the other. It is an arena in which adolescents can have an opportunity to learn and practice the skills useful in the wider world and to practice adult roles including those of worker and citizen. In addition, each of these sources of support in the community can call on a wide range of skills and may increase the likelihood and opportunity for supportive peer-adult relationships to develop. ( p. 507) Finally, peer influence has long been recognized as a powerful force in the lives of adolescents (Hamilton & Darling, 1989; Klepp et al., 1986). As their social world expands beyond the arena of the immediate family, peer attitudes and behavior take on a new salience and become potentially influential in shaping health behavior: A number of programs have attempted to mobilize peer influence to shape health norms and behavior, to support healthy behavior, and to provide social support to resist pressure to smoke . . . . Peer leaders serve as potential role models, demonstrate and create a norm of nonuse, and provide alternatives to drug use. Peer leaders reinforce the importance of social responsibility and of health, and at the behavioral level, peer leaders teach social skills to resist pressures to use drugs and to help students identify and practice health-enhancing alternatives to drug use. Peer leaders provide normative information rather than merely providing facts. Research has shown that while teachers have more credibility regarding factual information, peers have more credibility relaying information about norms for social interaction. (Price et al., 1993, p. 503) The possibilities and limitations of applying practical interventions to networks and support - be they general and preventive or focused on a specific situation - in order to counter stress or crisis hi children and adolescents seem to be strongly linked to the transaction between personal factors such as level of development, age, gender, coping style, and so forth, and the environmental dimensions, that is, settings, with their suprapersonal characteristics, their social climate, their organizational programs, and their physical dimensions (Moos & Lemke, 1983). If we do not manage to develop suitable models that fit this transaction between person and environment, we will hardly be able to improve our prevention and intervention programs. Action research hi intervention programs and evaluation of social-supportfostering programs in practice may be adequate strategies to supplement basic research and to improve our knowledge here. The ecological or socioecological congruence of

Challenge for Social Support

13

conceptions and inplementations, which numerous authors have called for in recent years (Hobfoll et al., 1990; Vaux, 1988, 1990), therefore seems to be a practical and, as far as theory and methods are concerned, a compelling developmental perspective for support research in childhood and adolescence. The Present Book The chapters in the first part of this book develop various new theoretical and methodological perspectives on support and network research in childhood and adolescence. In a theoretical chapter on the function of social support in childhood for coping and socialization, Brenda K. Bryant draws on Erikson's theory of psychosocial development to emphasize the interwoven roles of autonomy and inclusion in social networks and social support. The importance of achieving a balance between experiences of support and autonomy across various phases of the life course is demonstrated. Social commitments and social autonomy are viewed as two sides of a coin as far as successful support is concerned. This approach is supported by examples and research findings from support literature. With reference to the work of Minuchin, the author points out the problems involved in dynamic concepts of support in systemic network contexts and discusses the possibilities of substituting different sources of support. In their chapter, Toni C. Antonucci and Hiroko Akiyama extend the Convoy Model that links together the life-span perspective on development with the intergenerational perspective on social relationships. The authors also try to integrate the results of attachment research, recent developmental psychology, and research on close relationships. Referring to a current study on social relations and mental health over the life course, they reveal the importance of going beyond the descriptive phase of support research and studying the specific effects of social relationships and social support in childhood and adolescence as well. Benjamin H. Gottlieb and John C. Sylvestre develop a concept of social support that focuses on the supportive role of interactions in personal relationships. They consider that the question of how personal relationships gain a supportive character is an appropriate counterbalance to the previously dominant perspective on support as an exchange resource, as a personality trait, or as a cognitive process. Their goal is to reemphasize the contextual and interactional quality of social support within systems of long-term social relationships. They illustrate their approach with a qualitative study on relationships and barriers to relationships between adolescents and Jionkin adults. James Youniss confronts social network and social support research in adults with theoretical concepts and empirical data from research on childhood and adolescent

14

Frank Nestmann and Klaus Hurrelmann

friendships and peer culture. He shows that normal development is a history of social construction in which children and adolescents learn interpersonal responsibility and mutual care, reciprocity, and so forth. He explains and criticizes the model, which is implied so often hi psychological support research, of an independent personality that constructs and uses social networks and support relationships according to strategic perspectives. Ana Man Cauce, Craig Mason, Nancy Gonzales, Yumi Hiraga, and Gloria Liu follow up a review of the conceptualization and measurement of social support by focusing on the role of social support in adolescence. Preliminary findings from a prospective study on the ecological and familial conditions of increased social competence and well-being in adolescents form the basis for discussing suitable strategies for assessing social support in this age group and for studying specific forms and perceptions of support among adolescents. The paper clarifies the close relationship between methodological procedures and the conceptual orientation of the various directions in support research and opens up new perspectives for integrating attachment and support models. The second part of the book addresses the integration of various other theoretical concepts and lines of research with social support research. Bernd Röhrle and Gert Sommer perform a theoretical, and, with the help of meta-analysis, an empirical integration of social support research and social competence research. They trace the close relationships between social integration and both emotional support and social competence and recommend further research on social support competences - those social competences that permit the effective provision and the effective reception of social support. Marcel A.C. van Aken presents a model of transactional relationships between childhood competence development and receiving social support. He emphasizes the importance of subjective expectations regarding personal competence to cope with developmental tasks during the life cycle and expectations regarding the availability of social support from the social environment. He illustrates his theoretical model with a longitudinal study of parental support and the development of competence in children. Sandy Jackson calls for not only a group approach in support research and intervention but also an integrated focus on the individual adolescent. He uses the example of an abused child in a residential home to clarify the interaction between socialization, social support, and social competence, and shows the need to develop an approach that reflects development, the child's own interpretations of situations, and the person-environment relationship. Finally, he recommends the practice of this approach in analysis and intervention.

Challenge for Social Support

15

Hans W. Bierhoff discusses the relationships between social support research, which primarily deals with receivers of support and their subjective interpretations of support, and research on altruism, which focuses on the helper and helping behavior. After analyzing the specific methodological procedures in the various lines of research, he calls for a stronger conceptional and empirical integration of support research and research on prosocial behavior. The third part of the book presents chapters on the role of parents and peer groups as sources of support in childhood and adolescence. Hans Oswald, Lothar Krappmann, Hans Uhlendorff, and Karin Weiss use data from their study of school students in Berlin to show that children receive various kinds of social support from their peer networks during middle childhood. This support has important functions in establishing and continuously reestablishing the social interactions that promote development. The authors integrate findings from social support research, friendship research, and peer-group research and show how relationships in the supportive networks of children have many objective and subjective facets. Mechthild Gödde and Anette Engfer develop a child-appropriate measurement instrument, the network game, to assess young children's perceptions of their social networks. They compare the children's perceptions with the networks reported by the children's mothers. In a 9-year longitudinal study of 38 mother-child relationships, they work out the specific qualitative and quantitative representations of social networks in girls and boys and demonstrate the importance of going beyond the study of statements by adults. They also discuss the mother's role as a gatekeeper of her children's social contacts. Manuela du Bois-Reymond and Janita Ravelsloot present longitudinal findings on the sexual socialization of adolescents. This is the first study on the role of the peer group and best friends as supporters on sexual issues and problems for adolescents as well as on the parents' roles as partners with whom children can discuss their sexuality. The authors reveal the particular status of the topic of sexuality within the framework of general communication over adolescent life-style and culture and confirm a great number of generation- and gender-specific differences in support from peers and parents. Wim Meeus analyzes the problem load of adolescents in data from a panel survey on transitions in the life course. He works out gender-specific differences in various emotional problems and tests hypotheses on whether girls receive more and more effective support from parents and peers than boys and whether emotional problems result from low support. He confirms that the impact of support from both parents and peers takes the same direction.

16

Frank Nestmann and Klaus Hurrelmann

John L. Cotterell emphasizes the central role of structural network characteristics for support research hi childhood and adolescence. He also particularly discusses the qualities of weak ties. In a small sample of adolescents with low self-esteem who have sought counseling because of various school problems, he points out typical and untypical network constellations and their subjective relational and support qualities. Particularly as far as the planning of intervention and prevention is concerned, the author recommends that more attention should be paid to the network structure including its negative relational dimensions. The following chapters in the fourth part of the book deal with conditions and processes of support hi stressed family constellations. Wendy Kliewer, Irwin Sandler, and Sharlene Wolchik study how social support protects children from stress hi the relationship between variables in the social environment and the stress mediators of coping and threat appraisal. Then" interest focuses on childhood experiences of relationships to parents, coping models, and familial and environmental stability hi the nuclear family. Negative effects of the familial context on appraisal and coping are also worked out and discussed. In their approach to the study of the role of the family for stress buffering, appraisal processes, and coping processes, the authors differentiate the context of the familial environment and the child-parent relationship, direct instruction, and parental models. They use then- own empirical work and the literature to confirm hi detail that all three paths have a decisive impact on the outcome of coping. Deborah Belle uses her own research program on what children do after school to report on the situation of the growing number of "latchkey children." After reviewing the goals, effects, and outcomes of care programs, she uses an intensive study to explore the various after-school experiences of children, the impact of various arrangements on the children, and the role of social support. She shows the variety of possibilities - from self-care across peer and family care to formal care programs - and clarifies the need to consider the person-context interaction hi order to avoid false generalizations from conclusions and interventions. Barton J. Hirsch, Rebecca Boerger, Alexis Engel Levy, and Maureen Mickus develop a framework for a differentiated analysis of the socioecological dimensions of adolescents' social networks. They use the small amount of available research and preliminary findings from their own comprehensive study on the role of extended families to reconstruct the influences of direct and indirect constellations of relationships on black and white adults and adolescents from one- and two-parent families. The authors discuss the significance of then- findings for the previously neglected field of prevention and intervention programs in adolescence.

Challenge for Social Support

17

Frank Nestmann and Gabriele Niepel consider the receiver role that is attributed in a onesided way to children and adolescents in support networks and processes. A qualitative study of support relationships in one-parent families is used to reconstruct the function of children as supporters of their mothers in both everyday life and in crises from the mothers' perspective. The support relationships between mothers and children are discussed within the framework of the general mother-child relationship. In her chapter, Christine Eiser considers the role of social support in the care of chronically sick children. She is particularly interested in the children's assessment of the different support efforts of various sources of support (parents, siblings, peers, medical personnel). She analyzes the sparse research in this field and calls for differentiated research designs and more suitable assessment methods in order to gain more detailed knowledge on the interrelations between the stresses of chronic illness and social support and social networks in the life cycle. This should lead to the development of appropriate concepts of intervention. The fifth part of the book refocuses attention on the frequently neglected sociocultural and cultural backgrounds of social support. Inge Bo's study goes beyond the narrow peer and parent relationships of adolescents and addresses the broader sociocultural environment as a source of support. Links between neighborhood quality, social networks, leisure-time preferences, and academic achievement are tested within the framework of micro- and mesosystems and the corresponding environmental setting. Bo's data demonstrate the need for an interactional conception of the different milieus and social relationships of adolescents in an attempt to understand adaptive, at-risk, and disturbed academic and leisure-time behavior. The next chapter presents data on family and peer-group support in Germany and Israel that has been gathered by a German-Israeli research group. Georg Neubauer, Jürgen Mansel, Arza Avrahami and Michael Nathan and reveal some interesting cultural differences in network integration, support qualities, and the role of professional helpers. The social structures of growing up in an Israeli kibbutz compared to a German family are discussed as important explanatory backgrounds. Anne Marie Tietjen looks at how social networks and social support in childhood and adolescence are interwoven with specific cultural contexts. From a socioecological perspective, she uses a review of culture-specific support research to reconstruct goals and processes of socialization in various cultures in terms of relationships and interactions of social support. The content and the process of social support interaction is compared crossculturally, and research on the subjective meaning of support is recommended. Tietjen demonstrates the importance of cross-cultural studies for the further development of support theory, research, and intervention.

18

Frank Nestmann and Klaus Hurrelmann

Judith Ennew presents a cross-cultural view of "parentless friends" and networks of street children. In an analysis of historical, literary, sociopolitical, and empirical social-scientific work in the field, she reveals ideological, political, and economic biases that systematically neglect or even deny the autonomous and self-determined networks and support relationships of street children and adolescents. She counters these biases in an analysis of the existing state of knowledge on their frequently covert resources and strengths, and on the reciprocations and support qualities of these networks. In light of this "other side" of peer and adult relationships among street children, she criticizes the dominant intervention and "friendship" programs. In the final chapter, Marcel A.G. van Aken, John C. Coleman, and John L. Cotterell plot the main themes of the theoretical and methodological discussion in this book. Referring to the individual chapters, they work out not only the current state of knowledge but also the central difficulties and weaknesses of support and network research in childhood and adolescence. They call for terminological and conceptual clarifications of the existing network and support theories, and they underline the need to formulate a developmental model of social support in childhood and adolescence that neglects neither the relationship dimension of supportive transactions nor the person dimensions of those involved. This orientation requires new and extended methodological orientations in empirical support research, particularly hi light of the need to give more appropriate consideration to the contextual conditions of networks and support relationships. The authors propose that social support should be embedded within the resources of the community as an empowerment process in prevention and intervention programs for children and adolescents.

References Antonucci, T. (1985). Social support: Theoretical advances, recent findings, and pressing issues. In I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research and applications (pp. 21-38). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Nijhoff. Belle, D., Burr, R., & Cooney, J. (1987). Boys and girls as social support theorists. Sex Roles, 77(11/12), 657-665. Belle, D. (Ed.). (1989). Children's social networks and social supports. New York: Wiley. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bry, B. H. (1982). Reducing the incidence of adolescent problems through preventive intervention: Oneand five-year follow-up. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10(3), 265-276. Bryant, B. (1985). The neighborhood walk: Sources of support in middle childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in child development, 50(3), No. 210. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, (1989). Turning points. Washington, DC. Cauce, A. M, Reid, M., Landesman, S., & Gonzales, N. (1990). Social support in young children: Measurement, structure and behavioral impact. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.). Social support - An interactional view (pp. 64-94). New York: Wiley.

Challenge for Social Support

19

Depner, C., Wethington, E., & Ingersoll-Dayton, B. (1984). Social support Methodological issues in design and measurement. Journal of Social Issues, 40(4), 37-54. Erickson, J. B. (1988). A commentary on "Communities and adolescents: An exploration of reciprocal supports." Youth and America's future (pp. 77-87). New York: The William T. Grant Foundation. Feiner, R. D., Ginter, M., & Primavera, J. (1982). Primary prevention during school transitions: Social support and environmental structure. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10(3), 277-290. Felton, B. J., & Shinn, M. (1992). Social integration and social support Moving "social support" beyond the individual level. Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 103-115. Garbarino, J., Burston, N., Raber, S., Rüssel, R., & Crouter, A. (1978). The social maps of children approaching adolescence: Studying the ecology of youth development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7, 417-428. Gottlieb, B. (1985). Theory into practice: Issues that surface in planning interventions which mobilize support. In E. G. Sarason & G. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research and applications (pp. 417-337). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Nijhoff. Gottlieb, B. (1987). Marshaling social support. Beverly Hüls, CA: Sage. Gottlieb, B. H. (1988). Supporting interventions: A typology and agenda for research. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships. New York: Wiley. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380. Hamilton, S. F., & Darling, N. (1989). Mentors in adolescents' lives. In K. Hurrelmann (Ed.), The social world of adolescents: International perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter. Hareven, T. K. (1989). Historical changes in children's networks in the family and community. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children's social networks and social supports (pp. 15-36). New York: Wiley. Hedin, D. (1988). A commentary on "Communities and adolescents: An exploration of reciprocal supports." In Youth and America's Future (pp. 69-76). New York: The William T. Grant Foundation. Heller, K., Swindle, R. W., & Dusenbury, L. (1986). Component social support processes: Comments and integration. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 466-470. Hobfoll, S. E., Freedy, J., Lane, C., & Geller, P. (1990). Conservation of social resources: Social support resource theory. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(4), 465-478. House, J. S., & Kahn, R. L. (1985). Measures and concepts of social support. In S. Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health. New York: Academic Press. House, J. S. (1987). Social support and social structure. Sociological Forum, 2(1), 135-146. House, J. S., Umberson, D., & Landis, K. R. (1988). Structures and processes of social support. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 293-318. Jessor, R. (1982). Critical issues in research on adolescent health promotion. In T. J. Coates, A. C. Petersen, & C. Perry (Eds.), Promoting adolescent health: A dialog on research and practice (pp. 447-465). New York: Academic Press. Klepp, K., Halper, A., & Perry, C. L. (1986). The efficacy of peer leaders in drug abuse prevention. Journal of School Health, 56(9), 407-411. Kraus, W., & Straus, F. (1992). Soziale Netzwerke und Identität. Erziehung und Wissenschaft, 10, 9-12. Lieberman M. A. (1989). Social supports - the consequences of psychologizing: A commentary. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 461-565. Millstein, S. (1988, February). The potential of school-linked centers to support adolescent health and development. Working paper prepared for the meeting of the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, Washington, DC. Moos, R., & Lemke, S. (1983). Assessing and improving social ecological settings. In E. Seidman (Ed.), Handbook of social intervention (pp. 143-162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Nestmann, F. (1991). Soziale Unterstützung, Alltagshilfe und Selbsthilfe bei der Bewältigung. In U. Flick, E. von Kordorff, H. Keupp, L. von Rosenstiel, & S. Wolff (Eds.), Handbuch qualitative Sozialforschung (pp. 308-312). München: PVU.

20

Frank Nestmann and Klaus Hurrelmann

Nestmann, F., & Niepel, G. (1992). Alleinerziehende im Urteil professioneller Helferinnen, neue praxis, 4, 323-345. Newcomb, M. D. (1990). Social support by many other names: Towards a unified conceptualization. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(4), 479-494. Olds, D. (1988). The prenatal/early infancy project. In R. H. Price, E. L. Cowen, R. P. Lrion, & J. Ramos-McKay (Eds.), Fourteen ounces of prevention: A casebook for practitioners. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Price, R. H., & Lorion, R. P. (1989). Prevention programming as organizational reinvention: From research to implementation. In D. Shaffer, I. Philips, & N. B. Enzer (Eds.), Prevention of mental disorders, alcohol and drug use in children and adolescents. Rockville, MS: Office of Substance Abuse Prevention and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Prevention Monograph 2. Price, R. H., Cioci, M., Penner, W., & Trautlein, B. (1993). School and community support programs that enhance adolescent health and education. Teachers' College Record, 94, 487-521. Shumaker, S. A., & Brownell, A. (1984). Toward a theory of social support: Closing conceptual gaps. Journal of Social Issues, 40(4), 11-36. Tietjen, A. (1985). The ecology of children's social support networks. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children's social networks and social supports (pp. 37-69). New York: Wiley. Vaux, A. (1988). Social support: Theory, research and intervention. New York: Praeger. Vaux, A. (1990). An ecological approach to understanding and facilitating social support Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(4), 507-518. Wolchik, S. A., Beals, J., & Sandier, I. N. (1989). Mapping children's support networks: Conceptual and methodological issues. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children's social networks and social supports (pp. 191-220). New York: Wiley.

Parti Social Support in Childhood and Adolescence Theoretical Perspectives

2 How Does Social Support Function in Childhood? Brenda K. Bryant, University of California, Davis, USA

1. Introduction As a way of furthering our understanding of the meaning of social support in the lives of children, I would like to consider several functions of social support during childhood. In particular, I suggest that social support researchers need to more clearly research the following five questions: -

How does social support function in relation to autonomy? How does the social context of social support function? Can one support figure function as an indistinguishable substitute for another? How does social support function to enhance coping as socialization of children? How can the same form of social support function differently for different individuals?

2. Social Support in Relation to Autonomy First, I want to suggest that social support and autonomy need to be considered together. Children, like adults, have needs for independence, privacy, and solitude. With respect to children, adult concern for supervision, guidance, and protection of their child from physical danger can blind adults to the value that privacy and other forms of autonomy have for well-being and growth. In addition, adults are not simply concerned about helping children cope with current ongoing stresses but are also concerned about preparing a child for the future. In this concern for long-range goals, the child's ability or role in determining needed sources of support often gets undermined or simply overlooked. Who, afterall, is in the better position to be able to assess long-term needs than the adults who bring to their judgments the wisdom that life experiences over time bring? Consequently, adults are often operating with two agendas: helping the child cope with the here and now, and socializing the child for future events. I would argue that when we think of social support, our emphases have been on helping the child cope with the here and now rather than on socialization in that our emphasis has been on the need for social connection during "scary, overwhelming

24

Brenda K. Bryant

moments." Nonetheless, the larger view of social support will consider the child's need for social connection and autonomy. Erikson's (1950, 1964) theory of psychosocial development well illustrates the position that humans have a vital need for both social support and autonomy throughout the life cycle. Although Erikson's position is often erroneously characterized as a summary list of achievements (i.e., first being trusting, then becoming autonomous, followed by initiating, being industrious, committed to an identity, etc., see Franz & White, 1985), Erikson more accurately at each stage proposes that issues of connection to others and autonomy from others are simultaneously at play. Thus, trust needs to develop along with mistrust for healthy development to occur. At every one of Erikson's proposed stages of development is the vital resolution and constant work of achieving and maintaining a healthy balance between social connectedness and separateness. It is a developmental proposition in that the form of this duality changes with both developmental and cultural dictates. At each stage of development, the need for some sort of mastery to keep us independent from others is to be balanced by a kind of mastery to keep us connected with others. While trust requires social connectedness, mistrust requires some detachment from others; while autonomy requires some independence from others, shame and doubt, brought about in part by parental sanctions or limits of the child's autonomous functioning and parental responses to a child's experiences of failure, firmly plant these issues in a social context. Thus, support as a socializing function can be viewed as helping to establish both aspects of psychosocial development, the side that forges connection to others and the side that provides necessary detachment from others. More recent theoretical and conceptual models of psychosocial needs of developing children remain congruent with that of Erikson. Wertheim (1978) argues that optimal adaptation throughout the life span is based on a balance between the need for autonomy and the need for social and physical support, a balance that changes in form and degree with development. Likewise, Holler and Hurrelmann (1990) conceptualize health and coping capacity in terms of the dual criteria of the individual garnering personal (autonomous) resources and mobilizing social resources. Similarly, Kegan (1982), in his work on the development of self, also suggests that social connectedness is part and parcel of the human experience, and so the development of self-identity is not simply one of individuation or separation from others but rather involves the reconstruction of the relationship between self and others. This reconstruction is a life-long process. The nature of autonomy and social connectedness as well as the relationship or balance between autonomy and social embeddedness changes over time (i.e., develops). In each model, both in the presence of stress and over time, autonomy and social embeddedness are inextricably intertwined. To support children's development and functioning, issues of the child's or adolescent's needs for autonomy and social connection need our attention.

Support Functions in Childhood

25

Although the research literature on stress and support has by and large ignored the importance of a balance of the experience of social support and autonomy, other available empirical research supports the importance of considering both autonomy from and relatedness to others as supportive of social-emotional functioning. Since researchers have not been directly interested in the dual requirement of support for social connection and support for autonomous functioning, my examination of the literature is not based on a tight, systematic definition of support for autonomy. Rather I present examples in which both social connection and social autonomy are considered as two sides of the coin of skilled support. Autonomy is recognized in two forms: (a) independence from another and (b) personal power in a relationship. This latter view is particularly relevant to the idea of providing support for autonomous functioning within the context of adult-child relations. Social involvement and independence from others go hand in hand when development and functioning are going well. Sander (1975) notes that toddlers do not exclusively work at achieving self-reliance. Instead, their strivings for autonomy are balanced by continuing bids for emotional partnership with their caregivers. Baumrind's (1967) classic work with preschool children speaks to the value of both fixing the child within close bounds of the parents while also infusing the child with the basis for autonomy. Her authoritative parenting strategy is one in which parents demonstrate considerable warmth (i.e., social support) and discipline (i.e., the adult takes a stand separate from that of the child) that includes providing rationales so the child can understand that the limit is being set independent of the parent's mood or impulse and thus have the basis for socially responsible thinking and action on her own. Children of these authoritative parents were found likely to be independent (i.e., assertive, self-reliant, achievement-oriented), socially involved, and responsible (i.e., friendly and cooperative). Finally, Werner and Smith (1982) also report that resilient children demonstrate social competence, even in the early years of childhood, and appear to balance a strong social orientation with a great deal of autonomy and independence. Autonomy vis a vis experiences of aloneness has been found relevant to later social interchanges during middle childhood. In particular, it has been documented that being in nonchosen continual presence of others does not support satisfying social interaction, whereas experiences with chosen aloneness (i.e., experiences of autonomy) can promote satisfying social interaction at a later time (Wolfe, 1978). Experiences of satisfying autonomy and social relations appear crucially interrelated. In other research on prosocial functioning during middle childhood, the concept of responsive mothering furthers the portrait of the dual value of maternal social support and respect for the child's autonomy (see Bryant & Crockenberg, 1980). Responsive mothering was coded when the mother provided help, attention, and/or approval in direct response to her child's bid for a response. Responsive mothering was related to infrequent antisocial and frequent prosocial interaction between her children. In contrast, maternal help, attention, and approval not asked for did not respect the child's unspoken request for continued autonomy in a

26

Brenda K. Bryant

challenging task and was unrelated to prosocial behavior between siblings. Maternal help, no matter how well- intentioned, may be experienced as intrusion rather than support to the child, depending on whether or not the child indicates a need or desire for the help. During adolescence, issues of independence and autonomy have traditionally been recognized as important. The need for parental support and involvement in the adolescent's lives has often been overlooked. I would argue that adolescence is often problematic not so much because of adolescents' need for autonomy but because of their ambivalence and awkward expressions of need of support. Across studies, Hamburg (1974) reports that parental interest, guidelines, and social support, particularly of the parent of the same sex, are associated with the young adolescent most successfully negotiating the developmental tasks associated with the challenges posed by the biological changes of puberty, the challenges posed by the entry into a the new social system called junior high school, and the challenges posed by entering a new role status of "teen." Elder (1980) too, found, according to adolescents' self-reports, that parent-child relations were an important component to smooth functioning hi adolescence. His research, however, directly links parental social support with parental support of the adolescents' autonomous decision making. In particular, adolescents who enjoyed social support from their parents as reflected in enjoyed joint activities between themselves and their parents were also allowed more autonomy in making a myriad of decisions. In addition, these youths tended to choose friends whose values were like those of their parents; thus peer relations did not develop in opposition to parent-child relations. Most recently, Hetherington et al. (1992) found that warm, supportive, noncoercive parents who monitored their adolescents' behavior but granted them considerable autonomy seemed to have the most well-adjusted children. Again, we see that providing children as well as adolescents with social support and autonomy go hand in hand with satisfying social-emotional functioning. Social support at its best combines social connection and aspects of child autonomy.

3. The Social Context of Social Support Once we agree that there is a need to balance needs for connectedness with those for autonomy, we still need to consider the context in which social support is provided. When we think of social support, I believe we tend to think of support being received in a dyadic context. By and large, I want to suggest that this is not the actual context of ongoing support provided by families. We often talk about networks of support as a number of people who provide certain functions to an individual, but we view individuals as delivering the support in the context of dyadic interchange. Families, in particular, are groups in which dyadic privacy is not the norm. Dyads may share some private experiences, but, by and large, parents (and even siblings, for that matter) provide support to individual children in the context of others' witness and participation. Furthermore, families are continuous social units, so that shared history, that is, knowledge of previous

Support Functions in Childhood

27

shared experiences with others, provides a context in which present ongoing interactions between family members become part of a present interaction. It is this strength of group dynamics and shared family history as well as the interplay between subgroups within the family system that contributes to the impact of family life on the development of children. Family therapies provide a backdrop for this focus. Minuchin (1974, 1992), in particular, considers both issues of support simultaneously with issues of autonomy. Although many children now live part of their childhood in one-parent homes and an increasing number of children has no siblings, children in the United States still typically live with two parents and have at least one sibling (Veenhoven & Verkuyten, 1989). Despite this reality, we have a research literature that, for the most part, operates as though this was not the case. Everyday parent-child interactions are not accurately portrayed as pure dyadic interchanges. Virtually all the literature on the influences of parenting is suspect in this regard, since there is good reason to believe that dyadic "findings" carry with them the unrevealed phenomena of how parenting behavior directed toward one family member impinges on others who in turn respond toward the child of interest or are "objects" of child observation with concomitant "witness/bystander" effects. Bryant and Crockenberg (1980), in observing mother-sibling triads, found that the effect of a mother's behavior on her children's social interaction with one another depended in part on how she treated each child relative to her sister. Dunn and Munn (1985) also demonstrated that children responded to comments spoken directly to themselves as well as to those made by one family member to another. Similarly, "sibling effects" must be considered in relation to parent-child functioning as the two subsystems are not independent. In other words, dyadic interactions within the family will influence and/or be influenced by whoever else is present. What appears to be a parental caretaking effect or what appear to be independent sibling caretaking effects may actually reflect a coordinated system of relationships among family members (including parents and siblings). Research designs and analyses have not typically addressed children's social development in this manner so we have very little data base to consider. Consider the following example linking children's experiences in the family with their predisposition toward accepting individual differences among peers of their same age (Bryant, 1989). In this example, Bryant started with the traditional direct dyadic parentchild or sibling-child relations vis ä vis the child's attitudes toward peers and then followed up with a more complex analysis of indirect effects within the family system to begin to understand the family process by which the apparent direct effects were obtained. Acceptance of individual differences was defined as allowing close physical proximity to a range of peers, including children known to be relatively negatively evaluated by their peers (Bryant, 1982). Caretaking experiences of children's mothers, fathers, and siblings were assessed by a modified version of the Cornell Parent Behavior Inventory (Devereux et al., 1969). [See Bryant (1989) for a complete description.]

28

Brenda K. Bryant

The simplest indication that what parents and siblings do is in part interdependent is the direct correlation between sibling and parental caretaking along comparable factors. Mothers and older siblings shared a concern factor, and older sibling demonstrations of concern were moderately related to mothers' expressions of concern. Experience of sibling concern (i.e., support), then, is in part moderated by the concern (i.e., support) that children receive from their mothers; or, conversely, maternal concern is in part moderated by the concern that siblings provide. In this sense, family relationships are not accurately described in terms of mere dyadic exchanges. The interaction between sibling and parental support of children can be far more sophisticated and complex, however. Minuchin's (1974, 1992) family theory highlights how this can operate for healthy and unhealthy functioning of individual family members. In Minuchin's system, members of "healthy" families know they are connected but have a good sense of separateness as individuals as well. When there is "too much" connectedness and not enough individual separateness, the families are considered enmeshed. When individual autonomy is paramount at the expense of little connectedness between the family members, the families are considered disengaged. Both enmeshment and disengagement in the family system are considered to impact unfavorably on children's social development. Social support research has focused on the need for social connectedness for individual well-being. Relatively neglected in the social support literature is the problem of enmeshment (social connectedness) for healthy functioning. According to Minuchin's approach, an analysis of how siblings and parents provide avenues within the family system to show both connectedness and separateness within the family system would illustrate how enmeshment and disengagement occur. Patterns of family dynamics in which both a parent and a sibling coordinate the giving of support (to enmesh the child) or supplement one another's giving of punishment (to disengage the child) would lead to family enmeshment and family disengagement, respectively. Congruent with an image of enmeshed family functioning, sibling nurturance and supportive challenge, when paired with parental concern or support, was related to children's reduced acceptance of individual differences among peers (Bryant, 1989). Social connectedness is problematic when there is not pressure to be disengaged from significant others as well. This kind of analysis helps define conditions under which the family system may be the more revealing unit of analysis. When is parental support not supportive to prosocial development? The answer appears to be when the family unit surrounds the child with concern and when concern dominates parent-child and child-child interactions to the exclusion of opportunities for autonomy in matters of concern. Until we begin to recognize both in research designs and in analytic strategies that much of sibling relations and parenting occurs not in isolation of each other, as our research literature predominantly implies, but rather in concert with other family members, we will not be clear how dyadic

Support Functions in Childhood

29

relations (neither parent-child nor sibling relations) operate within larger social systems to affect children's social development. How teachers and students function to enmesh or disengage a given child needs attention in the school setting. How neighbors/communities operate to enmesh or disengage a child bears our scrutiny. Finally, how individuals across settings interact to support social connection and autonomy is worth considering. The value of both social connection and autonomy to characterizing forms of support still has to be fully explored.

4. Caretaker/Supporter Substitutability Can one individual entirely substitute for another in providing support? This question is relevant because researchers have suggested that significant others can substitute for lacks in parental support in both low-risk (Bryant, 1985) and high-risk (Hetherington, 1989; Werner & Smith, 1982) family situations. What has not been carefully considered is the nature of the substitute support. Can sibling support compensate for parental deficiencies? Can persons outside the family compensate for lack of support within the family? Can family members compensate for lack of support in social settings outside the family? Can sibling support compensate for a lack of friends at school? High support from a favorite sibling has been associated with better adjustment among peer-isolated children in the school setting (East & Rook, in press). The compensatory pattern should not be exaggerated, however, since isolated children in general still showed greater adjustment difficulties than did average children as a group. Siblings can apparently provide some aspects of support provided by school friends, but they do not replicate all the benefits of support provided by school friends. Similarly, some children do avoid their parents and seek out older siblings when they have a problem and need someone to talk with. Bryant (1992) found that most 7- and 10-yearold children interviewed reported going to parents to discuss at least some of the emotionally stressful experiences they considered (i.e., sad, angry, worried experiences). Although parents are typically wanted for the provision of emotional care, some children prefer receiving emotional care from their older siblings. Can a sibling substitute for a parent? Child and adult caregivers who are sought out do not provide equivalent responses to children (Bryant, 1992). Sibling provision of emotional support lacks the richness and complexity of adult caretaking in terms of the types of coping strategies provided in discussions with children examining experiences the children have found to be emotionally stressful. These data echo the caution recommended by Boer (1990): to proceed with prudence when we talk about sibling relations as compensating for a parent-child

30

Brenda K. Bryant

relationship. This is not to say that sibling discussions do not have an influence on a child's development, but rather that sibling caretaking, even when it may be chosen as a substitute for adult caretaking, may not be a comparable experience to that which other children receive when they choose a parent. Siblings have been found to be chosen to substitute for traditional parental support and guidance about stressful events when parents negate or reject their child's feelings, despite the fact that these parents show a "full" complement of positive cognitive and direction action coping responses and when the sibling is unlikely to tell the younger child he/she has "messed up" (i.e., told him or her that he or she has done something wrong; see Bryant, 1992). Those children whose parents accept their feelings are more likely to be exposed to a rich array of coping strategies that engender future autonomously derived solutions represented by cognitive and direct action strategies. Children with parents who negate or reject their child's feelings are likely to get emotional support from an older sibling, but, in this case, it is not complemented with such a rich array of autonomous engendering strategies. Perhaps accepting older siblings provide aid in coping with selfacceptance that is of immediate importance to the child, whereas accepting parents provide emotional support pertaining to the child's concern for self-acceptance plus provide a rich array of cognitive and direct action socialization strategies that can be viewed as helping children attain autonomous strategies in the future.

5. Coping Versus Socialization Functions Social support, then, can have different functions that vary in their short-term and longterm consequences. In the above example, self-acceptance and development of socialized cognitive and direct-action problem-solving strategies are more likely outcomes when parental support is utilized over that of a supportive older sibling to discuss stressful childhood experiences. Consider also the relevance of a source of support that I discovered rather unexpectedly to be quite important to children during middle childhood (Bryant, 1985). I am referring to family pets. To study the developmental consequences of using pets as a source of support in middle childhood requires longitudinal designs observing children over time to see development of individuals occur. More typically, we compare relationships between socialization factors and children of different ages from which we make developmental inferences. The findings from a longitudinal project I am working on illustrate the caution we must take in doing this. Six aspects of social-emotional functioning form the bases of looking at social-emotional development social perspective taking, empathy, acceptance of individual differences, attitudes toward competition and individualism, and perceived locus of control (see Bryant, 1985). Concurrent analyses of relationships between choosing pets as social support during times of stress was found to be related to the prediction of

Support Functions in Childhood

31

empathy, acceptance of individual differences, and attitudes toward competition. Age was a salient factor in several of these obtained concurrent relationships, with 10-year-olds appearing to make more constructive use of pets as social support, resulting in increased empathy, decreased competitiveness, and, for 10-year-old males, increased acceptance of individual differences. These relationships did not hold over time, however. Pet/animal support at age 7 did not predict any social-emotional functioning at age 10, although one relationship between pet/animal support at age 10 and social-emotional functioning at age 14 was found. Intimate talks with pets at age 10 interacted with family size to predict empathy at age 14, with having intimate talks with family pets or neighborhood animals at age 10 being linked to less empathy at age 14 among children in small families. Over time, the value of pet support at earlier times is not apparent. These results reveal two important matters. First, the longitudinal findings are similar to those I found for the grandparent generation (with grandparents not living with the children in my sample) but dissimilar to those I found for parents (both mothers and fathers) and siblings who all demonstrated considerable predictive power in children's social-emotional development. Second, pets may best be considered useful sources of coping during middle childhood that enhance a child's current social-emotional functioning. In other words, at age 10, intimate talks with pets during times of stress may be useful to a child. This pet support, however, is not generally a critical socializing factor, one that has noticeable impact over time. In the one instance in which it does appear that pet support operates as a socialization factor, the relationship was negative. This has an important clinical implication. While pet support can be useful for enhancing the child's current social-emotional functioning, it does not appear useful for enhancing social-emotional development over time. Thus, while pets can be useful sources of support to help children cope with current stresses, intervention involving other support from parents, siblings, or others is warranted when we take a longterm view of the situation. The importance of taking both the short-term (i.e., concurrent) perspective as well as the long-term (i.e., longitudinal) perspective is emphasized by these results. Issues of socialization are long-term issues and issues of coping are short-term issues. Both are important to both the clinician and the child. Using an analogy, a rigorous winter day may require quick energy foods while good physical development requires a balance of food sources called good nutrition. Under temporary stresses, children may need quick fixes of support from easily available support figures, but for good development, a balance of social connection and autonomy vis a vis key family members appears crucial.

32

Brenda K. Bryant

6. The Same Social Support Can Have Different Meaning to Different Individuals Finally, it is important to recognize that the same "social support" may be experienced differently by different individuals or different groups of individuals. Gender, both of the provider of support and of the child receiving support, is a major individual difference that has pervasive social impact. For example, boys and girls appear to respond differently to experiences of intimate and casual relationships. The gender of the child has been found to moderate the relationship between the experience of sources of support and psychological well-being, and this appeared to occur for five of the six measures of social-emotional functioning considered (Bryant, 1985). Extensiveness of casual involvement with persons in the adult generations, both parent and grandparent generations, resulted in special significance for boys in the study. Extensive casual involvement, not intensive intimate involvement, with adults was positively linked to social perspective-taking skill and internal locus of control among boys but negatively related to this skill and orientation among girls. Extensive and intensive involvement with the grandparent generation was positively related to the social perspective-taking skill in boys and negatively related to this skill in girls. Extensive casual involvement with the grandparent generation was related to greater expression of empathy among boys and lower empathy among girls. Intensive involvement with the grandparent generation, on the other hand, was positively linked to increased expression of empathy among the girls but not among the boys in this study. Intensive relationships with adults were also positively linked with an internal locus of control orientation among the girls but not among the boys. Not only do boys and girls differ in the extent to which they see out, respond to, and report extensive (i.e., casual) versus intensive (i.e., intimate) relationships with others, as has been reported by Bryant (1985), Berndt (1981), and Waldrop and Halverson (1975), but these experiences of extensive/causal and intensive/intimate relationships appear to have different developmental correlates for the two genders. Similarly, Holler and Hurrelmann (1990) found gender of child to moderate the relationship between social status among peers (a measure of involvement within a peer group reflecting extensiveness of casual involvements) and psychosomatic symptoms. Social position and frequency of symptoms were related for males but not females. It appears that males thrive on relationships characterized by considerable social distance (i.e., popularity measures), which also reflect social affirmation, while females' well-being is unaffected by this kind of social support. Gender of the provider of support also influences how support is experienced. Offers of support by mothers as compared to fathers are more likely to be met with children accusing mothers of poor understanding and problem-solving strategies (Bryant, 1992). As we consider processes of support, it is vital that we gain an appreciation of the unique

Support Functions in Childhood

33

challenges a child brings to different individuals who are attempting to be supportive of the child.

