Adolescent Social Emotional Development PDF

Chapter 5: Adolescent Social Emotional Development Learning Objectives: Social Emotional Development 1. Define and describe the attachment system during adolescence. 2. Describe the importance of positive adolescent-parental relationships. 3. Describe high quality adolesc...

Chapter 5: Adolescent Social Emotional Development Learning Objectives: Social Emotional Development 1. Define and describe the attachment system during adolescence. 2. Describe the importance of positive adolescent-parental relationships. 3. Describe high quality adolescent friendship. 4. Describe the caregiving system during adolescence including empathy and prosocial behavior. 5. Discuss trends and outcomes of adolescent parenting. 6. Describe the dominance system during adolescence. 7. Describe the structure of the adolescent peer environment. 8. Discuss adolescent gang involvement and antisocial behavior. Changes in the Attachment System During Adolescence We previously discussed middle childhood as the time when children continue to rely on parents for support and security while they also develop peer friendships. This pattern continues during adolescence, and the importance of peers steadily increases over the teen years. The attachment styles (secure, anxious/preoccupied, avoidant) first identified in infancy are also identified in adolescent relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. According to attachment theory, secure attachment begins with sensitive and responsive care during infancy and results in individuals having schemas (working models) of themselves as lovable and worthy of love and of others as being trustworthy. The construct and the assessment of attachment is NOT the same in infancy, early childhood, middle childhood, and adolescence/adulthood. Although the construct of attachment and its measurement change in important ways over the lifespan, there is also continuity in how we think about attachment. Irrespective of age, attachment styles reflect the degree to which individuals use others to regulate emotions. Others are a safe-haven from negative emotions and a secure base from which to have positive emotions. We call that safe-haven and secure base behavior. Attachment styles also reflect how much individuals value closeness. These two properties of the attachment system are referred to as attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. Individuals who are anxious about the availability of others to meet their needs are said to have an anxious or preoccupied attachment style. Individuals who do not value intimacy or do not look to others to help with emotion regulation are said to have an avoidant attachment style. The gold standard of assessment of attachment in infancy, The Strange Situation, assesses attachment behaviors in a laboratory setting. The assessment measures 54 caregiver assisted emotion regulation which clearly links to the sensitivity and responsiveness of the caregiver. In early childhood, measures of attachment assess “goal directed partnership” or how well caregivers and children work together. As children get older, they clearly have scripts or internal working models of attachment that psychologists can assess through interviews and self-report. In adolescence and adulthood, interview measures of assessment assess internal working models and they also assess coherence or how logically a person can discuss their attachment relationships (Table 5-1). Aspect Definition Example criteria Quantity Give a complete 1. Provides sufficient context for the description without interviewer to be able to understand the being too wordy answers. 2. Is not reluctant to speak. Quality Be truthful and provide 1. Cooperative, keeps the interviewer evidence informed about their reasoning. 2. Provides adequate examples. 3. Reasonable evaluation of effects of experiences on self 4. Metacognitive monitoring, reflects on the processes of thinking and recall that take place during the interview. For example ‘...Oh dear, that’s completely contradictory to what I just said.’ Relevance Stay on topic 1. Often forgets the question that started the response. 2. Answers as if they did not hear the question. Manner Be clear, brief, and 1. Does not try to convince the orderly interviewer. 2. Does not use long sentences containing several different messages. 3. Does not trail off, finishes sentences. Table 5-1. Coherence as defined by Grice’s Maxims (Beijersbergen et al., 2006). Behavioral systems organize behavior and how individuals interpret social information. The systems then determine what individuals do in all relationships and so the systems 55 function like personality traits. Attachment related thoughts, feelings and behaviors are also specific to each relationship an individual has. An individual who is surrounded by abusive, untrustworthy peers and/or family members would not be expected to demonstrate a secure attachment style regardless of their early care! It is not surprising then that attachment assessed in infancy shows low continuity with that assessed in late mid to adolescence (Booth- LaForce et al., 2014; Fraley, 2002; Groh et al., 2014). Whereas genetic influences on observed attachment behavior are small in infancy; genetic influences become important to attachment in adolescence and adulthood (Fearon et al., 2014). Remember that genes influence many traits important to the measurement of attachment including self-regulation, empathy, reward responsiveness, and prosocial orientation. We now