پیش بینی علائم اضطراب اجتماعی در نوجوانان با واکنش پذیری به خروج آینده نگر
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|39101||2013||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Behavior Therapy, Volume 44, Issue 3, September 2013, Pages 470–478
Abstract Peer victimization leads to negative outcomes such as increased anxiety and depression. The prospective relationship between peer victimization and social anxiety in children and adolescents is well established, and adults with social anxiety disorder (SAD) are more likely than individuals with other anxiety disorders to report a history of teasing. However, a crucial bridge between these findings (peer victimization in young adults) is missing. We manipulated perceptions of peer exclusion in a young adult sample (N = 108) using the Cyberball Ostracism Task. Reactivity to exclusion prospectively predicted social anxiety symptoms at a 2-month follow-up, whereas self-reported teasing during high school and current relational victimization did not. This research suggests that reactions to peer victimization may be a worthwhile target for clinical interventions in young adults. Targeting how young adults react to stressful social interactions such as exclusion may help prevent the development of SAD. Future research should test if reactivity to exclusion plays a role in the relationship between other disorders (e.g., depression) and peer victimization.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Results Table 1 displays means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among all variables. In a single model, all Time 1 predictors were used to predict all Time 2 constructs. The initial model fit was perfect by definition because the model was saturated. However, model fit when nonsignificant paths (ps > .10) were dropped was excellent (df = 6; CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .03). As can be seen in Figure 1, reactivity to exclusion (estimate = .16, p = .008) was the only significant predictor of Time 2 social anxiety symptoms above and beyond Time 1 social anxiety symptoms. Notably, the predictive path for past teasing was near zero and the path for Time 1 relational victimization was both nonsignificant and in the opposite of the hypothesized direction. As can be seen in Table 1, relational victimization at Time 1 also did not have a significant zero-order relationship with social anxiety at Time 2. Table 1. Zero-Order Correlations Between Time 1 and Time 2 Variables With Means and Standard Deviations Time 1 Time 2 Social anxiety Past teasing Relational victimization Reactivity Social anxiety Past teasing Relational victimization Mean (SD) –.01 (1.82) 10.14 (7.28) 16.53 (4.36) .79 (1.92) –.02 (1.72) 10.56 (8.39) 16.75 (4.99) Time 1 Social anxiety .41** .12 .07 .78** .40** .17 Past teasing .31** –.11 .28** .75** .43** Relational Victimization –.06 .00 .30** .65** Reactivity .26* –.10 –.10 Time 2 Social anxiety .30** .05 Past teasing .55** Relational Victimization Social anxiety is a standardized composite of the Straightforward Social Interaction Anxiety (Time 1: M = 20.14, SD = 11.83; Time 2 M = 19.26, SD = 11.82) and Social Phobia Scale (Time 1: M = 15.87, SD = 10.87; Time 2, M = 14.47, SD = 10.87). ** p < .01, * p < .05. Table options A model of past teasing, current relational victimization, reactivity to ... Figure 1. A model of past teasing, current relational victimization, reactivity to exclusion, and social anxiety symptoms over time. Reactivity is anxiety experienced during the exclusion task simulated by the Cyberball computer task. Social anxiety symptoms is a composite of the Straightforward Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and Social Phobia Scale. Past teasing is measured by the Teasing Questionnaire. Current relational victimization is measured by the Revised Peer Experiences Questionnaire. Solid lines indicate significant paths. Dashed, gray lines indicate nonsignificant paths. Figure options Additional predictive paths were found for other constructs, however. Time 1 past teasing significantly predicted Time 2 relational victimization (estimate = .26, p < .001). Time 1 past teasing was the only significant predictor of Time 2 past teasing, although social anxiety symptoms at Time 1 approached significance (estimate = .14, p = .069). That is, social anxiety at Time 1 showed a trend to prospectively and positively predict increases in self-report of past teasing (during high school) at Time 2. Gender invariance We also tested if the model was invariant across gender by specifying a multiple group model. A model that was unconstrained across gender did not fit significantly better than a model that constrained all paths across gender, χ2(12, n = 95) = 16.50, p = .182, suggesting that paths could be constrained across gender. Post hoc power analysis We conducted a power analysis to test our achieved power for the medium-sized effect (part r = .27) found by Storch et al. (2005), who reported that relational victimization prospectively predicted social anxiety in adolescents. We had reasonable power (power = .80) to detect this effect.