7. Clinical Implications 1. Social support to be effective must encompass forces impinging upon the child that provide a balance between avenues for social connectedness and challenges for autonomous functioning. Both comfort with social connection and comfort with autonomous functioning are relevant for healthy functioning and development. 2. Outside the peculiar conditions of privacy afforded a child with a therapist, much of real-life support occurs in public. Dyadic exchanges by themselves do not adequately describe the true nature of support offered by individuals to a given child. Dyadic exchanges must be viewed in relation to historical and concurrent exchanges going on elsewhere in the child's social spheres of functioning. 3. Substitute caregivers provide some valuable support, but without greater understanding of support processes, the substitute caregiving does not replicate experiences that children get when traditional caregivers are used. Thus, compensatory caregiving is valuable but we need to pay attention to other unmet needs that result. Support experiences are multidimensional. Substitute caregivers appear to compensate for single dimensions of the support otherwise available were substitute caregiving not needed. 4. Under temporary stresses, children need not only a "quick fix" of support but also opportunity to develop coping strategies to avoid or remedy stressful encounters in the future. 5. Individuals differ in how they experience social support. Gender, both of the provider of support and of the child receiving support, is a major individual difference that has pervasive social impact on how support is received and processed. Both researchers and clinicians alike need to be puzzled. When are social connection and autonomy experiences actually supportive and when are such experiences annoying, intrusive, and destructive to coping and/or enhanced socialization?

Note The financial support for this chapter was provided by the Agriculture Experiment Station, University of California, Davis, including the Western Regional Research Project (W-167) as well as funding provided by the Delta Society and the Pet Food Institute.

34

Brenda K. Bryant

References Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88. Berndt, T. J. (1981). Prosocial behavior between friends and the development of social interaction

patterns. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development Boston, MA. Boer, F. (1990). Sibling relationships in middle childhood: An empirical study. Leiden, Netherlands:

DSWO Press, University of Leiden. Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development, 53, 413-425. Bryant, B. K. (1985). The neighborhood walk: Sources of support in middle childhood. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (3, Serial No. 210). Bryant, B. K. (1989). The child's perspective of sibling caretaking and its relevance to understanding social-emotional functioning and development In P. Zukow (Ed.), Sibling interactions across cultures. New York: Springer. Bryant, B. K., & Crockenberg, S. (1980). Correlates and dimensions of prosocial behavior: Female siblings with their mothers. Child Development, 51, 529-544. Bryant, B. K. (1992). Sibling caretaking: Providing emotional support during middle childhood. In F. Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.), Children's sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues (pp. 55-70).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Devereux, E. C, Bronfenbrenner, U., & Rodgers, R. R. (1969). Child-rearing in England and the United States: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Marriage and Family, 31, 257-270. Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1985). Becoming a family member: Family conflict and the development of social understanding in the second year. Child Development, 56, 480-492. East, P. L., & Rook, K. S. (in press). Compensatory patterns of support among children's peer relationships: A test using school friends, nonschool friends, and siblings. Developmental Psychology. Elder, G. (1980). Family structure and socialization. New York: Arno Press. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1964). Insight and responsibility: Lectures on the ethical implications of psychoanalytic insight. New York: Norton. Franz, C. E., & White, K. M. (1985). Individuation and attachment in personality development Extending Erikson's theory. Journal of Personality, 53(2), 224-256. Hamburg, B. A. (1974). Early adolescence: A specific and stressful stage of the life cycle. In G. V. Coelho, D. A. Hamburg, & J. E. Adams (Eds.), Coping and adaptation (pp. 101-126). New York: Basic Books. Hetherington, E. M. (1989). Coping with family transitions: Winners, losers, and survivors. Child Development, 60, 1-14. Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G., in collaboration with Anderson, E. R., Deal, J. E., Hagan, M. S., Hollier, Ε. Α., & Lindner, M. S. (1992). Coping with marital transitions. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57 (Nos. 2-3, Serial No. 227). Holler, B., & Hurrelmann, K. (1990). The role of parent and peer contacts for adolescents' state of health. In K. Hurrelmann & F. L sel (Eds.), Health hazards in adolescence (pp. 409-431). Berlin: de Gruyter. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Minuchin, S. (1992). Family healing. New York: Macmillan. Sander, L. W. (1975). Infant and caretaking environment. In E. J. Anthony (Ed.), Explorations in child psychiatry. New York: Plenum Press.

Support Functions in Childhood

35

Veenhoven, R., & Verkuyten, M. (1989). The well-being of only children. Adolescence, 24(93), 155-166. Waldrop, M. F., & Halverson, C. F. (1975). Intensive and extensive peer behavior Longitudinal and crosssectional analyses. Child Development, 46, 19-26. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable, but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and youth. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wertheim, E. S. (1978). Developmental genesis of human vulnerability: Conceptual re-evaluation. In E. J. Anthony, C. Koupernik, & C. Chiland (Eds.), The child in his family: Volume 4. Vulnerable children (pp. 17-36). New York: Wiley. Wolfe, M. (1978). Childhood and privacy. In I. Altaian & J. R. Wohlwill (Eds.), Children and the environment (pp. 175-222). New York: Plenum.

Convoys of Attachment and Social Relations in Children, Adolescents, and Adults Toni C. Antonucci, Hiroko Akiyama, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA

1. Introduction Social scientists have become increasingly aware of the importance of social relations to the life and well-being of children as well as adults (Belle, 1989; Hurrelmann, 1989; Kreppner & Lerner, 1990; Pearlin & Lieberman, 1979; Veroff et al., 1981). With this recognition it becomes especially important to emphasize a theoretical view that integrates a life-span perspective with an intergenerational familial view of social relations. In this chapter, we recommend and outline the integration of the Convoy Model of Social Relations with social support research as it has been accumulating in both the child and adult literature. We also propose the integration of this literature with the accumulating research on attachment and close relationships among infants and more recently among older children and adults. The integration of these diverse literatures, we believe, can greatly enhance our understanding of social relations across the life span. In addition to a theoretical integration of these perspectives, we also recommend a new phase in empirical investigation. Much of the social relations research has focused on the description of various aspects of these relationships; it is time to eclipse the descriptive phase and to conduct research focused on understanding the processes and mechanisms through which the social world of the child and adolescent evolves. This new phase of exploration should yield a better understanding of how these early social relations subsequently shape the world of the adult. Finally, we describe an ongoing research project that attempts to operationalize this next step in the scientific examination of social relations.

2. Convoy Model of Social Relations The Convoy Model of Social Relations was originally developed in 1980 by Kahn and Antonucci. The term was first used in this context by David Plath (1980) in his anthropological studies of the Japanese. Through the use of the term convoy, Plath meant to convey the notion that individuals are surrounded by a community of others who accompany them throughout their lifetime. Plath wanted to note that this convoy of others

38

Toni C. Antonucci and Hiroko Akiyama

creates something of a protective cocoon, allowing the individuals to move through agerelated events with the advantage of being a member of a larger group that moves along with them. Kahn and Antonucci (1980) developed the Convoy Model to impose a life-span and developmental perspective on the concept of interpersonal social relations. Their model was introduced during a period characterized by vastly increased interest in social support and social relations but also notable because of the absence of any significant theoretical perspective. The Convoy Model was specifically designed to fill the theoretical void that existed in the social relations literature. Kahn (1979) and Kahn and Antonucci (1980) adopted Plath's term and further developed the concept to include intraindividual life-span development. They also included the individual as role occupant, that is, as family, organization, and community member. They argued that while it is the individual who develops over time, who occupies a specific role, and is a member of a specific organization, the individual experiences all these events as part of a larger group or convoy. This larger group may be family, friends, a community group, or society at large. Kahn and Antonucci (1980) believed that recognizing that the individual experiences both critical and noncritical life-events within this context enhances our ability to understand how each event is experienced. They were among the first to note that this convoy could be both positive and negative. The cocoon could serve to protect the individual or to make the individual vulnerable. It could augment or limit the individual's development. It could affect the choices the individual would make as well as how successful the individual might be once those choices were made. How the convoy influenced individual choices and the success with which they faced the challenges of life was yet to be determined but represented a clear future goal of the Convoy Model. Social Support Research Emergence of empirical research on social support. The importance of social support to the health and well-being of the individual had been heralded by Cassel (1976) and Cobb (1976) at the conceptual and clinical level. Each of these researchers, speaking from a psychiatric epidemiological perspective, argued persuasively that "positive" or "good" social relations served to improve the quality of life of people in general but also to prevent illness and to prolong life. In many ways, these arguments were groundbreaking because they combined limited empirical evidence with clinical judgment. The arguments were compelling, and soon many researchers began to provide systematic, empirical, scientific evidence for these ideas. The amount of this research escalated at an incredible rate. Unfortunately, for the most part, the research continued to be conducted with little theoretical or conceptual basis. Enthralled by slogans such as "Friends make good medicine" and "Families help as much as doctors" investigators began to describe the friendship and family networks that people felt surrounded them.

Convoys of Support

39

As the early work based on conveniently selected respondents was replicated with more representative samples, investigators discovered that social networks, including size, shape, and composition, were not altogether uniform. Evidence began accumulating that social networks varied by several factors. Middle- and high-income individuals had different network structures than lower- and working-class individuals (i.e., less gender-segregated, less family-based, and more varied); different religious groups formed different types or styles of networks (e.g., Baptists have more tightly knit social networks than most other Protestants); and culture, race, and ethnic differences were also noted (e.g., Italians, like Hispanics, seem more family-oriented than the English or Dutch; blacks are more likely to have close ties to the Church than whites). Indeed, even the genders differ. In an area that no one could yet called settled (Antonucci, in press), it has become increasingly clear that women have different social network structures than men; closer examination suggests differences in quality and function of relationship rather than quantity or structure. Social network, social support, and support satisfaction. Early research also suffered from serious methodological and definition problems. Originally, researchers were not very precise about distinguishing social networks from social support or from satisfaction with social support (Antonucci, 1985; Israel, 1985). These must be distinguished since they affect outcomes, especially sociological and psychological outcomes, differently. To summarize these distinctions briefly, social networks refer to the structure of membership in an individual's network. In other words, social network describes the individuals, their number, age, gender, and type of relationship (family member, friend, etc.). It is distinct from social support itself, which actually describes the support that is exchanged. Sometimes called the functions of social support, this term refers to the giving or exchanging of some thing - be it aid, affect, or affirmation. The entity, which could be tangible, such as lending money, or intangible, such as giving love and affection, is the support. And finally, the term quality or satisfaction with support refers to the individual's assessment of the support received. It is critical to note that this is an individual and psychological assessment. It refers to how the individual feels about the support that is being given or received. It should be noted that, as an evaluative psychological construct, satisfaction with support is a perceptual variable that may or may not be objectively based. Once these constructs have been differentiated, it becomes clear that some common assessments of social relations are actually measures of social network and not support; or measures of satisfaction, not support. For example, asking if a child lives with his or her parents provides information about that child's network structure. Asking if one's parents provide love and affection is a social support question; but asking if one is satisfied with the amount of love and affection that parents provide is an evaluative question that may or may not be related to the social support question. The objective statement of whether a parent provides love and affection is a quantitative support question that is directly related to the social network question of whether or not the child has or lives with parents.

40

Toni C. Antonucci and Hiroko Akiyama

It is clear that one has to have a parent to be either satisfied or dissatisfied with the support provided by that parent. The exact same example is also true if one replaces parent with spouse. One must first have a spouse in order to receive support from that spouse, and the provision of support from a spouse does not guarantee satisfaction with that support. As social scientists began to offer greater precision in the assessment of these "support" variables, the quality of the research similarly improved. For the most part, this work remains primarily descriptive; however, two different types of social support, at least suggestive of different theoretical perspectives, began to emerge. Main and buffering effects. The two types of research were described as exploring the main and buffering effects of social support on well-being outcomes. The main effect of social support is sometimes called the direct effect because it describes the direct effect of social support on well-being. This research explored the degree to which the receipt of social support by an individual allowed that individual to feel better about him or herself. For children, one would expect that being supported by parents, other family members, and friends is what allows the child to develop optimally. This can be seen to parallel attachment theory, which argues that a positive attachment figure provides a secure base from which the infant can explore the world. The basic argument is that supportive others develop and enhance an individual's (infant, child, or adult's) feelings of competence, selfworth, self-esteem, or self-efficacy. These factors combine to enable the individual to be able to approach and successfully meet the challenges of life. This support provides a positive base or cushion, a general feeling that problems can be solved. The second type of support was called the indirect or buffering effect because it specifically targeted a critical life-event but was not distinctive in the absence of such an event. Buffering support is activated differentially when an individual is confronted with a stressful event. The buffering effect of social support influences well-being indirectly by ameliorating the effects of a stressful life-event or crisis. In this circumstance, support is basically a coping strategy. Thus, a well-supported child would be much more likely to be able to successfully confront a stressful event such as an accident or injury than a child without support. This support paradigm, as indicated by the indirect pathway of events, that is, crises —> support/coping = increased well-being, is also consistent with attachment theory, which argued that children with secure attachment relationships were better able to withstand the stress of separation or of being confronted with a stranger in the absence of the attachment figure - both stressful events for infants. The Strange Situation (Ainsworth et al., 1978) was specifically designed to assess the degree to which a secure attachment relationship could help the child cope with an increasingly stressful situation.

Convoys of Support

41

Some researchers have tried to determine which social support is the real social support that defined above as main effect or that defined as a buffering effect support. Research evidence is available to suggest that both types of support exist. Both the main and buffering effects of social support offer insights into the role of social relations under specific circumstances, but neither provides an overview that would contribute to the understanding of how individuals develop, profit, or are challenged by their social relations. The purpose of the Convoy Model was to provide such an overview. Kahn and Antonucci (1980) argued that people face crises with prior experiences both of critical life-events and of normal social interactions. The framework they proposed was designed to highlight the fact that individuals reach the present with a lifetime of experiences that fundamentally affect how they react to present circumstances and events. This model is based on the tenets of life-span developmental psychology. Life-Span Developmental Psychology Intra- and interindividual history. "Modern" life-span developmental psychology is in many ways a recent phenomenon. Life-span psychological theory might be traced to the influence of several German psychologists in the United States. These include Klaus Riegle, Werner Schaie, and Paul Baltes. Although not easily summarized, a few specific points are especially relevant to understanding social relations. The life-span perspective argues that the individual is a developing entity. In fact, the person who exists in the present is a product not only of the current situation and current relationships but also of an accumulation of his or her own intra- and interindividual history. This perspective complicates the analysis of any aspect of development. At the same time, it has become clear that this vantage point is also critical in achieving an understanding of the person's social relations. The individual accumulates a wealth of experiences over time. Some of these will be positive, others negative. But they will also span a wide array of events and types of event. The experiences of infancy accumulate, as do those of early and middle childhood, as well as those of adolescence, early and middle adulthood, and old age. These are experiences that are cognitive, social, physical, and emotional; experiences that shape the individual at any one point in time. It is also important to recognize that life-span intraindividual development intersects with family development (Antonucci, 1989). Thus, the infant develops through to adulthood and old age, but is also part of a larger familial and societal context. For example, the family context affects how the individual experiences intraindividual development. To be the firstborn child is a very different familial trajectory than to be the 10th child in a family

42

Toni C. Antonucci and Hiroko Akiyama

with 10 children. And at each developmental stage, that child, either the 1st or the 10th born, experiences that particular developmental stage within a different context. Age/period/cohort issues. At the same time as life-span developmental psychology was becoming more widely accepted, scientists were becoming increasingly aware of the importance of age, period, and cohort in the developmental experience (Baltes et al., 1980). The developmental theorist is typically concerned with the effects of age on the individual's developmental trajectory. Life-span theorists now began to think of the human being as also affected by the historical period in which he or she lives. A few examples make this point. Being an adolescent or young adult, that is 18- to 20-years-old, at the start of World War I or II, or during the affluent 1950s were each distinctive in terms of historical period. Similarly, certain cohorts emerged with a clear distmctiveness. In the United States, for example, several cohorts are readily identifiable: hippies (in the 1960s), conscientious objectors (during the Vietnam War), or baby boomers (members of President Clinton's age cohort). Individuals of different ages, periods, and cohorts each have unique experiences that must be integrated in order to understand the individual's developmental experience. While more complicated, it also allows a greater level of precision and certainly increases the potential for understanding fundamentally those factors that influence the individual's developmental trajectory. This is especially relevant to the study of social development and interpersonal relations. Although the life-span perspective is applicable to all aspects of individual development, that is to cognitive, physical, biological, educational, and emotional types of development, it may be more important to understanding the complex phenomena of interpersonal relationships than to any other form of development. Thus, for example, it is clear that certain types of physical development are affected by age, period, and cohort. People are somewhat taller now than they were 100 years ago. If you are of Northern European origins, you are likely to be taller than if you are of Southern European origins, but you are also more likely to be taller if your family has access to nutritional foods, if you have better eating habits, and if you are not exposed to a great deal of pollution. Knowing that a person was raised in an institution, was exposed to physical or psychological abuse, or suffered the loss of his or her parent(s) at an early age provides important and significant insights about their probable social development and social relations as adults. Stated in the most conservative manner, it is clear that such stressful or maladaptive social experiences during earlier periods in life place individuals at risk for maladaptive social relations throughout their lifetime (Brown & Harris, 1978; Rutter, 1987, 1989). This life-span perspective is becoming increasingly widely accepted in the study of social relations. As Hasselt and Hersen (1992) recently noted in the very first lines of their Handbook of Social Development, "Whether one is concerned with normal development or psychopathology, a thorough understanding of social development over the life span is mandatory" (p. 1). Basically, without understanding or at least being generally aware of the

Convoys of Support

43

individual's past experience, one cannot hope to understand the expectations, reactions, or experiences of that person in the present. Early life-span developmental theory. Although the life-span perspective in its "modem" form is relatively new, the stage theories of Freud and Piaget offer some early commitment to this concept. In both theoretical conceptualizations, one stage builds upon another, and development continues, at least hypothetically, throughout life. In truth, for both Freud and Piaget, development goes through multiple stages in childhood and then ends in one very long stage from adolescence through old age. Aside from one's views concerning the content of Freudian and Piagetian theory, it is worth noting that the concept, at least the potential, of continual development is present in both. Freudian theory has been thoroughly debated, and, it is probably fair to say, is not currently widely accepted among American developmental scientists. It is also true that Piagetian theory, although extremely popular among developmental psychologists for many years, is also currently experiencing notable controversy (e.g., Baillgeron, 1992; Labouvie-Vief, 1985). Despite much controversy, a debt is owed to these early theorists for preparing social scientists to think in terms of life-span development and continuity. It is possible that, in the next century, new empirical evidence will discount basic tenets of each theory and leave, as their major contribution to the understanding of human development, the life-span perspective. Nevertheless, for the life-span developmentalists, Freud's theory raises another fundamental question that must be addressed: To what degree does experience, progress, or resolution of a previous stage predetermine the experience, progress, or resolution of later stages. An important question has not yet been successfully answered: We still do not know how flexible the human being is in terms of development, or, to phrase this in another way, it is not yet clear how much rigid determinism exists in the developmental sequence. Must certain achievements be successfully accomplished by specific ages, or is the human organism infinitely flexible? From what is already known concerning normal development, it seems likely that there remains some room for flexibility in various accomplishments. It is clear that children can successfully reach developmental milestones, that is learn to walk, talk, read, write, be toilet trained, with great variation without exhibiting long-term disadvantages. However, it is also true that there are some known limits - for example, young children, up to about the age of 10 or 12, can learn to speak another language without an accent. After that, although the individual can become quite facile in another language, it is almost impossible for an adult to speak a new language and sound like a native speaker. Clearly there are some areas in which flexibility is operative, even facilitating, and others in which there are limits to that flexibility. Piaget's life-span theory contributes to our understanding largely in cognitive development. His work is relevant both because of its life-span developmental perspective and because

44

Toni C. Antonucci and Hiroko Akiyama

he argued that the level of cognitive ability contributes to the manner in which an individual can experience social development. Piaget showed how individuals cognitively grasp social and emotional experiences; and how their cognition affects their behaviors. His cognitive stages of development are firmly rooted in a life-span perspective. There can be no doubt that this theory offered another link hi the life-span developmental psychology chain and in the integration of cognitive development with social development and, by inference, the experience of social relations. Close Social Relations Integrating close social relations and the Convoy Model. The Convoy Model assumes that significant social relations are, for the most part, life-span in nature and involve stable and enduring properties. They are also assumed to have an important and cumulative influence, either positive or negative, on the individual. It has been noted (Antonucci, 1990; Berscheid & Peplau, 1983; Brehm, 1984; Cairns, 1977) that helping, loving, caregiving, social support, friendships or close relationships, attachments, and affiliative behaviors research are related but, unfortunately, usually considered separately. These research endeavors have also largely been focused both empirically and theoretically within limited age groups, for example, children, college students, old people, parent-infant pairs; and have largely been considered either positively or negatively, for example, helpful friendships, dysfunctional families. The Convoy Model argues that research from all these close-relationships paradigms is relevant and needs to be organized and understood within a single rubric and within a dynamic, life-span, developmental framework. In addition to the fact that these relationships are likely to continue to exist over long periods of time, the Convoy Model assumes that one must attend to the fact that people both influence and are influenced by the close social relations they have with others. The convoy concept highlights the fact that individuals are surrounded by a group of individuals who are more and less important to them. What we must begin to understand, in a way that has not been well understood in the past, is that each of these relationships has a separate and individual history, some of which is likely to be positive; other parts of which may very well be negative; and still others, probably the great majority, which are both positive and negative. As we seek to understand the social world of the individual, these separate and individual histories are very important. The convoy notion makes no judgment about the nature of these relationships but rather serves to integrate what is known about developmental psychology, about the nature of mother-infant attachment relationships, and what is known about the nature, type, and content of social relationships more generally. Attachment and close relationships. Several literatures converge indicating that attachment relationships in children and close relationships among adults are critically important to mental health (Ainsworth, 1989; Belsky & Nezworski, 1988; Main et al., 1985; Parkes &

Convoys of Support

45

Stevenson-Hinde, 1982). Although Bowlby (1969) originally formulated attachment as a life-span concept, until recently, much of the research in this area has been focused on mother-infant attachment. The attachment figure has been viewed as a secure base from which to explore the world; as a source of comfort and reassurance in times of stress. It is hypothesized that these relationships are based on familiarity, mutually contingent feedback that produces positive feelings about self, and shared norms and experiences (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Antonucci, 1976; Antonucci & Jackson, 1987; Bretherton & Waters, 1985; Cairns, 1977; Hazen & Shaver, 1990). Traditional attachment research has begun to document attachment beyond infancy (Ainsworth, 1989; Bretherton & Waters, 1985; Main et al., 1985). Some of this work has taken a clinical approach, for example, using retrospective data from adults concerning their own attachment relationships with parents and showing an association between their attachment relationships with their own children or with other adults. However, other researchers (cf. Circirelli, 1991; Hazen & Shaver, 1990; Troll & Smith, 1976) have taken a more empirical approach to integrating attachment theory with later childhood, adolescent, and adult development. Unique to this work is the integration of early experiences with later experience and the recognition that early experiences may be indicative of potential pathways of development, but only if supported by the accumulation of consistent social relational experiences. For example, in an interesting and unique empirical study, Skolnick (1986) used the Berkeley Guidance longitudinal data to examine early attachment (i.e., infant attachment, 21 months) and personal relationships through young and middle adulthood (i.e., into the early 40s). She found that early attachment, either secure or insecure, was not absolutely predictive of later personal relationships, but that it sometimes was. She found that consistency was more likely to be present from childhood to adolescence and from adolescence to adulthood, that is, from contiguous periods. These results, which parallel those of Thompson and Lamb (1986) for a more limited period, strongly support the idea of an integration of both early attachment relationships and an accumulation of social relations. Social relations that are the most contiguous are the most highly related, reflecting perhaps the additive effect of each period, that is, of the cumulative effects of past and current experiences. While both types of research have provided interesting additions to our knowledge base, it seems clear that additional research on more representative and extensive samples still needs to be conducted. The research program outlined in the last part of this chapter is an example of such an endeavor. Cultural Differences Cultural differences in attachment. Another body of research highlighting the factors that influence social relations is represented in the attachment and support literature from different cultures. Originally, most social relations theorists argued that their theories or perspectives were universal. Ainsworth began her attachment research in Uganda, only

46

Toni C. Antonucci and Hiroko Akiyama

later conducting the now famous Baltimore attachment study. It was assumed that attachment classifications and attachment behaviors would transcend cultures. However, empirical investigations showed this was not the case. Ainsworth et al. (1978) reported differences when they compared their Ugandan sample with the Baltimore sample. Since then, more cultural differences have been documented. Takahashi (1990) in Japan, Grossmann and Grossmann (1985) in Germany, and Sagi (1990) in Israel, among others, showed that attachment classifications in other countries do not follow the same distribution as in the United States. A fundamental question emerged concerning whether attachment, attachment behaviors, and parent-child relations differed across cultures. Although this controversy continues today, it is now fairly widely accepted that there are significant cultural differences in the distribution of attachment security as measured by the "Ainsworth Strange Situation." Whether this difference is due to underlying structural differences across cultures or the inappropriateness of "American" measures in other cultures is still under dispute. Most, however, now assume that the "American" measures may not be appropriate for non-American samples, and may, hi fact, not be appropriate for some American subcultures. Cultural differences in reciprocity. Akiyama et al. (1990) examined social support and, in particular, reciprocity within families and across generations in the United States and Japan. They report significant differences hi the reciprocal behaviors among the two cultures. Although close relationships were reported within both cultures, hi the Japanese culture, reciprocity was rarely reported, whereas among the United States sample, individuals were much more likely to indicate reciprocal relationships. As they discussed these differences, Akiyama et al. point out that, among the Japanese, the younger generation is considered indebted to their elders. Therefore, reciprocity almost by definition cannot be achieved across generations. On the other hand, among Americans, reciprocity is a very strongly held norm that people strive to maintain well into old age. Other data (Antonucci & Jackson, 1990) indicate that Individuals will report reciprocal social relations well into old age. Antonucci and Jackson (1990) have shown that this reciprocity is threatened more by functional disability than age. These data stand in stark contrast to the Japanese perspective, which almost argues that respectful children, even adult children, are those who recognize their continued indebtedness to their parents. In another study, Antonucci et al. (1990) examined reciprocity among three elderly samples: white Americans, black Americans, and French elderly. The norm of reciprocity operated in all three groups. However, the French were less likely (4%) to report that they receive less support than they give, as compared to either white American (20%) or black American (20%) samples. The Convoy Model attempts to incorporate the cultural differences already documented in both the infant attachment and adult reciprocity literature. By assuming that the individual moves through time surrounded by and experiencing interactions with significant people

Convoys of Support

47

of varying levels of closeness, the Convoy Model is able to incorporate attachment and reciprocity concepts within a context that allows recognition of their culturally specific manifestations. Convoys of social relations exist within cultures. Thus, they exhibit culturally appropriate interactive and supportive linkages. Cross-national studies highlight subcultural variations that also may exist within one national boundary. In the United States, for example, it is important to explore the degree to which different subgroups might exhibit different attachment behaviors. Children from rural and urban, working-class and middle-class, or black and white backgrounds or fundamentalist and liberal religions might all reasonably be expected to produce different relational patterns. Although we are now less likely to assume that the parent-child interactive patterns of white, middle-class, two-parent, single-earner American families produce the "gold standard" of parent-child relationships, we know very little about the range of interactive patterns that are likely to produce "normal," adaptive, or secure social relations. The Convoy Model provides a nonevaluative framework to be utilized in the interpretation of this broad range of potential social relations. An Extension of the Convoy Model The literature reviewed above provides a compelling argument for a broader based theoretical perspective to organize the empirical investigation of social relations. The original Convoy Model proposed that characteristics of the person and the situation influence the individual's need for support. Kahn and Antonucci (1980) discussed support of at least three types: (tangible) aid, (emotional or) affective support, or (cognitive) affirmation. The support could then be perceived as adequate or not. Support, and especially support adequacy, was predicted to directly affect general well-being. However, the specificity of the longitudinal predictions still needs to be further delineated. Similarly, the interrelationships among other portions of the model also need further specification. The hypothesis that personal and situational characteristics influence individuals' need for support is consistent with both the individual and life-span basis of the model. Personal and situational characteristics do accumulate over the life span and are directly influenced by the cultural milieu within which the individual develops. Levitt (1991) has noted that this accumulation of lifetime experiences also influences the individuals' expectations of social relations. Levitt's expectancy framework uses a life-span perspective to argue that individuals develop expectations of support over time. In her preliminary investigations, Levitt (1991) has shown that the degree to which these support expectations are either confirmed or violated strongly influences the well-being of the individual. Thus, empirical evidence suggests the addition of psychological expectancies is warranted to further specify the Convoy Model. Another line of research also suggests that positive social relations over time are effective because they provide a successful base of positive experiences. Antonucci and Jackson

48

Toni C. Antonucci and Hiroko Akiyama

(1987) argue that the individual uses these experiences to generalize and internalize his or her ability to successfully meet the challenges confronted in everyday life. Thus, support accumulates over time to provide the main effect of support referred to above. This base of positive social relations also allows the individual to use social relations as a coping mechanism to enhance the individual's ability to meet the challenge of a specific stress or crises. Although the main and buffering effect of social relations are related, we believe, especially for the developing social world of children and adolescents, that both types of social relation need to be explored within a life-span, preferably longitudinal panel, familybased study. We are currently engaged in what we hope will be the first wave of such a study. A brief description of that study is presented below. Social Relations and Mental Health Over the Life-Course Study The Social Relations and Mental Health Over the Life Course Study is guided by the perspective, briefly outlined in this chapter, that only within a life-span framework can the concepts of social relations, stress, mental health, and their interrelationships be truly advanced. The goal of this study is to combine the rigor of survey methodology, especially sampling and field technology, with the perspective of life-span developmental theory and hypotheses. We were especially anxious to overcome some of the previous methodological problems by drawing a representative sample of children and adults and assessing the same concepts from people of all ages, through identical, though age-appropriate, questions. The specific aims of this study range from a basic descriptive assessment of social relations, stressful life events, and daily hassles across the life span, to an assessment of the more complete model examining the interrelationships among these variables and their effects on well-being. A description of the study design and an overview of the goals of this research are provided below. Study design. The study is based on a random sample of households from the Detroit metropolitan area. A sample of 1,800 individuals was drawn by area probability methods from households located in the Detroit tricounty metropolitan area. Although data collection is not yet complete, the goal is to include 200 children between the ages of 8 and 12 and their mothers; 1,100 people between the ages of 13 and over (in addition to the 200 mothers); and an additional 300 people over the age of 65. Study goals. Recognizing that this is a large study with multiple objectives, we have outlined the three basic goals of the study and provided some supplemental information about additionally planned analyses. The three major study goals are listed below: 1. To explore the basic structure, function, and quality of social relations. This study examines the social relations of individuals from 8 years of age through advanced old age. Although not a longitudinal study, it will be useful to examine the structure of social networks among people of all ages and, in particular, among people with

Convoys of Support

49

different personal and situational characteristics. Our sample will also provide a unique intrafamily data source, since we will be able to report on the similarities or differences among the 200 mother-child pairs. 2. To examine stressful life events and daily hassles across the life span. We are interested in the degree to which there are age and gender differences in the nature, frequency, and appraisal of these two different forms of stress. In an attempt to begin to provide life-span data on the buffering hypothesis, the daily hassles and stressful life events of people of all ages are being assessed. We will be able to explore the relationship between social network or structure variables and stress across the major portions of the life span. 3. The ultimate goal of this study is to examine the interrelationships of personal characteristics, social relations, and stress as predictors of mental health. In essence, we will be able to examine the basic tenets of the Convoy Model cross-sectionally among a representative sample of individuals 8 years of age and older, and uniquely among an intrafamily subsample of mothers with children between the ages of 8 and 12. Finally, this study also has a cross-national perspective. The original study was conceived and produced hi collaboration with life-span developmental psychologists in Japan. In fact, there is a completely parallel ongoing study in Japan. The data collection has been completed, and our colleagues are in the preliminary stages of data analyses. There is also a strong likelihood that there will be parallel data from France, though perhaps only among the older portions of the life span.

3. Conclusion In this chapter, the Convoy Model of support is suggested as a basic underlying perspective to be used in conceptualizing and empirically studying the social networks and social relations of children, adolescents, and adults. The importance of a life-span perspective as well as recognition of the individual's place within a larger context (family, community, or society) is advocated. Modifications of the Convoy Model are suggested that highlight the longitudinal nature of social relationship. The Social Relations and Mental Health Over the Life Course Study is not longitudinal, but it will permit the analytic exploration of the full Convoy Model, that is, the association between social relations, stress, and mental health. For the first time, data will be available that will permit the description of social network, social support, and support satisfaction among people of all ages. The presence of stress and mental health variables, in addition to personal and situational characteristics, should serve to advance our knowledge of the nature and role of predisposing factors and their

50

Toni C. Antonucci and Hiroko Akiyama

potential interaction with social relations to affect the individual's experience of stress and its influences on overall well-being. Our next steps will also facilitate the exploration of intergenerational consistency in the networks of mothers and their children. Similarities in the social relations of mother-child pairs and in their influences on stress and mental health will permit the extension of our knowledge base about how social relationships develop within families and how they affect other aspects of an individual's life and well-being. Finally, the associations between the different elements of the model will further be explored through an examination of the cross-national differences and similarities in the model. It will be possible to examine not only the degree to which the model is appropriate for the American culture but also the extent to which this model is universal at least to the extent that it is sustained in these other cultural contexts. Although the Convoy Model is based on a life-span perspective, one significant limitation in empirically testing its derivations is the cross-sectional nature of the available data. Ultimately, this model needs to be explored in longitudinal panel samples; we hope to be able to do so hi the near future.

References Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709-716. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Akiyama, A., Antonucci, T. C., & Campbell, R. (1990). Rules of support exchange among two generations of Japanese and American women. In J. Sokolovsky (Ed.), Growing old in different societies. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Antonucci, T.C. (1976). Attachment: A life-span concept. Human Development. 79(3), 135-142. Antonucci, T. C. (1985). Personal characteristics, social support, and social behavior. In R. H. Binstock & E. Shanas (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (2nd ed., pp. 94-128). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Antonucci, T. C. (1989). Understanding adult social relationships. In K. Kreppner & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Family systems and life span development (pp. 307-317). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Antonucci, T. C. (1990). Social supports and social relationships. In R. H. Binstock & L. K. George (Eds.), The handbook of aging and the social sciences (3rd ed., pp. 205-226). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Antonucci, T. C. (in press). A life-span view of women's social relations. In B. F. Turner & L. E. Troll (Eds.), Growing old female: Theoretical perspectives in the psychology of aging. New York: Sage. Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (1987). Social networks in adult life: A preliminary examination of the convoy model. Journal of Gerontology, 42, 519-527. Antonucci, T. C., Fuhrer, R., & Jackson, J. S. (1990). Social support and reciprocity: A cross-ethnic and cross-national perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 519-530. Antonucci, T. C., & Jackson, J. S. (1987). Social support, interpersonal efficacy, and health. In L. L. Carstensen & B. A. Edelstein (Eds.), Handbook of clinical gerontology (pp. 291-311). New York: Pergamon Press.

Convoys of Support

51

Antonucci, T. C, & Jackson, J. S. (1990). The role of reciprocity in social support. In I. G. Sarason, B. R. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 111-128). New York: Wiley. Baillgeron, R. (1992). The object concept revisited: New directions in the investigation of infants' physical knowledge. In C. E. Granrud (Ed.), Visual perception and cognition in infancy: Carnegie-Mellon symposia on cognition (Vol. 23). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Baltes, P. B., Reese, H. W., & Lipsitt, L. P. (1980). Life-span developmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 5-110. Belle, D. (1989). Children's social networks and social supports. New York: Wiley. Belsky, J., & Nezworski, T. (1988). Clinical implications of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bercheid, E., & Peplau, L. A. (1983). The emerging science of relationships. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 1-19). New York: Freeman. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Volume 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Brehm, S. S. (1984). Social support processes. In J. C. Masters & K. Yarkin-Levin (Eds.), Boundary areas in social and developmental psychology (pp. 107-130). New York: Academic Press. Bretherton, I., & Waters, E. (Eds.). (1985). Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Development, 50, (1-2 Serial No. 209), 66-104. Brown, G.W., & Harris, T. (1978). Social origins of depression. New York: Free Press. Cairns, R. B. (1977). Beyond social attachment: The dynamics of interactional development. In T. Alloway, P. Pliner, & L. Krames (Eds.), Attachment behavior (pp. 1-24). New York: Plenum Press. Cassel, J. (1976). The contribution of the social environment to host resistence. American Journal of Epidemiology, 104(2), 107-123. Cicirelli, V. G. (1991). Adult children's help to aging parents: Attachment and altruism. In L. Montada & H. W. Bierhoff (Eds.), Altruism in social systems (pp. 41-57). Lewiston, NY: Hogrefe & Huber. Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38(5), 300-314. Cochran, M., & Bo, I. (1989). The social networks, family involvement, and pro- and antisocial behavior of adolescent males in Norway. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18(4), 377-398. Grossmann, K. E., Grossmann, K., Spangler, G., Suess, G., & Unzner, L. (1985). Matemal sensitivity and newborn orientation responses as related to quality of attachment in Northern Germany. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, (1-2 Serial No. 209), 233-256. Hasselt, V. B., & Hersen, M. (1992). Handbook of social development. New York: Plenum Press. Hazen, C., & Shaver, P. (1990). Love and work: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 270-280. Hurrelmann, K. (1989). Human development and health, Berlin: Springer. Israel, B. A. (1985). Social networks and social support: Implications for natural helper and community level interventions. Health Education Quarterly, 12(1), 65-80. Kahn, R. L. (1979). Aging and social support. In M. W. Riley (Ed.), Aging from birth to death: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Boulder, CO: Westview. Kahn, R. L., & Antonucci, T. C. (1980). Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles, and social support. In P. B. Baltes & O. B. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 253268). New York: Academic Press. Kreppner, K., & Lemer, R. M. (1990). Family systems and life-span development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Labouvie-Vief, G. (1985). Intelligence and cognition. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Levitt, M. J. (1991). Attachment and close relationships: A life span perspective. In J. L. Gewirtz & W. Kurtines (Eds.), Intersections with attachment (pp. 183-206). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

52

Toni C. Antonucci and Hiroko Akiyama

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, (1-2 Serial No. 209), 66104. Parkes, C. M., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (Eds.). (1982). The place of attachment in human behavior. New York: Basic Books. Pearlin, L. I., & Lieberman, L. A. (1979). Social sources of emotional distress. In R. Simmons (Ed.), Research in community and mental health (pp. 214-240). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Plath, D. W. (1980). Long engagements: Maturity in modern Japan. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Rutter, M. (1987). Continuities and discontinuities in socioemotional development: Empirical and conceptual perspectives. In R. Emde & R. Harmon (Eds.), Continuities and discontinuities in development (pp. 41-68). New York: Plenum. Rutter, M. (1989). Pathways from childhood to adult life. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30(1), 23-51. Sagi, A. (1990). Attachment theory and research from a cross-cultural perspective. Human Development, 33(\), 10-22. Skolnick, A. (1986). Early attachment and personal relationships across the life course. In P. B. Baltes, D. L. Featherman, & R. M. Lemer (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 173-206). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Takahashi, K. (1990). Are the key assumptions of the ' Strange Situation' procedure universal? A view from Japanese Research. Human Development, 33, 23-30. Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. (1986). Infant-mother attachment: New directions for theory and research. In P. Baltes, D. Featherman, & R. Lerner (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 1-41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Troll, L. E., & Smith, J. (1976). Attachment through the life span: Some questions about dyadic bonds among adults. Human Development, 19, 156-170. Veroff, J., Douvan, E., & Kulka, R. (1981). Inner American: A self-portrait from 1957 to 1976. New York: Basic Books.

Social Support in the Relationships Between Older Adolescents and Adults Benjamin H, Gottlieb, John C. Sylvestre, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada

L Introduction This chapter presents and illustrates a perspective on the study of social support that differs from the usual purposes and methods of past research on the topic. Rather than examining a particular set of behaviors that are defined a priori as supportive, we focus on the ways in which supportive meaning is derived from the conduct of personal relationships. In addition, whereas past research has concentrated on social support's role in the stress process, we are primarily concerned with the ways in which social support arises in the ordinary conduct of personal relationships. In short, the perspective we adopt in this chapter spotlights how personal relationships take on their supportive character, rather than treating these relationships as the vessels through which supportive resources are conveyed. Accordingly, we do not regard support as a commodity that is extracted from people's social ties but as an aspect of the process of conducting human relationships. Our purpose, then, is to understand how interpersonal processes may communicate support within the context of a particular relationship under study. In addition, we wish to learn how the broader social influences impinging on particular relationships influence the supportive meaning of these relationships. The chapter begins by contrasting our approach and purpose with those of past investigations. Next, the chapter discusses how the study of personal relationships may contribute to our knowledge of social support among an underresearched group, namely, older adolescents. This is followed by a brief review of the literature on the subject of resilience. Because this body of research suggests that the risk of psychological harm to youth in this age group may be reduced by their relationships with adults other than family members, we chose to launch an inquiry on youths' relationships with such adults. The remainder of the chapter presents selected findings from this qualitative study. Specifically, the findings address several factors that constrain and spur the formation of personal relationships with adults, the factors that make particular adults more attractive as relationship partners to particular youth, and the relationship processes and events that convey closeness and support to the youth. Our overall purpose is to appreciate, from the

54

Benjamin H. Gottlieb and John C. Sylvestre

perspective of youth themselves, how their everyday interactions with particular adults, filtered through their own understanding of the social world, bring supportive meaning to these relationships.