turn to a discussion of how attachment relationships with parents, siblings, and peers impact adolescent adjustment. Attachment to Parents The goal of this section is to discuss the role of parents in 1) promoting positive development given the developmental tasks of adolescence; 2) buffering adolescents from stress and the development of internalizing and externalizing disorders; and 3) assisting adolescents in recovery from mental health issues. Many studies show that parental support and attachment security with respect to parents predict positive adolescent development including identity, peer relationships, academic success, and overall wellbeing (Buist et al., 2004; Helsen et al., 2000; Williams & Kelly, 2005). Attachment avoidance with respect to parents in both interview and self-report measures increases over the teen years. This finding reflects greater autonomy as individuals approach adulthood (Doyle et al., 2009). As they get ready to move away from home young adults value independence and self-sufficiency. Reducing emotional dependence on parents makes leaving home less painful. Insecure attachment is a common finding (up to 50%) in the general population and therefore adolescents do well despite the quality of their parental relationships. Predictors of resiliency in adolescents with insecure attachment styles include self- compassion and self-efficacy beliefs (M. Li & Preziosi, 2022). For adolescents with a history of neglect and maltreatment, intelligence and self-regulation predict resiliency (Haskett et al., 2006). Professionals working with at-risk teens have success when they focus on building academic and peer competency as well as self-regulatory skills (Blaustein & Kinniburgh, 2018). In every stage of life, attachment security and high-quality relationships buffer individuals against stress. Although conflict does occur in high-quality relationships it resolves in healthier ways (Ducharme et al., 2002). Hence high-quality relationships with parents are not a source of stress for teens and low-quality relationships may be a source of stress. Parental relationships can buffer teens from stress, and they can also be a source of stress. When relationships between parents and teens are distant, parents cannot give guidance and support. However, distant parents are also 56 less likely to be a source of stress for teens. One study found that warm affectionate mothers buffered teens from stress only when mothers were stable. Affectionate mothers were a source of stress when mothers felt overwhelmed (Silinskas et al., 2020). Stable attachment security and quality maternal relationships are predicted by mothers having stable less stressful lives and father involvement (Booth-LaForce et al., 2014). Father involvement takes stress off mothers and also directly benefits teens. Parent-Teen Relationships and Behavioral Problems As discussed in the last chapter, changes in the BIS and BAS occur with puberty. These changes link to increased risk for internalizing and externalizing disorders during the teen years and early adulthood. Attachment theory predicts that low parental sensitivity and responsiveness leads to children developing internal working models of the self as unlovable, and to decreased emotion regulation. These two factors in turn increase risk for anxiety and depression. High levels of psychological control or authoritarian parenting (that often go along with low sensitivity and responsiveness) also predict depression and externalizing disorders in teens (Chango et al., 2015). Attachment theory further predicts that individuals who do not look to parents as a safe haven and secure base, may learn to turn off their fear and engage in reward seeking. Reduced fear and reward seeking increase risk for externalizing disorders. As teens develop internalizing and externalizing disorders, they have more conflict with their parents and their relationships deteriorate further. Longitudinal studies show that low attachment security at early adolescence predicts the development of internalizing and externalizing disorders. Once these disorders develop, they tend to persist and worsen relationships with parents (Buist et al., 2004). Clinicians working with teens and their parents do well when they carefully assess what the relationship was like before the problems started. History of warm parenting suggests higher likelihood the relationship will improve. Teen parent relationship goals include reducing conflict and promoting positive feelings if possible. Affected teens benefit from learning self- regulation (coping) skills. Father Involvement In American society mothers are more often primary caregivers and the father role may be more of a matter of “choice” than the mother role (Williams & Kelly, 2005). Teens report spending significantly more time with mothers than with fathers whether or not the father resides in the home. Attachment to mother is often more secure than attachment to father (Doyle et al., 2009; Ducharme et al., 2002; Williams & Kelly, 2005). The more time fathers spend with teens the more teens look to fathers as attachment figures (Williams & Kelly, 2005). Relationships with mothers and fathers are different and the advice-giving characteristics of fathers is predictive of social competence. Time spent with fathers and attachment security with fathers is protective against externalizing behavior problems in teens (Williams & Kelly, 2005). The benefit of contact with father is dependent on the level of the father’s antisocial behavior. Fathers with 57 high levels of antisocial behavior may not be a positive force in their child’s life (Jaffee et al., 2003, 2006). Attachment to Peers Spend time together having fun 1. Play games in which you both take turns being the leader. 