psy 430 research paper (final)

Running head: SOCIAL SUPPORT AND ADOLESCENT STRESS !1

!!!!!!!

The Role of Family and Peer Social Support in Reported Adolescent Stress

Tabitha Smith

Western Washington University

!!!!!!!!!!

!

SOCIAL SUPPORT AND ADOLESCENT STRESS !2

The Role of Family and Peer Social Support in Reported Adolescent Stress

Stress. We all have experience with it. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Stress can help

us to focus and complete projects on time, help us to make the game winning basket, or help us

to survive in a life threatening situation. Experiencing stress can also be a bad thing, like being

excluded by a peer group, panicking over a test, or fighting with those closest to us. Stress is

defined as an individual appraising an event as a threat to the psychological or physiological self

(McEwen, 2000). When we experience a stressor, our body copes by producing specific

biological markers such as cortisol. These biological markers are protective in the short term but

damaging to our biological processes in the long term (McEwen, 2000). If a stressor happens

repeatedly, such as daily exclusion from a peer group, it is called chronic stress. One does not

have to experience the same stressor on a regular basis to have chronic stress, just repeated

activation of the stress response.

Chronic stress can have serious health implications, such as greater risk of cardiovascular

disease and lower immune functioning (Black & Garbutt, 2002). The effects of stress can have

an additive effect on a person, a principal called allostatic load. Allostatic load is the

physiological burden imposed by repeated stress activation (Geronimus, Hicken, Keene, &

Bound, 2006). This physiological burden has been shown to accelerate the disease process and

increase disease risk (e.g. cardiovascular disease). Early childhood experiences with multiple risk

factors, such as abuse, neglect, low socioeconomic status, contributes to allostatic load

(McEwen, 2000). However, the level of social support a person receives moderates the effects of

stress activation on health outcomes. A high level of social support equates with better health

outcomes, while a low level of social support is linked to higher mortality and lower immune


functioning (Uchino, 2006). We will first discuss how risk factors in adolescence lead to greater

stress, then briefly discuss stress activation pathways, followed by discussing the role social

support from families and friends can play in moderating the effect of stress for adolescents.

“Development is a person-context interaction (Jessor, 1993, p. 119),” suggesting that how an

adolescent develops depends not only on their genetics, but also on the interactions that person

has with her environment (e.g. family, school, peers). Social environment and family risk factors

are related with adolescent risk behaviors and health compromising outcomes. Family, school,

and neighborhood are the three most important life contexts that affect an adolescent. These

contexts have the most influence on an adolescent’s development. These three settings also affect

each other and are influenced by a larger social-structural and cultural environment (e.g.

economic, political). These contexts influence the adolescent over time, with time also

interacting with the above contexts. These contexts influence adolescent development both

directly (i.e. family, school, neighborhood) as well as indirectly (e.g. economic, political)

(Bronfenbrenner, 1986 ; Jessor, 1993).

An adolescent may experience risk associated within one or more of these contexts, for

example being of low socioeconomic status (SES). Low-SES influences all three of the

important life contexts (family, school, neighborhood) the adolescent is in, this influence has the

possibility of increasing the risk factors an adolescent experiences (Miller & Chen, 2013).

Looking at the family context, low-SES can include exposure to unstable family dynamics,

caregivers who are unresponsive to an adolescents needs, lack of parental monitoring, household

crowding, or inadequate nutrition (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Evans, 2004; Repetti, Taylor, &

Seeman, 2002). Looking at the neighborhood context, low-SES can include exposure to


infectious microorganisms, industrial pollutants, or limited community resources (Fergus &

Zimmerman, 2005; Evans, 2004). These risk factors lead to a number of negative outcomes, such

as poor academic achievement, violent behavior, and a number of adult health problems (e.g.

cardiovascular disease) (Arnold & Doctorff, 2003). Low parental SES is known to increase child

cortisol levels and chronic stress. Chronic stress experienced by children damage the biological

and psychological regulatory processes (Evans & Kim, 2013). Low-SES children are exposed to

many more multiple stressors than their more economically advantaged peers. There are few

low-SES children who are exposed to only one or fewer stressors (Evans & English, 2002).