2. A Relationship Perspective on Social Support Our reading of the vast literature on social support among adults has led us to make two general observations about the ways in which it has been conceptualized and measured empirically. These observations are presented below and contrasted with the relationship perspective proposed in this chapter. Supportive Meaning Arises From Interactions in Personal Relationships The first observation is that social support has been defined and measured rather narrowly as a commodity of exchange, as a personal trait, and as a cognitive process. As a result, the contextual and interactional character of the construct has been occluded. We propose that social support should be investigated as negotiated interactions in personally valued, socially embedded relationships. It is instructive to recall that when Cassel (1974), Caplan (1974), and Cobb (1976) first introduced the ideas that launched the study of social support, they were primarily concerned with the health-protective functions of people's natural social ties. They maintained that members of the social network provided feedback about one another's role performance and worth, that they shared one another's burdens, and that they provided companionship, advice, emotional support, and practical assistance. However, these three authors placed their emphasis on the capacity of a special social unit to communicate this information and aid. Its special character derived from the network members' significance to the individual under study. In short, the network's supportive influence stemmed from the significance the individual assigned to his or her relationships with its members. However, when social support became the subject of numerous empirical inquiries, the construct's grounding hi the process of social interaction was ignored. Instead, social support was conceptualized as a set of resources exchanged among members of the network. Researchers concentrated almost exclusively on the provisions relayed by the network, distinguishing among emotional, tangible, and esteem support, and lost sight of the crucial fact that it was the very existence of a prior relationship that brought supportive meaning to the interactions. With the development of measures of social support, these supportive resources, and the interactions thought to signify their provision, were further divorced from the relational and situational contexts that render such social interactions meaningful. The construct was conferred the status of a quantifiable variable when it

Adolescent Support Relationships

55

properly should have been seen as a dynamic social process subject to a complex set of contingencies. A more recent and even narrower view of social support regards it as a relatively stable social cognition that reflects an amalgam of personality traits, personal beliefs, and selfperceptions. According to Sarason et al. (1990), a stable psychological perception of support originates in early childhood attachment experiences that lead to the development of "working models" of the self, significant others, and the ways others relate to the self. Secure childhood attachment fosters social schema that enhance the capacity to experience emotional intimacy in adulthood and engender feelings of self-worth and self-efficacy. According to Sarason et al. (1990), "Over time, attachment patterns and perceptions of social support become the property of the individual" (p. 141). The implication of this claim is that a stable personal trait, not social interaction, is responsible for the much heralded stress-buffering effect of social support. There is little doubt that individuals vary in their desire or need for support, in their skill in soliciting it from others, and in their perceptions of the availability of supportive others. However, the importance of social support lies in its social character, which draws attention to the interpersonal events mat strengthen or undermine relationships and influence the individual's beliefs about these relationships and about themselves. It is these events, not a stable sense of support internalized through early childhood experiences, that impacts on the expression and experience of social support. Rather than positing the existence of a cognitive meaning system largely independent of these social events, a relationship approach examines the supportive meaning derived from social interactions occurring in the conduct of personal relationships. In a given relationship, the sense of support can therefore fluctuate in accordance with a broad range of events that are affirming and disappointing. Further, a relationship approach takes into account how the social environment in which personal ties are embedded influences the kinds of support that are exchanged. Because a relationship approach focuses on interpersonal processes and the larger social ecology in which they are embedded, it reveals how social settings, interrelationships among network members, and broader social and cultural norms are implicated in the communication of support. Support is Communicated in the Routine Conduct of Personal Relationships The second observation is that social support has been conceived in a utilitarian way, as explicit and remarkable expressions of aid and esteem that occur in exceptional circumstances marked by stress. This has diverted attention from the ways support is expressed in everyday interaction and derived through the shared meanings that develop from the normal conduct of relationships.

56

Benjamin H. Gottlieb and John C. Sylvestre

The investigation of social support has been unduly restricted to the remarkable attempts of network members to provide aid to an individual experiencing stress. Social support researchers have neglected the ways in which people conduct their relationships apart from the alarms of life's calamities and adversities. The stress and coping paradigm that has dominated inquiry on the subject of social support has neglected the fact that stress-related interactions in personal relationships constitute only a small part of the universe of potentially supportive communications. It is important to acknowledge that, in most relationships, overt expressions of support are not common occurrences. In fact, according to Coyne et al. (1990), explicitly supportive exchanges ". . . represent the breakdown or inadequacy of the shared meanings and routines of relationships under stress," and occur ". . . when remedial work is needed . . ." (p. 130). Leatham and Duck (1990) succinctly state that "It may well be impossible to draw sharp lines around conduct within personal relationships and say, 'This is social support' and 'That is just normal relationship behavior'" (p. 2). In short, the occasions when support is actively solicited and when help is made salient do not faithfully represent the typical conduct of close relationships, and they do not encompass the range of interactions that have supportive meaning to and impact on the participants. In contrast, a relationship perspective focuses on the ways interdependence is achieved and maintained through the ongoing commerce between two parties and how this interaction influences their sense of support. As the partners' experience in the relationship accumulates, they create a shared history, along with mutual understanding and expectations of one another, including expectations regarding the supportiveness of the other. A relationship perspective also provides insight into the study of explicit episodes of help in crises and other stressful circumstances, because it sets these episodes against a backdrop consisting of the regular conduct of the relationship. This backdrop forms the basis for the parties' expectations regarding both support and its consequences for the future of their relationship.

3. Personal Relationships Between Adolescents and Adults To illustrate a relationship perspective on social support, we will present selected findings from an exploratory study of youths' contact with adults other than their parents. However, we first address the reasons why we have focused on this particular topic.

Obstacles to the Development of Personal Relationships Between Adolescents and Adults When children move into adolescence, their increased independence grants them the freedom to explore their surroundings, and they have greater opportunities to form

Adolescent Support Relationships

57

relationships with a more diverse group of people. Whereas the social networks of children are more likely to be populated by adults who are known and approved of by the child's parents, during adolescence, youths experience fewer constraints on their choices for relationships. Presumably, they have more opportunity to form ties with a broader range of peers in a wider array of social contexts. As adolescents gain greater autonomy, they also develop skills that allow for more sophisticated and varied kinds of interaction with adults. In fact, as they gain more varied social experience hi a broader range of social roles, they practice new social skills in settings that are more heterogeneous in terms of the ages and roles of their occupants. They also gain a more complex understanding of the norms that operate in personal versus role relationships and learn about the permeability of the boundary between the two. However, several obstacles may inhibit the development of closer personal relationships between older adolescents and the adults with whom they interact outside the home. First, many of the adults who come into regular contact with youths occupy such formal roles as teacher, coach, and job supervisor. These positions call for highly scripted behavior on the part of adults who are sanctioned by parents or by the institutions of the community to mete out rewards and punishments. A second obstacle to the formation of more personal relationships between adolescents and adults stems from the typical ways in which their interaction is structured. In most academic, employment, and extracurricular activities, large groups of youths are instructed by adult leaders with few opportunities for one-to-one dialogue. A recent study of the work settings in which adolescents are employed reveals little intergenerational contact. This may account for the finding that adults at work are among the last persons chosen by adolescents as sources of help and support (Greenberger & Steinberg, 1981; Greenberger et al., 1980). Third, there are cultural restrictions on the formation of personal relationships between youths and unrelated adults. Adults may be reticent about intruding into the privacy of the family and stepping into quasi-parental roles with other people's children. In addition, the current climate of concern about the widespread incidence of sexual abuse and other forms of exploitation of youths is a further impediment. Young people are being educated to be wary of adults they do not know, and adults are being cautioned more strongly than ever before to consider the propriety of their contacts with youth. Adults in the Social Networks of Adolescents Despite these constraints on the development of personal relationships with adults, nonrelated adults are nevertheless nominated as significant figures in adolescents' social networks. For example, in a study of 2,800 adolescents in the 7th through 10th grades, Blyth et al. (1982) found that roughly 10% of all significant adults were not relatives, and that 60% of the males and 75% of the females listed at least one nonrelated adult as a

58

Benjamin H. Gottlieb and John C. Sylvestre

significant other. Most of these adults were of the same gender as the respondent. Approximately half of the nonrelated adults were seen in the school, and 60% to 70% were seen in home settings. A majority of these adults were regularly contacted by phone, and almost half were seen daily. Galbo (1983) also studied youths in the same age group and found more nominations of significant ties with nonrelated adults than with related adults. Figures from religious settings were the most frequently mentioned nonrelated adults, and most of the adult nominees were under the age of 30. Interaction typically occurred in informal rather than institutional settings. Moreover, when Galbo (1983) asked the youth why they valued these relationships, they cited the adult's personal qualities, such as intelligence, openmindedness, trustworthiness, and a breadth of life experience, as well as qualities of the relationship, such as friendliness, personal interest hi the youth, willingness to spend time with the youth, and treatment of the youth as an equal. Galbo's (1983) research is of special interest, because he also inquired about events or conditions that first led the youths to recognize the significance of these adults in their lives. The youths' responses fell into three categories: (a) during times of conflict, the adult assisted the youths in working through a personal problem; (b) as compensation for the absence of another adult; and (c) as a result of the youths' own maturation, they recognized their capacity to relate more intimately with an adult. It is noteworthy that neither of the two preceding studies, or any other research on social support among adolescents (Gottlieb, 1991), has probed the interactions that actually occur in these valued relationships with adults. They largely document the fact that such relationships exist, that they arise hi informal contexts, and that gender, socioeconomic, and ecological (e.g., urban vs. rural) variables are associated with the number and kind of these relationships. Moreover, these studies do not address the relative significance of those adults who are nominated compared with other adults and peers. Are there unique aspects of the adolescent's commerce with these adults that give these relationships special supportive meaning? Do these extrafamilial ties make a special contribution to the adolescents' maturation, preparing them for young adulthood? A growing body of literature on the subject of resilience suggests that these relationships may have both general and specific adaptive significance for youths experiencing stress. Personal Relationships and Resilience Recent interest in the subject of resilience stems from a diverse set of studies that reveal that, under stressful conditions, some youths are able to adapt and even to achieve superior developmental outcomes. Garmezy's (1983) review of this literature led him to identify three general protective factors that distinguish stress-resistant youth from those adversely affected by stress: (a) advantageous personality dispositions such as social responsiveness;

Adolescent Support Relationships

59

(b) a cohesive and supportive family environment; and (c) the presence of external sources of support. Of these factors, the latter appears to be least well-documented and understood. Examples of these external sources of support have included: a supportive personal relationship with an adult; an adult with whom the youth closely identifies; participation in and commitment to activities that enable the youth to physically separate from the family and gain recognition, stability, and a sense of achievement; and participation in a supportive social agency (Beardslee & Podorefsky, 1988; Garmezy, 1983; Hetherington, 1989; Werner & Smith, 1982). For example, in a study of youth whose parents had major affective disturbances, Beardslee and Podorefsky (1988) found that 16 of the 18 adolescents who showed healthy functioning described themselves as valuing close, confiding relationships and emphasized that these relationships were a central part of their lives. Nine individuals reported turning to someone outside their family during episodes of acute parental illness, two of whom nominated an adult. The majority of the youths were also deeply involved in academic, employment, and extracurricular pursuits. Among their conclusions, Beardslee and Podorefsky (1988) state that the resilient youths' outside commitments and relationships allowed them to separate themselves from their parents' illness. Hetherington (1989) also found that disengagement from the family contributed to resilience in the wake of parental divorce. She notes that "When disengagement from the family occurs, however, contact with an interested, supportive adult plays a particularly important role in buffering the child against the development of behavior problems" (p. 11). Specifically, about one-third of the adolescent children in her study became disengaged from the family following divorce and remarriage. They became involved in school activities and the peer group ". . . or, if they are fortunate, they attach themselves to a responsive adult or to the family of a friend" (p. 11). Far greater precision is needed in order to document the processes implicated in the protection afforded by the resources external to the family. At this point, all we know is that there is something about youths' interaction with particular adults or their participation in adult-led social organizations (e.g., work, school, or athletic activities) that places them at an adaptive advantage. In either case, there are potential benefits to distressed youth from increasing and deepening their association with supportive adult figures. This observation, coupled with Rutter's (1987) conviction that resilience is achieved in part through a complex social process, not exclusively through the deployment of personal resources, further testifies to the desirability of promoting stable relationships with caring older figures. Further headway might be made by inquiring about how relationships that prove vital during times of stress arise in the first place. It is unclear whether resilience is conferred by particular stress-related interactions or by the presence of a stable and warm

60

Benjamin H. Gottlieb and John C. Sylvestre

relationship that serves as a refuge from stressful events but whose content may not include discussions of the youths' stressful experiences.

4. An Exploratory Study of Adolescents' Personal Relationships With Adults To illustrate how our understanding of social support can be advanced by examining the everyday conduct of personal relationships, we conducted an exploratory qualitative study of the relationships that older adolescents have formed with adults other than their parents. We did not restrict our inquiry to explicit instances of support that occur in such relationships, but also probed the ways in which these relationships developed. This is because we wished to learn how intimacy and trust are created as the foundation for approaching older people for help. We were also interested in learning how youths experience support in the normal course of their interactions, not only in those exceptional helping episodes that occur under stressful conditions. In short, our study centered on the support derived from youths' ongoing regular contact with particular adults. We begin by describing their perceptions of the obstacles that prevent the formation of personal ties with adults, and then consider how certain valued ties with adults were formed. Finally, we address the supportive meaning and developmental contribution of these ties to the youths. The youth who were interviewed included 15 females and 5 males between the ages of 16 and 20 drawn from varied personal backgrounds. The respondents were recruited in several ways. Ten were contacted through a youth counseling center where they were receiving service, six were reached through a university subject pool, and the remainder were counselors at a children's summer camp and swim instructors at a community recreational facility. Of this group, five were no longer living at home. Of these five youths, two were single mothers living alone with a child, two lived with older roommates, and one lived with the family of her boyfriend. Six were interviewed 2 to 3 months after having moved away to university but still maintained residence with their parents. Four of these youths were no longer attending school, and of these four, three were employed on a full-time basis. The second author conducted semistructured interviews that began by asking the youths to list all persons except parents who were older than themselves and with whom they had contact at least once a month. The respondents were then asked the following two questions: 1. "Of all the people we have listed here, who would you say are those people you've been able to get to know on a more personal basis?" 2. "Of all the people on this list, who would you like to get to know better?"

Adolescent Support Relationships

61

The youths were then asked to describe why they wished to know some adults better, and about what had kept them from knowing these adults as well as they would have liked. The youths were also asked why they did not want to get to know certain adults better. The respondent was then asked the following questions: 3. "Are there any people on this list who you particularly enjoy spending time with, either doing things together or just talking?" 4. "Are there any people on this list who you ever talked with about personal kinds of things? By personal things, I am thinking of important things that may have been going on in your life, or decisions you may have been trying to make, or problems with a relationship." 5. "Has there ever been a time that you can remember when you were dealing with some kind of stress and someone on this list either became involved in some way or did or said something that made a difference for you?" Up to three nominees were accepted for each of the preceding three questions. Finally, the respondents were also asked whether any of the adults on their list "stands out above all others because you particularly value your contact with him or her?" Selectively, depending on the youths' ratings of the nominees, the following probes were asked: Why the contact was valued, the forces constraining and spurring the relationship, how the youths typically spent their time with the nominee, and how the time spent with the nominee was different from the time spent with peers or other people older than themselves. Because of our interest in the ways that supportive meaning is gained through the normal conduct of personal relationships, the interviewer did not inquire directly about explicit instances of helping and support. Further, we asked about youths' contact with a variety of older others, not only with those nominees who were most valued, because we wanted to learn about relationships that the respondents had not judged to be supportive on conventional grounds but which nevertheless might prove to contribute to the youths' maturation. This choice was informed by the resilience literature, which suggests that relationships in achievement contexts, with role models, and with persons who insulate the youth from stressful social spheres may be particularly protective. These valued figures may not have surfaced had we restricted our attention to relationships in which explicitly supportive interactions occur. Obstacles to Personal Relationships There's no one who is a lot older that I would feel that close to. Like, I guess its just the age difference again. And that's just something that society has placed on us. They've placed the big barrier between age groups. Its unfortunate . . . .

62

Benjamin H. Gottlieb and John C. Sylvestre

Through their routine daily activities at school, at work, at home, and in their neighborhood, the youths we interviewed come into contact with a wide variety of older people. However, there are several reasons why they reported that only some of these adults were known on a more personal basis. These reasons pertain to the personal, interactional, and social constraints on the development of supportive cross-generational relationships. First, status differences between the youth and adults inhibit opportunities to form more personal relationships. Whether referring to adults who held positions of authority, such as teachers and supervisors at work, or adults encountered in more informal settings, such as in extracurricular activities, the youth felt that an "authority barrier" hampered open and relaxed communication. These adults expected the youth to respect and heed their elders, precluding any possibility of forming a more personal relationship. As one respondent observed: I think that's just something that people have grown up with . . . the father knows best theory . . . like the authoritative figure told the younger people what to do, and they could settle with that. And now people just think "Oh, those older people are going to tell me what to do. They're not going to be my friend." Second, because interaction with many adults occurred in group settings in which the adults occupied rigid roles, there were few opportunities for informal or private dialogue. Indeed, some youth were reluctant to make claims on the adult's time and attention. For example, one youth expressed an interest in getting to know a pastor at church better but was reluctant to initiate contact with her because: She and her husband are in charge of an entire congregation and because of her position, she's got to deal with everyone else too . . . . And I don't have any problems, necessarily, that I need her to deal with. I'd just like to know her better. It is noteworthy that this respondent has also formed a judgment about the legitimate grounds for seeking out the pastor; she could do so only to secure help for a personal problem. More generally, adolescents may feel that in order to gain private access to certain adults they must assume a subordinate or dependent posture, or at best take the role of learner, protege, or trainee. All of these roles are inconsistent with the mutuality that is required for the development of personal relationships. The respondents spoke of other barriers that prevent them from forming more personal relationships with adults, even when the settings permit informal interaction. For example, in explaining why she had not been able to reciprocate the friendly interest that one of her

Adolescent Support Relationships

63

father's friends had shown in her on those occasions when he had visited her home, one female respondent stated: My Dad would probably look at it funny . . . like there's a breaking point for politeness. Like I wouldn't want my friends hanging out with my parents, you know, and I'm sure my parents wouldn't want me to sit down with their friends. This youth's comments reveal a sense of both the impropriety and the risk of developing a relationship with an adult who has close ties to her parents. The impropriety may stem from the youth's presuming on a relationship that she deems to be exclusive, while the risk may stem from the possibility that disclosures to adults who know other people in the youth's network will become public. Another female respondent comments directly on the risk of impropriety that attends the formation of a personal relationship with a friend's mother. Although she wished to know the mother better, she observes: With the girlfriend that I hang around with I feel I may intrude or, uhm, because that's her Mum, not my Mum . . . sometimes I feel that there's a little bit of jealousy there. So, that kind of tells me to go back, you know, just take a couple of steps back, don't get too close . . . . Because I had a friend do that to me . . . [I] don't want to step over my boundaries . . . . As for the risk of disclosing to an adult who knows other people in the youth's network, one respondent stated that she would not tell her aunt about problems at home, because she feared the information would be relayed to her parents. Generally, our respondents reported little or limited disclosure to older relatives such as aunts, uncles, or grandparents. They were not only apprehensive that the information would be relayed to their parents, but also felt that older relatives were unable to adjust to the youths' present level of maturity, adopting a style of communication that was established with the youth in their childhood. As one respondent observed: Well they forget that I'm not a kid any more, and they're so used to treating me that way, but now its like "Oh yeah, I forgot," you know? Or with my grandmother, for instance, she still buys me like little cars and stuff. She forgets I'm like 20 years old . . . . The Development and Course of Personal Relationships With Adults Despite the perceived or actual constraints on the development of personal relationships between older adolescents and adults, all 20 respondents in our study reported regular contact with adults whom they knew on a personal basis. Further, all respondents identified adults with whom they enjoyed spending their time, and all but one identified

64

Benjamin H. Gottlieb and John C. Sylvestre

adults to whom they spoke about personal issues. In addition, with the exception of two youths, all the respondents identified at least one older person to whom they had turned in a time of stress. In this section, we describe the factors that appear to have favored the development of more personal relationships with some adults. Not surprisingly, the respondents had developed more personal relationships with people they had known for a longer period of time. Therefore, older relatives (grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, cousins) were frequent nominees as valued figures. As one youth stated: . . . I just feel comfortable with her and because I've known her for so long and we just, the way she used to be with me when I was a kid, just made me grow to make her my favorite aunt. As mentioned earlier, few respondents reported disclosing personal problems to aunts, uncles, or grandparents, or turning to them during times of stress. They valued these kin because they gained comfort, acceptance, or security from their contact with them. For example, one youth observed that the time she spent with her grandparents was: . . . just a lot different. . . just so laid back and stuff, you know? With friends, I feel that I have to kind of put on, not a show or anything but, friends are just so much different. But with my grandparents I can just act like myself, you know? I just really like being around them. Why do our respondents value their personal relationships with these kin and yet not discuss personal matters with them? Perhaps routine, long-established patterns of interaction with them communicate warmth, esteem, and attachment. Even in the absence of disclosure and explicit help-seeking, these dependable routines may safeguard the youths' sense of worth, stability, and place. In the trajectory of a young person's life, aside from parents, these may be the only figures with whom such comforting routines are sustained. Similarly, teachers and coaches were more likely to have been nominated as adults whom the youth knew personally or to whom the youth spoke about personal matters if they had participated with the youths in extracurricular activities for a number of months. When asked about how she had formed a more personal relationship with a teacher who sponsored a school club in which she participated, one female respondent said: Uhm, well the fact that I was given the opportunity to actually meet her. I don't know if ... maybe the other teachers are like that as well, but I've never been put in the position to actually meet them. But she was just there . . . happened to be in our club, so, I actually had the opportunity.

Adolescent Support Relationships

65

Repeated episodes of interaction with adults in informal dyadic or small group situations afforded the opportunity to break the mould that constrained adult-adolescent relations and to communicate more personally about a broader range of topics. Our respondents were particularly drawn to adults at school who disclosed aspects of their personal life to them. For example, referring to her soccer coach, one youth observed: Yeah, he was really open about that too. You'd be talking and there would be something that he had done that related to that, like going on ski trips, or, 'Teah I had a little nephew that did this and . . . ." or "I went here on such and such a day and did this." So he was really open himself about that and letting you get to know the other side of him too, not just as a teacher and a coach. Other respondents who nominated particular teachers as individuals whom they wished to know better, or with whom they enjoyed spending their time, recognized the limitations of these relationships. As one respondent observed: . . . I don't know how much more personal, like with the positions they're in . . . . Like a lot of them are teachers that I've had or, and I mean have been in contact in other ways too. But there's only so close I think you can g e t . . . . Another youth questioned the propriety of blurring the boundary between a personal and role relationship with a teacher: Yeah, like they're great in school but, sometimes if you carry them outside of school you're not sure where they should lead? Like you're not sure it's right or proper or, should I know my teacher, know personal things about my teacher or not? Or is it bad? I don't know. Extended periods of interaction were prerequisites, but not sufficient, for the development of more personal relationship with adults. In addition, the adults had communicated a more personal interest in the youth or revealed information about themselves that the youths considered to be more private and personal in nature. In short, the adults had to take the first step toward a more personal relationship by making time to interact with the youth on a one-to-one basis, by letting down their guard about themselves, or by relaxing the requirements of the role they had first assumed with the youth. Our respondents were especially sensitive to changes in the style of communication, not only in its content. Examples were cited of instances when adults cursed or smoked or drank alcohol in the youths' presence or when teachers gossiped with them about others at school. These communications represented ways that the adults took the youth into their confidence, tacitly conveying the messages that the youth could be trusted and had the maturity to deal with the adult on a more personal basis. Interestingly, there were few instances when the

66

Benjamin H. Gottlieb and John C. Sylvestre

youths themselves had taken initiatives that signaled their interest in forming a more personal relationship with an adult. Personal relationships were more likely to arise when status differences concerning age and authority did not intrude on the interaction between youth and adults. This is clearly illustrated in the following quotations from two respondents: . . . but there's the odd adult you meet and you know that it's a friendship level. Like there's no hierarchy that you have to deal with. It's just like we're meeting each other on the same plane. Some adults . . . they just accept you on a younger level . . . so when an adult can let down their guard and be themselves with you, that makes it very different You can tell when someone, especially adults, are not being themselves. You can tell when there's still that "I'm an adult barrier." As relationships became more equitable, the adults were perceived to have a greater ability to adopt and validate the youth's perspective, rather than judging the youth's actions and attitudes. They were somehow able to suspend the authority normally vested in their role and listen more closely than other adults. As one respondent observed about her aunt: . . . she doesn't stay at her own level. Sometimes she kind of comes down to my level and kind of relates to being a teenager and how she used to be and stuff and so I understand her better. In contrast, most adults were prone to make severe judgments that stifled the expression of feelings: . . . if you go like to a parent or another older person they'd be like "Oh well, I wouldn't have been doing that when I was that age." Like they couldn't get past the fact that "Well how come kids are doing that?" And you're like trying to finish your story type thing . . . . And you're like "Well no. That's not my point. My pouit is, like I'm feeling this way." The Influence and Significance of Relationships With Adults One of the observations about adolescence that has become virtually axiomatic is that it is a period when ties to family are loosened and when the peer group becomes ascendant. However, our interviews suggest that in late adolescence, as a joint function of the ecological transitions they undergo and their greater independence and mobility, some youths do form ties with adults removed from the family, neighborhood, and childhood friendship circles. From a structural perspective, these adults occupy a zone of the network

Adolescent Support Relationships

67

that is set apart from all others. Because they do not communicate with other members of the youth's network, these adults are more trusted. The greater latitude adolescents have in the choice of associates and in the structuring of their network is also accompanied by maturational changes that enable them to alter the quality of long-standing relationships. For example, ties to certain adults who were first introduced in childhood may be redefined through interactions that take place outside the family. Our respondents reported on several historic relationships that took on a new and more intimate character when it became possible for the respondent to interact with certain adults on their own. For several respondents, these relationships offered asylum when conflict occurred in other spheres of the network. For example, in one illustration of Rutter's (1983) ideas about the protective effect of one strong attachment outside the family, a 17-year-old respondent commented on the ways she could activate her relationship with her aunt at times when life at home became intolerable: Like when there was bad times with my Mom, she just said, come live with me, you know, and I lived with her, and when things were easier with my Mom, I went back to live with my Mom. Tammy was just there to make tilings easier, 'cause she can deal with it better. The respondent also notes that she will confide in Tammy but not in her own friends because disclosures to friends " . . . get back to you anyway. But with Tammy, who is she gonna tell? Even if she does tell her friend, who is it going to get back to that's going to embarrass me?" Interestingly, however, this adult's position within the extended family network did cause conflict with the youth's mother: Yeah. It's made things, uhm, well with my Mom, my Mom feels that Tammy interferes. Even though she doesn't, it's me that makes her, you know, I get her involved. And then my Mom feels that she's just interfering, so, then my Mom doesn't talk to Tammy, even though they're sisters. By comparison, another youth described her relationship with a woman for whom she had baby-sat and whom she considered a friend as well. Noting that her relationship with this person had been initiated independently of her parents, she commented on its value to her during periods of conflict with her parents: Because, well when I really started getting to know Patty, that was when my Mom and I weren't that close. Or, like my parents and I weren't that close just

68

Benjamin H. Gottlieb and John C. Sylvestre because you aren't when you're that age. You know what I mean? Like, you tend to separate yourself from your parents . . . . Like 15. Around you know 14 or 15. And urn, I could like talk to her more about things than I could my parents.

A second value of having a relationship that is set apart from the rest of the network is that it offers a new vantage point for appraising relations with other network members. For example, one respondent was a teenage mother who had developed a close relationship with a female co-worker who was 8 years her senior. She reported that, whereas her agemates ignore or devalue her maternal responsibilities and financial obligations, her older friend: . . . just treats me like a normal person and she's there to talk to me about my other friends, saying, "Well, Carrie, you have to look out for this. You have to look out for that." . . . you really have to be picky and choosy with your friends. Just helping me look at the things I'm vulnerable to. In this instance, the adult encouraged the respondent to consider her choices regarding the childhood friends she would continue to associate with and those she might leave behind. In other instances, the adults became involved in discussions about social conflicts the youth were experiencing, and, because they were untouched by the conflicts themselves, these adults were perceived to offer an unprejudiced hearing. Particularly among the youth in our sample who were seeing counselors, these removed figures were seen as expressing more objective views of their current situations: . . . he is an impartial observer. He's someone who is not directly related to my family, or directly related to a close friend of mine. He's someone who's totally out in the middle of nowhere I can talk about anybody to. In addition to helping the youth make more mature social choices, to distance themselves from tensions in their network, and to consider alternative perspectives on these tensions, the adults also encouraged a greater measure of self-understanding. They did so both indirectly, by sharing their own past experiences and the lessons they learned from them, and directly, by encouraging the youth to examine their own motives and psychological makeup. For example, one youth, who had formed an independent relationship with one of her mother's friends, stated that this adult had told her that "If I have a problem with somebody, then maybe I should take a look at myself because maybe the problem is with myself." It would be misleading, however, to suggest that such perspectives could only be offered by individuals who were completely removed from the youths' networks. Some youth attached great value to the adults' privileged knowledge of the youths' situation. Referring

Adolescent Support Relationships

69

to one of her mother's friends, a person with whom she had independently struck up a friendship, one youth observed: So she can relate to my Mom because, you know, my Mom talks to her and so she's got pretty good idea about how my Mom feels too. So then she can give me feedback on my Mom, and why she may react the way she did. As noted in the previous section, the adults with whom a more personal relationship had been formed were generally more willing to disclose information about their own lives, both past and present. They talked about their own childhood difficulties and about consequential decisions they had faced. Occasionally, but more rarely, they revealed subjects that troubled them in their present life. Such frank revelations signified to the youth that the adult believed the youth had the capacity to listen and understand a relationship message that they found highly validating. These communications tacitly acknowledged the youth's worth as a target of disclosure, thereby offering concrete evidence of his or her maturity, trustworthiness, and attractiveness as a relationship partner. These revelations also seemed to satisfy a curiosity that many youths had about the adults they knew. Several of the youths who were being counseled were particularly drawn to adults who were willing to share with them similar personal difficulties they had experienced in life. In commenting on her relationship with the husband of a co-worker, one respondent observed that he: . . . really helps me to get to know that I'm not the only one that's out there and to know that I can go and talk to somebody who I know definitely has gone through those problems and he's willing to talk to me about them, you know. So to get to know him better just through talking and problem-solving and stuff like that, you know, it really helps. The curiosity that other youths expressed about adults centered on other aspects of the adults' lives, including their travels, their education, and their occupations. For example, one youth said that he wanted to know more about his swim coach: To see how he juggled his time I guess, when he was in university. Like university and swimming and partying I guess, and just, you know, see how he did all that. Another youth observed that she had acquired greater self-awareness from hearing about the life experiences that had shaped the character of the adult with whom she had forged a personal relationship:

70

Benjamin H. Gottlieb and John C. Sylvestre Well, it all builds on him as a person. Everything that he's been through, and everybody he's met have all built him up as a person, and it's interesting to take them apart, and see how each of them contributed to his life. Because there are a lot of people in my life who make me who I am. And make up a big part of me and it's interesting to see how those different people affect you and what your makeup is.

Our respondents were also particularly sensitive to the style of communication that adults adopted with them. When adults took the youth into their confidence, and when they did not censor the language they used, our respondents drew the inference that they were being treated as adults. For example, one respondent reported that: People are always very cautious around me, I found, because my mother was so like, making sure everything was nice and pretty for me type thing? But like now that I'm older I can actually talk on a more realistic level with them, type thing. They're not concerned about swearing in front of me because I'm too young. The same respondent also expressed her pride in the fact that she had achieved the status of a conversation partner with an adult and no longer had to engage in the activities that she associated with childhood: Yeah. Like we'd go do the interesting things, like go watch movies and stuff but, you know, whenever you see a kid like you take them out and you take them shopping or you take them . . . . But now we didn't have to go do a special thing. Like we could just talk, like regular adults talk, type thing. These quotations suggest that there are certain manners and content of speech that the respondents associate with adult behavior. When adults allow them to interact in these ways, they bolster the youth's sense of maturity. In short, these interactions admit the youth to an adult relationship. Although, on the whole, communication with relatives had not caught up to the youths' current development, when relatives were able to shift to a more mature style of interaction, the effect on the youth's self-concept was pronounced. For example, in the following quotation, one youth draws contrasts between the past and the present, and between her younger sister and herself, with respect to the ways her relatives communicate with her. You know, like I noticed that a lot more, especially this year, like the end of high school, going off to [university], it was more . . . I think they just started to treat me more as an, not even an adult, but you know a young adult than their niece or, you know, a kid. Like I have a younger sister and she's two years younger

Adolescent Support Relationships

71

than I am. And even there's a difference there, just in the conversations. They'll talk to her about her boyfriend and talk to me about what I am going to do with my life. In order to further explore how the support communicated in relationships with adults might differ from the support gained through interaction with peers, respondents were asked to contrast the two. One youth reported that talking with a teacher was different from talking to a peer because "She was, made you feel important. Like with your friend you're no more important than she is." Another youth described the differences in the following terms: Somebody like Heather [a peer] may only be able to see one side of it. Like my side. Whereas, uhm, Carrie [an older friend] would maybe be able to see my side, but also be able to relate to being on the other side. Like maybe I might want to talk to Mary [a peer] when I want reassurance. Like then I would talk to Julie [an older friend] too, knowing that Julie would give me feedback from the other side . . . . Other youths said their friends did not take their problems seriously, offered unrealistic advice, or were not able to help because they were going through similar problems.

5. Conclusion Our interviews shed light on some of the reasons why past studies have found that parents and peers, rather than adults outside the immediate family, compose the majority of significant network members. Although they have repeated contact with extended family members, teachers, coaches, clergy, and job associates, few of these adults are viewed as available, appropriate, or willing partners for more personal relationships. Most of them are perceived to be too closely aligned with other network members, too constrained by the dictates of the roles they occupy, or too strongly conditioned to see the youth in a more childish light. At the same time, the settings in which interaction occurs, and the stereotypes that both youth and adults bring to their interactions, contain features that dim the prospects for more personal relationships. It is important to recognize, however, that the respondents' awareness of the diverse obstacles to the formation of personal relationships testifies to the emergence of a more complex understanding of the contingencies governing personal and impersonal relationships. That is, the considerations that lead them to conclude that some older people are not appropriate or willing partners for closer relationships also may serve as guidelines for developing more personal and closer relationships with particular adults.

72

Benjamin H. Gottlieb and John C. Sylvestre

Closer and more personal relationships between adolescents and selected adults were marked by informality, spontaneity, acceptance, sustained interaction, a willingness to break the rigid mould that characterized the majority of adult-youth contacts, and a measure of mutual disclosure. In addition, more personal ties were forged when adults took the initiative to relax the usual constraints imposed by age and authority disparities, and when they adopted a style of communication that signaled that they felt the youth could be trusted and was capable of mature dialogue. The interviews elicited a number of new insights about the supportive meaning of the youths' relationships with adults. Some relationships served as a refuge from conflict in other social spheres of the youths' lives, while others offered a new vantage point for appraising relations with peers. In addition, the youths' emergent maturity strivings were reinforced through relationships with adults who were willing to share their own experiences and who encouraged the respondents to examine their own motives and psychological makeup. Rather than making authoritative judgments about the youths' behavior, these adults fostered greater self- and social understanding in the youth by engaging them in adult dialogue about their experiences. Above all, our interviews underscore the fact that support can only be understood in terms of the context and character of relationships. These relationships, in turn, are products of the ways in which the social environment is structured, the ways in which social roles are defined, and the ways in which individuals engage one another. In the context of this study, the patterning of social roles and the opportunities afforded by the social environment severely constrain the formation of personal relationships between adolescents and older adults. However, the fact that selected personal relationships do arise between youth and adults testifies to the overriding influence of particular kinds of sustained and routine interaction that communicate mutual interest and investment. The support that resides in this relationship cannot be further reduced but is itself an expression of the relationship's meaning to both parties.

References Beardslee, W. R., & Podorefsky, D. (1988). Resilient adolescents whose parents have serious affective and other psychiatric disorders: Importance of self-understanding and relationships. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145(1), 63-69. Blyth, D. A., Hill, J. P., & Thiel, K. S. (1982). Early adolescents' significant others: Grade and gender differences in perceived relationships with familial and nonfamilial adults and young people. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 425-450. Caplan, G. (1974). Support systems and community mental health. New York: Behavioral Publications. Cassel, J. (1974). Psychosocial processes and "stress": Theoretical formulations. International Journal of Health Services, 4, 471-482. Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, 300-314.

Adolescent Support Relationships

73

Coyne, J. C., Ellard, J. H., & Smith, D. A. F. (1990). Social support, interdependence, and the dilemmas of helping. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactionist view (pp. 129-149). New York: Wiley. Galbo, J. J. (1983). Adolescents' perceptions of significant adults. Adolescence, 75(83), 417-427. Garmezy, N. (1983). Stressors of childhood. In N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, coping, and development in children (pp. 43-84). New York: McGraw-Hill. Gottlieb, B. H. (1991). Social support in adolescence. In M. E. Gölten & S. Gore (Eds.), Adolescent stress: Causes and consequences (pp. 281-306). New York: de Gruyter. Greenberger, E., & Steinberg, L. D. (1981). The workplace as a context for the socialization of youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 70(3), 185-210. Greenberger, E., Steinberg, L. D., Vaux, A., & McAuliffe, S. (1980). Adolescents who work: Effects of part-time employment on family and peer relations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9(3), 189-202. Hetherington, E. M. (1989). Coping with family transitions: Winners, losers, and survivors. Child Development, 60, 1-14. Leatham, G., & Duck, S. (1990). Conversations with friends and the dynamics of social support. In S. Duck & R. Silver (Eds.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 1-29). London: Sage. Rutter, M. (1983). Stress, coping, and development: Some issues and some questions. In N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, coping and development in childhood (pp. 1-42). New York: McGraw-Hill. Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331. Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Pierce, G. R. (1990). Social support: The search for theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 133-147. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and youth. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Children's Friendship and Peer Culture: Implications for Theories of Networks and Support James Youniss, The Catholic University of America, Washington, USA

1. Introduction The ideas for this chapter begin with a disparity between the literature on children's friendship and peer culture and the literature on adults' social networks and social support. Over the past 15 years, studies of friendship and peer culture have evolved into a fairly coherent view regarding the social construction of the individual, or self, through interpersonal relationships. Children construct themselves in collaboration with peers and friends as well as parents. In the process, they come to realize the necessity of taking account of others' ideas and of reaching consensus with them. Within friendship, children also recognize the normativeness of the principle of reciprocity and understand that personal resources can be shared for mutual benefit. This leads ultimately to a moral sense of interpersonal responsibility and mutual concern (e.g., Corsaro & Eder, 1990; Damon, 1988; Youniss, 1981). The literature on adult networks and support is grounded in a different set of premises about the individual and interpersonal relationships. Individuals are pictured as independent agents who adapt to reality by using whichever resources they personally have and can elicit from others. This viewpoint seems akin to the old Parsonian version of the adaptive individual in the era of modernity (Parsons & Bales, 1955; Smith, 1980). There is irony to the fact that some of the first studies of networks done by sociologists were generated, in part, to challenge this Parsonian viewpoint (Smith, 1980). Fischer (1982), Wellman (1979), and others attempted to show that contemporary adults living in urban settings in industrialized nations did not view themselves as independent, rational agents whose relationships with others were chiefly strategic. Rather, these persons had and valued close, noninstrumental relationships in which the parties knew and cared for each other, even for the sake of mutuality itself. Psychological researchers seemed to have picked up the sociologists' findings on networks and support without taking account of their theoretical point of departure. They saw the importance of networks as a means of support but depicted the network members much like figures in Parsonian modernity. For many theorists, getting into a network and being able to elicit support were construed as social skills that differ across individuals. From an

76

James Youniss

individual difference perspective, these skills are similar to traits. From a social learning stance, skills can be taught to individuals to enhance their social prowess and personal efficacy. And, this position fits with a prevailing ideology that psychological subjects are, at their root, self-supporting individuals (Woolfolk & Richardson, 1984). The goal of the present chapter is to initiate a discussion that will help bridge these two outlooks. The chapter begins with a sketch of children's and adolescents' descriptions of friendship. It is shown that the structure of this relationship introduces children to their responsibility and dependence in social construction, because friendship is founded on reciprocity. Next, the chief theoretical concepts that these descriptions imply are identified and discussed. Focus is given to concepts of interaction, cooperation, and mutual understanding. Next, studies that have identified basic elements of peer culture are reviewed. It is shown that, for children and adolescents, peer culture is highly organized by rules that are designed to insure orderly interaction and to enhance mutual understanding. It is shown also that peer culture need not isolate adolescents physically from adults or separate them by way of interactive norms. The last point is elaborated with reviews of findings on adolescent employment and adolescent altruistic activities in their communities. In conclusion, it is proposed that the data from children and youth encourage consideration of the developmental and ideological implications that separate these two areas of study. It is interesting to consider the kind of adult that could be put into our network and support theories if we paid serious attention to the psychological individual who developed into an adult through children's and adolescents' friendships and peer culture.