5. Share each other's games, bat and ball, etc. 9. Try to be on same side when choosing teams for football or baseball, even if he is not the best player. 10. Do "fun" things together, such as going to the movies or ball games. 17. Go on a vacation or short trip with him and his family. 14. Sleep over at each other's house. Protect each other 2. Walk to school together. 7. "Stick-up" for each other if an older boy is picking on one of you. 8. Sit together on school bus. Help with schoolwork 3. Help out when one of you gets behind in his work. 12. Phone each other about school assignments. Share personal information 4. Talk about girls. 6. Tell each other things you wouldn't tell anyone else. 11. Tell each other if one of you has done something wrong. 13. Talk about what you want to be when you grow-up. 15. Talk about your parents. Avoid conflict 16. Find it hard to disagree with him on important things. Table 5-2. Chumship Checklist (Mannarino, 1975) Sex differences in friendship and friendship networks are important because puberty occurs two years earlier in girls and 12–16-year-old girls have higher levels of negative affect and more problems with emotion regulation. Irrespective of gender, adolescents inhabit and are affected by two social worlds, that of the family and that of the school environment. Just as positive, supportive relationships in the family are important to well-being, healthy friendships buffer adolescents from the stress of the competitive social environment. (“Friends as a buffer” against the stress of the larger group begins in middle childhood as previously discussed.) Although parental rejection 58 is associated with internalizing and externalizing disorders, peer acceptance and friendships may buffer teens from the impact of parental rejection (Sentse et al., 2010). Strong friendships are also protective against non-suicidal self-injury (Taliaferro et al., 2020). Over development the “greatest long-term risk for psychosocial problems occurs when interpersonal difficulties interfere with fundamental developmental tasks at critical points in the lifespan” (Chango et al., 2015, p. 685). The developmental tasks of adolescence are to further develop competency in a way that supports positive identity and self-sufficiency (see Chapter 6). Professionals working with teens should evaluate stress from family and stress from school and the quality of close relationships in the family and at school (Tables 5-2, 5-3). Both advantaged and disadvantaged teens report stress from family and peer relationships as being their most significant sources of stress (Chandra & Batada, 2006). The quality of a teen’s friendships should be considered in the context of the teen’s overall adjustment. Friendship is different for teens with high levels of externalizing problems (as discussed in the Dominance System section) (Hartup, 1996). Friendship Quality Representative Item (+) Seeks safe haven How much do you turn to this person for comfort and support when you are troubled about something? Seeks secure base How much does this person encourage you to pursue your goals and future plans? Provides safe haven How much does this person turn to you for comfort and support when s/he is troubled about something? Provides secure base How much do you encourage this person to pursue his/her goals and future plans? Companionship How often do you and this person go places and do enjoyable things together? Friendship Quality (-) Representative Item Conflict How much do you and this person get upset with or mad at each other? Criticism How often do you and this person point out each others’ faults or put each other down? Antagonism How much do you and this person get on each other’s nerves? Table 5-3. Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI). (Furman & Buhrmester, 2009) Although teens may use the word “friend” broadly, friendship is a continuous construct with levels (best friend/good friend/occasional friend/not friend) (Hartup, 1996). 59 Friendship is defined as a voluntary dyadic relationship of affection, that is relatively long-lasting and in which those involved are concerned with meeting the others' needs and interests as well as satisfying their own desires. From this definition it is apparent that to have a friendship an individual must be capable of “we-ness,” reciprocity, empathy and caring (abilities that are often deficient in antisocial youth). Because these abilities are also the teen’s contribution to quality relationships with parents, they account for similarities between attachment to friends and attachment to parents (Paterson et al., 1995). Friendship quality is defined by positive engagement (warm feelings, talking, smiling), conflict management, cooperativeness in task oriented activities, equality in exchange, and equality in mutual affirmation (Chango et al., 2015). Representative items from friendship scales in Tables 5-2 and 5-3 are provided to assist you in thinking about and evaluating the quality of friendships teens have. Best friends spend time together in and out of school. They have fun together, protect each other, help each other with schoolwork, share secrets, and avoid conflict (Table 5-2) (Mannarino, 1975). Best friends look to one another for security and companionship and they avoid