For stress experiences to increase health and behavior problems in adolescence, exposure

to multiple risk factors is what matters most. The cumulative risk research shows that co-

occurring risk factors have a deleterious effect on health and behavior outcomes (Appleyard,

Egeland, van Dulmen, & Sroufe, 2005; Sameroff, Seifer, Zax, & Barocas, 1987). The cumulative

risk hypothesis asserts that with increased risk factors come increased clinical problems

(Sameroff, 2000). The number of risk factors experienced is associated with adolescent mental

health, problem behaviors, and academic problems (Yates, Dodds, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2003).

Additionally, it is now clear that life course experiences contribute to a number of common

medical problems (e.g. heart disease, stroke; Miller & Chen, 2013). Several other risk factors

associated with adolescent mental health, problem behavior, and academic problems are:

unskilled parental occupation status, low maternal education status, disadvantaged minority

status, single parenthood, and stressful life events (Sameroff, 2000). However, socially

supportive relationships have positive effects on the health outcomes and the mortality rates

(Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Heinrichs, Baumgartner, Kirschbaum, & Ehlert, 2003).


I will briefly discuss what systems are activated from a stress response, for a detailed review of

this process see other reviews (Gunnar & Quevedo, 2007; Ulrich-Lai & Herman, 2009). When

we appraise a situation as threatening, a stress response is activated within our body. The two

interrelated but distinct systems activated by appraising a situation as threatening are the

sympathetic nervous symptom (SNS) and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenalcortical (HPA) axis

(Gunnar & Quevedo, 2007). The SNS is responsible for releasing catecholamines such as

epinephrine (adrenaline), from the adrenal gland into the body. Epinephrine is a hormone

responsible for the fight or flight response. It is responsible for increasing the heart rate and

blood pressure, thus ensuring the body has enough oxygenated blood to send to the muscles so

we can run away or stay and fight. The HPA axis is responsible for producing glucocorticoids,

such as cortisol. Cortisol helps to mobilize the energy resources needed within the body during

stressful situations (McEwen, 1998). Glucocorticoids take about 25 minutes to be proceed to

peak levels within the body. Thus, the effects are slower to develop and last longer than the

hormones released by the SNS (Gunnar & Quevedo, 2007).

The actions of the SNS results in the activation of the HPA axis. The eventual aim of the

HPA axis is the activation of the peripheral nervous system (PNS), which is responsible for

turning off the stress response cascade initiated by the SNS and HPA systems. Usually, the

activation of these stress systems help to keep the body in allostasis (McEwen & Seeman, 1999).

However, frequent activation dysregulates these systems which inhibits the ability to turn off the

stress cascade. As such, the physiological systems impacted stay elevated, with cortisol not being

able to decrease or having habitually raised blood pressure and heart rate (Gunnar & Quevedo,

2007). When cortisol levels are elevated the immune system is suppressed, leading to greater


vulnerability to illness (Ader, 2001). This system dysregulation increases the risk of both

physical and mental health problems (McEwen & Seeman, 1999). However, social support

reduces the effect physiological stress reactivity has on the body (Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-

Glaser, 1996).

Social support may moderate stress reactivity at two points during the appraisal of a

stressful event. Social support may alter the appraisal itself, preventing a threatening event from

being perceived as stressful, which prevents the stress response activation. Alternatively, social

support may alter the period after appraisal, but before a prolonged physiological stress response

is activated. Perceived social support may help people to have better regulation or coping skills

for a stressful experience which reduces the physiological stress response (Cohen & Wills,

1985).

Social support attenuates the relationship between risk factors and the physiological

stress response activated by appraising an event as threatening (Eisenberger, Taylor, Gable,

Hillmert, & Lieberman, 2007; Heinrichs, Baumgartner, Kirschbaum, Ehlert, 2003; Uchino,

2006). In a laboratory study, participants completed the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) to induce

the stress response. The TSST consists of verbal mental arithmetic and public speaking

performed in front of a crowd. To test if social support does lower the stress response, half of the

participants were told to bring a friend. This friend was with them during their preparation for the

TSST tasks. Participants with a friend present experienced lower levels of cortisol activation

during the TSST tasks (Heinrichs, Baumgartner, Kirschbaum, Ehlert, 2003).