2. The Roots of Reciprocity and Mutual Understanding This section of the chapter uses illustrations from our past research on parent-child and friendship relations. It is understood that selections could have been drawn from a larger empirical literature that ranges across studies of on-line conversations (Gottman & Parker, 1986), reflective interviews (Keller & Wood, 1989), and even peer therapy (Selman & Schultz, 1990). Our initial findings came from stories 6- to 12-year-old children generated when asked to tell us how they would show kindness or unkindness to a friend (Youniss, 1980; Youniss & Volpe-Smollar, 1978). The typical story of the youngest children told of one friend sharing a material item or playing with another friend. The kind friend mainly shared food or toys, played, or invited another child to play. Older children told similar stories but qualified them by positing a state of need in the friend to whom kindness was expressed. For instance, one friend shared his lunch with another when the latter forget to bring lunch to school and was hungry. Or, one friend invited another to her house when the other was lonely and needed to be cheered up.

Children's Friendship and Peer Culture

77

We initially explored analytic schemes for sorting stories into units of costs and benefits. This approach treated the children as individual actors who were more or less altruistic in sharing resources to help others. It soon became evident that this approach failed to capture the gist of children's intent, which was clear from their accounts of reciprocity. For instance, when asked what they might do after a friend let them ride their bike, younger children said they would let the friend play with their new toy or give the friend some of their potato chips. Such answers depicted a literal form of reciprocity hi which one kind action was returned for another. When older children were asked the same question, they answered in a more complex fashion. For instance, one boy said that his friend, who was sick and in the hospital, was not at that time in a position to do anything except to express appreciation. He said, however, that the sick boy would think to himself that were this friend ever sick or in need of some sort, he would return the kindness in an appropriate way. These stories indicated that children did not think about kindness as a trait of the individual friends; instead they thought of the persons as interdependent and ready to offer help when needed. Further, children did not think of the acts as discrete events, but viewed them as links in an on-going series, with each connected to prior acts and having implications for future acts. Letting a friend ride one's bicycle was reciprocal to the friend's having let one read his new book or share candy. It also implies that sharing will continue in the future. Showing sympathy to a sick friend was reciprocal to that friend's previous expressions of sympathy as well as to expected future expressions. Children imagine that they might switch roles between being in need and being able to help. This insight undermines a cost-gain model, because if friends are reciprocally related, the long-run result is mutual gain and interdependence. This point became even more evident when we asked children about unkind acts. Younger children told stories in which negative reciprocal acts were exchanged literally. When one friend hit another, the other retaliated by hitting back. In older children's stories, the nature of unkindness changed, since they said that unkindness consisted in omission rather than direct negative acts. For instance, one girl told a story in which her friend had missed several days of school due to illness. When she recovered and returned to school, she needed to make up work in order to pass a test. Unkindness occurred when her friend failed to help, even though she understood the friend's need for assistance. It seems clear that failing to help can be unkind only if children feel they are obliged to help. In any typical classroom there must always be someone in need of help. If every child were expected to respond to the need of every other child, most children would live in a constant state of "unkindness." If, on the other hand, the obligation to help were restricted, then omission would be unkind but within their relationship. In friendship, the obligation to help is incurred through reciprocity, which is the principle on which the

78

James Youniss

relationship is based. Peers who are not in a reciprocal relationship need not feel obliged to help all others in need. But friends do. These data suggested that children assign specific meanings to actions because they understand the terms of relationships. Visiting a sick friend can be understood as part of a continuing series of actions in which the roles of being in need and being able to help were previously reversed and are potentially reversible in the unstated future. At any moment, circumstances might place one or the other friend hi either role. What distinguishes friends from peers in general, therefore, is mutual obligation and interdependence, which develop through reciprocity.

3. An Epistemology Grounded in Interactions and Relationships Consistent data from several samples of children led us to explore the implications for theories of knowledge. At the time, major theories depicted children as constructing reality by means of individual reflective activity. The general model pictured children as acting on objects, withdrawing to private reflection to form hypotheses, and then acting again to test their schemes. The data from friendship suggested a need to shift from this position to a view in which construction occurred socially as children interacted over time in relationships, jointly reflected on one another's ideas, and subsequently sought mutuality in the understanding of reality. Three major aspects of this view will now be discussed: (a) Interaction is the basic unit hi which knowledge is constructed. Individual action is insufficient for ordering social reality; each action invites an action from another person, so both must be taken into account (b) The distinguishing feature of social construction in friendship is cooperation. Friends do not simply act for individual Interest but help one another make cognitive and personal progress, (c) Cooperative co-construction is designed to achieve mutual understanding. Knowledge is not just for oneself but is equally directed toward another person's understanding. Friends do not continually have to define situations for one another, but share common meanings that they carry forward in their relationship. In seeking a general theory in which to place the above data, we rediscovered Piaget's (1932/1956) analysis of cooperative social construction, which was being rediscovered by others as well (e.g., Chapman, 1986; Damon, 1977; Furth, 1980). Piaget provides a basic epistemology in which individuals jointly seek to order reality through interaction and mutual reflection. He proposes that knowledge begins in and consists in material and mental action. He notes that children's actions engage other persons and induce actions from them. Because children seek order in actions, they must take account of the amendments and revisions that others make with their actions and reactions. Each part of an interaction potentially provides instructive feedback to other parts, which is analogous to negative feedback in Piaget's classic description of detour. When a child's

Children's Friendship and Peer Culture

79

routine course of action meets a roadblock, the child is thwarted and must devise another action that takes account of the blockage. The original routine is altered, and a new scheme that takes account of the blockage needs to be constructed. The social domain provides any number of comparable instances, such as when a child's intended actions are resisted by disparate intentions from other persons. It is obvious that the child's task of rendering order demands that interactions, not just the self s own actions, be the center of attention. This small but essential addition changes construction from an individual to a social process. This is illustrated nicely by a kindness story from a 12-year-old female who defined a friend as "someone who helps you understand how you feel." She told of a fight with her family and going to a friend to express her confusion. When she told her friend what happened, her friend said she also had fights with her parents about similar issues. On finding this common ground, the two discussed the usefulness of various strategies for dealing with teenager-family conflicts and helped one another understand their feelings. Cooperation is the chief component that distinguishes co-construction in friendship. It gives co-construction a specific direction it might not otherwise have. One can argue that friendship would not be possible unless children agreed to cooperate. Recall that young children's accounts of kindness and unkindness were marked by the literal use of reciprocity. Such a practice is inadequate for forming or sustaining a friendship because it is destabilizing. If each child is able to replicate the actions of the other, any negative act is apt to lead to retaliation, which would start an infinite regress. Similarly, any statement of an opinion by one friend could lead to a counterstatement, and so forth, which would result ultimately hi stalemates as both friends expressed their respective views. Without agreement to cooperate, there is no sure means for breaking the impasse. While peers practice reciprocity with literal tit-for-tat, friends agree to guide their relationship by the principle of reciprocity. When faced with a potential stalemate, such as in disputes about rules for a game, friends can step back and agree that in order to resolve their differences fairly, both should express their views, but both should also listen to the other's views. Only then can they hope to reach a compromise in a fair manner. The specific procedures that mediate cooperation have to be learned through mutual negotiation of the many challenging moments that come up in any normally variegated relationship (Oswald, 1992). With two active minds seeking to order reality, negotiation is mediated by procedures such as discussion, debate, compromise, argument, and majority rule. A social system that includes co-construction and cooperation logically leads to a third aspect of mutual understanding. In most standard accounts of cognition, the goal is to explain how children construct valid versions of reality in which concepts match objects. Piaget's (1932/1956) account argues differently that in social and moral domains, validity depends on achievement of mutual understanding through normative procedures. This

80

James Youniss

requires that the two or more cooperating individuals use fair procedures to talk out respective viewpoints so that each listens to the other and each expresses a viewpoint to the other. Validity depends on reaching consensus through procedural norm rather than through asserting truth or invoking external authority. It is now suggested that studies of children's friendships offer new concepts for approaching the topics of networks and support. Friendships are parts of most social networks. Further, mutual support is inherent to friendship. Friends rely on one another for exchange and feedback in interpreting everyday events. Friends depend on each other for construction of emotional expressions and ideas. Friends believe that the material, emotional, and intellectual resources they possess ought to be used for one another's benefit. They feel obliged to share since they comprehend that the roles of being in need and being able to help continually switch between them. Helping, in this relationship, need not be heroic but pertains to making everyday experience comprehensible, valid, and more enjoyable (see Oswald & Krappmann, this volume). These concepts also provide a fresh perspective on the self. Although selves are individuals, in friendship, individuals are relational entities because they cannot be separated from the relationship they share. Children's descriptions of kindness left us unable to say who was the chief beneficiary of kind acts. At any moment, the recipient in the guise of a depressed girl or a sick boy could be identified. But, it is equally true that the child who was kind was also a beneficiary, since kind acts are reciprocal to past and future actions. Consequently, should the kind child ever need support, her prior act served as insurance for her need at some future time. Thirdly, the relationship also benefited, since each kind act sustained the norm of reciprocity, which, in turn, strengthened the relationship itself. Piaget (1932/1956, p. 360) was on the mark in suggesting that there is no self except within relationships with others.

4. Peer Culture Corsaro (1985) and Corsaro and Eder (1990) have articulated a helpful approach to the concept of peer culture that sets the social context for the study of children's friendship. Corsaro made participant observations in a nursery school in order to describe the social and psychological organization of children's interactions and relationships (Cook-Gumperz & Corsaro, 1977). From watching children play, quarrel, tell stories, and the like, Corsaro identified five main components of children's culture. Each component will be described in turn, and then the overall relevance of the concept to social support will be discussed. 1. As the school year progressed, children constructed themes that became the focal topics of their everyday play. For example, falling down, getting hurt, and recovering, was a repeated theme that children regularly reenacted. A child need not literally have fallen

Children's Friendship and Peer Culture

81

down for another to invoke the theme. One girl, seeing another sitting alone, might announce that the other was not feeling well and needed care. The other girl might then pick up the theme by agreeing she was indeed ill and in need of help. Such episodes functioned to perpetuate the theme, which, over time, was manifested through several variations. In the process, the themes served as bases for group identification (Kane, 1992). 2. As the school year progressed, children came to agree on the kinds of interaction that were and were not allowable. This made interactions less arbitrary and more amenable to control by rules that the children understood in common. When any child violated the rules, other children could use the authority of shared knowledge to sanction the offender. This form of sanctioning by calling on rules indicates that children comprehend the need for order in their interactions and shows that children believe there is common agreement about rules and the implicit compact to obey them (Kane, 1992). 3. Children's shared knowledge of the meaning for interactions allows them to assign significance to unfolding events rather than having to interpret each discrete act anew (Krappmann, 1992). This is especially evident in symbolic or fantasy play for which a match is lacking between material reality and referred themes. One child might ask another to disobey a command so that a sequence of punishment, atonement, and reconciliation might be invoked. An initial offense was never committed but had to be purposely induced so that a series of routine actions with thematic meaning would go into effect. 4. To some extent, this culture of peers was constructed in order for children to differentiate their culture from that which they shared with adults. Cook-Gumperz and Corsaro (1977) offer illustrations of differences by contrasting children's understandings of questions in child-teacher and child-child interactions. Children realized that often teachers' questions were not actually questions for which teachers lacked and sought information. When teachers held up a yellow card and asked; "Which color is this?," children knew that teachers were not seeking information but were trying to discover which of the children knew what teachers already knew. In distinction, when one child asked another whether she wanted to play the game "queen," the question was a serious invitation, which might be rejected or accepted, to start a specific fantasy engagement. In Corsaro's study, the themes, rules, and meaning systems of the these two cultures differed so that, at any moment, children knew the culture in which they were participating. It is possible that children want to create distance and privacy and perhaps even want to undermine adult culture. By creating their own cultural system with peers, children establish a culture in which their own interests can be tended apart from the adult culture in which there are other interests operating, such as those specified by the school

82

James Youniss

curriculum. This hypothesis is compatible with our findings regarding distinctions between friendship and parent-child relationships. Friendship is defined by norms of reciprocity, open discussion, and cooperation. The same children whose stories revealed these norms described different norms of obedience and politeness in their relationships with parents. It is suggested that friendship and the peer culture in which it arises may provide children with unique experiences of social life that simply cannot be had in interactions with adults (Krappmann, 1992). 5. Despite their separation, the two cultures are not totally severed, as is shown when aspects of one culture are found to appear in the other. Children import features of one culture into the other, such as when they bring categories of age and intelligence, which are important to adults, into the peer culture. Children are known to use adult-based categories when they attempt to assert individual claims. For example, a child might use age by stating: "I can tell you what to do because I am older," or intelligence by asserting: "I have to be the leader because I know the rules." Obviously, the importing process goes in both directions. A case hi point is when children teach adults games by making up the rules as the play progresses. Making rules as you go along is a feature of children's games that contrasts with "adult" games, for which the established rules anticipate most situations that will come up.

5. Adolescent Peer Culture This section extends the discussion of peers to adolescence and assumes that adolescent peer culture continues the peer culture of childhood but modifies it for the purposes and vagaries of adolescence (Corsaro & Eder, 1990). The concept of adolescent peer culture has provoked much concern about segregation between adolescents and adults (Coleman, 1961, 1987). Insofar as there is an adolescent culture of high school, music, clothes, food, sexual habits, and recreation, adolescents may become removed from adults and be less able to adapt to adult society in subsequent years. Coleman (1987) has noted that society consists in norms, values, and daily routines that are shared among adults. Youth who do not share these with adults lack the social capital that would facilitate their entrance into adult society. A segregated youth culture, by definition, reduces opportunities for adults to be included in youth's networks and vice versa. In a deeper sense, individuals separated by cultures and age would potentially lack a sense of mutual responsibility to support one another. Although either implication is important enough to warrant further consideration, it is now suggested that, while fears about segregation are reasonable, the evidence favors more youth-adult continuity than youth-adult division.

Children's Friendship and Peer Culture

83

In adolescents' accounts (Smollar & Youniss, 1989; Youniss & Smollar, 1985), friendships are as principled and important as they are in younger children. The basic norms of reciprocity, discussion, and mutual understanding, which were established in preadolescents, were operationally extended into the high school years. What had changed from preadolescence, however, was a new concept of relationship with parents. Whereas younger children viewed parents as figures with unilateral authority, adolescents regarded parents more as individual personalities who were open to sharing authority with their sons and daughters. Adolescents recognized that parents had personal problems and even character weaknesses, but still warranted adolescents' respect because they worked to protect their families, looked out for adolescents' interests, and tried to better their lives. These results have been interpreted as showing that aspects of peer relationships, in particular, reciprocity and mutual responsibility, become parts of parental relationships during adolescence. Mothers especially are perceived as able to transform their relationships into a more communicative and reciprocal, peer-like form. It is equally notable that while fathers, as a rule, are said to have relatively little contact with adolescents, they are nevertheless respected and seen as caruig for the welfare of their families. These data support findings that adolescents need not withdraw from parental relationships in order to develop, but utilize them to construct their emerging sense of individuality (Grotevant & Cooper, 1986). They also fit findings that adolescents seek parental support by way of information and advice in educational as well as emotional-social domains (Meeus, 1992; Wintre et al., 1988). It is important to note that while the focus has been mainly on adolescents in North America, similar conclusions apply to adolescents in contemporary Germany (Hofer et al., 1990; Hurrelmann, 1989). Another line of evidence comes from studies that have looked at the details of relationships inside adolescent peer culture. Studies of friendships and of crowds have shown that values and behaviors that social scientists posit as normative in adult society are found as normative within peer culture. For instance, loyalty and trust are principles that function among adolescent crowd members who support and protect one another (Eder, 1985). This does not preclude these same adolescents from gossiping about one another or from excluding others from their crowds (Eder, 1985). It should be noted, however, that gossip, jealousy, and exclusion are also parts of adult society. In this regard, teenage crowds have both the principles and behavioral shortcomings that are found in adult society. Another relevant finding comes from adolescents' descriptions of the main behaviors by which members of their crowds were known within schools (Youniss et al., 1993). For instance, students in popular crowds stressed their skillful sociality, desire to have fun, and also their respect for other students. Students in the brain crowd emphasized their high grades, intelligence, or lack of popularity. Results show that there is more decided differentiation among peers within adolescent than younger age groups. At the same time,

84

James Youniss

differentiation is accompanied by tolerance and respect for differences, even among adolescents who do not want to join other crowds but accept their existence and see positive value in them. These data add to the demonstration that adolescent peer culture contains some of the same qualities that are desired and considered normative for adult society. A third line of evidence establishes more direct links between youth and adult culture. It is a well-known fact that 50% or more of US high school students are engaged in part-time employment while they attend high school (W.T. Grant Foundation, 1988). Although this fact has usually been looked at in terms of whether youth are obtaining proper training for adult work, it can be viewed from another angle that bears on the present topic. The sort of work youth usually do is organized according to modern principles of production and service. In these positions, youth must perform according to clear rules that include coming to work on time, working a full shift, dressing properly, being clean, acting toward customers in a polite manner, and interacting with other workers in a cordial way. Viewed thusly, the fact of youth employment can be understood as a means for youth to acquire skills through being engaged in adult norms of social interaction in the workplace. The specific skills that are required of this work may be quite distant from those that would allow self-subsistence in adulthood. But the interactive procedures that are required entail the basic norms that apply to adult, productive work. A lesser known fact is that working as well nonworking youth participate in adult society in another way. Numerous charity organizations have chapters in local communities and depend on volunteer services of youth. Youth's services include collecting money, coaching, tutoring, cleaning, telephoning, and the like. These actions not only bring youth in contact with adults but are sponsored by normative institutions that symbolically represent specific adult values. For instance, organizations such as the Red Cross and United Way symbolize the value of responsibility of one citizen to another in the community. Further, work for these organizations requires that youth follow prescribed routines and norms. For instance, as hospital aides, volunteers must dress in a stylized manner and treat patients and staff with a prescribed demeanor. In a recent national survey of youth (Hodgkinson & Weitzman, 1990), it was found that approximately 50% of high school students said they had done volunteer, not for pay, work within the past year in local communities. We checked this finding by asking three available samples of students if they had volunteered, what they had done, and which organizations had sponsored their activities (Youniss, 1993). We found that slightly more than one-half claimed to have volunteered over the past year; this percentage corresponds with the national survey just cited. The activities were, as in the national survey, prosaic and nonheroic in nature. Adolescents baby-sat, visited elderly people in homes for the aged, coached elementary school youngsters, tutored their peers, assisted in hospitals, and collected money for charities.

Children's Friendship and Peer Culture

85

We found that the sponsoring organizations were typically churches, schools, charity organizations, and local institutions that supplied services to citizens in need. And we found that the activities that were reported put teenagers in direct and meaningful contact with individuals from all age levels in their communities. The range included infants, preschoolers, elementary school age, high school, young adult parents, middle-aged neighbors, and the elderly. While adolescents belong to and are committed to a peer culture, they are not removed from adult society in terms of normative or responsible actions that demonstrate responsibility, commitment, and concern.

6. Conclusion Two conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing discussion: First, there is a clear developmental pattern from childhood through adolescence showing that individual selves are established within a multitiered social system. Children are embedded hi a peer culture that includes specialized relationships with friends. They learn how to interact to achieve mutual understanding; and in friendship, in particular, they learn how to enact the principles of reciprocity and open communication. Children are also engaged in relationships with parents and other adults such as teachers. Although the structure of these relationships differs from that of friendship, the peer and adult worlds are connected at the practical level of interactive procedures that are required for negotiating interests and desires. A similar picture applies to adolescents who operate within a peer culture, maintain friendships, and remain close to their parents as they jointly transform the terms of that relationship. In addition, many adolescents participate in adult society through part-time employment, not-for-pay voluntary work, or both. As youth approach then- 20s, they have accumulated a history of belonging to social systems and relationships that they actively construct and through which, in turn, they are constructed as individuals. It follows from these data that normal development entails a history of engagement in social construction in which individuals learn about interdependence and mutuality. From scene-setting in early childhood play through negotiating conflict with parents hi adolescence, individuals have learned the mechanics of exchanging material, intellectual, and emotional resources. These procedures provide ample opportunity to experience both sides of exchange so that they are accustomed to receiving and giving support hi matters that count for daily existence. Whichever new ecologies adulthood might demand, development has prepared individuals well for responsible participation in close relationships and in societal functioning. The second conclusion is theoretical in nature and refers to a general psychological model implicit in the network and support literatures. Individuals are treated as discrete actors

86

James Youniss

who vary in their skills for social engagement. These skills create opportunities for becoming members of networks and for being able to elicit support when wanted or needed. This model fits well with the stilted Parsonian image of self-sustaining individuals who rely on their own resources for functioning in society. Such individuals operate on the general ethos of rationality that rewards merit and judges others according to objective criteria. Available developmental evidence warrants a serious discussion of the adequacy of this model. If an ideology of individualism is assumed, one can undoubtedly find expressions of it in contemporary life. Purposeful distancing from others, competition, detachment from emotional engagement, and the like are not rare events. On the other hand, companionship, cooperation, and commitment to others are not rare either. It is this latter side of contemporary adulthood that seems to have been minimized in psychological theory. It is suggested here that this side be recognized as a complementary part that is needed for a full account of contemporary psychological life. When it is minimized, persons must be infused with specialized skills that allow isolated individuals to perform altruistic acts that would otherwise not be possible. Sociologists, political scientists, and business analysts have come to criticize the stilted version of modernity as an ideology that does not adequately capture observable reality. Whether one observes political negotiation or manufacturing processes, it is clear that where there are persons, there are also relationships, mutuality, and social systems. Psychologists are aware of this to the degree that they recognize the importance of networks and support. But they tend to approach them using the unit of the discrete, egocentered individual who independently adapts to macrosocial structure by acting for individual purposes. Psychologists should at least start to debate the limits of this model and the ideology from which it arises. In discussing alternatives, psychologists would be joining other disciplines that are already exploring this issue. They would also be taking seriously the developmental data that show that children and youth understand their own individuality in terms of interpersonal relationships that are structured according to inherent principles of reciprocity, cooperation, and mutual responsibility for one another's welfare.

Note This chapter was written while the author was a visiting scholar at the Max Planck Institute for Development in Education in Berlin and was studying in Germany on Humboldt Research Award.

Children's Friendship and Peer Culture

87

References Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chapman, M. (1986). The structure of exchange: Piaget's sociological theory. Human Development, 29, 181-194. Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society. New York: Free Press. Coleman, J. S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16, 32-38. Cook-Gumperz, J., & Corsaro, W. A. (1977). Social ecological constraints on children's communication strategies. Sociology, 11, 411-434. Corsaro, W. A. (1985). Friendship and peer culture in the early years. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Corsaro, W. A., & Eder, D. (1990). Children's peer cultures. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 197-220. Damon, W. (1977). The social world of the child. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Damon, W. (1988). The moral child. New York: Free Press. Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58, 154-165. Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Furth, H. G. (1980). The world of grown-ups: Children's conceptions of society. New York: Elsevier. Gottman, J. M., & Parker, J. G. (1986). Conversations of friends: Speculations on emotional development. New York: Cambridge University Press. Grotevant, H., & Cooper, C. S. (1986). Individuation in family relationships. Human Development, 29, 82-100. Hodgkinson, V. A., & Weitzman, M. S. (1990). Volunteering and giving among American teenagers 14 to 17 years of age. Washington, DC: Private Sector. Hofer, M., Pikowsky, B., & Fleischmann, T. (1990, May). The differential use of arguments in motherdaughter conflicts. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on dialogue analysis, Bologna, Italy. Hurrelmann, K. (1989). The social world of adolescents: A sociological perspective. In K. Hurrelmann & U. Engel (Eds.), The social world of adolescents: International perspectives (pp. 3-24). Berlin: de Gruyter. Kane, S. R. (1992). Peer culture and pretend play in a preschool classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC. Keller, M., & Wood, P. (1989). Development of friendship reasoning: A study of interindividual differences in intraindividual change. Developmental Psychology, 25, 820-826. Krappmann, L. (1992). On the social embedding of learning processes in the classroom. In F. Oser, T. Dick, & J. L. Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching (pp. 173-186). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Meeus, W. (1992). Parental and peer support in adolescence. In K. Hurrelmann & U. Engel (Eds.), The social world of adolescents: International perspectives (pp. 167-185). New York: de Gruyter. Oswald, H. (1992). Negotiation of norms and sanctions among children. In P. Adler & A. Adler (Eds.), Sociological studies of child development (pp. 93-108). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family socialization and interaction process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Piaget, J. (1956). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1932) Selman, R. S., & Schultz, L. H. (1990). Making a friend in youth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Smith, C. J. (1980). Social networks as metaphors, models, and methods. Human Geography, 4, 500-524.

James Youniss Smollar, J., & Youniss, J. (1989). Transformations of adolescents' relations with parents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12, 71-84. Wellman, B. (1979). The community question: Intimate networks of East Yorkers. American Journal of Sociology, 184,1201-1231. Wintre, M. G., Hicks, R., McVey, G., & Fox, J. (1988). Age and sex differences in choice of consultant for various types of problems. Child Development, 59, 1046-1055. Woolfolk, R. L., & Richardson, F. C. (1984). Behavior therapy and ideology of modernity. American Psychologist, 39, 777-786. W. T. Grant Foundation (1988). The forgotten half: Pathways to success for America's youth and young families. Washington, DC: Commission on Youth and America's Future. Youniss, J., & Volpe-Smollar, J.A. (1978). A relational analysis of children's friendships. In W. Damon (Ed.), New directions for child development. Social cognition. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and peers in social development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Youniss, J. (1981). An analysis of moral development through a theory of social construction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 27, 384-403. Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Youniss, J. (1992). Parent and peer relations in the emergence of cultural competence. In H. McGurk (Ed.), Childhood social development: Contemporary perspectives (pp. 131-147). Hove, England: Erlbaum. Youniss, J. (1992, February). Integrating culture and religion into developmental psychology. Paper given at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Youniss, J., & Damon, W. (1992). Social construction in Piaget's theory. In H. Beilin & P. B. Pufall (Eds.) Piaget's theory: Prospects and possibilities (pp. 267-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Strouse, D. L. (1993). "We're popular, but we're not snobs": Adolescents describe their crowds. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.) Advances in adolescent development. Vol. 5: Personal relationships during adolescence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Social Support During Adolescence: Methodological and Theoretical Considerations Ana Mori Cauce, Craig Mason, Nancy Gonzales, Ywni Hiraga, Gloria Liu, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

1. Introduction While there is little support for the once popular notion that adolescence is inevitably characterized by extreme turmoil or "Sturm and Drang," it is still considered to be a pivotal developmental period (Elliot & Feldman, 1990). Research indicates that life stress steadily increases throughout childhood and into early adolescence (Coddington, 1972a, 1972b). Adolescence is also marked by an increase in negative emotions, probably a result of hormonal changes (Brooks-Gunn & Reiter, 1990). Rates of suicide, depression, conduct disorders, eating disorders, and substance use also increase during this period, making it a time of heightened risk (Adams & Gullotta, 1989). Yet, while some adolescents experience much uncertainty and unhappiness, others easily navigate through this normative life transition and remain happy and confident about themselves and their abilities. Part of what distinguishes the first group from the second may be the second group's sense of involvement in a stable set of relationships that form a "safety net" of support, love, and caring. Over the last decade, few areas of research have appeared as promising as that on social support and social support networks. Hundreds of studies, conducted with adults, suggest that social support enhances both physical and psychological well-being as well as buffering the negative effects of life stress. In contrast, research is only now beginning to address whether supportive relationships with parents, friends, teachers, grandparents, and important others affect the child or adolescent's social and emotional development. Problems of definition and measurement have made it especially difficult to conduct this type of research. As such, we begin this chapter with a selective review of the social support literature as it relates to assessment and conceptualization of support. This review reflects the fact that most of the relevant research has been conducted with adult populations, but we cite studies conducted with child or adolescent populations whenever relevant and possible. Then we draw upon data collected as part of a larger study to examine the relationship and adjustment correlates of social support during adolescence.

90

Ana Mari Cauce, Craig Mason, Nancy Gonzales, Yumi Hiraga, and Gloria Liu

We hope that this examination will help illuminate what it is that social support measures measure.

2. Critical Dimensions in Social Support Assessment Distinctions Between Types of Support The social support construct is multidimensional and it has been conceptualized and assessed in many ways. Distinctions between the key conceptual and assessment approaches have been identified by Barrera (1986) in a typology that has become widely accepted. Drawing upon his typology, we distinguish between three broad categories of support measures: those based upon a social network framework that gauge social connections, those that assess received or enacted support, and those that assess perceived support. Social networks and connections. The social network literature has a long and rich history in anthropology and sociology. Social network analysis, which does not presuppose that networks are supportive, has been used to study phenomena ranging from attendance at working parties in Tanzania to the behavior of married couples in Britain (Barnes, 1972; Mitchell, 1969). A true social network approach analyzes the arrangement of interrelationships between its members. These interrelationships can be viewed as the separate strands that form a fabric or mesh. In a personal social network, an individual is the anchor point from which a strand emanates to all other members. The structural characteristics of networks most frequently measured are size and density. Size indicates the number of persons in the network and density provides an indication of how tightly the mesh is interwoven. Anthropologists and sociologists have typically been less concerned with size and more concerned with density. Persons in dense networks are more likely to have stable and highly committed opinions and attitudes (Lauman, 1973); dense networks encapsulate individuals within a group that may provide them support, but can also prevent them from making new connections and isolate them from other channels of information (Granovetter, 1973; Horwitz, 1977; Wolf, 1966). While there is no "social network theory" (Mitchell, 1969), social network analysis has suggested that neither size nor density is necessarily related to social support. When an attempt has been made to link such measures to psychological adjustment, we typically find that high density can either help or hurt (Hirsch, 1980; Vaux & Harrison, 1985). After reviewing the social network literature, Cauce (1986) suggested that the best indicator of whether a social network is supportive is the degree to which it includes reciprocal, intense, and multidimensional relationships (see Mitchell, 1969, for a full definition of these terms). In an examination of the friendship networks of Afro-American adolescents, she found that a measure of perceived

Methodological and Theoretical Considerations

91

support from friends was moderately correlated (r = .42) with the number of reciprocated best friendships, which are generally considered intense and multidimensional. However, the type of network assessment used in that study was only made possible via sociometric techniques and by limiting the focus to classroom friendship networks. The methodology is not adaptable to the study of larger social networks. The more typical studies that cast themselves in a social network rubric (see Feiring & Lewis, 1989; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985, 1992, for examples) gauge support obtained from a broader range of relationship categories. Still, they only assess a relatively small number of relationships. Some justification does exist for assessing such a limited portion of the social network. House and Kahn (1985) note that to assess social support, one need only examine a relatively small set of relationships (5 to 10). When social networks are conceptualized as concentric circles surrounding the individual, it is those in the inner circle that provide the individual with the most support (Antonucci 1986; Levitt, 1991). Perhaps because of this, most so-called social network studies of social support limit themselves to an assessment of those social network providers closest to the individual and focus on egocentric rather than sociocentric networks (Klovdahl, 1985). In fact, although some noteworthy exceptions exist, virtually all social network measures that social support researchers presently use with children or adolescents diverge from measures derived using traditional social network analysis in three additional ways: (a) They focus almost exclusively on the social support provided to the anchor individual rather than on other types of exchange or those from the individual to network members; (b) they generally ignore the relationships between one network member and another that do not involve the anchor person; and (c) they rely almost exclusively on information provided by the anchor individual and rarely obtain additional information from another network member or an outside observer. Because of these dramatic differences between traditional social network methods and those used by most social support researchers, we believe it would be preferrable to consistently refer to these quasi-network support measures as measures of personal social support networks. It is also worth noting that we could find no consistent and appreciable difference between most of the social network measures used by social support researchers and those measures more typically called perceived support measures. Received or enacted support. Measures that focus on received or enacted support assess the frequency of supportive transactions an individual has engaged in, usually as the recipient For example, a scale assessing received support might include questions like "During the past month, which of these people (previously listed) actually gave you some important advice?" (from The Social Relations Questionnaire; Blyth et al., 1982).

92

Ana Mari Cauce, Craig Mason, Nancy Gonzales, Yumi Hiraga, and Gloria Liu

At first glance, it appears that these types of question provide a relatively straightforward and objective measure of the social support construct. However, a closer examination reveals two key problems with such measures. First, received support is generally confounded with the need for support (Coyne et al., 1990). We are most apt to give people support when we think they are stressed or distressed and in need of it. In fact, received support has often been related positively to stress and/or related negatively to desirable outcomes (Barrera, 1981; Belle, 1982). "Reverse" buffering effects have also been noted (Husiani et al., 1982). The second problem with received or enacted support measures is their implicit assumption that social support is some objective entity that is "given" to others in specific and observable transactions (Albrecht & Adelman, 1987). Such transactions would also, presumably, be verifiable. Unfortunately, these benign assumptions are not supported by the research evidence. There are substantial discrepancies between providers and receivers of presumably the same transactions about the quantity or quality of support given or gotten (Antonucci & Israel, 1986; Dunkel-Schetter & Bennett, 1990; Kessler et al., 1985). As the anthropologist Jacobson (1987) has stated, the same set of activities can be seen as "mothering" or "smothering." This has led him to regard social support as a "symbolic activity" (see Albrecht & Adelman, 1987). He further notes that a "cognitive revolution" is taking place in research on social support. Perceived support. It is now acknowledged by most researchers that individuals' assessments of their social support are based on their interpretation of supportive transactions and the personal meanings they attach to them. This fact is explicitly acknowledged in the rationales underlying perceived support measures. These measures generally ask the individual to assess who or how much support they think would be available to them if needed. They might also be asked to rate whether they are satisfied with the available support. Individuals are assumed to make their assessments of support, in part, based on how much support they have received from others in the recent past. However, in contrast to conceptualizations of received support, it is typically believed that assessments of perceived support are also influenced by more long-standing personality traits, concurrent stresses, and coping abilities (see Heller & Swindle, 1983, for a fuller discussion). Irwin and Barbara Sarason, along with their colleagues, have pursued an intriguing line of research that explores the antecedents of perceived support. Drawing from Bowlby's attachment theory, they argue that, at least by early adulthood, we are predisposed to interpret potentially supportive transactions in specific ways. They have suggested that perceptions of support have the stability of a personality characteristic, which they call a sense of social support or a sense of acceptance (Sarason, Pierce, & Sarason, 1990). Over the last decade, they have conducted a persuasive series of studies, albeit mostly with

Methodological and Theoretical Considerations

93

college student samples, to bolster their arguments (see Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990, for an overview). Our own conceptualization of perceived support is in substantial agreement with this perspective. Like them, we believe that, over the course of development, a person's past history of help-seeking and help-receipt increasingly comes to influence their assessment of whether help will be forthcoming in the future. We also think that persons who feel confident that others can be counted on (i.e., those "secure" in their attachments) will be less distressed and behave more competently. But, we are not entirely convinced that the attachment construct, as reified in the "strange situation," is the only, or best, theoretical anchor for these facts. We also suspect that cultural and contextual factors play a more central role in determining the meaning and form of help-seeking behaviors than they are typically given in most attachment research. Although it has not always been clear what perceived support is, research findings provide a strong practical rationale for using this type of measure. Studies with both children (Cotterell, 1992; Dubow & Ullman, 1989) and adults (Kessler & McLeod, 1985; Wethington & Kessler, 1986) suggest that measures of perceived support are more potent predictors of adjustment than measures of received support and/or simple network size. Distinctions within support types. Any of the three types of support measure can be further subdivided. The most common way in which this is done in adult studies is along functional lines. Cohen and Wills (1985) have described the main functions of support networks as the provision of emotional support, informational support or advice, social companionship, and instrumental support or material aid. Different typologies of support have been suggested by other researchers (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; House, 1981), but they also primarily identify the various functions or content of supportive interactions. These various typologies have led to the development of different social support measures, each defining support in a slightly different manner. Nonetheless, there is evidence that such fine-grained differentiations between support functions add little to the sensitivity of measures for adult populations (see Sarason et al., 1987). Studies of children have also suggested that, when factor analyzed, most descriptions of supportive behaviors load on a single factor (Berndt & Perry, 1986; Dubow & Ullman, 1989) or are so highly correlated that they are combined into one scale (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). In the child and adolescent literature, the critical distinction has been between the different sources or providers of support rather than in terms of support functions (Cauce et al., 1990; Cauce & Srebnik, 1989). A recent sophisticated study conducted by Wolchik et al. (1989) suggested that children make distinctions between provider groupings in their personal social support networks that account for a considerably greater portion of the variance in their support than do distinctions between support functions. A study of 1st-

94

Ana Mari Cauce, Craig Mason, Nancy Gonzales, Yumi Hiraga, and Gloria Liu

grade children also suggested that when examining the relationship between support and adjustment, distinctions between support providers were most important (Cauce et al., 1990). In fact, when using a pure functional model, no relationships between support and adjustment were found. A series of studies conducted by Cauce and her colleagues has suggested that three provider "support systems" (see Cauce & Srebnik, 1990, for a fuller discussion of this term) can be readily identified. Two of these, the family and friend system, consist of informal support providers. The third is a formal system that largely consists of school personnel among youthful samples. Various studies have suggested that these distinctions between support providers have implications for how support may relate to adjustment (Barrera & Chassin, in press; Barrera & Garrison-Jones, in press; Cauce et al., 1992). We believe that it is especially important to make distinctions between support providers during the adolescent years when relationships are being redefined and renegotiated. One of the defining features of adolescence is the movement toward independence from parents and increasing reliance upon friends. Research examining developmental changes in social support networks consistently suggests that support from friends increases dramatically from middle childhood to adolescence, support from teachers decreases, and support from parents remains somewhat more stable (Cauce et al., 1990; Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). It is also worth noting that some measures take a truly global approach, making no distinctions whatsoever between providers or functions. Perhaps the best example of this is support satisfaction as measured by the widely used Social Support Questionnaire (Sarason et al., 1986). This global measure, which cuts across providers and functions, has been found to be correlated with retrospective accounts of family relationships and a host of personality variables and adjustment indices in college students. Summary Different strategies have been used in the assessment of social support. However, it is often difficult to match up the purported strategy (or its theoretical underpinnings) to the actual assessment device. Social network and received support measures are as apt to be based on the individual's perception of support as are perceived support measures. Measures that purport to assess social networks sometimes assess dyadic relationships. Theory-based distinctions between support function collapse under close scrutiny. One way to get a handle on the support construct is to examine its correlates; when theory fails to clarify, it's worth giving crass empiricism a try.

Methodological and Theoretical Considerations

95

3. Co/relates of Perceived Support During Adolescence This section is organized around two basic questions: How is perceived support related to other measures of relationship quality? And, how is perceived support related to various indices of psychological adjustment and/or competence? The data used to examine these questions were drawn from a larger prospective study of ecological and family correlates of adolescent adjustment. Study Participants and Procedures Participants in the study were 144 Afro-American adolescents (91 female, 53 male) and at least one primary caretaker. All adolescents were in the 7th or 8th grade, and, on average, about 13.5 years of age. Income level varied considerably among the families. While a little more than 40% were lower-income families, close to 20% were solidly middle-class or above. Most mothers had completed high school and 11 % had completed college. About half of the adolescents were living in homes headed by a single woman. In most cases, adolescents and caregivers were interviewed and completed questionnaires in their homes, although occasionally they elected to complete them in our laboratory. The measures we examine here fall into two main categories: those related to relationships and those related to psychological outcomes. Relationship Measures Perceived social support. This was measured using the Social Support Rating ScaleRevised (SSRS-R; Cauce et al., 1992), which was designed to measure perceived support among adolescent samples. The SSRS-R includes questions about emotional support and help and guidance. It yields four key subscales: family support, friend support, school support, and support satisfaction. A series of studies conducted with varied adolescent populations suggests that the scale is a highly reliable and valid measure of support.1 Given the importance that has been attributed to the Afro-American extended family, a measure of extended family support consisting of support from grandparents, aunts or uncles, and cousins was also constructed. For purposes of comparison, we also constructed single provider subscales for mother, best friend, teacher, and grandparent. Network orientation. A scale of help-seeking was constructed based on answers to two items. The first asked "In general, when the occasion arises, are you the type of person who turns to others for caring and emotional support?" The same question was also asked in terms of help and guidance and answers. Attachment. The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) was developed based on the tenets of attachment theory. It assesses self-reported

96

Ana Mari Cauce, Craig Mason, Nancy Gonzales, Yumi Hiraga, and Gloria Liu

attachment as it is manifested during adolescence. It yields separate subscales for attachment to mother, father, and peers. Higher scores indicate greater amounts of trust and communication in the relationship and lesser amounts of alienation. Parental warmth and restrictiveness. The Child-Rearing Practices Report (CRPR; Block, 1965) was administered to mothers to assess their perceived levels of warmth and restrictiveness. These two dimensions of parenting style were derived via a factor-analytic study conducted by Rickel and Biasatti (1982). A sample item from the warmth scale is "My child and I have warm, intimate times together." An item indicating restrictiveness is "I expect a great deal of my child." It is worth noting that the restrictiveness scale does not simply represent appropriate levels of parental monitoring, but rather suggests that the parents are over-controlling as in "I instruct my child not to get dirty when s/he is playing." Family cohesion. The Family Cohesion subscale of the Family Environment Scale-Short Form (FES; Moos & Moos, 1981) was completed by adolescents. This scale assesses the degree of family closeness and perceived support that family members give to each other.