negative interactions (Furman & Buhrmester, 2009). Warmth and closeness and good conflict resolution are required for friendships to be stable over time. Higher quality friendships are more stable. Recent surveys show that 95% of today’s teens have a smartphone. Texting has become a preferred means for teens to communicate with friends. Studies do show that digital media increases communication and enhances the perceived closeness of friendships in both girls and boys (Abeele et al., 2017; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). Smart phones give friends anytime–anyplace connectivity such that friends feel like they are always together. This constant connectivity allows for greater social sharing of emotion which can assist teens with emotion regulation. Social sharing of emotion also promotes bonding and strengthens ties (Vermeulen et al., 2018). Sharing a positive event allows a person to re-experience and make meaning of it. Sharing negative emotions allows a person to vent, seek assistance, comfort, or advice, clarify their feelings and also make meaning of a distressing event (Vermeulen et al., 2018). Teens like to text because it serves emotional needs, is private, and they can control what they say (Abeele et al., 2017; Quinn & Oldmeadow, 2013). One experimental study demonstrated the positive benefit teens receive from texting friends about their feelings (Gui et al., 2021). In sum, electronic communication between friends has been shown to enhance the quality of existing relationships in part due to greater self-disclosure and time spent together. Time spent together both in and out of school is an important variable in friendship. Teens tend to choose friends who are like themselves. Time spent together enhances the possibility for and quality of relationships between teens of different ethnicity (Lessard et al., 2019). Higher quality friendship occurs when teen are similar in academic and athletic orientation, personality, attitudes, and attractiveness (Linden- Andersen et al., 2009). Teens also choose friends who have the same internalizing and 60 externalizing problems as themselves. For teens who are alike with respect to anxiety and depression, rather than supporting each other’s emotion regulation skills, “co- rumination” can occur. In co-rumination friends encourage each other to talk nonproductively about problems, fears, anxieties, and sadness. This co-rumination can worsen teens’ adjustment overtime and has been referred to as “amplification” (Costello et al., 2020; Rose, 2002). Amplification is more likely to occur in relationships where friends are sharing feelings and spending time together. Because girls share more than boys, co-rumination occurs more frequently in girl friendships. For teens with depression, friendships that could have otherwise have been called “high quality” due to closeness and sharing are associated with increases in depression over a 1 year period (Costello et al., 2020). Friends reinforce both adaptive and maladaptive behavior in one another. Friends similar in internalizing and externalizing problems may negatively impact one another. Through close relationships with parents and friends youth learn to balance two human psychological needs for relatedness and autonomy. Adolescents maximize autonomy when they learn to assert their opinions with confidence and set boundaries in relationships. Adolescents maximize relatedness when they express warmth and validation and take a collaborative approach to conflict resolution. Teens who are unable to navigate autonomy and relatedness in peer relationships withdraw socially and are at increased risk for depression (Chango et al., 2015). Social withdrawal, lack of friends and loneliness in early adulthood increase risk for physical and mental health issues. One group of researchers who studied friendship skills in individuals at ages 13, 18 and 21, summarized their findings as follows: “Specifically, teens who handle disagreements with closest friends ineffectively early on (age 13), for example, by pressuring their friends, over personalizing the argument, interrupting their friends, or expressing hostility during conflict may struggle to forge supportive, connected, and trusting friendships 5 years later (age 18)” (Chango et al., 2015, p. 694). These authors further concluded that lack of friendship skills at 13 was predictive of lack of friendship skills at 18 because without quality friendships individuals lack experiences through which to learn and practice skills including perspective taking. Guidelines for maximizing autonomy and relatedness are taught in the DBT Interpersonal Effectiveness Skills Module, skills DEAR MAN, GIVE, and FAST (click on the skill names to link to video demonstrations) (Rathus & Miller, 2014). Quality friendships are important for health throughout the lifespan so that learning these skills is part of building a life worth living (Tesch, 1983). Sibling Relationships Siblings are also peers and possible relationship partners for youth. Family size is smaller in today’s world and many adolescents do not have siblings within 2 years of their own age. If there is an available sibling, they can be a source of companionship, intimacy, and emotional support. Quality sibling relationships have the same characteristics as quality friendships. Teens can and do learn social skills of relatedness, reciprocity, autonomy, and conflict resolution within the context of their 61 sibling relationships. As Teens get older, they tend to become closer