However, less social support increases an individual’s negative health risks, such as

earlier mortality rates, increased cardiovascular disease (Brummet et al., 2001), and depression


(Sipal & Sayin, 2013). Social support is defined as social relationship processes that have the

ability to promote health and well-being (Cohen, Gottlieb, & Underwood, 2000) and refers to the

psychological and material resources received from belonging to a social group that can help an

individual to cope with stress (Cohen, 2000). Social support can come from a variety of sources,

including a partner, friends, or family. Social support may include distinct transactions where a

person receives benefits from someone else, or a person may feel they have access to help or

support from someone (Taylor, 2007). Social support is thought to buffer the effects of stress by

reducing the effects from a stressful experience through promoting the appropriate coping

mechanisms and reappraising the event as less threatening (Cohen, 2004).

During adolescence social support groups change, giving adolescents the ability to

receive support from multiple groups. More time is spent with friends in addition to a

considerable drop in the amount of time spent with parents. However, family influence over an

adolescent is still high, but the amount of influence changes depending on the cohesiveness of

the family and the closeness of friends (Steinberg & Morris, 2001). In a less cohesive family, the

influence a family has on an adolescent is low. For an adolescent with no close friends, family

influence is high (Gauze, Bukowski, Aquan-Assee, & Sippola, 1996). These different influences

can effect perceived support. We will be looking at the effect both family and friend social

support has on perceived stress experiences for adolescents.

There seem to be gender differences in the effect social support plays in moderating the

relationship between risk factors and stress (Rueger, Malecki, & Demaray, 2010). While both

boys and girls report similar levels of family social support (Rueger, Malecki, & Demaray,

2010), girls report higher levels of peer social support than boys (Cheng & Chan, 2004; Furman


& Buhrmester, 1992). Girls also report receiving more social support from peers than from their

parents, while boys report more social support from their parents (Frey & Röthlisberger, 1996).

High levels of family social support have been consistently associated with lower depression,

higher self-esteem, and better academic adjustment. In contrast, low levels of family social

support is associated with psychological distress and emotional problems (Rueger, Malecki, &

Demaray, 2010). There is evidence for both low levels of family social support not being

compensated by high levels of peer support (van Beest & Baerveldt, 1999), and evidence that

high peer social support can compensate for of family social support (Barrera & Garrison-Jones,

1992).

Family social support as perceived by an adolescent is expected to moderate the link

between risk factors and experienced stress (Barrera & Garrison-Jones, 1992). In a study using

an inpatient population of depressed adolescents, adolescents who perceived more social support

from families had fewer depressive symptoms than adolescents who perceived low levels of

social support from their families (Barrera & Garrison-Jones, 1992). Low friend social support

can increase an adolescent’s stress response when being excluded by their peers, while

perceiving high friend social support can decrease the stress response when excluded by peers

(Rigby, 2000; Peters, Riksen-Walraven, Cillessen, & de Weerth, 2011). In an inpatient population

of depressed adolescents, those who perceived high friend social support experienced fewer

depressive symptoms, but only when perceived family social support was low (Barrera &

Garrison-Jones, 1992).

We designed the following hypothesis to determine if the number of risk factors moderate

type of support (peer vs family) effect on stress. Overall, adolescents with more risk factors will


report higher levels of stress. Adolescents with more social support will report lower levels of

stress. This relationship is expected to be present for both family and peer social support. The

effect of family vs friend support on stress is expected to vary depending on the amount of risk

the adolescent experiences. For adolescents with more risk factors, family social support will

result in lower levels of reported stress. Low levels of family social support will result in higher

levels of reported stress. Adolescents with more risk factors and high levels of peer social

support will report lower levels of stress, while low peer social support will result in higher

reported levels of stress.

Method

Participants

This sample consisted of 276 parents and adolescents. The number of participants varied

slightly, ranging from 244 to 276, depending on the analysis that was examined. We used all data

available for each analysis. The primary responder (parent) in each sample was predominately

white (85.5%), 7.2% black, 2.9% Hispanic, and the remaining identified as multi-racial or Asian

Pacific Islander, with 1.4% not specifying. Most target parents were in monogamous

relationships (80.5%), 15.8% were divorced or separated, 3.7% were never married. Adolescents

were 53.9% female and 45.4% male, with .7% not indicating sex. The average age of the

adolescents was 15.4 years (1.59). Most participants were middle-upper class in socioeconomic

status, with 20.4% indicating that they earned more than $100,000 per year. This sample was

taken from a larger sample of five hundred families, who were recruited from seven different

sites throughout the U.S., located in the Midwest, Southeast, Northeast, and West Coast.