Adjustment Indices Adolescents' perceptions of their own competence were assessed via the Global SelfWorth, Social Competence, School Competence, and Romantic Competence subscales of the Self Perception Profile for Adolescents (PSCS; Harter, 1989). The PSCS is a widely used questionnaire that was specifically constructed to avoid a socially desirable response set. Depression was gauged via the Child Depression Inventory, one of the most widely used inventories for this purpose. In total, these measures examine a relatively broad crosssection of psychological adjustment and competence.

Analytic Strategy Following a presentation of support profiles, analyses presented here consist of simple correlations evaluated with 2-tailed significance tests. First we examine support as defined through the "support system" model (Caplan, 1974; Cauce & Srebnik, 1990). In the second set of analyses, a single person within each system, such as mother or best friend, was used to represent a key individual within that system. This approach yields subscales more similar to those in measures that focus on specific dyadic relationships, such as "My Family and Friends," (Reid et al., 1989) and the "Network Relationships Inventory" (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). Finally, satisfaction with support is examined.

97

Methodological and Theoretical Considerations

Perceived Support Profiles Figure 1 presents the means for support ratings separately by gender. As this figure indicates, ratings are highest for support from mothers, followed by best friends, fathers, regular friends (e.g., peers), and grandparents. At the lower end of the spectrum were classmates and adult school personnel. This pattern of results is remarkably similar to that found for adolescents in the two studies using the "Networks of Relationships Inventory," a much lengthier measure. On the other hand, the general lack of gender differences, particularly in terms of best friend and friend support, contrasts with the results of these same studies.

Level

Mean Level of Social Support

Dad

Mom Sbs Cous Aunt Q-Par Tea* Conns Ptlnc BFmd

Class

Source Figure 1: Mean Level of Social Support.

However, they were conducted with very homogeneous white middle-class samples of youth in predominantly two-parent families; other studies of peer relationships amongst Afro-American youth have also failed to yield gender differences in friendships (Cauce, 1986; Hirsch & Dubois, 1989). This points out the need to replicate findings across diverse samples.

Perceived Support and Relationship Qualities As noted previously, Sarason et al. (1987) have suggested that perceived support "may be a counterpart in adult life to the attachment experience in childhood described by Bowlby." More recently, Cotterell (1992) has suggested the same may be the case during

98

Ana Mari Cauce, Craig Mason, Nancy Gonzales, Yumi Hiraga, and Gloria Liu

adolescence. However, the results of his investigation with Australian youth yielded mixed results. Corresponding indices of attachment and support were uniformly correlated amongst females, but not amongst males. Given the inconclusiveness of these findings, we rexamined the issue here. We also examined the correlations between social support and other factors that an attachment perspective would suggest it should be related to. These include maternal warmth and restrictiveness, family cohesion, and the adolescent's network orientation. If perceived support in adolescence is a manifestation of attachment, or functions like it, we would expect it to be highly correlated with attachment measures, with maternal reports of warmth, and with family cohesion. We would also expect those with higher levels of perceived support to be more willing to turn to others for help if needed. On the other hand, we would expect support to be negatively related to maternal restrictiveness or overcontrol. The results of these analyses are reported in Table 1. For the sake of simplicity, both genders were combined; an examination of the results for males and females separately suggested that relationships between support and attachment within each gender were similar, and formal tests yielded no significant differences. As Table 1 indicates, in keeping with an attachment perspective on support, corresponding measures of support and attachment, such as mother attachment and perceived mother support, were at least moderately correlated. More modest correlations also existed between measures that had no direct correspondence. For example, both general friend support and best friend support were related to mother attachment. This is also consistent with an attachment perspective, since the first attachment relationship, usually with the mother, is seen as providing a foundation for subsequent attachments. Mother attachment and Friend attachment subscales, as measured by the IPPA, are also modestly to moderately intercorrelated. Table 1: Correlations Between Perceived Support and Relationship Indices Nurt

Rester

Mom

Dad

Peer

Family cohesion

Turns to

Family Friend School Extended

-.07 -.01 -.06 -.09

-.06

.02 .16 .22

.35 .18 .19 .23

.50 -.02 .15 .22

.18 .50 .19 .19

.22 .11 .08 .09

.28 .25 .22 .16

Mother Best friend Teacher Grandparents

-.02 -.01 .01 -.06

-.14 -.04 .09 .20

.44 .25 .22 .05

.19 .06 .19 .17

.27 .57 .13 .15

.26 .12 .10 .07

.21 .26 .23 .04

Satisfaction

-.08

-.02

.42

.49

.38

.43

.28

Methodological and Theoretical Considerations

99

Support satisfaction was also found to be consistently and moderately correlated with all indices of attachment. The sense of comfort we feel with the amount of support available to us, which is what satisfaction indicates, may be the most direct indicator of our general "security" within relationships. Also consistent with an attachment perspective are the positive correlations between most support indices and the "turns to" network orientation index. This sense of knowing that help is available when needed and that one can access such support may, in fact, lead to more autonomous coping and problem-solving (Holler & Hurrelmann, 1990). Contrary to expectations, maternal reports of her warmth and restrictiveness were generally unrelated to support. This stands in contrast to results with college students indicating that their perceived support is related to retrospective recollections of their mother's parenting styles (Sarason et ah, 1987). However, the measure of parenting used here was completed by the mothers, not the adolescents. When the adolescents themselves reported on their family's cohesion, a construct similar to warmth, we did find it to be positively correlated with perceived support. A more unexpected result was the mildly positive association between maternal restrictiveness and extended family/grandparent support This may suggest that adolescents in overly restrictive homes may compensate for this by depending upon or turning to kin. This is worthy of further investigation, given the important role that extended family members play in Afro-American families (Wilson, 1989). Perceived Support and Adjustment It is well-established that perceived social support is positively related to well-being amongst adults. However, the question is far from resolved for children and adolescents. This is partly because few studies have been conducted, and partly because the results of these few studies have been less than straightforward. A recent review of the child literature by Wolchik et al. (1989) suggested that support from family members and other adults was usually positively related to adjustment. In contrast, support from peers was often unrelated or negatively related to indices of adjustment. Results from several studies by Cauce and her colleagues suggest an even more complicated picture hi terms of peer support. She has suggested that whereas friend support will generally be negatively related to distress, it will only be positively related to specific areas of adjustment or competence if the youth's peer group values the behaviors entailed (see Cauce, 1986). For example, within some peer subcultures, doing well hi school is not viewed positively (see Fordham & Ogbu, 1986). So, for members of that subculture or social niche, Cauce would predict that peer support would be negatively related to school competence. In a different variation of a similar argument, Cotterell (1992) has suggested that peer support will influence academic adjustment only "under

100

Ana Mari Cauce, Craig Mason, Nancy Gonzales, Yumi Hiraga, and Gloria Liu

those circumstances where adolescent psychological well-being is associated with the level of attachment to friends, rather than to parents" (p. 39). Attachment theory suggests that children who are securely attached more readily engage in exploratory behavior (Ainsworth, 1982), which, by adolescence, we expect to translate into greater self-confidence and competence. So, if perceived support is like attachment, it should be negatively related to distress and positively related to perceived competence. But attachment theory would not lead us to make specific predictions about differential relationships between attachments to different types of figure (e.g., family vs. friends) and adjustment. The results of our correlational analyses are presented in Table 2. Once again, results are presented together for both genders, since there were no significant differences between them. They do not lend themselves to a parsimonious summary. The general pattern of relationships between family (or mother) support and adjustment was not as strong or pervasive as expected. Nonetheless, both measures were correlated, in the expected direction, with depression and school competence - two important adjustment indices for this age group. Table 2: Correlations Between Perceived Support and Adjustment Indices

Depression Selfworth

Social

Competence School

Problem Romantic behavior

Family Friend School Extended

-.18 -.25 -.10 -.08

.09 .26 .08 .17

.05 .40 .13 .25

.18 .30 .12 .13

.17 .37 .24 .34

.13 .11 .05 .06

Mother Best friend Teacher Grandparents

-.20 -.26 -.16 -.05

.17 .15 .12 .22

.10 .31 .08 .23

.27 .21 .24 .14

.13 .34 .21 .24

.01 .07 -.05 .01

Satisfaction

-.46

.31

.22

.28

.22

-.06

Correlates of school and extended family support were even more circumscribed. Both support from school personnel and from extended family members, either as a "system" or in terms of grandmother and teacher, were related to romantic competence. This suggests that it is when adolescents feel supported by those outside of the nuclear family that they are more confident about their attractiveness to potential romantic partners.

Methodological and Theoretical Considerations

101

Support from extended family members was also related to more general social competence and to self-worth, underscoring the importance of kinship networks, at least for Afro-American youth. Not surprisingly, support from teachers was related to school competence. However, this effect was diffused when the full school system was examined. No other relationships between school or extended family support and adjustment were found. In contrast, both indices of friend support were negatively related to distress and positively related to all areas of adjustment. While this is different from the findings of Wolchik et al.'s review, it is consistent with several studies that have focused exclusively on adolescents (Burke & Weir, 1978; Hirsch & Dubois, 1992; Newcomb & Rentier, 1988) and further confirms the important role of the peers during this age. The positive relationship between peer or best friend support and school competence is in keeping with Cotterell's hypothesis, since support from peers was generally more related to adjustment indices than support from parents. To examine the role of peer group values as a determining factor in this relationship, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted using preliminary data collected in the second year of the larger study. In this prospective analysis, school competence at Wave 2 served as the dependent variable. Wave I school competence was entered into the first step of the equation, followed by entry of the adolescents' reports of both their peer support and their assessment of whether or not their friends valued school. In the third step, the interaction between both was entered. Results indicated that 45% of the variance in school competence was accounted for by the main effects of earlier school competence, peer group support, and peer group values. Nonetheless, even when these were controlled, there was a trend toward significance for the two-way interaction between peer support and peer group values, F(4, 108) = 3.20, p < .08. In keeping with Cauce's hypothesis, the nature of this trend was such that those adolescents who reported both high levels of peer support and friends who valued school also reported the highest levels of school competence. Those high in peer support who reported that their friends did not value school reported the lowest levels of school competence. Thus, it may be important to know more about the peer group culture of an adolescent, or a group of adolescents, before predicting how peer support will be related to "value-laden" indices of adjustment. Perhaps the most striking finding is the relatively strong and consistent correlation between adjustment and global support satisfaction. This provides the strongest support for an attachment perspective. As mentioned previously, when people are asked to assess whether they think others would provide them with support if needed, it is very similar to assessing how secure they feel about their relationships.

102

Ana Mari Cauce, Craig Mason, Nancy Gonzales, Yumi Hiraga, and Gloria Liu

Summary This study had three interrelated purposes. The first was simply to confirm the importance of social support during adolescence. The second was to examine methodological issues related to the assessment of social support in this age group. The third was to explore the nature of social support during this age. Results confirmed the importance of social support during adolescence. In general, relationships between perceived support and adjustment existed for this age group. Nonetheless, the strength of this relationship was sometimes quite weak and it varied by the provider system examined. The relatively weak and inconsistent pattern of relationships between family support and adjustment calls into question previous findings suggesting that support from family members is more central to adjustment than support from peers (cf. Barrera et al., in press; Cauce et al., 1992). Further research is needed to clarify these discrepencies that may be due to the very different characteristics of each sample examined. On the most practical level, no clear advantage for either of the two scoring strategies compared emerged; one of these was based on a "support system" model, the other was based on a dyadic relationship model. We continue to prefer the "system" model, both because it better captures what was originally meant by social support (e.g., Caplan, 1974) and because multiple-item measures demonstrate more stability. For those who prefer to examine dyadic relationships, the SSRS-S scale format allows one to do so. We would be most prone to do this in terms of family support. For example, once data from our study is fully coded, we plan to examine whether adolescents perceive fathers who visit regularly but do not live with them as less supportive than live-in fathers. However, it is important to note that one problem with examining a full dyadic relationship model is that it requires running a relatively large number of correlations. For example, when examining the relationship between support and four indices of adjustment, a dyadic model would require one to examine 36 correlations, as opposed to 12 using a "systems" model, substantially increasing the possibility of a Type II error. An alternative might be to examine the more fine-grained dyadic model only if significant effects emerge at the "systems" level. Thus, if a relationship exists between family support and depression, one would then examine the degree to which mother, father, or sibling support accounted for the effect. Although an extremely conservative strategy, we believe it makes the most sense unless there is a theoretical basis for expecting an effect to be relationshipspecific. The one index that demonstrated the clearest advantage over the others was the measure of support satisfaction. This global assessment demonstrated the strongest and most consistent relationships with adjustment and competence. It would be tempting to simply

Methodological and Theoretical Considerations

103

use this as a two-item measure of perceived support. But it is important to remember that this question was asked after adolescents rated support from all other providers first. The fact that participants engaged in these ratings may have led them to a more informed assessment of their support satisfaction. We do not, at this time, recommend using satisfaction as a stand-alone indicator of perceived support.

4. Theoretical Considerations On a theoretical level, the results presented here should prove encouraging to those who posit that perceived support represents an extension of early childhood attachment Social support was originally conceptualized as a set of social resources that lay "outside" the person and were accessed through wferindividual relationships. It was not viewed primarily as an wfraindividual difference variable like attachment.2 Yet, the results obtained here, consistent with those summarized hi Sarason, Sarason, and Pierce (1990), suggest that this is the case. The similarity between social support and attachment may be, in part, an artifact of the way in which we typically measure support. By measuring support via an individual's perceptions, we ensure that we tap into intraindividual factors. The methodology for assessing social resources in a less cognitively dependent manner exists (see Klovdahl; 1985, Liebow 1989; or other articles in the journal Social Networks), but it is extremely time-consuming and largely ethnographic. The reliance on an individual's perceptions as the basis for assessing support is not unique to perceived support measures. As mentioned previously, almost all studies of social support, irregardless of whether they purport to measure social networks, received support, or perceived support, exclusively depend on one individual's perceptions of then· support. These perceptions appear to incorporate some systematic biases. For example, some sources of support are typically overlooked. Nestmann and Niepel (see this volume) have found that adults often fail to mention their children as members of their social networks. Nonetheless, except for the very young, most children do provide their parents with at least some forms of support on an almost daily basis. There are many other providers that people routinely overlook when asked to name their network members or to assess who would provide them with support. Although they are rarely mentioned, many people, especially those who are upper middle-class, routinely receive large amounts of tangible, and probably emotional, support from paid helpers such as secretaries, baby-sitters, maids, or housekeepers. Then" lives would probably be much more stressful without this support, which is why they purchase it to begin with. Yet, most people perceive that their support comes from "communal" rather than exchange-based relationships (Clark & Mills, cited in Coyne et al., 1990).

104

Ana Mari Cauce, Craig Mason, Nancy Gonzales, Yumi Hiraga, and Gloria Liu

Our perceptual tendency to gloss over exchange-based relationships, or the precise nature of exchanges in any one relationship, ensures that self-report social support instruments essentially capture the degree to which one is involved hi relationships believed to be characterized by acceptance, open communication, and love (Sarason et al., 1986). Selfreported attachment assesses the degree to which persons characterize their relationships in terms of trust, open communication, and (absence of) alienation. As such, the strong empirical associations between the two measures should not be surprising, since they essentially "pull for" the same psychological construct. At this point, we believe it is largely a matter of personal preference whether one calls that construct perceived support or self-reported attachment. The frameworks undergirding each label lead to remarkably similar predictions. An attachment framework suggests that a more secure attachment should lead to healthier adaptation; a social support framework suggests that higher levels of social support should lead to better coping. Both frameworks also suggest that this association should be especially strong when the individual is stressed or distressed. Attachment is protypically assessed in the "strange situation" in which the toddler is stressed via a separation from mother; social support was originally conceptualized as serving to buffer the ill-effects of life stress. In sum, when it comes to adolescents' or young adults' perceptions of their close relationships, it seems to be that some core construct consistently emerges. No matter what conceptual framework structures the bow, or what methodological arrow is used, you hit the same bull's-eye. In attempting to assess social resources, we may have instead stumbled upon a construct or mechanism underlying important developmental continuities in how we cognitively construct (or reconstruct) our social worlds. This is an exciting prospect. Perhaps this construct is best described as a "working model(s)" that evolves from the attachment experience within our first meaningful relationship. It may also be a (set of) social or relationship script(s) that is culturally grounded and developed as young children learn to distinguish between different types of relationship. Or, it could be some combination of these or something altogether different. A myriad number of hypotheses are plausible. Longitudinal research drawing upon observational methodologies, ethnographic/qualitative techniques, and self-report is clearly needed to clarify the nature of this construct across the life span. So what do social support measures measure? We still don't know, but whatever it is, it seems to be important.

Notes 1. Some of the data presented here come from the third SSRS-R validity study (Cauce et al., 1992). There are some minor differences between the correlations presented here and those in that study because

Methodological and Theoretical Considerations

105

slightly different methods were employed in scoring. For the correlational analyses presented here, in all cases, we coded the amount of support from a provider as "zero" if the adolescent reported that they had no such provider, for example, if an adolescent had no sibling, they received a score of zero for sibling support. In the other study, except for father support, we coded absent sources of support as missing data Compelling arguments can be made for either approach, but results suggest that the differences are relatively inconsequential when a "support system" approach is used. 2. Attachment as operationalized in the "strange situation" is clearly an interindividual variable, but, later in life, attachment is conceptualized in terms of "working models," an intraindividual construct.

References Adams, G., & Gullotta, T. (1989). Adolescent life experiences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1982). Attachment: Retrospect and prospect. In C. M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachments in human behavior (pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books. Albrecht, T. L., & Adelman, M. B. (1987). Communicating social support: A theoretical perspective. In T. L. Albrecht & M. B. Aldelman (Eds.), Communicating social support (pp. 18-38). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Antonucci, T. C. (1986). Social support networks: A hierarchical mapping technique. Generations, Summer, 10-12. Antonucci, T. C., & Israel, B. A. (1986). Veridicality of social support: A comparison of principal and network members' responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 432-437. Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-454. Barnes, J. A. (1972). Social networks. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Barrera, M., Jr. (1981). Social support in the adjustment of pregnant adolescents: Assessment issues. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Social networks and social support (pp. 69-96). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Barrera, M., Jr. (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 413-445. Barrera, M., Jr., & Chassin, L. (in press). Effects of social support and conflict on adolescent children of alcoholic and nonalcoholic fathers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Barrera, M., Jr., & Garrison-Jones, C. (in press). Family and peer social support as specific correlates of adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. Belle, D. (1982). Social ties and social support. In D. Belle (Ed.), Lives in stress: Women and depression. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Berndt, T. J., & Perry, T. B. (1986). Children's perceptions of friendships as supportive relationships. Developmental Psychology, 22, 640-648. Block, J. H. (1965). The childrearing practices report. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Human Development, University of California. Blyth, D. A., Hill, J. P., & Theil, K. S. (1982). Early adolescents' significant others: Grade and gender differences in perceived relationships with familial and non-familial adults and young people. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 425-450. Brooks-Gunn, J., & Reiter, Ε. Ο. (1990). The role of pubertal processes. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 16-53). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burke, R. J., & Weir, T. (1978). Benefits to adolescents of informal helping relationships with their parents and peers. Psychological Reports, 42, 1175-1184.

106

Ana Mari Cauce, Craig Mason, Nancy Gonzales, Yumi Hiraga, and Gloria Liu

Caplan, G. (1974). Support systems and community mental health. New York: Behavioral Publication. Cauce, A. M. (1986). Social networks and social competence: Exploring the effects of early adolescent friendships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 607-628. Cauce, A. M., Ptacek, J. T., Mason, C, & Smith, R. E. (1992). The social support rating scale-revised: Three studies on development and validation. Manuscript submitted for publication. Cauce, A. M., Reid, M., Landesman, S., & Gonzales, N. (1990). Social support in young children: Measurement, structure, and behavioral impact. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 64-95). New York: Wiley. Cauce, A. M., & Srebnik, D. (1989). Peer social networks and social support: A focus for preventive efforts. In L. A. Bond & B. Compas (Eds.), Primary prevention in the schools. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cauce, A. M., & Srebnik, D. S. (1990). Returning to social support systems: A morphological analysis of social networks. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 609-616. Coddington, R. D. (1972a). The significance of life events as etiologic factors in the diseases of children I. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 16, 7-18. Coddington, R. D. (1972b). The significance of life events as etiologic factors in the diseases of children II. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 16, 205-213. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357. Cotterell, J. L. (1992). The relation of attachments and supports to adolescent well-being and school adjustment. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 28-42. Coyne, J. C., Ellard, J. H., & Smith, D. A. F. (1990). Social support, interdependence, and the dilemmas of helping. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce, (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 129-149). New York: Wiley. Cutrona, C. E. (1984). Social support and stress in the transition to parenthood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 378-390. Dubow, E. F., & Ullman, D. G. (1989). Assessing social support in elementary school children: The survey of children's social support. Journal of Child Clinical Psychology, 18, 52-64. Dunkel-Schetter, C., & Bennet, T. L. (1990). Differentiating the cognitive and behavioral aspects of social support In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 267-296). New York: Wiley. Elliot, G. R., & Feldman, S. S. (1990). Capturing the adolescent experience. In S. S. Feldman, & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 1-14). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Feiring, L., & Lewis, M. (1989). The social networks of girls and boys from early through middle childhood. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children's social networks and social supports (pp. 119-150). New York: Wiley. Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the "burden of acting white.'" Urban Review, 18, 176-206. Furman, W. (1989). The development of children's social networks. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children's social networks and social supports (pp. 151-172). New York: Wiley. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children's perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1014-1024. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103-115. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380. Harter, S. (1989). Manual for the Self Perception Profile for Adolescents. Denver, CO: University of Denver.

Methodological and Theoretical Considerations

107

Heller, K., & Swindle, R. W. (1983). Social networks, perceived support, and coping with stress. In R. D. Feiner, L. A. Jason, J. Moritsugu, & S. Farber (Eds), Preventive psychology: Theory, research, and practice in community intervention (pp. 87-100). New York: Pergammon. Hirsch, B. J. (1980). Natural support systems and coping with major life changes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 159-172. Hirsch, B. J., & Dubois, D. L. (1992). The relation of peer social support and psychological symptomatology during the transition of junior high school: A two-year longitudinal analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 333-347. Holler, B., & Hurrelmann, K. (1990). The role of parent and peer contacts for adolescents' state of health. In K. Hurrelmann & F. Lösel (Eds.), Health hazards in adolescence (pp. 409-432). Berlin: de Gruyter. Horwitz, A. (1977). Social networks and pathways to psychiatric treatment. Social Forces, 56(1), 86-105. House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. House, J. S., & Kahn, R. L. (1985). Measures and concepts of social support. In S. Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 83-108). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Husiani, B. A., Neff, J. A., Newbrough, J. R., & Moore, M. C. (1982). The stress-buffering role of social support and personal competence among the rural married. Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 409426. Jacobson, D. (1987). The cultural context of social support and social networks. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 7(1), 42-67. Kessler, R. C., & McLeod, J. (1985). Social support and mental health in community samples. In S. Cohen & L.Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 219-240). New York: Academic Press. Kessler, R. C., Price, R. H., & Wortman, C. B. (1985). Social factors in psychopathology: Stress, social support, and coping processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 531-572. Klovdahl, A. S. (1985). Social networks and the spread of infectious diseases: The AIDS example. Social Science & Medicine, 21, 1203-1216. Laumann, E. O. (1973). Bonds of pluralism: The forms and substance of urban social networks. New York: Wiley. Levitt, M. J. (1991). Attachment and close relationships: A life span perspective. In J. L. Gerwitz & W. F. Kurtines (Eds.), Intersections and attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Liebow, E. B. (1989). Category or community? Measuring urban Indian social cohesion with network sampling. Journal of Ethnic Studies, 16, 67-100. Mitchell, J. C. (1969). Social networks in urban situations. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1981). Family environment scale manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Newcomb, M. S., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Impact of adolescent drug use and social support on problems of young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 64-75. Reid, M., Landesman, S., Treder, R., & Jaccard, J. (1989). My Family and Friends: Six to twelve year old children's perceptions of social support. Child Development, 60, 896-910. Rickel, A. U., & Biasatti, L. R. (1982). Modification of the Block Child Rearing Practices Report Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 129-134. Sarason, B. R., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1990). Social support The sense of acceptance and the role of relationships. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (1990). Social support: An interactional view (pp. 97-128), New York: Wiley. Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G., & Pierce, G. R. (1990). Social support: An interactional view. New York: Wiley. Sarason, B. R, Shearin, E. N., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1987). Interrelationships among social support measures: Theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,813-832.

108

Ana Mari Cauce, Craig Mason, Nancy Gonzales, Yumi Hiraga, and Gloria Liu

Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Shearin, E. N. (1986). Assessing social support: The Social Support Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 845-855. Vaux, A., & Harrison, D. (1985). Support network characteristics associated with support satisfaction and perceived support American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 245-267. Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1986). Perceived support, received support, and adjustment to stressful life events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27, 78-89. Wilson, M. N. (1989). Child development in the context of the Black extended family. American Psychologist, 44, 380-385. Wolchik, S. A., Beals, J., & Sandier, I. N. (1989). Mapping children's support networks. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children's social networks and social supports (pp. 191-220). New York: Wiley. Wolf, E. F. (1966). Kinship, friendship, and patron-client relations in complex societies. In M. Banton (Ed.), The social anthropology of complex societies. London: Tavistock.

Part II Social Support, Social Competence, and Prosocial Behavior

7 Social Support and Social Competences: Some Theoretical and Empirical Contributions to Their Relationship Bernd Röhrle, Gert Sommer, University of Marburg, FRG

L Introduction Social support in recent years is mostly conceptualized as perceived rather than received social support, in most cases evaluated by the recipient and not by the provider. With the shift of the focus from more objective social network variables to more subjective variables like perceived social support, the object of research has to be the individual as well as the environment, even if some researchers curtail the complex object in one direction or the other. This implies that characteristics of the perceiving individual are involved as well as characteristics of the environment, especially the helpful or not helpful behavior of significant others. Different personality variables have been discussed as significant correlates of social network and social support variables, for example, attributional style, need for affiliation, physical and social attractiveness, extraversion, hardiness, self-esteem, network orientation, help-seeking attitude, and social competences (e.g., Leppin, 1985; Röhrle, 1992; Vaux, 1988). Social or interpersonal competences may play the most significant role. On a phenomenological level, social competences seem to be necessary to make contact to unknown persons, to initiate and develop relationships, to build a network, and to request, to accept, and to perceive social support. On the other hand, social network and social support in then· socializing function may influence social competences (Salzinger, 1990). Before turning to the empirical data, we will briefly discuss the concepts of social support and social competences, thus realizing that each construct has been defined and conceptualized in different ways.

2. Concepts of Social Competences and Social Support Social competences have been defined in a more formal way as "availability and application of cognitive, emotional, and motor behaviors, which in specific social situations will bring a long-term favorite relationship of positive compared to negative consequences" (Hinsch & Pfingsten, 1983, p. 6; see, also, Sommer, 1977). Another definition, which incorporates more psychological contents, indicates that social competences are a

112

Bernd Röhrle and Gert Sommer

compromise between self-realization and social adjustment; they comprise social skills, a positive attitude toward one's own desires (positive self-esteem), and lack of social anxiety or at least a not disabling degree of it (Ullrich & Ullrich de Muynck, 1978). General basic social skill classes are, for example, to show emotional and social sensitivity and expressivity (Riggio, 1986). Similarly, relevant social behavior classes within the domain of clinical psychology have been identified; for example, to express and assert desires and legitimate demands, to make contact with other persons, to express positive and negative emotions, to reject inappropriate demands, and to accept adequate critique (Lazarus, 1973; Ullrich & Ullrich de Muynck, 1978; Zimmer, 1978). Social skills incorporate specific verbal and nonverbal overt behaviors like eye contact, gestures, spatial behavior, appearance, and response latency; as well as the volume, clarity, and duration of speech (e.g., Trower et al., 1978). More complex social competences are perspective-taking and social problem-solving. Social competences have been conceptualized within the information-processing paradigm and an action theory model that comprises the components of (a) motivation, goals, and plans; (b) perception that is "translated" to performances; and (c) feedback (Trower et al., 1978; similarly, Schlundt & McFall, 1985: stimulus decoding, decision-making, and response encoding; see, also, Borgart, 1985; Döpfner, 1989). Thus concepts of social competence relate to very specific behavior skills as well as to complex social actions. Social competence research has studied mostly individuals rather than relationships, and little effort has been made to understand the "relational aspect of interpersonal competence" (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1989, p. 64). To underscore the importance of studying relationships within the social competence framework, Hansson et al. (1984) have offered the term "relational competence." In the social support and social network research domain, it is suggested to distinguish between the following closely related topics: (a) existence of social relationships (e.g., being married); (b) social network or structure of social relationships; (c) observable social interactions; and (d) social support (Barrera, 1986; Leatham & Duck, 1990; Sommer & Fydrich, 1989; Vaux, 1988). Social support is a complex construct with different components like emotional support, instrumental or tangible support, informational support or cognitive guidance, and social integration (e.g., House & Kahn, 1985). Social support can further be characterized as being more or less available, as being received or enacted, and as being perceived and evaluated (e.g., Dunkel-Schetter & Bennett, 1990; Sommer & Fydrich, 1989). Social support has been regarded as a resource of the social environment. For perceived social support, however, some authors suggest that it should be redefined as a personality variable (Henderson et al., 1981; Gottlieb's "sense of support," 1985; Sarason, Pierce, &

Social Support and Social Competences

113

Sarason's "sense of acceptance," 1990). Recently, social support is conceptualized more as a social-interactive variable (Albrecht & Adelman, 1987; Duck & Silver, 1990; Gottlieb, 1985; Hansson et al., 1984), thus intending to integrate the research fields of social support and social relationships.

3.

The Interrelation Between Social Competences and Social Support: Empirical Findings

Compared to the extensiveness of social support research, there are only a few studies reporting on social competences and social support. Some of these studies used problematic conceptions for social support or social competences (e.g., mixing it up with academic skills) or did not report on the correlation between social support and social competence. Only a few studies conceptualized social competence as a construct with different components like social skills, assertiveness, social sensitivity, and self-disclosure (Barth, 1988; Cohen et al., 1986; Procidano & Heller, 1983; Riggio, 1986; Sarason et al., 1985). And only some studies distinguished between different components of social support like attachment, social integration, guidance, appraisal, and tangible support (Cohen et al., 1986; Elliott & Gramling, 1990; Elliott et al., 1991). In other studies, social support was measured in a more general or a more narrow sense, for example, as emotional support or as satisfaction with support or in terms of the quality of personal relationships (Cauce, 1986; Fischeret al., 1986; Mitchell, 1982; Procidano & Heller, 1983; Riggio, 1986; Riggio & Zimmermann 1991; Sarason et al., 1985; Vondra & Garbarino, 1988). At a first glance, the covariations between social competences and social support seem to be remarkably strong (up to .60). But correlations vary considerably; even substantial positive and negative correlations are reported by one working group (Elliott & Gramling, 1990; Elliott et al., 1991) depending on the sample studied. A few longitudinal studies report inconsistent results as well (Cohen et al., 1986; Fischer et al., 1986; Lamb et al., 1988). To our knowledge, there are only three studies looking for the interrelationship between different aspects of social support as well as different components of social competences. Cohen et al. (1986) found substantial correlations between three components of perceived social support (appraisal, belongingness, and tangible support) and social competences (from .35 to .48), self-disclosure (.19 to .35), and social anxiety (discomfort in social settings: -.15 to -.37). All these correlations were slightly reduced after the number of friends was partialed out. In two longitudinal studies of 2.5 months each, Cohen et al. (1986) found that the social competence variables were in some ways predictive for changes in social support. Self-disclosure as the best predictor accounted for up to 7% of

114

Bernd Röhrle and Gert Sommer

variance of one social support component and the number of friends. Many other calculations, however, did not attain significance. In the Sarason et al. (1985) study, social skills were rated by each role-play partner and by independent raters. In addition, subjects completed questionnaires on the degree of comfort in different social situations, on social problem-solving, the degree of availability of supportive persons, and the satisfaction with available support. Students who listed a very high or a very low number of supportive persons (highest and lowest quintile) also differed in some, but not all, social skills measures. Subjects with high perceived social support were described as more socially competent by their partners, by the experimenter, and by themselves. Riggio and Zimmerman (1991) differentiated between six components of social competence (emotional expressivity, emotional sensitivity, emotional control, social expressivity, social sensitivity, social control). In a study with 120 college freshmen, correlations with perceived emotional support varied between .03 and .31; and with perceived informational support between -.11 und .27. After this more qualitative-descriptive summary and interpretation of results on the relationship between social competences and social support, we will attend to results from our meta-analysis. Meta-analyses allow a computation of effect sizes that summarize results from different empirical studies. For our method of meta-analysis, we chose the procedure suggested by Hunter et al. (1982; also used in social support research by Schwarzer & Leppin, 1989a, b). This method permits comparative analyses based on correlations, whereby other statistics (e.g., t, F, or p values) can also be transformed into the effect size. As the main value, the weighted mean or population effect size "rw" is computed on the basis of the effect sizes of the different studies, each weighted by its sample size. For each population effect size, a confidence interval is given. A population effect size can be interpreted as being reliable if it is based on homogeneous data. Homogeneity can be calculated in three different ways: as (a) sampling error (interpreted as being homogeneous if between 75% and 100%), with the help of (b) Chi2 test (homogeneous, if not significant), and with (c) the residual standard deviation (homogeneous if < 25% of the population effect size). As a rule of thumb, population effect sizes are significant when they are at least twice as high as the residual standard deviation. Population effect sizes can be interpreted as being different when they do not belong to the range of the confidence interval of each other. Meta-Analysis I A literature research produced only a small set of studies. Using the key words "Social Support Network," "Social Competence," and "Social Skill," PSYCINFO and MEDLINE yielded (for the years from 1983 on) a total of only 11 studies that were conceptually

Social Support and Social Competences

115

sound, that fulfilled the methodological requirements of a meta-analysis (especially presentation of the appropriate statistics), and that were available to us at that time (see Appendix). Enlarged by several studies from our research group (Sommer & Fydrich, 1989), data from 22 independent samples could be used (see Appendix). According to our main question, the relationship between social support and social competences, the population effect size attained the value of rw = 0.25 (95% confidence interval: from -.11 to +.62; N = 1,800; 22 samples with sample size from N = 16 to W = 301). This means, there is a small positive correlation between social support and social competences. However, the data base is heterogeneous for all three indicators (e.g., the percentage of observed variance accounted for by sampling error is only 24%; for illustration, the correlations in the different studies varied between -.26 and +.59). Therefore, we looked for more homogeneous data sets. In one approach, we calculated clients and nonclients separately. The meta-analysis showed a population effect size for probably healthy people (college students, school students) of rw = .36 (16 samples with W = 1,481) and for different kinds of clients only rw= .02 (6 samples with N = 319). But the data sets remained heterogeneous and therefore unreliable. The same unreliable results occurred when studies were divided on the basis of the different components of social support they utilized (emotional support, tangible support, and social integration were used in 9 to 11 samples with N between 867 and 1,104): Various components of social support did not explain correlations with social competences in a reliable way. These results thus far suggest the need to look for other ways to obtain more homogeneous data sets. This can be expected when the operationalization of variables of interest is more uniform. The studies used so far, however, differentiated largely not only in the utilized components of social support and social competence but also in their approach to assess social competence for example, by questionnaire, interview, or ratings and behavioral observations in role-playing tests. Therefore, we computed a second set of meta-analyses based solely on our own research data. M eta-Analysis II In our own research, we distinguish among different components of social support and social strain and different components of social competence. Therefore, in the metaanalyses, we can search not only for the general relationship between social support and social competence but also for separate relationships among the different components. Data of altogether eight samples and N = 425 subjects were available (Sommer & Fydrich, 1989, 1991, and unpublished data): two independent samples of psychology students (first year: N = 61; and second year, W = 77), two samples of upper secondary school students (N = 78 and N = 110), a small normal adult group (N = 16), and three patient groups:

116

Bernd Röhrle and Gert Sommer

psychosomatic inpatients (W = 28), alcoholic inpatients (N = 30), and schizophrenic inpatients (W = 25). Social support was measured with the Social Support Questionnaire (F-SOZU; Sommer & Fydrich, 1989). Social competence was assessed with the Unassertiveness Questionnaire (UQ; Ullrich & Ullrich, 1977) and the Grazer Assertiveness Questionnaire (GAT; Skatschke et al., 1982). The Social Support Questionnaire (F-SOZU) is a 54-item questionnaire assessing perceived social support and social strain with four different subscales: (a) Emotional support, (b) Social integration, (c) Practical support, and (d) Social strain (including excessive demands, overprotection, and rejection). Reliability coefficients and construct validity (including content validity, factor analysis, and different correlational analyses, e.g., with personality variables, satisfaction in close partnership, psychopathology, and sociodemographic variables) show satisfying results (Sommer & Fydrich, 1989, 1991). Social competence or incompetence was assessed with two different questionnaires showing satisfactory reliability and validity. The Unassertiveness Questionnaire (UQ; Ullrich & Ullrich, 1977) incorporates 65 items and six scales: (a) Fear of failure, disapproval, and critique; (b) Anxiety over intimacy; (c) Assertiveness; (d) Fear of conflicts and saying "no;" (e) Feelings of guilt; and (6) Overadjustment (5 items). The Grazer Assertiveness Questionnaire (GAT; Skatsche et al., 1982) has 99 items and five subscales: (a) Social competence and social skills; (b) Expression of opinions, needs, and emotions; (c) Fighting against violations of personal rights; (d) Fear of negative evaluation; and (e) Self-confidence. To facilitate comprehension, all scales of both social competence questionnaires were poled so that high values indicate high social competence or low social anxiety. Concerning our major question, the relationship between Total Social Support und Total Social Competence attained a significant population effect size of rw = .45 (7 samples, N = 353), which is based on homogeneous data (see Table 1). This means, that there is a substantial positive correlation between social support and social competences. In Schwarzer and Leppin's (1989, a, b) meta-analysis on the relationship between social support and depression, the overall population effect size was an unreliable rw = -.22; the single highest reliable population effect size was reported for the component of perceived emotional support in the subgroup of women with rw= -.30 (13 studies, N = 1,897). Compared to these results, the effect size in our meta-analysis is remarkably high and points out that the relationship between social support and social competence should be considered as being relevant in future research. The correlations between different components of social support and Total Social Competence yield similar results (see Table 1, 2-5). All weighted population effect sizes were significant and represented homogeneous data sets. The effects for emotional support, social integration, and social strain on social competence were all high, but slightly

117

Social Support and Social Competences

different (from .43 to .52), indicating the closest relation between social integration and social competences. Table 1: Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Components of Social Support and Social Competences

Variables

K

N

Indicators of homogeneity

95%'

rw 1. WASU-UQ/GAT 2. ESU-GAT 3. PSU-GAT 4. SI-GAT 5. SSTR-GAT 6. WASU-U3/G3 7. WASU-UG4 8. ESU-U3/G3 9. ESU-U1/G4 10. PSU-U3/G3 11.PSU-U1/G4 12. SI-U3/G3 13. SI-U1/G4 14. SSTR-U3/G3 15. SSTR-U1/G4 16. WASU-SKILLS 17. WASU-FEEL 18. ESU-FEEL 19. ESU-SKILLS 20. PSU-FEEL 21.PSU-SKILLS 22. SI-FEEL 23. SI-SKILLS 24. SSTR-FEEL 25. SSTR-SKILLS

7 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 7 5 7 6 6

353 160 160 160 160 288 286 148 176 176 176 176 176 286 176 286 286 286 347 286 347 176 347 286 322

.45 .45 .26 .52 -.43 .20 .29. .16 .15 .25 .09 .22 .25 -.22 -.50 .27 .36 .32 .27 .23 .24 .30 .33 -.47 -.31

.45 .45 .26 .52 -.43 .20 .29 .16 .15 .25 .09 .22 .25 -.35 -.60 .27 .18 .10 .14 -.02 .02 .17 .29 -.47 -.37

.45 .45 .26 .52 -.43 .20 .29 .16 .15 .25 .09 .22 .25 -.10 -.40 .27 .54 .55 .40 .47 .46 .43 .36 -.47 -.24

%b

Chi2C

V

10.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 83.03 85.90 100.00 64.57 55.82 79.76 54.03 59.02 84.37 97.94 100.00 94.23

5.00 4.22 2.28 4.64 2.95 4.08 5.05 0.30 2.82 .59 4.39 4.12 2.75 7.22 5.82 2.23 9.29* 1.75" 8.77 11.10" 11.86* 5.92 7.14 5.15 6.37

9.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .06* .05 .00 .09* .12+ .07+ .13* .11* .07 .02 .00 .03

Note. K - number of independent samples; N - total sample size, rw - weighted population effect size; a = confidence interval, b - percentage explained for by sampling error (heterogenous, if < 75%), c - test of heterogeneity, d - residual standard deviation; * p < .10 (heterogeneous); ** p < .05 (heterogeneous); + residual standard deviation > 25% of the population effect size (heterogeneous). WASU - Total Perceived Social Support; UQ/GAT - Total Social Competences; U3/G3 - Assertiveness; U1/G4 - Social Anxiety; ESU - Emotional Support; PSU - Practical Support; SI - Social Integration; SSTR = Social Strain. FEEL - Feelings of Social Competence. All social competences scales are poled so that high values indicate high social competences or low social anxiety.