and less controlling of one another (Buist et al., 2004). Health problems and mental health issues in a sibling can greatly impact a teen (Hilário, 2022). We discuss the special case of siblings with externalizing and substance use problems in the Dominance System section. Changes in the Caregiving System During Adolescence The caregiving system evolved in mammals to motivate parental care and dictate parental behavior. In most species altruism or self-sacrificial care is directed only toward offspring. In a few species, altruism is also directed toward mates. Of all the human social behavioral systems, the caregiving system is the most unique and the most specialized because humans are the most altruistic species on Earth (Preston, 2013). As discussed later, human parents show large individual differences in parenting style that arise from individual differences in empathy and prosocial orientation. But the human caregiving system does more than just enable parenting―the caregiving system enables all high-quality relationships. There are also large individual differences between humans in caring and altruism toward mates, friends, and strangers. Individual differences in caring and altruism arise from individual differences in empathy and prosocial behaviors. Childhood and adolescence is a sensitive period for developing the ability to care for others. Empathy: Definition and Measurement Scale, Subscale Example Item Content IRI, Empathic Concern I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me. IRI, Perspective Taking I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision. IRI, Personal Distress I sometimes feel helpless when I am in the middle of a very emotional situation. IRI, Fantasy I really get involved with the feelings of the characters in a novel. BES, Emotion Sharing I get caught up in other people’s feelings easily. BES, Cognitive I can understand my friend’s happiness when she/he Empathy does well at something. BES, Disconnection My friends’ emotions don’t affect me much. Table 5-4. Scales that measure aspects of empathy and example item content. Empathy is understanding a person from his or her frame of reference rather than one’s own, or vicariously experiencing that person’s feelings, perceptions, and thoughts. Empathy does not, of itself, bring motivation to help, although it may turn into sympathy 62 or personal distress, which may also result in helpfulness. Empathy is a broad construct that refers to the emotional and cognitive reactions of an individual to the observed experiences of another. Having empathy increases the likelihood of helping others and showing compassion. Empathy in teens and adults can be reliably measured using self-report (Portt et al., 2020). The two most common measures are the Basic Empathy Scale (BES) (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006) and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (M. H. Davis, 1980) (Table 5-4). The BES has three subscales, Emotion Sharing, Cognitive Empathy, and Disconnection and the IRI has four subscales, Perspective Taking, Fantasy, Empathic Concern, and Personal Distress. The last subscale Personal Distress is included because distress and discomfort with others’ feelings impairs empathy― a finding that highlights the connection between self-regulation and empathy. The IRI and BES measure empathy as an emotional experience and empathy as a cognitive experience. Emotional empathy means the tendency to share in the emotions that others have. A synonym for cognitive empathy is perspective taking. DSM 5, Section III Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) has criteria clinicians can apply to understand healthy and impaired empathy (Table 5-5). Empathy in Adolescents Studies have looked at the growth of emotional empathy and cognitive empathy (perspective taking) separately in each gender. In 13- and 18-year-olds emotional empathy is higher in girls at every age. Emotional empathy in girls does not seem to change over time. Emotional empathy functions as a personality trait in that it is a stable characteristic of individuals (Van der Graaff et al., 2014). Teen boys experience a drop in empathy after age 13 which does not reverse until age 18 (Van der Graaff et al., 2014) (Figure 5-1). The drop in emotional empathy that occurs with puberty in boys may be due to changes in testosterone combined with immaturity (Procyshyn et al., 2020). The DSM 5 regards empathy as a personality trait and has added a “Limited Prosocial Emotions” (LPE) specifier to conduct disorder criteria. LPE is defined as “two or more of the following characteristics over at least 12 months and in multiple relationships or settings: lack of remorse or guilt, callousness–lack of empathy, lack of concern about performance in important activities, and shallow or deficient affect.” Students and clinicians should consider that although emotional empathy is a stable trait of people, it is also changeable. Both increases and decreases in felt emotional empathy can occur with life experiences. For example, a meta-analysis showed that violent video game playing reduces empathy in teens (Anderson et al., 2010; Calvert et al., 2017). Negative life events are associated with both increases and decreases in empathy (A. N. Davis et al., 2019). Relatively high functioning individuals may display greater “altruism born of suffering” such that traumatic events foster an emotional connection to others and a desire to help others (A. N. Davis et al., 2019). Emotional empathy can also improve with training (Weisz et al., 2021). In many individuals then emotional empathy can increase when it is practiced and decrease when it is suppressed. In this respect emotional empathy resembles intelligence, musical and artistic ability. The stability of 63 these traits is due to individuals selecting experiences that maintain their existing abilities. Level of Empathy Development Criteria Health High  Is capable of accurately understanding others’ experiences and motivations in most situations.  