Measures


Stress. Adolescent’s reports of stress were obtained from the experience sampling portion of this

study. For each experience sampling reading, adolescents responded to the question: As you were

beeped were you feeling… “nervous”, “strained”, or “stressed”. Adolescents chose a response on

a scale of zero (not at all) to three (very much). Responses to these three items were positively

associated, Cronbach’s alpha = .793. A mean was taken for each of the three measures as they

were reported for each experience sampling moment. Next, all of the momentary stress scores for

a particular individual were combined to form an average level of stress for each person. This

score summarizes the adolescents’ average level of stress as it was reported over the course of

the experience sampling portion of the study. This stress measure ranged from zero to 2.06, M = .

50, SD = .39. The distribution was positively skewed suggesting that adolescents reported very

little stress overall.

Social Support. Peer support was measured through teen responses to 5-items. Teens responded

to questions such as “my friends care about how I am” and “I can count on my friends” using

response options from 1 (never true) to 5 (always true). The peer social support measure was

reliable with a cronbachs alpha = .82 (m = 4.00, sd = 0.74). Responses ranged from 1 through 5,

and the overall distribution was negatively skewed. Six items were used to capture social support

from mothers while six items captured social support from fathers. These 12 items were

combined to form a single measure of social support from parents. If measures of support were

only available from one parent, that parent’s supportive information was used. Questions

included “I can depend on my [mother/father] for help with problems” and “My mom/dad helps

me talk about feelings”. Response options ranged from 1 (never true) to 5 (always true), with

higher values indicating more family support. The measure of parent support was reliable


(cronbachs alpha = .86, m = 3.11, sd = .69). Responses were normally distributed with a low

score of 1.25 and a high score of 5.

Cumulative Risk. The measure of cumulative risk used in this study was formed by combining 13

dichotomous indicators of risk. For each of the 13 factors, a score of one was used to indicate

high risk and a score of zero was used to indicate low risk. When two family members both

reported on risk items, the average of both reports was used to indicate the level of household

risk. Mothers and fathers level of education were used as separate indicators of risk. Those who

had high school education or less were coded as high risk for the purposes of this study. Total

household income in the last year was counted as a risk factor if a household earned less than

$20,000 in the previous year. A fourth risk factor indicated that someone in the family was

unemployed and in need of work. One risk factor was given to those who were employed in

temporary or seasonal work and single parent families were given a score of one. Parent age at

the time of the birth of the oldest child was used to calculate a dichotomous risk factor that was

given a score of one if a parent was under age 22 at the time of the birth of the first child. Young

mothers and fathers both counted as separate risk factors.

The 500 Families Study used standardized metrics of job prestige and of SES. Prestige

scores were coded according to Nakao and Treas (1994), while SES were coded according to

Duncan SEI scores. Level of risk for prestige and SEI score were determined, for this study, by

choosing the lowest quintile of the scores in this sample, consistent with previous research

(Sameroff, 2005). Mothers’ and fathers’ job prestige and SEI were considered separately,

yielding four additional employment risk factors. For father’s prestige score a score of one was

given to all men with a prestige score of lower than 34, while the cutoff from mother’s was 32.


SEI scores were cut off at a score of 380 or lower indicating risk for men, and a score of 374 or

lower indicating risk for women. The final risk factor was formed from a measure of the number

of months the primary respondent had been employed in their current position. Those who had

been employed for less than one year were assigned one risk factor. The sum of all 13 risk factors

was taken to form a measure of cumulative risk. The cumulative risk variable was exceptionally

skewed, M = 1.24, SD = 1.24. The variable ranged from zero to a maximum of seven and well

over half of the sample had a score of one or less on cumulative risk.