118

Bernd Röhrle and Gert Sommer

This can mean that social integration, that is, the feeling of being part of a supporting social network, may play the most important role for developing and strengthening social competence. And, on the other hand, that social competence may be the prerequisite especially for the perception of being socially integrated. The smaller effect size between practical social support and social competences (.26) was striking, indicating that practical support was of lesser relevance, at least in the samples studied. To explore the relationship between social support and social competence further, we combined the social competence subscales in two different ways. First, we combined those scales of both social competence questionnaires that the authors of the GAT (Skatschke et al„ 1982) had declared to measure equivalent contents: These were assertiveness (UQ 3 and GAT 3), fear of negative evaluation (UQ 1 and GAT 4), and social competence (UQ 2 and GAT 1). Since the results of the social competence subscales are very similar to those calculated with the total scores of both questionnaires, they are not presented and discussed here. The meta-analysis yielded reliable results (Table 1, 6-15). The weighted mean correlations between social support and fear of negative evaluation as well as assertiveness were significant, but generally low. Thus, the social competence components of assertiveness as well as fear of negative evaluation showed weaker relationships with social support than the whole social competence construct. This was mainly due to the great impact of the social competence subscales, which represented the whole construct to a considerable extent; in addition, the GAT social competence subscale incorporated one-third of all items of this questionnaire. Thus, to assert one's personal rights was of limited value only for a person to perceive social support. A single important result was the strong relationship between fear of evaluation and social strain (.50). Persons who perceived more strain from their social network also showed more social anxiety, especially of being criticized and negatively evaluated. Thus, this social anxiety may hinder a person in requesting substantial changes in the negative behavior of significant others; or, a great amount of social strain may sensitize a person for other negative events, heighten the expectation of failure, and elevate the anxiety of being evaluated negatively even further. In the second approach toward dismantling the complex construct of social competence, items were rated according to whether they primarily described feelings of social anxiety and feelings connected with social competence or whether they primarily represented social skills, or both feelings and skills. An item was defined as representing a feeling, when an emotional state was directly expressed (e.g., I feel unpleasant. . . ) or when consequences of anxiety in the meaning

Social Support and Social Competences

119

of avoidance were stated. An item was defined as representing a skill when skills or skill deficits were expressed. The items were rated by a graduate student and one of the authors (BR). The overall agreement reached 77%. Only scales with more than 50% of items representing feelings or skills were accepted (GAT 1: 74% skills; GAT 2: 67% skills; GAT 3: 100% skills; GAT 4: 57% feelings; GAT 5: 50% feelings; U 1: 67% feelings; U 2: 60% feelings; UQ 3, 4, 5: 80% skills; UQ 6: 60% skills). As predominant indicators of social skills, we combined Scales 3 to 6 of the UQ and Scales 1 to 3 of the GAT. As predominant indicators of feelings incorporated in social behaviors, we combined Scales 1 and 2 of the UQ and Scale 4 of the GAT. Results showed reliable population effect sizes between social support and social skills as special components of social competence. This held true for Total Social Support as well as for the components of emotional support and social integration. The effect sizes, however, were somewhat smaller than those calculated with Total Social Competence (Table 1, 16-25). Social feelings may play a relevant role as well. However, only two results were based on reliable data: The relationships between feelings on one side and social integration and especially social strain on the other side were substantial. Compared to the previous approach with the scales "fear of negative evaluation" (UQ 1 and GAT 4), the "feeling" scales added one more subscale only (UQ 2). Thus, results were quite similar. Summarizing the results of the second meta-analysis, a substantial positive relationship between social support and social competences was found. Regarding different components of social support, social integration showed higher correlations than practical support. Similar results referring to the lower relevance of instrumental support have been found repeatedly (e.g., Schwarzer & Leppin, 1989a, in connection with depression). Also, the great relevance of social strain has been stressed comparable to other results of our working group (e.g., Dehnen et al., 1987; Fydrich et al., 1988). Regarding the generalizability of the results, it has to be taken into account that these data are based on self-reports, that is, questionnaires, and that the subjects are mainly high school and university students and only one-fifth were adult patients. Concerning different components of social competence, assertiveness showed lower correlations than general social competence. The competence to assert oneself might be very helpful in specific situations and with specific persons; but care has to be taken that inherent aggressive components do not become too powerful, otherwise they even might produce negative social consequences (e.g., Elliott et al., 1991). More general competence in social situations, like showing affection and feeling comfortable in close relationships, seemed to be of greater relevance for social support.

120

Bernd Röhrle and Gert Sommer

Altogether, however, our approach to finding different relationships among different components of social support and social competence was not very successful. The database of our own research was quite small thus far, and the database of other available research was too heterogeneous to allow reliable results. Also, the splitting of social competence via questionnaire subscales may be somewhat crude. It might be helpful to look for specific items that are supposed to be of relevance for different aspects of social support. Also, more elaborate phenomenological reflections about the interdependence of social support and the social competences component might be helpful. This may lead to a more differentiated conceptualization of social competence referring to social support. For this, we will give some suggestions in the following section.

4. Discussion: Components of Social Competences Interrelated With Stages and Components of Social Support Empirical studies thus far have operationalized social competence and social support more as independent variables rather than as mutually dependent constructs in an ongoing interactional process in which persons are mobilizing informal help in a complex social network (Heller & Swindle, 1983; Röhrle, 1992; Vaux, 1988). In the long run, social support is available from social relationships and social networks in which the exchange of informal helping is guided by mutually accepted rules, for example, by reciprocity. In a more immediate and situation-specific sense, social support can be seen - from the standpoint of the receiver - as the result of wishing, requesting, receiving, and perceiving social support - all sustained by more or less specific social competences (Hansson et al„ 1984, Riggio & Zimmermann, 1991). Social competences, like approaching an unknown person, are needed to initiate different kinds of social relationship. Skills necessary for everyday social contacts, for example, small talk, may not be sufficient to develop several different relationships that build a person's social network. Maintaining and improving a relationship and developing a specific amount of closeness, as typical for a friendship or for a more intimate relationship, need some additional competences, such as self-disclosure, comforting (Burleson, 1990), knowledge about the frequency and quality of meetings, or knowledge of the rules concerning how to speak about and what to say about an absent person. The social competence of negotiating interpersonal conflicts in a way that produces positive outcomes for both partners might strengthen the relationship and maintain social support in the long run (Barm, 1988). Close social relationships are the result of mutual positive interactions, the development of mutual value systems, and mutual emotional engagement. For instance, verbal and nonverbal rewards (from head nods over smiles to empathic understanding) can make an interaction more enjoyable. The amount of satisfaction with support exchange (Röhrle, 1992) as well as the implicit or explicit expectation of reciprocity of social support are important aspects of high-quality relationships (Antonucci & Jackson's, 1990,

Social Support and Social Competences

121

"support bank," meaning a person's ongoing "account" of the amount of support received and given). Developing and maintaining diverse relationships changes social network structures like size, density, homogeneity, and intensity. High-quality and enduring relationships enhance the probability of receiving an adequate amount and an adequate quality of situation-specific support, either actively requested or not. In addition, a social network has to be divergent enough so that a person can realize his or her divergent needs for support within different relationships. In different kinds and stages of social relationship, different components and qualities of social support are to be expected (e.g., Berg & Clark, 1986; Cutrona et al., 1990). This aspect of diversity is important, since different stages of different stressful situations may be buffered by only very specific supportive behaviors that may not have been provided successfully by one single person (e.g., House, 1981). To summarize, social competence is needed to develop and maintain supportive relationships and to shape one's social environment to be supportive. Social anxiety might be detrimental to developing close relationships and perceiving support to be available. In the context of social networks, numerous occasions occur to provide and to receive social support. A person who wishes for social support in a specific situation may need to have a sound self-esteem to ask for help or to accept help that is provided without asking for it. This person needs some degree of self-perception to become aware of his or her need for support. He or she must search for appropriate persons in the social network to request support. The person needs verbal and nonverbal skills to show his or her wish for help (e.g., Cutrona et al., 1990), to ventilate emotions, and to ask for support in an appropriate way, which makes it at least possible or even easy or pleasurable for another person to provide this help. Actively requesting support may in many situations be more adequate than waiting for an empathic person who helps without being asked for it. The request for social support implies personal and social risk taking, since the person demonstrates some degree of vulnerability and helplessness. Help-seeking can be a threat to one's self-esteem and a social embarrassment (Bierhoff, 1991), as in the case of invisible and threatening personal problems (Fisher et al., 1988). Different social strategies can be used - from nonverbal hints to completely open verbal expression - to manage this risk (Goldsmith & Parks, 1990). Specific social skills might be needed to evoke support in a covert, indirect way; this can help the persons involved to demonstrate an equal status, as might be relevant for job-related difficulties in vocational exchanges (Glidewell et al., 1982). Social support has not always to be requested, often informal help is offered without actively mobilizing it. Indeed, a good social network may be one that provides a lot of unsolicited support (Eckenrode & Wethington, 1990; Fisher et al., 1988). What is experienced by the recipient as being appropriate, depends not only on the kind of problem being dealt with but also on the quality and the duration of the relationship

122

Bernd Röhrle and Gert Sommer

between provider and receiver and the specific situation in which support is requested. This implies that the potential recipient must be sensitive not to overcharge relevant persons with excessive demands for social support, for example, by taking into account the mood and the troubles of the potential provider (Barbee, 1990). A result of this might be to accept another person's refusal to provide support in a specific situation. That is, the behavioral, cognitive, and emotional abilities of the possible provider and his or her motives have to be perceived and to be taken into account by the recipient. If this is done successfully, it might reduce the potential provider's fears of making commitments and of being overcharged by the demands of the recipient (Gottlieb, 1988). A person who receives help might apply the social competence of giving feedback to the provider, and - if the help is being perceived as support - reward the provider. This may be a graceful smile, a big hug, or a warm-hearted "thank you." Thus, social competences, in our understanding, incorporate making appropriate requests for the different components of social support. Social competences are necessary, too, for keeping distance and developing that amount of closeness that is adequate for a given person with a specific problem and a given relationship. Schizophrenic persons, for instance, may prefer less close personal contacts as compared to depressive persons. When providers of support do not offer help in an adequate manner, social competences are necessary to request modification of inappropriate help. Repeatedly provided social support might even produce strong stress in the recipient. In this case, competences like asserting one's rights (e.g., that for autonomy) or stopping this social interaction (e.g., saying "no" in a very distinct and audible way) might help reject or minimize miscarried helping like overinvolvement or intrusiveness (Coyne et al., 1988). Therefore, social competences are assumed to not only enhance the positive aspects of social relationships but also reduce their negative aspects. Relationships are repeatedly experienced as producing more punishment than reinforcement. If this seems not to be changeable, specific competences are needed to end a relationship in a way that produces no more harm than necessary for both partners. Finishing certain social relationships may also be a prerequisite for getting social support in other parts of the social network. To receive social support, the person must be available for a supporting person; in addition, the person must monitor and accept the provided behavior. To perceive and utilize social support, for example, to satisfy one's basic social needs or to integrate it in an ongoing coping process, the person must experience or evaluate the behavior as being helpful (Jung, 1986). Social competences, however, may have a more significant effect on actual support reception as compared to support perception. Up to this point, we have elaborated the concept of social competence mainly for the recipient. Different competences might be relevant for the provider as compared to the recipient (Dunkel-Schetter & Bennett, 1990). Thus, a provider may need interpersonal

Social Support and Social Competences

123

sensitivity and observation skills. The provider must recognize that another person needs social support. In addition, he or she must analyze what specific components of supportive behavior are needed. This might be done with the help of social competences like empathy, observation skills, or asking appropriate questions. The provider must offer help in a way that is unthreatening and acceptable for the recipient. Thus, the actual behavior of providing social support may be partly identical with specific social competences. Thus far, social competences have been discussed as being a prerequisite for receiving social support; social support on the other side, may be relevant for the development and stabilization of social competences. Perceiving social integration, reassurance of worth, encouragement, or the confidence of a significant person; all this can elevate or stabilize a person's self-esteem. With a higher self-esteem, a person may feel and behave more competently in social situations (Fondacaro & Moos, 1987). Emotional social support, or merely the presence of a supporting person, can reduce social anxiety and thus make social competences, which are present in the behavior repertoire, more available for a person. Cognitive guidance and problem-solving support - for example, getting relevant information - may help a person to confront a social problem that has been avoided for a long time. The component of practical support might be of less relevance for fostering social competences, as the results of our meta-analysis suggest. Social bonding and the behavior of supporting persons from the social network give manifold possibilities for learning via modeling (Bandura, 1969). Feelings of attachment may encourage a person to try out new social behaviors that have been observed in the social network. By observing competent models, a person can acquire new social skills, facilitate social competences, which are already in the behavior repertoire, and reduce his or her anxiety in social situations. All in all, the social support system plays a crucial role in developing different social skills. This may be especially true during childhood and adolescence. Young people without secure attachment in social networks become lonely in later years. Social and emotional developments seems to be strongly influenced by social relationships during the transition between childhood and adolescence. Verbal skills and social competences are directly influenced by social support from adults and peers. We assume that socially competent models are predominantly found in supportive and secure social networks. Empirical studies show that socially integrated mothers stabilize social competence in children (for reviews, see Cochran et al., 1990; Perlman, 1988; Salzinger, 1990; Salzinger et al., 1988; Vaux, 1988). Regarding the relationship between social support and social competence, the concept of "reciprocal determinism" (e.g., Bandura, 1978) is applicable. A person with his or her

124

Bernd Röhrle and Gert Sommer

competences and deficits is influenced by his or her environment, and the person influences his or her environment or selects that environment that fits his or her personality and needs best (e.g., Mischel, 1977). Therefore, a theoretical concept that defines social support as either dependent or independent variable seems to be artificial and problematic in most cases. The same critique holds for corresponding empirical research with its statistical analyses and definitions of dependent and independent variables. It is more appropriate to conceptualize social support as an ongoing interaction, a transactional process between a person and his or her social and physical environment (e.g., Duck & Silver, 1990; Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990). While, on the one hand, personality variables influence social network and social support, on the other hand, the socializing function of social network and social support may influence personality variables (Heller & Swindle, 1983; Vaux, 1988). To sum up the results of the meta-analyses as well as the theoretical reflections on the relationship between social support and social competence, the following conclusions may be of interest. Both constructs are significantly related on a conceptual as well as on an empirical level. Our preliminary results indicate that relations between social integration and emotional support on one side and social competence on the other side are substantial. The same holds true for the relation of social strain on one side and social competence as well as fear of evaluation on the other. Further analyses of correlations among different components of social support and social competence are unreliable or not substantial. Also, we know little about the actual interchange between social competence and social support, especially when social support is seen as the result of an ongoing process of social interactions embedded in social networks. Therefore, further research on the relation between social support and social competence is needed. For example, micro-analyses of daily interactions might be one way to study this relation in more detail. Equally important, however, seems to be an approach that studies the interpretation and recall of social support and social competence, since persons process their new experiences into already established cognitive-emotional schemata, in other words they "editorialize" their experiences (Leatham & Duck, 1990). The concept of social competence may be specified in a way to study those competences that are especially relevant for providing and receiving support. These competences might be labeled social support competences (thus corresponding to "relational competences," Hansson et al., 1984). This term refers to those social competences that allow a person to provide and receive social support in a helpful way, for example, competences like attending to relevant cues in a social situation, perceiving problems and moods of other persons, being empathic, showing self-disclosure, or requesting and offering help verbally as well as nonverbally in an open or a more covert way. For this kind of research, existing questionnaires on social competence are of only limited value. Altogether, the study of social competence, as connected with social support, merits further attention. Recent

Social Support and Social Competences

125

attempts to bring together the separate literature on social support and social relationships (Duck & Silver, 1990) should thus be complemented by adding the potential of the social competence construct.

References Albrecht, T. L., & Adelman, M. B. (1987). Communicating social support: A theoretical perspective. In T. L. Albrecht & M. B. Adelman (Eds.), Communicating social support (pp. 18-39). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Antonucci, T. C., & Jackson, J. S. (1990). The role of reciprocity in social support. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 173-198). New York: Wiley. Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33, 344-358. Barrera, M. (1986). Distinction between social support concepts, measures, and models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 413-445. Barbee, A. P. (1990). Interactive coping: The cheering-up process in close relationships. In S. Duck & R. C. Silver (Eds.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 46-65). London: Sage. Barth, R. P. (1988). Social skill and social support among young mothers. Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 132-143. Berg, J. H., & Clark, M. S. (1986). Differences in social exchange between intimate and other relationships: Gradually evolving or quickly apparent? In V. J. Derlega & B. A. Winstead (Eds.), Friendship and social interaction (pp. 101-128). New York: Springer. Bierhoff, H. W. (1991). Attribution of responsibility and helpfulness. In L. Montada & H. W. Bierhoff (Eds.), Altruism in social systems (pp. 105-129). Lewiston, NY: Hogrefe. Borgart, E. J. (1985). Kognitive Prozesse und Selbstunsicherheit. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie, 14, 185-199. Burleson, B. R. (1990). Comforting as social support: Relational consequences of supportive behaviors. In S. Duck & R. C. Silver (Eds.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 66-82). London: Sage. Cauce, A. M. (1986). Social networks and social competence: Exploring the effects of early adolescence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 607-627. Cochran, M., Lamer, M., Riley, D., Gunnarson, L., & Henderson, C. (1990). Extending families: The social networks of parents and their children. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, S., Clark, M. S., & Sherrod, D. R. (1986). Social skills and the stress-protective role of social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 963-973. Coyne, J. C., Wortman, C. B., & Lehman, D. R. (1988). The other side of support: Emotional overinvolvement and miscarried helping. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Marshaling Social Support (pp. 305330). London: Sage. Cutrona, C. E., Suhr, J. A., & MacFarlane, R. (1990). Interpersonal transactions and the psychological sense of support. In S. Duck & R. C. Silver (Eds.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 3045). London: Sage. Dehnen, D., Fydrich, T., & Sommer, G. (1987). Soziale Unterstützung und soziale Belastung bei Patienten mit Herzinfarkt. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie, 16, 414-419. Doepfner, M. (1989). Soziale Informationsverarbeitung - ein Beitrag zur Differenzierung sozialer Inkompetenzen. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 3, 1-8. Duck, S., & Silver, R. C. (1990). (Eds.). Personal relationships and social support. London: Sage.

126

Bernd Röhrle and Gert Sommer

Dunkel-Schetter C., & Bennett, T. L. (1990). Differentiating the cognitive and behavioral aspects of social support. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 267-296). New York: Wiley. Eckenrode, B. R., & Wethington, E. (1990). The process and outcome of mobilizing social support. In S. Duck & R. C. Silver (Eds.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 83-103). London: Sage. Elliott, T. R., & Gramling, S. E. (1990). Personal assertiveness and the effects of social support among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 427-436. Elliott, T. R., Herrick, S. M., Patti, A. M., Witty, T. E., Godshall, F. J., & Spruell, M. (1991). Assertiveness, social support, and psychological adjustment following spinal cord injury. Behavior Research and Therapy, 29, 485-493. Fischer, J. L., Sollie, D. L., & Morrow, K. B. (1986). Social networks in male and female adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6, 1-14. Fisher, J. D., Goff, . ., Nadler, A., & Chinsky, J. M. (1988). Social psychological influences on help seeking and support from peers. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Marshaling social support (pp. 267-304). London: Sage. Fondacaro, M. R., & Moos, R. H. (1987). Social support and coping: A longitudinal analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 653-673. Fydrich, T., Scheib, P., & Sommer, G. (1988). Soziale Unterstützung und Belastungen bei Patienten mit Ulcus duodeni. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, medizinische Psychologie, 38, 159-166. Glidewell, J. C., Tucker, S., Todt, M., & Cox, S. (1982). Professional support systems - the teaching profession. In A. Nadler, J. D. Fisher, & B. M. DePaulo (Eds.), New directions in helping 3: Applied research in help-seeking and reactions to aid. New York: Academic Press. Goldsmith, D., & Parks, M. R. (1990). Communicative strategies for managing the risks of seeking social support. In S. Duck & R. C. Silver (Eds.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 104-121). London: Sage. Gottlieb, B. H. (1983). Social support as a focus for integral! ve research in psychology. American Psychologist, 38, 278-287. Gottlieb, B. H. (1985). Social support and the study of personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 351-375. Gottlieb, B. H. (1988). Marshaling social support: The state of the art in research and practice. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Marshaling social support (pp. 11-51). London: Sage. Hansson, R. O., Jones, W. H., & Carpenter, B. N. (1984). Relational competence and social support. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 265-284. Heller, K., & Swindle, R. W. (1983). Social networks, perceived social support, and coping with stress. In R. O. Feiner, L. A. Jason, J. N. Moritsugu, & S. S. Farber (Eds.), Preventive psychology. Theory, research and practice (pp. 87-103). New York: Pergamon Press. Henderson, S., Byrne, D. G., & Duncan-Jones, P. (1981). Neurosis and social environment. Sydney: Academic Press. Hinsch, R., & Pfingsten, U. (1983). Gruppentraining Sozialer Kompetenzen. München: Urban & Schwarzenberg. House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. House, J. S., & Kahn, R. L. (1985). Measures and concepts of social support. In S. Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 83-108). New York: Academic Press. Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982). Meta-analysis. Cumulating research across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jung, J. (1986). Bias in social support attributions. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, I, 429-438. Kennedy, C. (1989). Community integration and well-being: Toward the goals of community care. Journal of Social Issues , 45, 65-77.

Social Support and Social Competences

127

Laman, D. S., & Reiss, S. (1987). Social skill deficiencies associated with depressed mood of mentally retarded adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 92, 224-229. Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C. P., Bookstein, F., & Broberg, A. (1988). Determinants of social competence in Swedish preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 24, 58-70. Lazarus, A. A. (1973). On assertive behavior: A brief note. Behavior Therapy, 4, 697-699. Leatham, G., & Duck, S. (1990). Conversations with friends and the dynamics of social support. In S. Duck & R. C. Silver (Eds.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 1-29). London: Sage. Leppin, A. (1985). Social support: A literature review and research integration. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Stress and social support (pp. 83-210). Research Report 4. Department of Psychology, Educational Psychology. Berlin: Freie Universität. Mischel, W. (1977). On the future of personality assessment. American Psychologist, 32, 246-254. Mitchell, R. E. (1982). Social networks and psychiatric clients: The personal and environmental context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 387-401. Ostrow, E., Paul, S. C., Dark, V. J., & Behrman, J. A. (1986). Adjustment of woman on campus: Effects of stressful life events, social support, and personal competencies. In S. E. Hobfoll (Ed.), Stress, social support, and woman (pp. 29-46) New York: Hemisphere Publications. Perlman, D. (1988). Loneliness: A life-span, family perspective. In R. M. Milardo (Ed.), Families and social networks (pp. 190-220). London: Sage. Procidano, M. E., & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived social support from friends and from family: Three validation studies. American Journal of Community Psychology, I I , 1-24. Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 649-660. Riggio, R. E., & Zimmerman, J. (1991). Social skills and interpersonal relationships: Influences on social support and support seeking. Advances in Personal Relationships, 2, 133-155. Röhrle, B. (1992). Soziale Netzwerke und soziale Unterstützung. Psychologische Bedeutungsvarianten und Perspektiven [Social networks and social support. Psychological meanings and perspectives]. Unpublished postdoctoral dissertation, Fakultät für Sozial- und Verhaltenswissenschaften, Universität Heidelberg, FRG. Salzinger, S. (1990). Social networks in child rearing and child development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 602, 171-188. Salzinger, S., Antrobus, J., & Hammer, M. (1988). (Eds.). Social networks of children, adolescents, and college students. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sarason, B. R., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1990). Social support: The sense of acceptance and the role of relationships. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 97-128). New York: Wiley. Sarason, B. R., Sarason, J. G., Hacker, . ., & Basham, R. B. (1985). Concomitants of social support: Social skills, physical attractiveness, and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 469-480. Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G., & Pierce, G. R. (1990). Traditional views of social support and their impact on assessment. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 9-25). New York: Wiley. Schlundt, D. G., & McFall, R. M. (1985). New directions in the assessment of social competence and social skills. In L. L'Abate & M. A. Milan (Eds.), Handbook of social skills training and research (pp. 22-49). New York: Wiley. Schwarzer, R., & Leppin, A. (1989a). Sozialer Rückhalt und Gesundheit. Eine Metaanalyse [Social bonding and health. A meta-analysis]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Schwarzer, R., & Leppin A. (1989b). Social support and health: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Health: An International Journal, 3, 1-15.

128

Bernd Röhrle and Gert Sommer

Skatsche, R., Brandau, J., & Ruch, W. (1982). Die Entwicklung einer multidimensionalen Testbatterie zur diagnostischen Erfassung des Konstruktes "Selbstsicherheit (Assertivität)". Zeltschrift für Klinische Psychologie, U, 292-314. Sommer, G. (1977). Kompetenzerwerb in der Schule als Primäre Prävention. In G. Sommer & H. Ernst (Eds.), Gemeindepsychologie (pp. 70-98). München: Urban & Schwarzenberg. Sommer, G., & Fydrich, T. (1989). Soziale Unterstützung - Diagnostische Verfahren, Konzepte, F-SOZU /Social support - Diagnostic instruments, and conceptualizations]. Materialie Mr. 22. Tübingen, Germany: DGVT. Sommer, G., & Fydrich, T. (1991). Entwicklung und Überprüfung eines Fragebogens zur sozialen Unterstützung (F-Sozu) [Development and testing of a social support questionnaire]. Diagnostica, 37, 97-108. Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1989). Handbook of interpersonal competence research. New York: Springer. Trower, P., Bryant, B., & Argyle, M. (1978). Social skills and mental health. London: Methuen. Ullrich, R., & Ullrich de Muynck, R. (Eds.). (1978). Soziale Kompetenz (Vol. 1). München: Pfeiffer. Ullrich, R., & Ullrich, R. (1977). Der Unsicherheitsfragebogen. München: Pfeiffer. Vaux, A. (1988). Social support. Theory, research, and intervention. New York: Praeger. Vondra, J., & Garbarino, J. (1988). Social influences on adolescent behavior problems. In S. Salzinger, J. Antrobus, & M. Hammer (Eds.), Social networks of children, adolescents, and college students (pp. 195-224). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Zimmer, D. (1978). Die Entwicklung der Selbstsicherheit und der sozialen Kompetenz in der Verhaltenstherapie. In R. Ullrich & R. Ullrich (Eds.), Soziale Kompetenz (pp. 469-482). München: Pfeiffer.

Social Support and Social Competences

129

APPENDIX Studies used in the present meta-analysis Cauce, A. M. (1986). Social networks and social competence: Exploring the effects of early adolescence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 607-627. Cohen, S., Clark, M. S., & Sherrod, D. R. (1986). Social skills and the stress-protective role of social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 963-973. Elliott, T. R., & Gramling, S. E. (1990). Personal assertiveness and the effects of social support among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 427-436. Elliott, T. R., Herrick, S. M., Patti, A. M., Witty, T. E., Godshall, F. J., & Spruell, M. (1991). Assertiveness, social support, and psychological adjustment following spinal cord injury. Behavior Research and Therapy, 29, 485-493. Fischer, J. L., Sollie, D. L., & Morrow, K. B. (1986). Social networks in male and female adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6, 1-14. Laman, D. S., & Reiss, S. (1987). Social skill deficiencies associated with depressed mood of mentally retarded adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 92, 224-229. Mitchell, R. E. (1982). Social networks and psychiatric clients: The personal and environmental context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 387-401, Procidano, M. E., & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived social support from friends and from family: Three validation studies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 77, 1-24. Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 649-660. Riggio, R. E., & Zimmerman, J. (1991). Social skills and interpersonal relationships: Influences on social support and support seeking. Advances in Personal Relationships, 2, 133-155. Sarason, B. R., Sarason, J. G., Hacker, . ., & Basham, R. B. (1985). Concomitants of social support: Social skills, physical attractiveness, and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 469-480. Sommer, G., & Fydrich, T. (1989). Soziale Unterstützung - Diagnostische Verfahren, Konzepte, F-SOZU. Materialie Nr. 22. Tübingen: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Verhaltenstherapie. Vondra, J., & Garbarino, J. (1988). Social influences on adolescents' behavior problems. In S. Salzinger, J. Antrobus, & M. Hammer (Eds.), Social networks of children, adolescents, and college students (pp. 195-224). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

8 The Transactional Relation Between Social Support and Children's Competence Marcel A.G. van Aken, Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research, Munich, FRG

1. Introduction The focus of this chapter is on a theoretical model in which the competence of children is assumed to develop in a transactional relation with social support provided by important persons in their environment. Central elements in this model are the expectancies children have regarding their own efficacy in handling problems they encounter during the life span and regarding the availability of adequate social support provided by persons in their environment. The chapter is organized into three main parts. First, the elements of the model and the transactional mechanisms between them will be sketched (for more elaborated formulations, see Riksen-Walraven & van Lieshout, 1985; van Aken, 1991; van Lieshout et al., 1986). In the second part of the chapter, one empirical illustration of this model will be described and discussed, focusing on the development and stability of children's competence from infancy to early adolescence in relation to social support provided by a parent. Finally, some conclusions and suggestions for future research on social support and competence development will be given.

2. A Transactional Model for the Development of Competence In the transactional model described in this chapter, the adaptation to or the solution of developmental tasks is seen as important in the development of a child. In an essay on the history of developmental psychology, Havighurst (1973) describes how, in the early decades of the 20th century, psychologists started to develop ideas about the interaction between heredity and social environment in the making of personality. Havighurst describes how a group of psychologists with an interest in life-span development stressed the importance of regarding the organism as possessing an active force, making demands upon the social environment, and, to some extent, shaped by the environment. According to Havighurst, this group felt the need to combine the drive toward growth of an individual with the demands, constraints, and opportunities provided by the social

132

Marcel A.G. van Aken

environment. To describe important issues in the development of an individual at a certain stage in development, the group started to use the phrase "developmental tasks," indicating "a series of problems and life-adjustment tasks to be achieved by the growing person in relation to his environment" (Havighurst, 1973, p. 10). Since then, the notion of developmental tasks, or developmental issues, has been proposed by various researchers as a useful way of conceptualizing the development of a person (cf. Erikson, 1963; Sroufe, 1979). Looking for a taxonomy to organize the multitude and complexity of developmental tasks, Baltes et al. (1980) proposed a three-factor model of developmental influences. The first set of influences, normative age-graded influences, comprises determinants that, in onset and duration, are clearly related to chronological age (e.g., biological maturation, age-specific socialization). The second set, history-graded influences, comprises determinants that are related to historical time or context (e.g., epidemics, economic depressions). The third set, nonnormative life-events, comprises determinants that for most individuals are not related to age or history (e.g., medical traumata, divorce). An important characteristic of developmental tasks is their instrumental relevance for the development of the child. Sroufe (1979), for example, assumes that continuity in individual development lies in qualitative similarities between patterns of behavior at various moments in the adaptation to subsequent developmental issues. My theoretical model regards the continuity of individual adaptation to subsequent developmental tasks as reflecting the continuity of the development of a person over the life span. Another characteristic feature of developmental tasks is that they represent a demand or an opportunity for a person. Silbereisen and Eyferth (1986) draw a parallel between studies of developmental tasks and stress research. They describe developmental tasks as a set of complex problems that require a solution. In addition, they state that solving these developmental tasks can be compared conceptually to coping with stressful life-events. Garmezy (1989) even describes how competence, better than the concept of "coping," can be seen as adaptation to stressful issues. Garmezy states that the notion of "competence" is more suited than the notion of coping, because coping has to be specified according to a certain Stressor, whereas competence can be seen as a general capability of handling problems. Seen from the point of view of the three-factor model of Baltes et al. (1980), this notion of a general capability is in accordance with the ideas about developmental tasks arising from various sets of developmental influences. In nonnormative life-events (which are the main focus of stress research), the same mechanisms can be distinguished as in the more traditional developmental tasks. Competence can be seen as a general capability to adapt to problems. Serious nonnormative life-events are one of the possible sources of problems, and coping with these life-events conceptually resembles competence in that area.

Transaction of Support and Competences

133

Competence

The concept of competence has received increased interest in developmental, personality, and clinical psychology research and has proven to be a useful concept for the study of what can be called the "core of effective human functioning" (Ford, 1982; Masterpasqua, 1989). Although there seem to exist numerous definitions of competence (cf. Ford, 1985), their common theme is that it refers to a person's capacity to handle environmental demands and opportunities in an active and effective way. This conception of competence contains both a behavioral and a cognitive-motivational component. The behavioral component of competence refers to the concrete manifestations of competent behavior. In addition, as Waters and Sroufe (1983) note, competence can be conceptualized at both a molar and a molecular level. Waters and Sroufe propose that, at the molar level, the term competence should be used to refer to an organizational construct, and that the specific manifestations of competent behavior, which can change over the course of development, be referred to at a molecular level as "competences," which are directly related to specific tasks or situations. A similar hierarchical notion of competence is assumed in the model. Competent behaviors in various domains, or at various ages, can be functionally equivalent despite differences in their overt description. Apparently different competences can be regarded as domainand/or age-specific manifestations of an underlying general competence (van Aken, 1992). This idea of a general construct of competence, which is expressed by functionally equivalent behaviors related to specific tasks or situations, is compatible with the idea of the development of a child as centered around a series of developmental tasks or issues, as described above. General competence forms the basis for domain-specific competences that develop in interaction with domain-specific features of the environment. Domainspecific competences therefore reflect concrete solutions to developmental tasks. With regard to the cognitive-motivational component of competence, White (1959) formulated an "urge to competence" as an evolutionarily rooted motivation to effectively handle the environment. As Ford (1985) remarked, seeing competence as a motivational construct is closely related to a conceptualization of competence as referring to the ideas people have about their own control of the effects of their activities on the environment. Similar ideas have been described by various researchers under the label of, for example, "personal agency beliefs" (Ford & Thompson, 1985) or "self-efficacy beliefs" (Bandura, 1982). The central importance of these notions for my theoretical model is that the expectations that people have about the efficacy of their own behavior and about the responsiveness of the environment to attempts to produce a certain effect in this environment are important motivational contributors to competent behavior (Ford & Thompson, 1985).

134

Marcel A.G. van Aken

Self-Theory To describe these ideas or expectancies about personal control, a self-theory is defined in the theoretical model. This self-theory comprises two kinds of expectancies: first, the expectancies a child has regarding the persons in the environment, especially regarding the way these persons can support the child in adapting to problems with which he or she is confronted. This part of the self-theory can be described as "trust:" The child relies on the availability and quality of social support provided by persons in the environment. Second, there are the expectancies a child has regarding personal competence in adapting to these problems. This part of the self-theory can be described as "self-confidence:" The child relies on personal capacities in handling problems. Expectancies regarding personal efficacy are assumed to be related directly to the expectancies regarding the availability of social support in the environment. The importance of the person's ideas about his or her relation to the environment has been described by other researchers. For example, a largely similar self-theory has been described by Epstein (1973). Epstein describes how each individual is directed in his or her behavior by an implicit theory about reality. This theory has its subsections about the nature of the person him or herself, the nature of the world, and ideas about the interaction between these two. Epstein and Erskine (1983) argue that the basis for the development of the subtheories about the self and about the environment lies in the first years of life. Important elements are the detection of contingent effects of a child's personal behavior and the development of trust in the persons in the environment. In describing the development of these subtheories, Epstein and Erskine argue that the subtheories formed early in development are important, because they affect the development of further subtheories. They will thus function as self-fulfilling prophecies, either in the initiation of behavior or interactions or in the interpretation of their results. Another line of research that stresses the importance of expectancies about one's personal functioning and about the availability of support in the environment is research on "internal working models" (Bowlby, 1973; Bretherton, 1985). In this research, it is assumed that, through continuous interaction with the physical and social environment, a child constructs models of the self and of important persons in this environment. These models of self and others are assumed to be interlinked and mutually influencing each other. Again, these models are expected both to appraise experiences and to direct behavior in new situations. It is assumed that these models can be adjusted or replaced by new models as a result of new experiences. Important in determining the nature of these experiences, that is, whether they confirm the child's expectancies about personal efficacy and about the available support, is the social support provided to the child.

Transaction of Support and Competences

135

Social Support As described above, a developmental task can be regarded as a problem or a set of related problems. The behavioral repertoire a child has developed up to a given point may not be sufficient to deal with a new developmental task. In addition, the unfamiliarity and uncertainty that accompany a developmental task may lead to negative emotions in the child. Social support provided by the environment of a child is an important resource for the child. This social support can be aimed at a concrete solution of a developmental task, for example, by teaching the child specific skills, but it can also help the child to handle the concomitant emotions (cf. Thoits, 1986). During the course of development, the manifestation of adequate social support changes, because the signals and needs of the child change in relation to the changing content and characteristics of developmental issues. For example, a young child may signal distress, and may experience adequate support, when a caregiver reacts promptly to this signal. An older child may have a need to do things him or herself, and may experience adequate support if a caregiver shows respect for the child's attempts to gain autonomy. The manifestations of adequate social support may also change in relation to the specific features of a developmental task. For example, van Lieshout and Smitsman (1985) have elaborated the notion of social support for instructive situations (e.g., teaching situations at home or at school). They distinguish three components in social support, a regulation component: the extent to and the way in which a caregiver regulates the behavior of a child and the situational context; an instruction component: the extent to and the way in which a caregiver tries to teach a child knowledge or skills; and an affective-relational component: a warm and sensitive relationship between caregiver and child. However, there are aspects of social support that remain the same across ages and tasks. Behavior of persons in the environment of a child will be supportive if the child experiences these persons as available upon signaling a need for support (social support thus strengthening the expectancies of availability of the environment when needed), but also if the child experiences behavior that enables him or her to solve a problem personally (thus strengthening the expectancies of personal efficacy). Although social support is assumed to have a strong effect on the development of competence in the child, the competence of the child him or herself can also have an effect on social support. In several studies, the effect of child characteristics on the behavior of parents has been demonstrated (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Bell and Chapman (1986), for example, showed how results of socialization studies could be interpreted as indicators of effects that children have on their parents. In addition, the active component in our definition of competence suggests that competent children will also be more effective in eliciting and using social support. Because self-

136

Marcel A.G. van Aken

efficacy expectations and, therefore, motivational and behavioral aspects of competence are assumed to be reinforced and to stabilize, it can be assumed that the effects of child competence upon social support will increase in the course of development. Transactional Mechanisms The transactional model describing the relations between the three elements described thus far, competence, self-theory, and social support, is presented in Figure 1. The term "transactional" refers to the fact that "outcomes are the result of the interplay between child and context across time, in which the state of one affects the next state of the other in a continuous dynamic process" (Sameroff, 1987, p. 274). Figure 1 shows the three elements of the model, the position of subsequent developmental tasks in the course of development, and the transactional relations between the elements. In addition, but not presented in the figure, arrows representing the continuity of the constructs should be imagined within the three elements.

SOCIAL SUPPORT

regarding support EXPECTANCIES: / regarding efficacy

COMPETENCE

Developmental Tasks > > life span

>

>

Figure 1: A transactional model for the development of competence.