Comprehends and appreciates others’ perspectives, even if disagreeing.  Is aware of the effect of own actions on others. Good  Is somewhat compromised in ability to appreciate and understand others’ experiences.  May tend to see others as having unreasonable expectations or a wish for control.  Has inconsistent awareness of effect of own behavior on others. Impaired  Ability to consider and understand the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of other people is significantly limited; may discern very specific aspects of others’ experience, particularly vulnerabilities and suffering.  Is generally unable to consider alternative perspectives; highly threatened by differences of opinion or alternative viewpoints.  Is confused about or unaware of impact of own actions on others; often bewildered about people’s thoughts and actions, with destructive motivations frequently misattributed to others. Very Impaired  Has pronounced inability to consider and understand others’ experience and motivation.  Attention to others’ perspectives is virtually absent (attention is hypervigilant, focused on need fulfillment and harm avoidance).  Is generally unaware of or unconcerned about effect of own behavior on others, or unrealistic appraisal of own effect. Table 5-5. Levels of Empathy as specified in DSM 5, Section III AMPD, Criterion A. Cognitive empathy or perspective taking is defined as the ability to understand and reason about or predict other people's thoughts, beliefs, mental states, or emotions, and 64 is also referred to as cognitive empathy, cognitive theory of mind, or mentalizing (Hollarek & Lee, 2022). Cognitive empathy explains about 25 percent of individual differences in emotional empathy (Toto et al., 2015). Consistent with the idea that experiences with peers are important to adolescents, cognitive empathy increases steadily though out the teen years in girls. As with emotional empathy, cognitive empathy also drops in mid adolescence in boys (Figure 5-1). Cognitive empathy is thought to facilitate emotional empathy, because understanding others’ perspectives increases the opportunity for empathy (A. N. Davis et al., 2019; Weisz et al., 2021). Empathic Concern and Perspective Taking in 13-18 Year Old Boys and Girls 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 13 14 15 16 17 18 Empathic Concern Boys Empathic Concern Girls Perspective Taking Boys Perspective Taking Girls Figure 5-1. Growth in IRI empathy over the teen years in boys and girls (Van der Graaff et al., 2014). Empathy is predictive of quality relationships with parents and with peers over the course of adolescence. The composite empathy ability (emotional and cognitive) predicts relationship quality more than either emotional or cognitive empathy ability alone. Relating to other peoples perspectives both emotionally and cognitively predicts relationship quality (Boele et al., 2019). Empathy predicts prosocial behavior as discussed next. Prosocial Behavior Prosocial behavior is behavior through which people benefit others, including helping, cooperating, comforting, sharing, and donating. In reciprocal “altruism,” individuals help each other with the expectation that favors will be returned in the future. Individuals also help others in public establish reputations that will get them help in the future. Prosocial behaviors that are self-serving with respect to material rewards or social status are not “altruism” and are unrelated to caring/empathy. Researchers measure prosocial behavior through observational experiments, other-report and self- report. Measures of self-reported prosocial behavior reveal that not all such behavior is related to caregiving tendencies (Table 5-5). Public acts and acts performed for other 65 rewards have different personality correlates than altruistic acts. Public acts correlate with dominance as opposed to caring (Carlo et al., 2003; Carlo & Randall, 2002; A. N. Davis et al., 2019). Consistent with sex differences in the caregiving system and empathy, prosocial behavior other than Public is higher in teen girls as compared to teen boys. Scores reflecting Public prosocial acts are higher in teen boys. Correlates of prosocial behavior in teens of both sexes include empathy, sympathy and moral development (Carlo et al., 2003). Behavioral genetic studies show that 40-60% of individual differences in empathy are related to genetics and 40-60% are related to the non-shared environment (Gregory et al., 2009). Subscale Representative Item Public Helping others when I am in the spotlight is when I work best. Anonymous I think that helping others without them knowing is the best type of situation. Dire It is easy for me to help others when they are in a dire situation. Emotional It makes me feel good when I can comfort someone who is really upset. Compliant I never hesitate to help others when they ask for it. Altruism I often help even if I don’t think I will get anything out of helping. Table 5-6. Prosocial Tendencies Measure-Revised (PTM-R) Teen Caregiving and Parental