Procedure

This data was collected between 1999-2000. Researchers met individually within each

family’s home. The adolescents in this study took part in an experience-sampling project (ESM)

for seven consecutive days. Thus, each participant was signaled a total of 56 times. Adolescents

wore wristwatches that signaled them randomly eight times per day between 7:30 AM and 10:30

PM. At the time they were signaled, adolescents reported their current activities and emotions,

including level of stress and perceptions of control. Participants, on average, provided 30.06 (SD

=15.05) ESM reports.

Results

There was a negative bivariate association between stress and risk, indicating that those

families with relatively more risk reported less stress overall (r = -.144, p = .017) however, there

were no associations between level of risk and adolescents report of either parental or peer

support, r = -.08, p = .201, r = -.00, p = .950, respectively. In addition, neither adolescent reports

of support received from parents nor support received from peers was associated with their


reports of stress, r = -.01, p = .87, r = -.04, p = .51, respectively. Adolescents who reported more

support from their peers also tended to report more support from parents (r = .18, p = .006).

Two multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the role of peer support and

parent support as they interact with multiple risk in predicting adolescent stress. The first

analysis examined adolescent reports of parent support and cumulative risk status as well as the

interaction between those two factors in predicting stress. No unique effect of risk was found on

stress, no unique effect of parent support was found on stress, and there was no evidence of an

interaction between cumulative risk and parent support in predicting teen stress. The second

analysis tested the role of peer support in cumulative risk in predicting stress. For this analysis,

there was a statistically significant effect of cumulative risk on stress, suggesting that those with

higher levels of risk reported less stress. However, there was no effect of peer support on stress,

nor any interaction between cumulative risk and peer support.

Discussion

Our results indicate that none of our hypotheses were supported by the data. Overall, teen

reports of both peer support and parent support did not predict stress. We also did not find an

interaction in either the peer or family support models, thus the association between risk and

stress did not differ for people high or low in either peer or parent support. However, we did find

that parent support was positively related to peer support, meaning that more parental support

was related to more peer support. We also had a main effect of multiple risk on stress in the peer

support model. This suggests that adolescents with higher levels of risk reported less stress.

Overall, our adolescent population reported very low levels of stress, lending credence to those

researchers who are going away from the storm-and-stress model of adolescence.


The storm-and-stress model of adolescence is the idea that adolescence is the period of

life that is the most difficult to go through for both the adolescent and others around them

(Buchanen et al., 1990). However, current psychologists have rejected the notion that the storm-

and-stress model is actually universal and inevitable (Arnett, 1999). The storm-and-stress model

has less relevance with an upper middle class population as they are not subjected to the same

level of stressors as adolescents who belong to a lower socioeconomic status (Elkin & Westley,

1955). Additionally, adolescents who belong to a high SES group experience significantly lower

levels of negative life change overall than their low SES counterparts (Gad & Johnson, 1980).

Our results are in line with stress experiences in upper middle class adolescents. Since upper

middle class adolescents experience low levels of stress on average, our results make sense. We

wouldn’t expect to find an adolescent population like ours to experience high levels of stress or

even moderate levels of stress or risk factors (Evens & English, 2002). It also makes sense that

peer or family social support would not be found to influence stress levels in a population with

near non-existent stress levels.

Exposure to stress during adolescence is a large factor in determining vulnerability to

later psychopathologies (Grant et al., 2003). Due to the negative health risks associated with

stress, it is reassuring that there are populations of adolescents who are basically unstressed. As

our population was predominantly upper middle class, it would be beneficial to look into why

this population experiences low stress and low risk as compared to other socioeconomic groups.

While it is possible that the deciding factor for stress and risk levels is lower socioeconomic

status, it is also likely that other factors (e.g. low maternal nurturing, minimal access to

healthcare) are contributing to increased stress and risk experiences in other socioeconomic


levels. If high maternal nurturing or increased access to healthcare is contributing to lower stress

and risk experiences for upper middle class adolescents, than increasing maternal nurturing and

healthcare access for other socioeconomic groups could potentially lower stress and risk

experiences for those adolescents.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


References

!Ader, R. (2001). Psychoneuroimmunology. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 10,

94-98. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00124

Appleyard, K., Egeland, B., van Dulmen, M. M., & Sroufe, L. (2005). When more is not better:

The role of cumulative risk in child behavior outcomes. Journal Of Child Psychology

And Psychiatry, 46, 235-245. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00351.x