Summarizing, the proposed life-span developmental model describes the development of competence of a person in a transactional relation with social support provided by important persons in the social network. Central mechanisms in this model are the expectancies a person has regarding both personal efficacy and the availability of social support. Social support strengthens these expectancies, because it provides experiences of

Transaction of Support and Competences

137

personal competence as well as experiences of support. On the other hand, social support is also the result of certain expectancies, personality characteristics, and (social) competences. Competent persons will be better able and more inclined to evoke social support in their environment.

3. Parental Support and the Development of Competence In a study by Riksen-Walraven (1978), the relation between parental support and children's competence at the age of one year was studied. In the present study, guided by the theoretical model presented before, I will investigate this relation with the same sample from infancy into early adolescence. This empirical part of the chapter thus concerns longitudinal data of children at the ages of 9 months, 7, 10, and 12 years alongside their primary caregivers. These data have also been published elsewhere (van Aken & RiksenWalraven, 1992). According to White (1959), in the first year of life, competence motivation can be inferred primarily from an infant's exploratory behavior. This behavior increases the possibility with which the child experiences effects of its own behavior. It can also be assumed that the infant's competence as manifested in exploratory behavior is strengthened by the extent to which the child is able and motivated to detect contingencies between acts and effects (Watson, 1966). Thus, in the first year of life, an infant's quality of exploratory behavior and the ability to detect contingencies between act and effect can be seen as important indices of the competence of that infant. At later ages, competence is manifested in different areas and different contexts. In the course of development, a child is confronted with a broad spectrum of problems or tasks in several areas, involving personality development, cognitive development, and social development. Referring to this broad spectrum, Block and Block (1980a) describe the necessity of a context-free definition of competence, and propose the construct of "egoresiliency" as an index of a general problem-solving capacity. In their definition of egoresiliency as the "analysis of the 'goodness of fit' between situational demands and behavioral possibility, and flexible invocation of the available repertoire of problemsolving strategies" (Block & Block, 1980a, p. 48), the same two basic dimensions as in infancy, namely, detecting the effects of one's own behavior and a repertoire of (exploratory) behaviors, can be distinguished. Therefore, I will operationalize competence at ages 7, 10, and 12 with the construct of ego-resiliency. As this competent behavior is relatively often related to success, self-efficacy expectations and expectations regarding the availability of environmental support can be expected to stabilize and even be strengthened during development. Because of this stabilization of

138

Marcel A.G. van Aken

expectancies, I hypothesize a considerable amount of interindividual stability of competence from infancy into early adolescence. During the course of development, the changing content and characteristics of developmental issues force the manifestations of adequate social support to change accordingly. As described in the theoretical model, what remains the same for adequate support is the fact that it should be aimed at strengthening both expectancies regarding personal efficacy and regarding the availability of the environment. Therefore, we assume that sensitive responsiveness of the parent, that is, giving contingent and adequate reactions to the child's signals, is most important when children are very young, when prompt reactions are relevant for developing a secure attachment relationship (cf. Ainsworth et al., 1978) or for the first experiences of self-efficacy in developing exploratory competence. Sensitive parental responsiveness is expected to provide the infant with experiences of being an effective agent and with a high amount of contingent effects upon their behavior, thus leading to positive expectancies regarding personal effectiveness. In problem-solving situations at later age (hi my study at 10 and 12 years), parental support may be expressed in empathy with a child's emotional status (e.g., by showing supportive presence or by refraining from hostile expressions in case of failure), by the quality of instructions aimed at giving information relevant to the solution of the problem, or by adequate (co-) regulation of the child's behavior, for example, by providing structure and by setting clear limits. In addition, when a child has to solve a difficult task, it is also important to give him or her the opportunity to experience the efficacy of his or her own behavior. Parents can promote this experience by structuring the task and by providing adequate instructions, as noted above, but also by holding back in order to maximize the opportunity for children to find the solution on their own. Because of an increasing need for independence in the course of development, the adequate reactions to the signals and needs of a child in a concrete task situation may also consist of withholding help and showing respect for the child's autonomy. In this longitudinal study, I hypothesized that competence develops in a continuous transactional relation with social support from important others, in this case, parents. It was assumed that the influence of parental support on the development of competence is strong early in development. In the course of development, however, the competence of the child will stabilize and will exert more and more influence on the social support provided by the parents. I studied the relations between child competence and parental support hi a longitudinal design in which a group of children was observed at four age levels: 9 months and 7, 10, and 12 years. Data regarding competence of the children were gathered at all four ages; parental social support was measured at 9 months and at 10 and 12 years.

Transaction of Support and Competences

139

Subjects The sample in this study originally consisted of 100 children (47 boys, 53 girls). They were first seen when they were 9-months-old, and were again seen at 7 (N = 98), 10 (N = 93), and 12 (N= 89) years of age. Parental data were gathered from the primary caretakers (mostly the mothers, at 9 months, 10 years, and 12 years; three, two, and four fathers, respectively). The majority of subjects came from lower-class families. A complete description of the subjects and the results thus far is given elsewhere (for sample description and 9-months data, see Riksen-Walraven, 1978; for 7-year data, see van Lieshout et al., 1986; for 10-year data, see Mey et al., 1985; for 12-year-data, see van Aken, 1991). Procedure and Instruments Competence. For the measurement of exploratory competence at 9 months, the variety of exploratory behaviors in the child was observed. The child was given some novel objects: an attractive plastic cup, a piece of cellophane, and a metal chain with various objects attached to it. The exploration score of the child was the total number of different exploratory behaviors shown during a ΙΟ-minute period (Riksen-Walraven, 1978). For the measurement of the analysis of contingencies at 9 months, the ability of the child to discover contingencies between personal behavior and its effects on the environment was assessed. The child was seated at a table, facing a projection screen. When the child pushed a button, a colored slide was shown on the screen. Scored was whether or not the child reached a learning criterion (pushing three times in succession with a time interval of less than 10 seconds between the disappearance of a slide and the next push on the button). Scores for ego-resiliency at the ages of 7, 10, and 12 years were obtained using a Dutch version of the California Child Q-set (CCQ; Block & Block, 1980b). The CCQ consists of 100 items concerning personality and behavioral characteristics of a child. The teachers of the children (64 different teachers at age 10, and 76 at age 12) were asked to sort these 100 items in a forced distribution in nine piles, ranging from least (1) to most (9) characteristic of the target child. Following the procedure suggested by Block and Block, this Q-sort description was correlated with the Q-sort description of a prototypical ego-resilient child. This correlation results in an ego-resiliency score that can range from -1.00 ("ego-brittle") to +1.00 ("ego-resilient"). Parental support. Parental support when the child was 9-months-old was observed in two 40-minute periods in a natural setting at home. The behavior of parent and child was observed continuously, and coded in 6-second intervals into predefined behavior categories (14 categories for the behavior of the parent, 17 categories for the behavior of the child).

140

Marcel A.G. van Aken

A responsiveness score was calculated for each parent by computing the percentage of child signals upon which the parent reacted promptly (within the same or next 6-second interval) and adequately (as judged by the observer; interrater agreement: 82%). For a complete description of this procedure, see Riksen-Walraven (1978). For measuring parental support when the children were 10- and 12-years-old, videotapes of the parent-child interaction in a problem-solving task were made. For both ages, the child was asked to assemble a puzzle that was too difficult for children of that age to perform alone. The parent was shown the correct solution before the task started and was instructed that he or she was free to choose whether, when, and how to help the child. The only restriction was that the parent was not allowed to touch the parts of the puzzle. Different puzzles were used at the two ages. Adequate support in these task situations was assumed to comprise three different elements. Emotional support is needed because the task is difficult and may cause stress. Structuring and instruction is required to enhance the possibility of succeeding in solving the puzzle. Providing enough room for the children's personal initiatives and for their own solutions is needed to let the children experience the effectiveness of their own attempts. In order to measure the relevant aspects of social support, the videotapes were scored by trained observers, using the rating scales developed by Erickson et al. (1985) for the quality of parent-child interaction in a problem-solving situation. Although originally devised for 3- to 4-year-old children, it was assumed that the scales were suitable to measure the dimensions of parental support in a problem-solving situation at this age as well, as shown in our introduction. Reliability coefficients for the five 7-point rating scales ranged from .71 to .91 (Pearson correlation, established on 10 tapes). The following scales were used: Supportive Presence: the degree to which the parent expresses positive regard and emotional support to the child. Respect for Child's Autonomy: the degree to which the parent acts in a way that recognizes and respects the validity of the child's individuality, motives, and perspectives. Structure and Limit Setting: the degree to which the parent adequately attempts to establish his or her expectations of the child's behavior and enforces his or her agenda with regard to the execution of the task. Hostility: the degree to which the parent expresses anger, negative reinforcement, and rejection of the child.

Transaction of Support and Competences

141

Quality of Instruction: the degree to which and the quality with which the parent structures the situation - so that the child knows what the task objectives are - and gives well timed and clear hints and/or corrections. Results The hypotheses in this study were tested using structural equation modeling. In these modeling procedures, two models are usually distinguished: a measurement model in which the relations between the observed and the latent variables are specified, and a structural model in which the relations among the latent variables are specified. The measurement model for this study is fairly simple: Because factor analyses of the support scales at age 10 and age 12 resulted in solutions that were unstable between age 10 and 12 and between boys and girls, it was decided to regard the five scales at each age as separate latent variables. Because, for parental responsiveness at 9 months and for the child's ego-resiliency at age 7, 10, and 12 years, only one indicator was available, all the latent variables in the model were measured by only one indicator, with the exception of the latent variable "competence at 9 months," which was measured by contingency analysis as well as by exploratory behavior. Although in this way, not all possibilities of structural equation modeling are used maximally, an additional advantage of such a simple measurement model is that it reduces the number of parameters to be estimated, which is important given the small number of subjects. Because of gender differences in the correlation matrices, the model was tested for boys and girls separately. The results of the various steps in achieving a good model fit are described in detail elsewhere (van Aken & Riksen-Walraven, 1992). In Figures 2 and 3, the resulting structural models for boys and girls are presented. Note that the relations among the rating scales for parental behavior within one age are not presented in the figures for reasons of clarity, but will be discussed. For boys, a strong relation was found between responsiveness of the mother and competence at age 9 months. This result stresses the importance of responsive behavior of a caregiver for the development of a child (cf, Ainsworth et al., 1978; Riksen-Walraven, 1978). Competence then remained stable from age 9 months to age 7 years, and further through elementary school. A relation between earlier competence and later parental support was found: Parents of boys who, at 7 years, were described as being more egoresilient showed more respect for their son's autonomy in a problem-solving task at age 12. In addition, all parental rating scales showed a moderate interindividual stability from age 10 to age 12, with the exception of quality of instruction, which is predicted at age 12 by parents' supportive presence at age 10. The relations that were found among the rating scales at age 10 and 12 (not presented in the figure) were largely the same at both ages. Supportive presence took a very central position in the network of rating scales: It was

142

Marcel A.G. van Aken

related to all other four scales at both ages (to respect for autonomy, beta coefficients were .43 at age 10, .38 at age 12; to structure and limit setting, .34 and .34; to hostility, -.55 and -.55; and to quality of instruction, .38 and .25). In addition, at both ages, respect for autonomy was negatively related to structure and limit setting (-.62 and -.51), and structure and limit setting were related to quality of instruction (.60 and .69). At age 12 only, a relation between respect for autonomy and quality of instruction (.32) was found

Figure 2: Structural equation model for boys. Note.

Adapted from "Parental support and the development of competence in children" by M.A.G. van Aken and J.M.A. Riksen-Walraven, 1992, International Journal of Behavioral Development. Copyright International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development. Used by permission. Comp - competence; resil - ego-resiliency;resp- responsiveness; sup - supportive presence; resp - respect for autonomy; stru - structure and limit setting; host - hostility; ins - quality of instruction. Numbers indicate child's age at assessment.

For girls, similar to boys, a relation was found between parental responsiveness and competence of the child at age 9 months. From then on, however, results were less clear compared to boys. Interindividual stability of competence was only found during the elementary school years: The relation between competence at 9 months and at 7 years was not significant. In addition, ego-resiliency at age 12 was partly predicted by ego-resiliency at age 7, an effect additional to the stability of competence from age 7 to 10 and from age

Transaction of Support and Competences

143

10 to 12. Several relations between earlier competence and later parental support were found: Again, parents' respect for autonomy at age 12 was influenced by the child's competence, but this time at age 10. In addition, parents of girls who at 7 years were described as being more ego-resilient showed less hostility at age 12 and a higher quality of instruction. Also, parents' structure and limit setting at age 12 was related to the girl's ego-resiliency at that age. Interindividual stability of the parental rating scales between ages 10 and 12 was found only for respect for autonomy and for structure and limit setting. Respect for autonomy at age 12 was also negatively related to the quality of instructions given two years earlier. Quality of instruction at age 12, on the other hand, was predicted by structure and limit setting at age 10. The relations among the rating scales in ages 10 and 12 (not presented in the figure) were partly different from those for boys.

.83

Figure 3: Structural equation model for girls. Note.

Adapted from "Parental support and the development of competence in children" by M.A.G. van Aken and J.M.A. Riksen-Walraven, 1992, International Journal of Behavioral Development. Copyright International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development. Used by permission. Comp - competence; resil - ego-resiliency; resp - responsiveness; sup - supportive presence; resp - respect for autonomy; stru - structure and limit setting; host - hostility; ins - quality of instruction. Numbers indicate child's age at assessment.

144

Marcel A.G. van Aken

The central position of supportive presence, found for boys, was not present for girls. At age 10, supportive presence was related to respect for autonomy (.56) and to structure and limit setting (.51); whereas, at age 12, it was related to hostility (-.30) and to quality of instruction (.28). Similar to boys, at both ages, respect for autonomy was negatively related to structure and limit setting (-.78 at age 10, -.63 at age 12); and at both ages, structure and limit setting were related to quality of instruction (.92 and .71). At age 10 only, a relation between respect for autonomy and quality of instruction (.43) was found. Discussion Although the design of this longitudinal study does not permit truly causal interpretations (especially because of the dissimilarity between the design for parental support vs. for children's competence), the strong relation between parental support and children's competence in infancy, the stability of competence from infancy through elementary school, and the predominance of long-term effects from competence at earlier age on later parental support, rather than cross-sectional relations between the two, do seem to fit in with the transactional mechanisms formulated in the theoretical model. However, a number of points in these results need to be looked at in further studies. First, although there is a moderate stability in parental support from age 10 to age 12, especially in boys, only the support measured during the task at age 12 is related to the child's earlier competence. Apparently, there is a difference in the meaning of both tasks for the parent-child dyad. The impression from the videotapes is that the task at age 12 is regarded as somewhat more difficult and is taken more seriously by parent and child. The task at age 12 might therefore be a more valid situation to measure parental support and lead to clearer and also more valid individual differences in parental behavior. This posthoc explanation might be corroborated by the fact that most effects on parental support come from ego-resiliency at age 7 and not from ego-resiliency at age 10. Again, the measurement at age 10 may be somewhat less valid, leading to somewhat less clear individual differences. Recently, Caspi and Moffit (1991) have suggested that individual differences may be magnified and accentuated during periods of discontinuity in the life of a person. Given the fact that the children in this longitudinal study at age 7 were at the beginning of elementary school, and at age 12 were preparing to transfer to secondary school, whereas at age 10 they were in a relatively stable, nontransitional period, this suggestion may explain some of these seemingly inconsistent results. One possible explanation for the gender differences in the stability of competence can be found in the notion of gender-differentiated socialization. Boys may be more directed toward and stimulated by understanding contingencies in the physical world, whereas girls may be directed more toward the social world (Block, 1983). Because contingency relations are less easily manipulated and detected in the social world, girls may experience a relative lack of efficacy experiences, and thus need a longer period to gain stable

Transaction of Support and Competences

145

competence. Parents of girls may also inconsistently reinforce their dependence and independence (Jennings et al., 1984). Given the fact that gaining autonomy is an important issue in 2- to 3-year-olds (Sroufe, 1979), this inconsistency may be especially important at this age. Parents of boys may be more consistent in training independence. A similar difference in consistency can be found at ages 10 and 12: Parental support for boys is relatively stable at that age and is influenced only by the boys' competence in the domain of respecting that competence. Parental support to girls' seems to be affected in somewhat more aspects by the girls' competence, whereas the lesser stability of the dimensions of parental support suggests that it is also more adjusted to the characteristics of the specific task at hand. Although the direction of the effects in this study suggests that in early adolescence parents have adjusted their social support to characteristics of the child, this does not necessarily mean that this reflects a general pattern of causal predominance. We have already assumed that the effects of child behavior on parental support increase with stabilizing competences of the child. However, besides being dependent upon the age of the children, the direction of the effect might also be dependent upon the nature of the task being studied as well as the phase in mastering the task. Regarding this last issue, Kindermann and Skinner (1988), for example, have found that contingencies in parental supportive behavior change depending upon the child's progress through a specific developmental task.

4. Conclusions Summarizing, this chapter presents a model and an empirical illustration of the relation between social support and the development of competence. I have tried to show that the construct of competence is useful in conceptualizing the continuity of an individual's adaptation to subsequent developmental tasks or stressful situations. The transactional relation between social support and competence is emphasized, implying not only the importance of social support in the development of competence but also the fact that personality variables may play a role in the development and use of social support. As described above, social support is important for the competence of a child insofar as it provides the child with experiences of being an effective agent, if necessary, with the help of support by persons in the environment. This chapter gives an example of the changing content of parental support during childhood. During the course of development, however, the variety of support persons increases, and it can also be assumed that these different social network members provide different kinds of social support. Future studies guided by this model should therefore concern different components of social support in combination with various possible support providers in the social network of a child. It can be assumed that there are developmental and/or individual differences in what components of

146

Marcel A.G. van Aken

social support are provided by which support persons (cf. Youniss & Smollar, 1985). Regarding developmental differences, Furman and Buhrmester (1992), for example, found changes over age in the degree of intimacy, nurturance, and behavior control in relationships with mothers, fathers, and friends. Regarding individual differences, East and Rook (1992) found that children rated by school peers as isolated reported satisfactory friendships with nonschool peers and higher levels of support from siblings. Such a focus on individual differences in social networks might, for example, shed more light on the gender differences reported in the empirical part of this chapter: These might reflect not only different reactions of parents to the competence of their child but also a different position of the parent (in this case mostly the mother) in the social network of boys or girls. In addition, the results of East and Rook again suggest the important role of personality variables in the formation of a social network. Finally, in research on stress and social support, the link between the social network of persons and their expectancies about themselves and the world around them has recently been made (see, e.g., Sandler et al., 1989; Sarason et al., 1990). As in this chapter, with its focus on social support and the development of competence, these ideas may reflect an important direction of combining research on social support networks and stressful life experiences with research on the important role of social support and social relationships in the development of a child.

Note The data presented in this chapter were gathered within a longitudinal project at the Department of Psychology, University of Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Parts of this project were supported by grants from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (ZWO-56-54) and the Society for Educational Research (SVO-BS560). Many thanks to Marianne Riksen-Walraven and Kees van Lieshout, University of Nijmegen, by whom and with whom a large part of the ideas about the transactional model have been developed.

References Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C, Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Aken, M. A. G. van (1991). Competence development in a transactional perspective: A longitudinal study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen. Kämpen, Netherlands: Mondiss. Aken, M. A. G. van (1992). The development of general competence and domain-specific competencies. European Journal of Personality, 6, 267-282. Aken, M. A. G. van, & Riksen-Walraven, J. M. A. (1992). Parental support and the development of competence in children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 15, 101-123. Baltes, P. B., Reese, H. W., & Lipsitt, L. P. (1980). Life-span developmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 65-110. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Transaction of Support and Competences

147

Bell, R. Q., & Chapman, M. (1986). Child effects in studies using experimental or brief longitudinal approaches to socialization. Developmental Psychology, 22, 595-603. Block, J. H. (1983). Differential premises arising from differential socialization of the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Development, 54, 1335-1354. Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980a). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Development of cognition, affect, and social relations. Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 13). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1980b) Rationale and procedure for developing indices for ego-control and ego-resiliency. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. Ill: Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books. Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 3-35. Caspi, A., & Moffit, T. E. (1991). Individual differences are accentuated during periods of social change: The sample case of girls at puberty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 157-168. East, P. L., & Rook, K. S. (1992). Compensatory patterns of support among children's peer relationships: A test using friends, nonschool friends and siblings. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016-1024. Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited. Or a theory of a theory. American Psychologist, 28, 404-416. Epstein, S., & Erskine, N. (1983). The development of personal theories of reality from an interactional perspective. In D. Magnusson & V. L. Allen (Eds.), Human development. An interactional perspective. New York: Academic Press. Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child evelopment, 50, 4(1 & 2, Serial No. 209). Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Ford, M. E. (1982). Social cognition and social competence in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 18, 323-340. Ford, M. E. (1985). The concept of competence: Themes and variations. In H.A. Marlowe & R. B. Weinberg (Eds.), Competence development: Theory and practice in special populations (pp. 3-49). Springfield, IL: C. G. Thomas. Ford, M. E., & Thompson, R. A. (1985). Perceptions of personal agency and infant attachment: Toward a life-span perspective on competence development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8, 377-407. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103-115. Garmezy, N. (1989). The role of competence in the study of children and adolescents under stress. In B. H. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel, & R. Weissberg (Eds.) Social competence in developmental perspective. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Havighurst, R. J. (1973). History of developmental psychology: Socialization and personality development through the life span. In P. B. Baltes & K.W. Schaie (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Personality and socialization. New York: Academic Press. Jennings, K. D., Yarrow, L. J., & Martin, P. P. (1984). Mastery motivation and cognitive development. A longitudinal study from infancy to 3 1/2 years. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 7, 441-461. Kindermann, T., & Skinner, E. A. (1988). Developmental tasks as organizers of children's ecologies: Mothers' contingencies as children learn to walk, eat, and dress. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Child development within culturally structured environments. Vol. 2: Social co-construction and environmental guidance in development (pp. 66-105). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

148

Marcel A.G. van Aken

Lieshout, C. F. M. van, & Smitsman, A. W. (1985). Ontwikkeling, onderrichten leren. Ontwikkelingspsychologische achtergronden voor het onderwijsaanbod in het funder end onderwijs. Preadvies aan de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid. Lieshout, C. F. M. van, Riksen-Walraven, J. M. A., Brink, P. W. M. ten, Siebenheller, F. A., Mey, J. Th. H., Koot, J. M., Janssen, A. W. H., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (1986). Zelfstandigheidsontwikkeling in het basisonderwijs. Nijmegen, Netherlands: ITS. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.) & P. H. M ssen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4, Socialization, personality and social development (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley. Masterpasqua, F. (1989). A competence paradigm for psychological practice. American Psychologist, 44, 1366-1371. Mey, J. Th. H., Van Roozendaal, J., Brink, P. W. M. ten, & Siebenheller, F. A. (1985). Validering van een Q-sort ter vaststelling van ego-veerkracht en ego-controle bij hinderen. Intern Rapport 85 ON 03, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, Netherlands. Riksen-Walraven, J. M. A. (1978). Effects of caregiver behavior on habituation rate and self-efficacy in infants. Internationaljournal of Behavioral Development, 1, 105-130. Riksen-Walraven, J. Μ. Α., & Lieshout, C. F. M. van (1985). Vroegkinderlijke voorlopers van zelfstandigheid van basisschoolleerlingen. In J. G. L. C. Lodewijks & P. R. J. Simons (Eds.), Zelfstandig leren. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Sameroff, A. J. (1987). The social context of development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Contemporary topics in developmental psychology. New York: Wiley. Sandier, I. N., Miller, P., Short, J., & Wolchik, S. A. (1989). Social support as a protective factor for children in stress. In D. Belle (Ed.). Children's social networks and social supports. New York: Wiley. Sarason, B. R., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1990). Social support: The sense of acceptance and the role of relationships. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view. New York: Wiley. Silbereisen, R. K., & Eyferth, K. (1986). Development as action in context. In R. K. Silbereisen, K. Eyferth, & G. Rudinger (Eds.), Development as action in context. Berlin: Springer. Sroufe, L. A. (1979). The coherence of individual development. Early care, attachment, and subsequent developmental issues. American Psychologist, 34, 834-841. Thoits, P. A. (1986). Social support as coping assistance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 416-423. Waters, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Social competence as a developmental construct. Developmental Review, 3, 79-97. Watson, J. S. (1966). The development and generalization of contingency awareness in early infancy: Some hypotheses. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 12, 123-135. White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-323. Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Socialization, Social Support, and Social Competence in Adolescence: The Individual in Perspective Sandy Jackson, University of Groningen, Netherlands

I. Introduction Socialization, social support, and social competence are reciprocally related constructs, each of which has important implications for the social life of the adolescent. The nature of the individual's socialization experiences depends on the presence of appropriate forms of social support within the family and beyond. The child's competence in social situations develops out of socialization experiences and is sustained and encouraged by social support. Similarly, and from a very early stage of development, the child's social responsiveness and then social competence affects the nature of the socialization experience and the quality of social support that he or she receives. The three constructs also share certain features in common. First, all of them refer to highly complex areas of individual and social behavior. Second, they are subject to change as development proceeds. The socialization experiences of early childhood are of a different nature from those of adolescence or of other developmental periods. The type of social support that is offered and required varies as the child grows older. Behavior that would be regarded as socially competent in childhood years might well be inappropriate to adolescence. A third common feature is that they are all subject to qualitative variation. The one child may have a positive socialization experience, effective social support, and evince ageappropriate social competence; while for another, all three may be strongly negative. Qualitative variation may also occur at the individual level. Positive early experiences and competences may not be sustained as new developmental tasks or demands arise, or they may be adversely effected by stressful events at home or in the broader environment. Other chapters and citations in this book provide evidence of the considerable amount of research that has been directed toward a better understanding of the three constructs and their interrelationships. It will be noted that much of the work discussed refers to group studies. Such work is of importance. It is essential further to develop our understanding of issues such as the supportive and socialization functions of family or peers or of the

150

Sandy Jackson

effects of stress in different circumstances. On the other hand, the emphasis on group studies should not lead us to ignore the fact that, in circumstances in which intervention is necessary, socialization, social support, and social competence are also critical areas of inquiry at an individual level. When confronted with the troubled adolescent, each area requires investigation in order to understand the nature of the problems and how they have arisen. In such circumstances, a variety of questions arise. What sort of socialization has the young person experienced? What forms of social support have been available to him or her, and what is the current situation? How competent is he or she in different types of social setting? Questions such as these are an important part of effective intervention, but only a part. They need to be supplemented with questions deriving from a broader perspective. To take such a perspective involves attending to at least three additional issues: The individual needs to be seen within a developmental context; the significance of personal conceptions requires recognition; and finally, the reciprocal and changing relationship between individual and environment needs to be taken into account. Before considering each of these issues in more detail, consider the case of Nancy, a 12year-old, prepubertal girl living in a home for adolescent girls. Nancy had been placed in residential care at age 9, following episodes of petty theft and running away from home. In the home, her behavior was characterized by difficult relationships with other girls and with staff, frequent violent outbursts, and persistent running away. When aged 12, she ran away directly before a long-awaited and keenly anticipated holiday at home with her mother. Detailed exploration of why she had absconded led to the discovery that prior to her admission to the residential home and during subsequent holidays with her mother, she had been subjected to persistent sexual abuse. Initially, this was carried out by her father and then, after the separation of her parents, by a family friend who lived close-by. Typically, a history such as this is regarded as having considerable explanatory behavior: It helps us to understand at least some of the reasons for Nancy's present behavior. Explanation is only a first step, however. It needs to be followed by a series of other questions that are directly concerned with the focus of further intervention. As we have seen, these involve: regarding Nancy within a developmental perspective; exploring her own interpretation of her situation and the events leading up to it; and finally, examining her reciprocal involvement with her environment. As with socialization, social support, and social competence, these three questions are interrelated; for present purposes, however, we will consider them separately.

Socialization and Social Support

151

2. A Developmental Perspective What do we mean by saying that the individual has to be seen within a developmental context? Achenbach (1984) describes a developmental approach to maladaptive behavior as embracing a number of key characteristics. These are illustrated by the following questions: To what extent is the young person's current behavior comparable with that of other young people at the same level of development? What is the likely outcome of the individual's current pattern of behavior? What is the relationship between the individual's present behavior, his or her previous developmental history, the developmental tasks the individual faces, and the progress of important adaptive competencies? How can his or her development be facilitated? Has intervention been effective not only in dealing with the problems that led to intervention but also in terms of subsequent developmental progress? These questions illustrate an approach that goes beyond the explanatory level by attempting to consider the individual within the context of an ongoing developmental process. Rutter (1980, p.l) describes the approach as one in which the process of development is seen as ". . . the crucial link between genetic determinants and environmental variables, between sociology and individual psychology and between physiogenic and psychogenic causes." Seen in these terms, "Development encompasses not only the roots of behavior in prior maturation, in physical influences (both internal and external) and in the residues of earlier experiences, but also the modulation of that behavior by the circumstances of the present." The important feature of the ideas expressed by both Achenbach and Rutter is the emphasis on the range, variety, and complexity of developmental processes. Fundamental to both is the notion that the meaning of the individual's behavior can be derived only from the total context of his or her psychological development over the years and into the present (Sroufe & Rutter, 1984). For each individual, the developmental process involves movement toward greater flexibility and increased organization of behavior. New learning takes place and combines with previously learned patterns of behavior into more complex forms, which may be adaptive or maladaptive. Rutter (1981), for example, describes a variety of ways in which early experiences may lead to problems at a later stage. With some of these, the link may be direct. For example, experience may lead to disturbance that persists, or behavior may be modified by particular events and may subsequently prove to be disordered. In other cases, the link may be less direct. Coping strategies that proved effective at one stage may later prove inappropriate or inflexible and lead to maladjustment. Similarly, responses to new circumstances may be influenced by ideas relating to self or to personal efficacy (cf. Bandura, 1981) developed at a much earlier stage. What are the implications of adopting such a perspective where Nancy is concerned? While it is clear that the lack of detailed background information precludes a

152

Sandy Jackson

comprehensive answer to this question, a number of general observations can be made. As mentioned earlier, the discovery of her history of sexual abuse has an explanatory value. It is not difficult to see how it could lead to disturbed patterns of behavior such as running away from home or uncertainties about relationships. Perhaps the risk is in the other direction, namely that it is too easily seen as the explanation, with the result that other possible areas of disturbance are ignored. If Nancy's situation is approached holistically (Sroufe & Rutter, 1984), important questions arise with regard to the sexual abuse, but alongside them, a number of other issues need to be examined. Some of these questions concern Nancy's interpretation of her own experience: These will be considered in the following section. Others refer to the significance of her experiences within the ongoing process of her own development. For example, Nancy will soon be progressing through puberty and into physical womanhood. In the not too distant future, she is likely to become involved in relationships with males, but what sort of relationships? Remember that she is currently living in an environment that is almost exclusively female, with virtually no opportunity for normal contact with adult males or with males of her own age. Her experience of men is likely to be heavily influenced by her earlier experiences. How will she respond to new relationships? To what extent might she be at risk of exposure to a further series of abusive or exploitative sexual events? What type of interaction strategies has she at her disposal and in how far are they appropriate? Questions such as these suggest the broad lines of inquiry that need to be followed. We need to know more about the circumstances in which abuse occurred. For example, to what extent did Nancy unwittingly contribute to the events that occurred? We need to know how she might respond to new situations involving males, particularly males of about her own age. This demands the provision of opportunities for normal forms of social interaction in which her ability to relate at an age-appropriate level can be assessed. As pointed out earlier, however, it is necessary to avoid reserving all attention for Nancy's experience of abuse and to consider other aspects of her development. Her difficulties in relationships with staff and other girls, her tendency to run away, her low frustration tolerance, and the problems she experiences in school activities all require investigation. Such investigation needs to take account not only of the history of such behaviors and their current significance but also of their future implications. It needs to do this with full recognition of the developmental tasks that should have been completed but that might have been impeded, those that feature at present, and those that lie ahead.

3. The Individuars Personal Conceptual Framework Confronting these questions leads to the second point - the significance of the individual's personal conceptual framework. Just as development proceeds in the direction of increased organization and complexity of behavior, so too, at the cognitive level, there is a

Socialization and Social Support

153

movement toward more complex processing of experiences and events. Of particular importance in the present context is the way in which the individual attempts to make sense of events in his or her past and how this process leads to a coherent set of selfrelated ideas that influence the approach adopted when new events are encountered (Harter, 1983). There is evidence that these self-related ideas influence many areas of functioning in the childhood years and beyond. People vary in level of self-esteem (Harter, 1983) and in ideas about their own efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1981). Children who are treated as possessing certain characteristics, positive or negative, tend to respond accordingly (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Children vary in the extent to which they see themselves as being able to control events, and both cognitive and social functioning are related positively to their perceptions of control in each area (Connell, 1985). Similarly, young people differ in the way in which they respond to task failure (Dweck & Elliott, 1983), and it seems reasonable to impute such differences to self-related ideas. The nature of the relationship between ideas about the self, personal effectiveness, control over events, and so forth remains to be worked out. What appears to emerge from such work, however, is the notion that the greater the salience and accessibility of particular ideas about self (see Higgins, 1981), the greater the likelihood that these ideas will be applied in new situations involving self. Where these ideas are generally positive, there is a stronger chance that the individual will react to stressful circumstances in an adaptive fashion, whereas negative ideas are likely to have the opposite effect (e.g., Rutter, 1989). It follows that intervention needs to take account of the internal processes involved in dealing with significant life events and in negotiating transitional periods in development. Account needs to be taken of the meaning of and response to such events in the context of individual development. Let us return to Nancy. What are the implications of such work where intervention in her situation is concerned? Even if we restrict ourselves to the brief sketch given above, it is clear that Nancy's background features a considerable number of negative experiences: sexual abuse, parental separation, removal from home, relationship problems, early exposure to residential life. The central questions that arise concern Nancy's own understanding of her experiences and the way in which she thinks about herself in the light of all that has happened. These core questions lead to more focused inquiry. The latter needs to take account of two broad areas. The first concerns the ways in which specific areas of experience, for example, separation from mother, sexual abuse, or relationship problems, are perceived relative to her ongoing development. This area might be regarded as referring to her self-evaluation and the implications this might have for development in different domains. The second refers to the range of response patterns available to her in reacting to events in different domains. At issue here are questions concerning the ways in which she has responded to events such as interpersonal conflict or inappropriate sexual

154

Sandy Jackson

advances and the extent to which her present response repertoire remains restricted to the same (ineffective) possibilities. Clarification of both areas is likely to be an essential element of any form of social support that may be considered. In sum, social support at an individual level needs to start from the person's own set of conceptions and misconceptions relating to self and to possible response patterns. It is noteworthy that many interventions based on social skills training have been based on a group rather than an individual approach. In general, they have failed to produce convincing evidence of long-term effects (Hollin & Trower, 1986) or of generalization to new areas of social behavior (e.g., Dodge et al., 1986). One of the sources of such difficulties may be the tendency to assume that young people in a given population have similar needs where social skills are concerned. As a result, a program is generally applied without sufficient attention to the extent to which a deficit in skills actually exists (Herbert, 1986) or to which the program is appropriate to the needs of the group concerned. In situations such as Nancy's, the essential need is to adapt training approaches directly to specific deficits at the cognitive as well as the behavioral level. This requires insight into how her interpretation of significant events in her own history relates to present patterns of behavior. Such knowledge can serve as a basis for intervention and support in developing and experiencing competence in areas that have not yet developed or which remain underdeveloped.

4. Reciprocal Engagement With the Environment From a very early stage in development, children engage reciprocally with their environment, in that their behavior shapes the behavior that others express toward them (Thomas & Chess, 1977). A distinction can be made here between effects that are direct in that they apply within the pattern of ongoing behavior and indirect effects that emerge after an interval of time. Following Scarr and MacCartney (1983), the former might be further subdivided into "evocative" and "niche-picking" effects. Evocative effects refer to the influence of individual characteristics such as temperament or behavioral style on parental caregiving, while niche-picking refers to the process of actively seeking out particular environmental circumstances that are to the individual's liking. Indirect effects are distinguishable from the former in that their influence only becomes apparent after a period of time. Stattin and Magnusson's (1990) discussion of the long-term effects of very early puberty in girls provides a good example. Kendall et al. (1984) discuss the implications for intervention of reciprocal interaction with the environment. They argue that "interventions based on the premise that the source of a problem lies essentially within the child, within the caregiver, or within any other isolated link would be less than optimal." (pp. 72-73) Thus, assessment should focus upon the stimulus characteristics of the child, the caregivers' reaction to these characteristics, the

Socialization and Social Support

155

feedback provided by the caregiver to the child as a result of the stimulation, and the resulting effects on the child. Focused assessment of this sort can attempt to take account of both evocative and niche-picking characteristics of the behavior of the individual child in social contexts. It must also consider the behavior of the coparticipants in such situations. The more extended their experience of the young person - in the case of parents it will be lengthy indeed - the more developed the system of beliefs concerning him or her is likely to be (Rubin et al., 1990). It will be based not only on direct experience of the young person concerned but also on wider experience of other people, sociocultural norms, and pressures from different social institutions (cf. Hurrelmann, 1989). Where such systems are wellestablished, they are unlikely to be readily amenable to change. Yet change they must, if intervention with the child is to be fully successful. It follows that intervention and social support need to be approached within the context of individual and environment and not confined purely to the individual level. Certain aspects of Nancy's reciprocal engagement with her environment are clear. Her current behavior patterns shape the responses others make to her and these in turn serve to consolidate particular perceptions and reactions on her part. With other girls and with staff members, her behavior is frequently provocative and evokes strong, negative responses. On occasions in which she attempts to relate positively, her overtures are likely to be met with a hostile response, so that a further row is the probable result. Possibly other aspects of her behavior can be interpreted as niche-picking. When confronted with a situation with which she cannot cope, she acts in such a way as to manage to avoid it. Her absconding behavior might be seen in these terms. The nature of her role in other areas is much less clear. In her relationship with her mother, control is an evident problem, but which role she assumes in the relationship is unclear. Similarly, the circumstances in which she was abused remain uncertain. What was the nature of her participation in the situation? The question at issue here refers to behavior patterns that may have helped to make a particular outcome more likely rather than to the attribution of responsibility. The latter can be regarded as lying at the adult's door. Individual support may encourage change, but such change is only likely to occur over a protracted period and in circumstances in which new competences have a chance to take hold and to begin to flourish. Where behavior patterns are negative and disruptive, as in Nancy's case, the prognosis for positive change is likely to be weak. As indicated above, this means that social support has to move beyond a purely individual focus and attend to the provision of environmental tolerances. This is a highly complex business, particularly in a residential situation. However, age-appropriate social competences are unlikely to develop in circumstances in which the social environment reacts to Nancy purely in terms

156

Sandy Jackson

of what is best for the group as a whole, or perceives her in terms of her chronological as opposed to her developmental status.

5. Toward a Broader Perspective It might be argued that Nancy is an extreme case and that the issues discussed above have little to do with the wider adolescent group. While, happily, it may true that Nancy is unusual, the three issues can be regarded as applicable to many aspects of adolescence in contemporary society. This is particularly so in situations in which social support, provision of social skills training, or some other form of intervention is being considered. A variety of studies, for example, have pointed to the existence of a substantial group of young people who experience difficulties as they progress through adolescence (e.g., Bijstra et al., 1992; Coleman, 1974; Rodriguez-Tome & Bariaud, 1990; Tyszkowa, 1990). These difficulties may be related to previous socialization experiences, to processes of physical development, to family circumstances, to self-perceptions, or to interaction with the wider social environment. There is little doubt that many of these young people manage to muddle through their difficulties and avoid serious effects. On the other hand, there is evidence that, for some, difficulties are such that some form of professional intervention is required (e.g., Rutter et al., 1976). In both cases, it is arguable that the existence of some form of social support within the school might have served to reduce discomfort and may even have reduced the number requiring specialized help (Jackson, 1989). In such circumstances, and whether the support takes the form of an individual counseling service or social competence training of the sort suggested by Caplan and Weissberg (1990), it remains important to adopt a developmental perspective, to take account of the individual's construal of his or her personal situation, and to consider the interplay between the individual and the environment. Approaching social support, socialization, and social competence in these terms has implications for the way in which research questions are focused and tackled. Group-based approaches are valuable in providing a picture of general patterns and trends and providing a context in which particular approaches to intervention can be evaluated. By their nature, however, they tend to be insensitive to developmental variation and change. They need to be combined with approaches that are more individually focused and that take account of the dynamic nature of human growth and development.