Behavior In traditional human societies, children and adolescent older siblings are the most important helpers to mothers of young children (Kramer & Veile, 2018). Siblings provide direct care including feeding, carrying, holding, and dressing/bathing. They also provide indirect care such as walking with, laying with, playing with, teaching, talking to or giving directives, comforting, watching or keeping a younger sibling safe. Siblings provide between 11 and 37% of the direct care received by a nursing infant― more than fathers, grandmothers, or other relatives. In traditional societies, siblings spend up to 16% of their time providing care (Kramer & Veile, 2018). Both boys and girls provide care and in some societies boys contribution is important to the survival of siblings (Hagen & Barrett, 2009). Given that empathy and caring behaviors increase when practiced, these developmental experiences are important to shaping the personality. People from traditional societies share more and are very cooperative with each other (Boehm, 1999). Caring for siblings is important training for later parenting (Kramer & Veile, 2018). In WEIRD nations, teens can also practice parental (caregiving) behavior by assisting with the care of younger siblings and other family members who need care. Teens more often care for disabled family members as opposed to children; in the US there are an estimated 3.4 million caregivers under 18, or 2-8% of youth (Gunnerson, 2021; Hilário, 2022). In some ethnic groups up to 30% of teens may provide sibling care (Kline & Killoren, 2022b). Most caregiving situations involve helping a grandparent (38%) or 66 parent (34%), followed by caring for a sibling (11%), other relative (9%), or nonrelative (8%) (East, 2010). In WEIRD nations people may have a negative view of youth caregiving if they believe that teens should only receive care and not give care. Fear of stigma may lead young people to be secretive about their caring roles. Some ethnic groups (e.g., Mexican Americans) place a high value on family caring (Kline & Killoren, 2022a). Overall the caregiving role has benefits but can have costs if too much is expected from a teen (Gunnerson, 2021). Adolescents and children who provide care may be more mature, self-reliant, empathetic, and self-confident. Sibling caregiving predicts greater perspective taking, social understanding, a sense of purpose, and higher reading and language scores for caregivers (Kline & Killoren, 2022b). The benefits of learning caregiving prior to leaving the family of origin have been present since the early history of humans and are still relevant for today (Kramer & Veile, 2018). Programs for at-risk youth often include community service or other opportunities to give care. These programs increase academic success because participants practice empathy and caring and so experience changes in values and personality (Scales et al., 2006; Supervía et al., 2023). Teen Births and Parenthood Teen childbearing was much more common a generation ago than it is now. In 1991, an estimated 25% of 15-year-olds gave birth before they reached age 20; this declined to 6% in 2021 (“Why Is the U.S. Teen Birth Rate Falling?,” n.d.). One in five teen births is a repeat teen birth (CDC, 2013). In 2018, the birth rate among 15- to 19-year-old girls and 67 women was less than half of what it had been in 2008 (41.5 births per 1,000). Birth rates in Asians and Pacific Islanders and Hispanics, declined 74% and 65%, respectively. Rates for White and Black teens fell by more than 50% over the past decade. Birth rates for 10-14 year old girls were 1.4 per 1000 in 1991 and.2 per 1000 in 2021 (Birth Rate 10-14 Year-Old Girls U.S. 1991-2020, 2021). Currently in the US 4.6% of babies are born to women under the age of 20; down from 10% of all births in 2006 (Fertility Rates by Maternal Age, n.d.; Patel & Sen, 2012). According to the CDC teen birth rates have fallen due to abstinence and contraceptive use (About Teen Pregnancy | CDC, 2021). The highest rates of teen births worldwide are in Sub-Saharan Africa (100/1000 women) and Latin America and Caribbean region (53.2/1000 women). The birthrate for girls aged 10-14 in undeveloped regions is 10/1000 girls (Adolescent Pregnancy, n.d.). One principle of Life history Theory is that the lifespan has time periods of investment in self followed by investment in the next generation. Early parenthood cuts short the time individuals invest in their own growth and development. Teens are still growing physically, cognitively, and emotionally as we have discussed. As predicted by life history theory, adolescents are at greater risk for pregnancy complications that affect themselves and their infants. At age 40 women who gave birth in their teen years have worse physical health outcomes (Patel & Sen, 2012). The birth process is painful and birth complications may leave adolescents exhausted and traumatized. In this condition they are at risk to feel unable to care for their babies. Between 39% and 69% of adolescent mothers attempt to breast feed. Of those who attempt, half stop within 1 month. Less than 25% continue 6 months (Kanhadilok & McGrath, 2015). (The importance of breast feeding to infant health is discussed in Part 1 of this book). In addition to impacting teens’ physical development, pregnancy, birth, and parenting impact teens’ cognitive and emotional development. Early motherhood reduces women’s educational attainment and diminishes their future economic and psychosocial well-being. Although empathy is