Arnett, J. (1999). Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychologist, 54,

317-326. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.5.317

Arnold, D. H., & Doctoroff, G. L. (2003). The early education of socioeconomically

disadvantaged children. Annual Review Of Psychology, 54, 517-545. doi:10.1146/

annurev.psych.54.111301.145442

Barrera, M., & Garrison-Jones, C. (1992). Family and peer social support as specific correlates

of adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal Of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20, 1-16.

doi:10.1007/BF00927113

Black, P. H., & Garbutt, L. D. (2002). Stress, inflammation and cardiovascular disease. Journal

Of Psychosomatic Research, 52, 1-23. doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(01)00302-6

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research

perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742

Brummett, B. H., Barefoot, J. C., Siegler, I. C., Clapp-Channing, N. E., Lytle, B. L., Bosworth,

H. B., & ... Mark, D. B. (2001). Characteristics of socially isolated patients with coronary

artery disease who are at elevated risk for mortality. Psychosomatic Medicine, 63,

267-272.


Buchanan, C., Eccles, J., Flanagan, C., Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Harold, R. (1990). Parents'

and teachers' beliefs about adolescents: Effects of sex and experience. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 19, 363-394. doi:10.1007/BF01537078

Cheng, S., & Chan, A. M. (2004). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support:

dimensionality and age and gender differences in adolescents. Personality & Individual

Differences, 37, 1359-1369. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.01.006

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.

Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310

Cohen, S., Gottlieb, B. H., & Underwood, L. G. (2000). Social relationships and health. In S.

Cohen, L. G. Underwood, B. H. Gottlieb (Eds.) , Social support measurement and

intervention: A guide for health and social scientists (pp. 3-25). New York, NY US:

Oxford University Press.

Cohen, S. (2004). Social Relationships and Health. American Psychologist, 59, 676-684. doi:

10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.676

Elkin, F., & Westley, W. A. (1955). The myth of adolescent culture. American

Sociological Review, 20, 680-684.

Eisenberger, N., Taylor, S., Gable, S., Hilmert, C., & Lieberman, M. (2007). Neural pathways

link social support to attenuated neuroendocrine stress responses. Neuroimage, 35,

1601-1612. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.01.038

Evans, G. W., & English, K. (2002). The environment of poverty: Multiple stressor exposure,

psychophysiological stress, and socioemotional adjustment. Child Development, 73,

1238-1248


Evans, G. W. (2004). The Environment of Childhood Poverty. American Psychologist, 59,

77-92. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.77

Evens, G. W, & Kim, P. (2013). Childhood poverty, chronic stress, self-regulation, and coping.

Child Development Perspectives, 7, 43-48. doi:101111/cdep.12013

Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding

healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review Of Public Health, 26, 399-419.

doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144357

Frey, C. U., & Röthlisberger, C. (1996). Social support in healthy adolescents. Journal Of Youth

And Adolescence, 25, 17-31. doi:10.1007/BF01537378

Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and Sex Differences in Perceptions of Networks of

Personal Relationships. Child Development, 63, 103-15.

Gad, M., & Johnson, J. H. (1980). Correlates of adolescent life stress as related to race, SES,

and levels of perceived social support. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 9, 13.

Gauze, C., Bukowski, W. M., Aquan-Assee, J., & Sippola, L. K. (1996). Interactions between

family environment and friendship and associations with self-perceived well-being

during adolescence. Child Development, 67, 2201-2216. doi:10.2307/1131618

Geronimus, A. T., Hicken, M., Keene, D., & Bound, J. (2006). 'Weathering' and Age Patterns of

Allostatic Load Scores Among Blacks and Whites in the United States. American Journal

Of Public Health, 96, 826-833. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.060749

Grant, K. E., Compas, B. E., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Thurm, A. E., McMahon, S. D., & Halpert, J. A.

(2003). Stressors and child and adolescent psychopathology: Moving from markers to

mechanisms of risk. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 447-466. doi:


10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.447

Gunnar, M., & Quevedo, K. (2007). The Neurobiology of Stress and Development. Annual

Review Of Psychology, 58, 145-173. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085605

Heinrichs, M., Baumgartner, T., Kirschbaum, C., & Ehlert, U. (2003). Social support and

oxytocin interact to suppress cortisol and subjective responses to psychosocial stress.