References Achenbach, T. M. (1984). Developmental psychopathology. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (pp. 405-450). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Socialization and Social Support

157

Bandura, A. (1981) Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In J. H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures (pp. 200-239). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bijstra, J. O., Bosma, . ., & Jackson, A. E. (1992). Social competence in adolescence: The early identification of potential problems. Article submitted for publication. Caplan, M. Z., & Weissberg, R. P. (1990). Promoting social competence in early adolescence: Developmental considerations. In B. H. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel, & R. P. Weissberg (Eds.), Social competence in developmental perspective (pp. 371-385). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Coleman, J. C. (1974). Relationships in adolescence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Connell, J. P. (1985). A new multi-dimensional measure of children's perceptions of control. Child Development, 56, 1018-1041. Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., McClaskey, C. L., & Brown, M. M. (1986). Social competence in children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 51. Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Socialization, personality and social development. Vol. 4, Müssen's Handbook of Child Psychology (4th ed.). New York: Wiley. Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Socialization, personality and social development, Vol. 4, Müssen's Handbook of Child Psychology (4th ed.). New York: Wiley. Herbert, M. (1986). Social skills training with children. In C. R. Hollin & P. Trower (Eds.), Handbook of social skills training (Vol. 1). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Higgins, E. T. (1981). Role taking and social judgement: Alternative developmental perspectives and processes. In J. H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures (pp. 119-153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hollin, C. R., & Trower, P. (1986). Social skills training: Critique and future directions. In C. R. Hollin & P. Trower (Eds.), Handbook of social skills training (Vol. 1). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Hurrelmann, K. (1989). Adolescents as productive processors of reality: Methodological perspectives. In K. Hurrelmann & K. Engel (Eds.), The social world of adolescents: International perspectives (pp. 107- 118). Berlin: de Gruyter. Jackson, A. E. (1989). L'Aide aux jeunes en difficulte: Le role possible de l'ecole. U Orientation Scolaire et Professionelle, 18, 337-350. Kendall, P. C., Lerner, R. M., & Craighead, W. E. (1984). Human development and intervention in childhood psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 71-82. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Socialization, personality, and social development, Vol. 4, Mussen's Handbook of Child Psychology (4th ed.). New York: Wiley. Rodriguez-Tome, H., & Bariaud, F. (1990). Anxiety in adolescence: Sources and reactions. In H. A. Bosma & A. E. Jackson (Eds.), Coping and self-concept in adolescence (pp. 169-188). Heidelberg: Springer. Rubin, K. H., Mills, R. S. L., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1990). Maternal beliefs and children's competence. In B. H. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel, & R. P. Weissberg (Eds.), Social competence in developmental perspective (pp. 313-334). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Rutter, M. (1980). Introduction. In M. Rutter (Ed.), Scientific foundations of developmental psychiatry. London: Heinemann. Rutter, M. (1981). Stress, coping and development: Some issues and some questions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22, 323-356. Rutter, M. (1989). Pathways from childhood to adult life. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30, 23-52. Rutter, M., Graham, P., Chadwick, O. F. D., & Yule, W. (1976). Adolescent turmoil: Fact or fiction. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 35-56.

158

Sandy Jackson

Scarr, S., & MacCartney, M. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotypeenvironment effects. Child Development, 54, 426-435. Sroufe, L. A., & Rutter, M. (1984). The domain of developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 17-29. Stattin, H., & Magnusson, D. (1990). Pubertal maturation infernale development. Brighton: Erlbaum. Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Tyszkowa, M. (1990). Coping with difficult school situations and stress resistance. In H. A. Bosma & A. E. Jackson (Eds.), Coping and self-concept in adolescence (pp. 189-202). Heidelberg: Springer.

10 On the Interface Between Social Support and Prosocial Behavior: Methodological and Theoretical Implications Hans W. Bierhoff, University of Bochum, FRG

I. Introduction This paper discusses the similarities and differences between research on social support and altruism. Because both areas of research refer to the same content area - helping behavior - from different perspectives, the comparison is potentially fruitful and may lead to important methodological and theoretical consequences. In the first two parts, I will discuss the concepts of social support and altruism, emphasizing variables that connect both areas of research. In the third part, issues of measurement of social support and the psychology of receiving social support are discussed on the basis of theory and research on altruism. In this discussion, I advocate an integration of research on altruism and social support for specific research issues.

2. Social Support Social support focuses on one specific content area - giving and receiving help that relationships offer when coping with stressful life events and daily hassles (Morgan, 1990). A central issue of the social support research tradition is whether social support protects the individual against the disadvantageous consequences of negative life events with special emphasis on health outcomes. Within the social support tradition, several approaches might be highlighted (Pierce et al., 1990): the social network or structural approach, the social support as helping or functional approach, and the general perception approach. While each of these approaches has its merits, I focus primarily on the functional approach, which allows for an integration with research on prosocial behavior. In general, social support seems to result in a certain amount of protection when stressful life events occur (see Cohen & Wills, 1985; Kessler et al., 1985). At the same time, certain problems that arise in social support relationships are emphasized by Wortman and Conway (1985): Supporters feel insecure about how to implement their help appropriately,

160

Hans W. Bierhoff

they usually have a short-term perspective, and if some kind of negative feedback from the support recipient occurs, they might feel threatened in maintaining their optimistic world view. A basic assumption of the functional approach is that social support is subdivided into several components that are related to specific needs of the support recipient (Pierce et al., 1990). In this tradition, the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) was developed by Cohen and Hoberman (1983). This questionnaire is designed to measure four aspects of social support: tangible support, appraisal support, self-esteem support, and belonging support. The Social Support Questionnaire (F-SOZU) by Sommer and Fydrich (1991) is based on comparable considerations and is compatible with the functional approach. Since results reported below are based on the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List, the following description of the several aspects of social support refers to its subscales. Wills (1985) proposed a stressor-specificity model that states that social support is only helpful for the recipient if it matches his or her specific needs. For example, self-esteem support is especially valuable for a person who suffers from a deteriorating self-concept. The following description of the different aspects of social support is based on Cohen et al. (1986). Tangible support measures perceived availability of material aid from others. A sample item (from Cohen & Hoberman, 1983) is: "I know someone who would loan me $ 50 so I could go away for the weekend." The original scale had an internal consistency of .71. This kind of support seems to be especially useful if a good match between need of the recipient and help given is assured. The question of an appropriate match between need and support is of special significance for tangible support, because negative implications of support for the support recipient might occur under special circumstances. These include factors that emphasize the weakness and inferiority of the support recipient (see below). Appraisal support refers to the availability of someone to talk to about one's problems. A sample item is: "I know someone who I see or talk to often with whom I would feel perfectly comfortable talking about any problems I might have budgeting my time between school and my social life." The original scale had an internal consistency of .77. This kind of support seems to be especially useful if a person in a stressful situation considers several hypotheses about its origins or possible consequences and seeks an answer to questions like "Why me?" or "What follows?" Self-esteem support refers to interpersonal messages that are able to maintain or enhance positive self-evaluations. A sample item is: "Most people who know me will think highly of me." The internal consistency was .60. The content of the items is more related to self-esteem in comparison with others than to social support (Sommer & Fydrich, 1991). Several social-psychological theories refer to the question regarding which type of

Social Support and Prosocial Behavior

161

interpersonal messages enhance self-evaluation. The role of upward and downward comparisons in self-esteem maintenance has been discussed more fully by Tesser (1988). Belonging support refers to the availability of people with whom one can do things. A sample item is: 'There are people at school or in town who I regularly run with, exercise with, or play sports with." The internal consistency was .75. Social contacts might offer positive experiences that reduce the impact of negative life events. It might be especially helpful if the support recipient feels lonely either because of a negative life event or because of a long-lasting social deprivation. Social support might have positive as well as negative consequences (Morgan, 1990). An important problem is related to the question of how support influences the self-esteem of the support recipient. Research on the psychology of receiving help indicates that positive and negative responses of support recipients are to be expected (Nadler & Fisher, 1986). Social support contributes to the psychological and physical well-being of people of different age groups (Cohen et al., 1986; Stroebe & Stroebe, 1985). From a social-psychological perspective, the question arises what is a good match between supporter and support recipient (e.g., is a supporter more effective if he or she has made the same experience as the support recipient). This question refers to issues of similarity between supporter and support recipient that are central to the psychology of receiving help.

3. Prosocial Behavior Prosocial behavior implies the interaction of at least two persons: the helper and the help recipient. It might be defined as an action of the helper that is executed with the intent to do the help recipient a favor without external pressures (i.e., voluntary). Depending on the pattern of social interaction, different types of social contingency occur (Bierhoff, 1984; cf. Jones & Gerard, 1967). With respect to social support, two types of social contingencies are especially relevant: Mutual contingencies, in which the action of the helper is partially dependent on the responses of the help recipient and partially on intentions and plans. This type of interaction is typically established in reciprocal relationships that lead to the development of trust and trustworthiness (Bierhoff, 1992). Asymmetrical contingences, in which the action of the helper is contingent on the needs of the help recipient. An example is provided by the norm of social responsibility, which states that people should help those who are dependent upon them (Berkowitz & Daniels, 1963).

162

Hans W. Bierhoff

The principle of reciprocity is a cornerstone of altruistic behavior (Gouldner, 1960). An example is the dyadic relationship of two friends or two neighbors. Another possibility is that reciprocity is perceived as generalized reciprocity, which, for example implies that Person A helps Person B, Person B helps Person C, and Person C helps Person A. The example of a blind person trying to cross the street makes it clear that help recipients do not necessarily respond positively to the receipt of help. In contrast, defensive and negative responses may occur because the potential help recipient does not want to be treated as a help recipient. In addition, the blind person might try to develop his or her competences by crossing the street upon hearing the auditory signal of the traffic lights. Blind people who receive unwanted help might experience feelings of helplessness. In general, the distance between receiving help and attribution of a stigma is small. One-sided help toward persons who belong to groups that are stereotyped negatively might elicit a self-fulfilling prophecy, because helpers who think that the help recipient is helpless contribute under certain circumstances of exaggerated help to the helplessness of the help recipient. Such stigmas might be accepted by the help recipients themselves and influence their self-perception in a negative way (Rodin & Langer, 1980). In addition, unwanted help might reduce the self-esteem of the help recipient. One-sided help in many situations elicits a threat to self-esteem that reduces the well-being of the help recipient. As a consequence, deficits in social competences might develop that lead to dependency on institutions and professional help and reduce the willingness to ask for necessary help (Nadler, 1987). These considerations show that the right "dosage" of helping is critical in mediating positive or negative responses of the help recipient. Steblay (1987) has described a classification of altruistic acts that results in a comprehensive taxonomy of helping: (a) formal help (e.g., participate in a survey) versus informal help (e.g., correct overpayment); (b) serious help (injured pedestrian) versus nonserious help (change for coin); and (c) active help (return lost letter) versus passive help (give donations). Studies on altruistic behavior typically focus on one specific type of helping. It is not clear whether the results might be generalized easily to other types of helping. Therefore, the different content areas to which helping refers should be taken into account. For example, formal help is more likely to be influenced by social norms than informal help. Serious help usually implies some necessary competences of the helpers (e.g., first-aid knowledge) that are mostly irrelevant for nonserious help. Finally, active help requires a higher level of prosocial motivation than passive help.

Social Support and Prosocial Behavior

163

In addition, it might be useful to take the taxonomy of helping episodes into account for the measurement of social support. For example, items in each social support scale (e.g., appraisal support, belonging support) might refer to serious and nonserious forms of helping or formal and informal help. Such a reconceptualization is likely to increase the diversity of contents that is represented by each scale.

4. Social Support and Altruism: The Psychology of Receiving Support Social support might have positive as well as negative consequences for the support recipient. Such a conclusion is in agreement with the threat-to-self-esteem model proposed by Nadler and Fisher (1986). In general, reciprocity of the relationship between supporter and support recipient is less likely to elicit negative responses of the support recipient, while asymmetrical relationships are more likely to elicit anger and resentment. In addition, similarity of supporter and support recipient is a critical variable. Similarity may indicate inferiority. Similarity invites social comparisons, which, in the case of support recipients who compare themselves with similar supporters, have negative implications. The inferiority that could be inferred from such a social comparison might lead to a threat to self-esteem. Such a problem does not exist in the relationship between people who occupy unequal status positions. For example, a teacher does not threaten the self-worth of a student by offering him or her some advice on how to solve a problem. In contrast, such help might increase the self-esteem of the support recipient because he or she is able to acquire new competences. While similarity might induce social comparisons that have negative consequences for the self, it is not necessarily true that similar others threaten the self-esteem of the help recipient. Similarity has different facets. For example, we might differentiate between similarity of success chances and similarity of experiences. Similarity of experiences might be a positive factor in receiving help, because support recipients might feel that a similar person is better able to understand their problem than a dissimilar person (Wortman & Lehman, 1985). Another important issue is whether the support occurs in a cooperative or competitive social environment. Cooperation means, in essence, that persons of equal status help each other. In a cooperative team, it is unlikely that a member who receives support that allows progress with respect to the group goal will feel resentment because he or she needed help. The definition of a cooperative group implies that group members support each other if necessary. In such a context, the refusal to help elicits a more negative evaluation than the willingness to help (Cook & Pelfrey, 1985).

164

Hans W. Bierhoff

These results indicate that high group cohesiveness reduces the negative impact of one-sided support. The common group goal and the positive function of the support with respect to approaching the group goal justify support in the sense of generalized reciprocity. Negative effects of receiving help have been observed only in situations in which people worked independently from each other. In this context, even friendship might lead to negative responses of the support recipient, especially if the support is given in an area that is central to the self-concept of the support recipient (Nadler et al., 1983). The psychology of the support recipient that might be developed on the threat-to-self-esteem model of Nadler and Fisher offers no simple answers. Although reciprocity is preferred over asymmetry, other considerations are also important. For example, help that is adequate is more likely to elicit positive feelings than help that is inadequate. This comes back to the tricky issue of the dosage of help. In general, people do not like to receive help all the time. Especially people who possess a high self-esteem prefer support that is adequate in the sense that their chances of successful intervention with stressful life events are enhanced. Negative responses of support recipients are likely if the help is substantial and extends over a long period of time. In such a situation, it might be appropriate to create the illusion of self-help to avoid the negative implications of receiving support. In general, the interplay between perceived self-help and perceived social support is an interesting topic for future research. The positive effects of social support might prevail if the support recipient is convinced that social support facilitates his or her efforts of self-help.

5. Final Comments The general approach of research on altruism implies that situational factors and personality factors are taken into account to explain prosocial behavior (see Staub, 1974). Such a person-situation-interaction approach was recently adopted by Pierce et al. (1992), who understood the perception of social support as influenced by environmental and personal factors. In an experiment, a student had to overcome a situation that induced high or low stress while his or her mother sent a supporting message. Results showed that the same amount of support by the mother was perceived by the students as higher if the stress in the situation was high and if the students expected a high level of support from the mother. Therefore, relationship-specific expectations and situation-specific stress influenced the perception of the students. This study might facilitate research in the area of prosocial behavior. By standardizing a specific amount of help, determinants of the perceived utility of the help might be studied.

Social Support and Prosocial Behavior

165

Such an approach offers new perspectives for research on the psychology of receiving help. Another lesson that altruism researchers might learn from research on social support is related to the fact that altruism occurs within social systems (Montada & Bierhoff, 1991). Since social systems like the family have specific structures, it is useful to understand the social roles that people occupy in a specific social system and the reciprocal normative expectations. For example, altruism in the family is quite different from altruism in experimental groups because it is part of a long-term commitment. Factors like quality of the relationship between parents and children, previous prosocial activities, and available resources contribute to "filial responsibility" for sick parents (Montada et al., 1991). In conclusion, the similarities and differences between research on social support and prosocial behavior might be considered to develop new methods of measurement and new theoretical approaches in both areas of research. The comparison between research on prosocial behavior and social support might lead to a better understanding of the relationship between perceived and actual social support or perceived and actual prosocial behavior. While altruism researchers have emphasized, in general, actual helping behavior, social support researchers have emphasized more the subjective nature of social support. Such a divergent emphasis has implications for measurement. Prosocial behavior is usually measured by observation, while social support is usually measured by questionnaire. Both approaches supplement each other. In addition, agreements and disagreements between observation and perception are an interesting research issue by themselves. Under what conditions is perceived social support an accurate index of actual social support? Or under what conditions is help perceived adequately or in a biased way? These research issues are important for a better understanding of the psychology of receiving help as well as of the psychology of social support.

References Berkowitz, L., & Daniels, L. R. (1963). Responsibility and dependency. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 429-436. Bierhoff, H. W. (1984). Altruism and patterns of social interaction. In E. Staub, D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski, & J. Reykowski (Eds.), Development and maintenance of prosocial behavior (pp. 309-321). New York: Plenum. Bierhoff, H. W. (1992). Trust and trustworthiness. In L. Montada, S. H. Filipp, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Life crises and experiences of loss in adulthood (pp. 411-433). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 99-125. Cohen, S., Sherrod, D. R., & Clark, M. S. (1986). Social skills and the stress-protective role of social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 963-973. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.

166

Hans W. Bierhoff

Cook, S. W., & Pelfrey, M. (1985). Reactions to being helped in cooperating interracial groups: A context effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1231-1245. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement, American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178. Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. B. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. New York: Wiley. Kessler, R. C., Price, R. H., & Wortman, C. B. (1985). Social factors in psychopathology: Stress, social support, and coping processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 531-572. Montada, L., & Bierhoff, H. W. (1991). Studying prosocial behavior in social systems. In L. Montada & H. W. Bierhoff (Eds.), Altruism in social systems (pp. 1-26). Lewiston, NY: Hogrefe & Huber. Montada, L., Schmitt, M., & Dalbert, C. (1991). Prosocial commitments in the family: Situational, personality, and systemic factors. In L. Montada & H. W. Bierhoff (Eds.), Altruism in social systems (pp. 177-203). Lewiston, NY: Hogrefe & Huber. Morgan, D. L. (1990). Combining the strengths of social networks, social support, and personal relationships. In S. Duck & R. C. Silver (Eds.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 190-215). London: Sage. Nadler, A. (1987). Determinants of help seeking behaviour The effects of helper's similarity, task centrality and recipient's self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 57-67. Nadler, A., & Fisher, J. D. (1986). The role of threat to self-esteem and perceived control in recipient reactions to help: Theory development and empirical validation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 81-122. Nadler, A., Fisher, J. D., & Ben Itzhak, S. (1983). With a little help from my friend: Effects of single or multiple act aid as a function of donor and task characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 310-321. Pierce, G. R., Sarason, B. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1990). Integrating social support perspectives: Working models, personal relationships, and situational factors. In S. Duck & R. C. Silver (Eds.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 173-189). London: Sage. Pierce, G. R., Sarason, B. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1992). General and specific support expectations and stress as predictors of perceived supportiveness: An experimental study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 297-307. Rodin, J., & Langer, E, (1980). Aging labels: The decline of control and the fall of self-esteem. Journal of Social Issues, 36(2), 12-29. Sommer, G., & Fydrich, T. (1991). Entwicklung und Überprüfung eines Fragebogens zur sozialen Unterstützung (F-SOZU). Diagnostica, 37, 160-178. Staub, E. (1974). Helping a distressed person: Social, personality, and stimulus determinants. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 293-341. Steblay, N. M. (1987). Helping behavior in rural and urban environments: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 346-356. Stroebe, M. S., & Stroebe, W. (1985). Social support and the alleviation of loss. In I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research and applications (pp. 439-462). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 181-227. Wills, T. A. (1985). Supportive functions of interpersonal relationships. In S. Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 61-82). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Wortman, C. B., & Conway, T. L. (1985). The role of social support in adaptation and recovery from physical illness. In S. Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 281-301). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Social Support and Prosocial Behavior

167

Wortman, C. B., & Lehman, D. R. (1985). Reactions to victims of life crises: Support attempts that fail. In I. B. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research and applications (pp. 463-489). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

Part III Supportive Functions of Parents and Peers

11

Social Relationships and Support Among Peers During Middle Childhood Hans Oswald, Lothar Krappmann, Hans Uhlendorff, University of Berlin, FRG

Karin Weiss, Free

1. Introduction In their everyday lives, children are often in situations in which they need support. Research on the sources of support given to children mainly focuses on parents and other caring adults rather than on the children's own social relationships. This does not mean that peer social networks have not been investigated among children. They have, but the main focus has not been on support from peer relationships in helping to overcome extraordinary stress, but on the particular incentives to social, moral, and cognitive development that parents cannot provide (Youniss, 1980). This chapter attempts to combine the two literatures on peer networks and support and on networks and children's development. We will show that children receive support from their peer networks, and that one of the important functions of this support is to establish and continually reestablish the social interaction that promotes children's development. Peer Relationships and Support One of the few studies addressing support from peers is Freud and Dann's (1951) observational study. This has shown that mutual peer support could substitute for adult care in extreme cases in which children had lost all close relationships because of the holocaust. Although some studies have included peers among the relationships that were considered relevant, they have not investigated the special impact of the peer subdivision of the network. Berndt (1989) has compared knowledge about network support received by adults with studies focusing on support that children and adolescents receive from their friends. The comparison revealed that children's friendships serve similar functions to the networks of adults. Like the studies in Bemdt's (1989) review, our study Children, Friends, and Family was not devoted directly to the issue of support in children's networks. Instead, the aim was to analyze the influence of parents on their children's integration into relationships with

172

Hans Oswald, Lothar Krappmann, Hans Uhlendorff, and Karin Weiss

children of the same age. However, we included items that broadly fit categories of support (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Because of our concern with the positive effect of social experience on children's sociocognitive capacities, our questionnaires included items about features of their relationships that presumably further their development. On the basis of our earlier qualitative interview and observation studies (Oswald & Krappmann, 1988), we differentiated three qualitative dimensions of children's interactions with peers that can be interpreted as support. The first dimension refers to assistance that children receive in overcoming difficulties with peers. The behaviors assigned to this dimension contribute to the child's secure position in the fragile interaction processes among peers. A child needs friends who provide protection against others who attack his or her position in the peer world, friends who provide encouragement when something goes wrong, friends with whom interactions can be continued after conflicts, and friends who do not proliferate personal secrets confided in them. Through such supporting behaviors, children intensify their relationships and construct reciprocity on a long-term basis (Youniss, this volume). We assume that this dimension of support is more typical for good friends than for playmates (Bemdt & Perry, 1986). A second dimension refers to quarreling among children. Usually, conflicts, in contrast to support, are seen to aggravate children's interactions (Berndt & Perry, 1986). Berndt (1989, p. 314) has maintained that the supportive and the problematic aspects of relationships have to be considered simultaneously. We underline the developmental aspects of conflicts. Children learn about themselves through the opposition and contradiction they experience with other children. They become aware of the divergence of perspectives. Conflicts also test one's beliefs and intuitions and encourage reflection on one's own convictions. In this sense, conflicts support development. We assume that quarrels are less typical for best and good friends than for mere friends and playmates (Berndt & Perry, 1986). A third dimension of children's interactions refers to fan. Children fool around and enjoy "nonsense" behavior. This is sometimes annoying to adults, but it keeps friends together and is an integral part of the children's world. Fun is the glue of relationships by which tensions engendered by conflicts are diminished and efforts to support the friend are strengthened. In this sense, fun can also be seen as a kind of support. This may be true even for adults as assumed by Barrera and Ainlay (1983, p. 134) in their support classification, ". . . enjoying in social interaction for fun and relaxation." Assistance, quarreling, and fun may help children to deal with specific stressful situations. More importantly, these dimensions of support refer to general problems that children encounter when they search for permanent integration into the broader social network of peers. In their everyday interactions, children often need other children who stand by in difficulties, who present new perspectives and plans, and who compensate for annoyance

Social Relationships and Support in Middle Childhood

173

by offering diversion and fun. If children can rely on these kinds of support, they will readily make the effort to coordinate actions themselves. They will benefit developmentally from these continuous and rich peer experiences, because these experiences make the child aware of differing and sometimes conflicting perspectives, generate opportunities to negotiate differing expectations and intentions, and offer chances to experiment with solutions. Children's Relationships We expect that the support necessary for children's integration into peer interactions is given predominantly by children's friends. Although most developmental models assign a pivotal role to children's and adolescents' social relationships, astonishingly, these relationships and networks have been studied only infrequently. In fact, problems already begin with the terminology applied to these relationships, because children, in the same way as adults, call most children with whom they have frequent interactions, friends. Therefore, it is not sufficient just to ask children who their friends are, if we want to know which relationships are friendships founded on liking, trust, and support as described by Sullivan (1983), who emphasized the importance of a close "chum." Furthermore, we have to recognize that the expectations directed toward friends change during the course of development (Bigelow, 1977; Keller, 1986; Selman, 1981; Youniss & Volpe, 1978). Overall, results are mostly interpreted to show that peer relationships of younger children characterized by joint play are gradually transformed into friendships that encompass trustful exchange and sharing of sorrow and joy. Buhrmester and Furman (1986) have also maintained that the central function of children's social relationships changes across development. Another idea is presented by LaGaipa (1979), who has argued that the peer relationships of younger children do not fade away but are sustained alongside friendships and still contribute to development. Thus, diverse types of relationship coexist in middle childhood and adolescence (Krappmann, 1992a). Those sociometric procedures that are often used to assess children's peer relationships provide little insight into these relationships. Children's popularity and impact among the members of a group are obviously important aspects of children's social life that influence their development. A recent review of studies, however, has concluded that studies examining the behaviors of children belonging to different sociometric status groups remain unsatisfactory. According to Gottman (1991), "we still do not know who these children are" (p. 445). One reason for this lack of understanding may be that sociometric procedures do not address the issue of whether children actually are integrated into relationships. Recent reviews have underlined that sociometric nominations indicate popularity rather than relationships (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989).

174

Hans Oswald, Lothar Krappmann, Hans Uhlendorff, and Karin Weiss

These reviews have also emphasized that more research should focus directly on children's relationships and investigate which qualities shape these relationships. Different procedures have been applied in recent studies in order to identify "real" friendships and to distinguish various qualities of these friendships (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989; Furman, in press). Children's friendships also vary with respect to the degree to which these relationships offer assistance, quarreling, and fun. We suppose that children's participation in many and manifold relationships facilitates their participation in the rich experiences that interacting peers provide each other. Consequently, supporting friendships should be related to children's social and sociocognitive development. The impact of these experiences on development should be reflected in the progress of their reasoning about friendship. We hypothesize that each dimension of support should contribute to an advanced friendship reasoning. Also the total number of children's relationships should relate directly to the development of their concept of friendship, because the more relationships a child maintains, the more manifold opportunities for stimulating experiences are open to the child. It would be interesting to compare results obtained on the basis of an interview in which children intensively describe kinds of support offered in their relationships with results obtained on the basis of sociometric data. We assume that interview data, which make it possible to differentiate children's integration into relationships, provide a better representation of the experiences that promote children's development than sociometric measures. The Results section is organized as follows: First, we depict the children's relationship networks with regard to extent, composition, and other properties. Second, we analyze the qualities that children attribute to their relationships, and examine whether indices of assistance, quarreling, and fun are related to the assessment of relationships. Third, we analyze whether the variety of social experiences and the amount of assistance, quarreling, and fun correlate with other measures of children's social integration. Finally, we investigate which aspects of children's social integration are related most closely to the development of their friendship concept. In the last section, we also want to show that our way of analyzing children's social integration, which is based on the assessment of their actual relationships, yields results that differ from those obtained with sociometric measures.

2. Method The study was conducted in 1991 in an inner-city primary school located in the western part of Berlin. We were able to include all classrooms from Grade 2 to Grade 5 with one exception.1 Since only 24 of the 279 children attending these classes refused to participate in the study, the sample consisted of almost the entire child population of these age groups

Social Relationships and Support in Middle Childhood

175

living in the neighborhood around the school, because, in Berlin, all children in a neighborhood have to attend the same primary school. The 255 children therefore formed an almost unselected sample that could be regarded as fairly representative for city-school districts composed of families assigned to the upper-lower, lower-middle, and middle-middle class. Members of the middle-middle class were slightly overrepresented. The interview about friends (Krappmann et al., 1991) was administered to 141 boys and 114 girls. Ages ranged from 7;5 to 14;0 years. Sixty-one children were attending the 2nd, 65 the 3rd, 61 the 4th, and 68 children the 5th grade. Subjects were interviewed individually in a separate school room during lesson periods by trained interviewers using a standardized interview procedure (described below). A subsample of 112 children and their parents were additionally interviewed at home about further characteristics of their friendships and about the quality of the parent-child relationship. This subsample of children did not differ from the total sample with regard to important characteristics of the children's relationship networks. Some days before the interviews, class teachers conducted sociometric tests in all 12 classrooms. All the children in each classroom participated. There were no refusals. The test consisted of two questions about the three best-liked and the three least-liked classmates. In the interview about friends, each child was asked to nominate all children with whom he or she had contact outside school. The interviewers checked for different occasions, locations, and times to ensure a complete list of all playmates and friends. For the purpose of this paper, we included all relationships in school, neighborhood, and other locations in the analyses, even relationships experienced only at weekends and during vacations. The children were asked to describe qualitative aspects of all nominated relationships. For this paper, we used questions referring to reconciliation after conflicts, sharing of secrets, encouragement in case of sadness, protection if ridiculed by peers, fooling around, practical jokes on others, quarreling, liking, mutual visits at home, and mutual sleep overs.2 The children also ranked all nominated relationships by assigning them to the four levels "best friend," "good friend," "friend," and "playmate." Some of these aspects were used to determine the quality of relationships in a scale measuring the intensity of the relationship; the others were used to form scales on different dimensions of support. One main aim stimulating the study of relationships is the assumption that they frame behaviors (Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1987). In order to examine such effects, it is important to distinguish instruments that identify different types of relationship from instruments that measure features of behaviors within those relationships. If the researcher intends to examine, for instance, whether best friends give more support than playmates, support should not be used as a criterion for determining the quality of friendship, although many children explain that friends may be recognized by their helping behaviors. Although studies have shown that friendship expectations certainly include the expectation that

176

Hans Oswald, Lothar Krappmann, Hans Uhlendorff,

and Karin Weiss

friends help each other (Bemdt & Perry, 1986; LaGaipa, 1979), this expectation often remains unfulfilled (Berndt, 1981; Krappmann & Oswald, 1991). Such inconsistencies stimulate the effort to obtain a better understanding of how helping and other behaviors are shaped by the quality of relationships. Our data showed that children ranked some children as "best friends," although their answers on the qualitative aspects of the relationships indicated that they did not have much in common. They also ranked children with whom they reported that they had a lot in common as mere "playmates." In order to obtain a better measure of the intensity of relationships than children's rankings, we created a combined variable using the answers to the questions about ranking, liking, mutual visits, and mutual sleep overs. Thus, the scale on intensity of relationship was formed by three indicators: (a) ranking of the nominated child as "best friend," "good friend," "friend," or "playmate" by the interviewed child; (b) liking of the nominated child by the interviewed child on a 4-point scale; and (c) mutual visits and sleep overs as reported by the interviewed child in reply to four questions (alpha = .60). In contrast to Berndt (1984) and Bukowski and Hoza (1989), the reciprocity of nomination was not used to define the quality of friendship, because this would have restricted the children included in the analyses to classmates. The other questions were used to operationalize the three support dimensions described above. The assistance scale was formed by the answers to four questions: "protection against ridiculing peers," "reconciliation after conflict," "sharing secrets," and "encouragement in case of sadness" (alpha = .71). The fun scale was formed by the answers to two questions: "fooling around" and "practical jokes on others" (r = .46). The absence-of-quarrels scale was defined by the answers to the question about "quarreling." Three variables were included in the analyses from the home interview: The friendship concept (Selman, 1981) using the German adaption by Keller (short version without friendship dilemma; cf. Keller et al., 1987), the social acceptance subscale of the Harter (1983, see, also, Harter & Cornell, 1984) self-questionnaire in the German adaption of Wünsche and Schneewind (1989; alpha = .68), and the Asher et al., (1985, translated by Maria von Salisch) loneliness scale (alpha = .87). For the following analyses we used two data sets. The first data set comprised all relationships nominated and described by the 255 children (N = 2,305). This relationship data file was used to analyze characteristics of the networks and relationships. The second data set comprised the children with whom we conducted the interview about friends in school and the home interview (N =\ 16). This individual data file was used to analyze the integration of the interviewed children into the world of children of the same age, as well as the statistical relation of support dimensions, relationships, and sociometric measures to sociocognitive development.

Social Relationships and Support in Middle Childhood

177

All information from the relationship data file about the characteristics of nominated children could be aggregated to the individual data file. Thus, regarding the assistance dimension of relationship, an assistance value was computed for each nominated child by summing up the four values received for protection, reconciliation, sharing secrets, and encouragement. The sum of these assistance values for all children nominated by an interviewed child created the overall assistance index of the interviewed child. Analogically, an overall fun index, an overall quarrel index, and an overall intensity-of-relationships index were computed. An additional aggregated index was the total number of nominated relationships.

3. Results General Characteristics of Children's Social Relationships

The 255 children nominated 2,305 relationships. On average, each child nominated nine children (range: 0 - 20). Seventy-nine percent of the nominated children were of the same gender as the nominating child, 21% were of the other gender. Almost one half (49%) of the nominated children were classmates. In the classroom, 59% of the nominated classmates reciprocated nominations. Thirty-six percent of all nominated children were assigned to the category "best friend" and 29% were called "good friends." The remaining children nominated were assigned to the categories "friends" (19%) and "playmates" (15%). The average child nominated 3.3 "best friends," 2.7 "good friends," 1.7 "friends," and 1.4 "playmates." Contrary to our expectations, the children nominated more best friends than good friends, lukewarm friends, or playmates. We do not know whether one of the mentioned best friends met the criteria of a "chum" as described by Sullivan (1953). In any case, most of the children named more than three children belonging to the best friend category. As mentioned earlier, the ranking of relationships by the nominating child has some limitations. We, therefore, additionally used the composite variable intensity of relationship with scores ranging from 12 to 144. Girls nominated slightly more children than boys (M = 9.5 vs. M = 8.6, t = 1.79, p < .10). The number of best friends did not differ significantly with regard to the gender of the nominating child. Dimensions of Peer Relationships All children, even from the younger age groups, clearly differentiated relationships. With few exceptions, each friend was characterized by a different combination of descriptions by the nominating child. The combination of qualitative descriptions provided by the children were so manifold that we were not able to discover a limited number of patterns

178

Hans Oswald, Lothar Krappmann, Hans Uhlendorff, and Karin Weiss

that characterized the multifaceted social reality of children's relationships in a satisfactory way. Figure 1 shows the mean number of relationships characterized by the different aspects of support examined in our study. The majority of all nominated relationships, not just friendships, were characterized by the absence of quarrels (M = 6.8 of nominated children quarreled seldom or never) and the readiness of the partners to be reconciled after conflicts (M = 6.3). The third important quality was that the peer was willing to fool around (M = 5.8, often or sometimes). Sharing of secrets (M = 5.2), protecting if ridiculed by others (M - 4.8), cheering up in the case of sadness (M = 4.6), and performing practical jokes on others (M = 4.2, often or sometimes) were also important, but referred to fewer relationships. Therefore, these characteristics in particular contributed to a differentiation of relationships.

Mean number of peer relationships characterized by ... 10

(Multiple characterizations possible)

9,5

9.04 •

0,5

β 7,5 7-

^ill 6.82 £. 1J

::s::: *&

β,5 β 5,5 5·

VtJ^

5.77 3^

4,5 43,5 A

B

C

5.15 :-:-:·: ::s: b.·^ •::x;: .·'.·.·'.· O

:·*:·:·

:*:;:! : : :: -:-:·:-: 3;»1 ::::::::

4.21

3,22.: .·'.·'.·'. F

χ;:ΐ: '.·.·'.·.· Q

:β:ΐ: '3·98' H

. ,„ 4.59

475 *·'·'

:·::>:· 3,(0: '.·'.·'.·'.· E

Figure 1: Characterization of peer relationships. Note:

A: Total Nominations. B: Absence of quarrels.* C: Reconciliation after conflicts. D: Sharing secrets. E: Encouragement. F: Protection. G: Fooling around.** H: Practical jokes on others.** * Nominated children who quarrel "seldom" or "never." ** Nominated children who show this behavior "often" or "sometimes."

The differences between boys and girls with respect to the number of friends characterized by these qualities were small. The number of relationships in which children received protection from ridiculing peers was slightly higher for girls than for boys (M = 5.2 vs. M = 4.4, t - 2.19, p < .05). Girls reported slightly more relationships in which they could fool around often or sometimes than boys (M = 6.4 vs. M = 5.3, t = 2.30, p < .05). The differences by age were also small. The number of friends characterized by fooling around

Social Relationships and Support in Middle Childhood

179

and practical jokes increased in Grades 4 and 5 compared to Grades 2 and 3. Also two aspects of assistance, protection and encouragement, increased as a function of grade levels. All the characteristics presented in Figure 1 correlated with the intensity of relationship scale. The highest correlation coefficients were found for the assistance variables "encouragement" (r = .47), "sharing of secrets" (r = .45), "protection" (r - .38), and "reconciliation after conflicts" (r = .29). The fun variables, "fooling around" and "practical jokes on others," correlated with r = .34 and r = .23. The variable "absence of quarrels" correlated with r = .19. With respect to the last variable, it was noteworthy that only 2% of best friends were said to quarrel very often, whereas 52% of best friends were said to quarrel never. In contrast, 17% of the playmates were said to quarrel very often and only 31% were said to quarrel never.

Absence of quarrels

.50 .65 .71 .60

yi τ

.75

yz τ

.58

y3 ι

.49

y* τ

.64

Figure 2: Confirmatory factor analysis of dimensions of support. Note:

yl - Reconciliation, y2 - Trust, y3 - Encouragement, y4 - Protection, ys - Practical jokes, yt Fooling around, y7 - Absence of quarrels; goodness-of-fit index - .988; adjusted goodness-of-fit index - .973; root mean square residual - .026; Ν - 2,305.

We expected the scales assistance, fun, and absence of quarrels to be different dimensions of support in children's relationships. A confirmatory factor analysis corroborated this hypothesis (see Figure 2). The four variables "reconciliation after conflict," "sharing secrets," "encouragement," and "protection" comprised the factor Assistance. "Fooling around" and "practical jokes on others" created the Fun factor. The single variable "absence of quarrels" formed a third factor. According to the goodness-of-fit indices, the model fitted

180

Hans Oswald, Lothar Krappmann, Hans Uhlendorff,

and Karin Weiss

the data quite well. The factors Assistance and Fun were highly interrelated (r = .51), indicating that assisting friends and playmates tended to be partners for having fun and vice versa. The factors Assistance and Absence of quarrels were related on a low level (r = . 17). Fun and Absence of quarrels were not correlated. We then asked whether the assessment of support received in a relationship influenced the assessment of the intensity of this relationship. We tried to answer this question with a regression model relating the "intensity of relationship" scale to the three support scales "assistance," "fun," and "absence of quarrels." The three support scales predicted 34% of the variance in the "intensity of relationship" scale. The best predictor was "assistance" (beta = .47), whose predictive power by far exceeded the prediction achieved by "fun" (beta = .17) and "absence of quarrels" (beta = .13). This multivariate analysis confirmed the bivariate results presented above. The more intense the relationship, the more assistance and fun it offered and the less quarrelsome was the nominated child. Assistance in the form of encouragement, sharing of secrets, protection, and reconciliation after conflicts were more typical for intense relationships than fun and absence of quarrels, as indicated by the lower beta weights of the latter. Nevertheless, a unilateral causal interpretation of the model presented in Figure 3 may be precipitous, since the rewards provided in a relationship and the assessment of the closeness of this relationship were interdependent.

Beta = .47 (p < .001)

/Absence \ of quarrels

Beta - .13 (p < .001)

Figure 3: Multiple regression of intensity of relationship on assistance, fun, and absence of quarrels. Note: R2 - .34; F - 388.55, p < .001; N = 2291; * combined index: ranking, liking, mutual visits at home, and mutual sleep overs.

Social Relationships and Support in Middle Childhood

181

Correlation of Characteristics of Friendship Networks and Sociometric Popularity With Social Acceptance and Loneliness

Using the individual data set (N =116), we examined in which way the aggregated indices of support as well as number and intensity of relationships based on our "interview about friends," on the one hand, and the sociometric measures of popularity, on the other hand, were related to other aspects of the social integration of children. These other aspects of social integration of children were measured by the subscale on social acceptance in Harter's (1983) self-acceptance questionnaire and by the loneliness scale of Asher et al. (1985). Table 1: Correlations of Different Relationships And Support Indices And Sociometric Measures With Social Acceptance and Loneliness (Pearson's r)

Social acceptance* /V-108

Loneliness++ TV-108

Interview about friends Total number of nominated relationships Overall intensity if relationships index Overall assistance index Overall fun index Overall quarrel index

.28**

-.19*

.27**

-.19*

.25**

-.16*

.25**

-.16

(-11)

(-.02)

Sociometric test Positive nominations Negative nominations

.23** -.13'*1

-.22** .17*

+ Harter (1983); German adaption by Wünsche & Schneewind (1989). ++ Asher et al. (1985). (*)/>< .10. */>