Ciarrochi, J., Morin, A. J, Sahdra, B. & Parker, PD. (2017). A longitudinal person-centered perspective on youth social support: relations with psychological wellbeing [accepted manuscript]. Developmental Psychology,53(6), E.F. Dubrow. 1154-1169. United States: American Psychological Association Inc.. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000315
In the article, the approach utilized (and illustrated in the authors’ online supplements) for tests of distributional similarity conducted in the context of Latent Transition Analyses (LTA) is suboptimal, and has been recently optimized in a webnote prepared by Morin and Litalien (2017). This webnote should be consulted by anyone thinking to rely on similar methodologies in the LTA context. Importantly, distributional similarity was not supported in Ciarrochi et al. (2017) using either the initial or optimized method, so that the application of the optimized method results in no change in the reported results. As part of this correction, the online supplemental materials have been updated to direct readers to the webnote. The reference for the Morin and Litalien (2017) webnote is included in the erratum.] Past research suggests that perceived social support from parents, teachers, and peers are all positively associated with wellbeing during adolescence. However, little longitudinal research has examined the implications of distinctive combinations of social support for developing adolescents. To address this limitation, we measured multiple dimensions of social support, psychological ill-health, and wellbeing in a sample of 2034 Australian adolescents (Mage = 13.7; 49.6% male) measured in Grades 8 and 11. Latent transition analyses identified a 6-profile solution for both waves of data, and revealed substantial inequality in perceived social support. Two “socially rich” profiles corresponded to 7% of the sample and had high social support ( > 1SD above sample mean) from at least two sources. (Fully Integrated; Parent and Peer Supported). In contrast, 25% of the sample was “socially poor,” having support that was between −.65 to −.86 SD below the sample mean for all 3 sources (Isolated profile). None of the other profiles (Peer Supported; Moderately Supported; Weakly Supported) had levels of support below −.37 SD from any source. Furthermore, almost all wellbeing problems were concentrated in the Isolated Profile, with negative effects more pronounced in Grade 11 than Grade 8. Despite feeling low parent and teacher support, adolescents in the Peer Supported profile felt strong peer support and average to above-average levels of wellbeing in Grades 8 and 11. However, they also had an 81% chance of making a negative transition to either the Isolated or Weakly Supported profiles in Grade 11.
Institute for Positive Psychology and Education
Open Access Journal Article