Biological Psychiatry, 54, 1389-1398. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(03)00465-7

Jessor, R. (1993). Successful adolescent development among youth in high-risk settings.

American Psychologist, 48, 117-126. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.117

McEwen, B. S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic load. In S. M.

McCann, J. M. Lipton, E. M. Sternberg, G. P. Chrousos, P. W. Gold, C. C. Smith (Eds.) ,

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 840: Neuroimmunomodulation:

Molecular aspects, integrative systems, and clinical advances (pp. 33-44). New York, NY

US: New York Academy of Sciences.

McEwen, B. S., & Seeman, T. (1999). Protective and damaging effects of mediators of stress:

Elaborating and testing the concepts of allostasis and allostatic load. In N. E. Adler, M.

Marmot, B. S. McEwen, J. Stewart (Eds.) , Socioeconomic status and health in industrial

nations: Social, psychological, and biological pathways (pp. 30-47). New York, NY US:

New York Academy of Sciences.

McEwen, B. S. (2000). Allostasis and allostatic load: Implications for

neuropsychopharmacology. Neuropsychopharmacology, 22, 108-124. doi:10.1016/

S0893-133X(99)00129-3

Miller, G. E., & Chen, E. (2013). The biological residue of childhood poverty. Child


Development Perspectives, 7, 67-73. doi:10.1111/cdep.12021

Peters, E., Riksen-Walraven, J., Cillessen, A. N., & de Weerth, C. (2011). Peer rejection and

HPA activity in middle childhood: Friendship makes a difference. Child Development, 82,

1906-1920. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01647.x

Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families: Family social environments

and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 330-366.

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.2.330

Rigby, K. (2000). Effects of peer victimization in schools and perceived social support on

adolescent well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 57-68. doi:10.1006/jado.1999.0289

Rueger, S., Malecki, C., & Demaray, M. (2010). Relationship between Multiple Sources of

Perceived Social Support and Psychological and Academic Adjustment in Early

Adolescence: Comparisons across Gender. Journal Of Youth And Adolescence, 39, 47-61.

doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9368-6

Sameroff, A., Seifer, R., Zax, M., & Barocas, R. (1987). Early Indicators of Developmental Risk:

Rochester Longitudinal Study. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 13, 383-394.

Sameroff, A. J. (2000). Dialectical processes in developmental psychopathology. In A. J.

Sameroff, M. Lewis, S. M. Miller (Eds.) , Handbook of developmental psychopathology

(2nd ed.) (pp. 23-40). Dordrecht Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:

10.1007/978-1-4615-4163-9_2

Sipal, R., & Sayin, U. (2013). Impact of perceived social support and depression on the parental

attitudes of mothers of children who are deaf. Journal Of Child And Family Studies, 22,

1103-1111. doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9672-3


Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review Of Psychology, 52,

83-110. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.83

Taylor, S. E. (2007). Social Support. In H. S. Friedman, R. Silver (Eds.), Foundations of health

psychology (pp. 145-171). New York, NY US: Oxford University Press.

Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1996). The relationship between social

support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms

and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 488-531. doi:

10.1037/0033-2909.119.3.488

Uchino, B. N. (2006). Social Support and Health: A Review of Physiological Processes

Potentially Underlying Links to Disease Outcomes. Journal Of Behavioral Medicine,

29, 377-387. doi:10.1007/s10865-006-9056-5

Ulrich-Lai, Y. M., & Herman, J. P. (2009). Neural regulation of endocrine and autonomic stress

responses. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10, 397-409. doi:10.1038/nrn2647

van Beest, M., & Baerveldt, C. (1999). The Relationship Between Adolescents' Social Support

From Parents and From Peers. Adolescence, 34, 193-201

Yates, T. M., Dodds, M. F., Sroufe, L., & Egeland, B. (2003). Exposure to partner violence and

child behavior problems: A prospective study controlling for child physical abuse and

neglect, child cognitive ability, socioeconomic status, and life stress. Development And

Psychopathology, 15, 199-218. doi:10.1017/S0954579403000117

!

psy 430 research paper (final)

Documents

Transcript of psy 430 research paper (final)