high in teen girls, they are still learning perspective taking and caring behavior. Hence, they are less psychologically prepared to care for infants and are at-risk for neglecting (Lounds et al., 2006) or maltreating (Stier et al., 1993) their children. The lower educational achievement of adolescent mothers impacts the later educational achievement of their children (Tang et al., 2016). The children of adolescent mothers do better academically when mothers continue their education (Tang et al., 2016). Intervention programs for adolescent mothers are effective in improving the development of their children. The most effective interventions include strategies to improve the quality of mother-child interaction in addition to providing maternal support and education (Baudry et al., 2017). Subsequent children born to teen mothers when the mothers are older and more experienced, do better (Tang et al., 2016). Most male partners of teen mothers are also adolescents or emerging adults. Because of life history differences between males and females, young fathers are defined as men under 25. These men are also still developing physically, cognitively, and emotionally and so are less prepared than older men for the role of father and partner. Young 68 fatherhood affects the life success of men. With reduced participation in education, training or employment, they have risk for persistent poverty and lasting economic insecurity (Lau Clayton, 2016). Young fathers may want to be in their children’s lives but the child’s mother and her family may not allow them to be (Lau Clayton, 2016). Changes in the Dominance System During Adolescence Life in human society is both cooperative and competitive. The attachment system, and trust bring people together; the caregiving system determines how much people care for each other; and the dominance system determines how much (and in what ways) people compete. The balance between attachment and caregiving on the one hand and dominance on the other hand, equates to we-ness vs. me-ness―or communion versus agency. Agency refers to the human capability to influence one's functioning and the course of events by one's actions. One can express agency without expressing dominance over others; but one cannot express dominance over others without expressing agency. Heath requires a certain amount of agency, but excessive agency relates to ill health. The same is true about social dominance and striving for power, too much is no good. How do teens measure their social status? 10 Family Status 9 “Imagine that this ladder pictures how American society is set up. At the top of the ladder are the people who are the best off — they 8 have the most money, the highest amount of schooling, and the jobs that bring the most respect. At the bottom are people who are the worst off — they have the least money, little or no education, no 7 job, or jobs that no one wants or respects. Now think about your family. Please tell us where you think your family would be on this 6 ladder. Mark the rung that best represents where your family would be on this ladder.” 5 Peer Status 4 “Now assume that the ladder is a way of picturing your school. At the top of the ladder are the people in your school with the most 3 respect, the highest grades, and the highest standing. At the bottom are the people whom no one respects, no one wants to hang around with, and have the worst grades. Where would you place 2 yourself on this ladder? Mark the rung that best represents where you would be on this ladder.” 1 Table 5-7. MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status-Youth Version (Goodman et al., 2001). Before puberty children learn dominance-behaviors and learn about the consequences of aggression to friendships. With puberty there is an increase in motivations related to dominance and status. Status and power are highly salient aspects of the teen peer 69 group. Status gives a person power― the ability to control others, and material resources. Status competition is stressful and in animals and humans it is linked to substance abuse and adverse health outcomes (Johnson et al., 2012). The MacArthur Scale (Table 5-6) gives us a way to think about what teens perceive about status. Human society has levels to it and a person can have different status at each level. For example, a poor person in prison has low status with respect to the state where they live, but they can have high status among peers in the prison. These levels are important because peer status has more consequences for teens than their family status, just like peer status affects the person in prison most. For both adolescents and prisoners, peer status determines day to day wellbeing, freedom from bullying and power in the peer group. This reality plays tricks on the teen brain because the determinants of status in the peer group may be at odds with what the teen must do to achieve status in society (Haynie & Payne, 2006). (The same is true for those in prison.) Peers may value risky behaviors and attractiveness, and devalue academic achievement (Allen et al., 2005; Haynie & Payne, 2006). The MacArthur scale description of low status with peers reads, “at the bottom are the people whom no one respects, no one wants to hang around with.” People who have high status are sought after social partners because they are the means by which others increase their status (Hawley et al., 2007). For those helping adolescents and the adolescents themselves this is another confusing reality of social dominance. Many confuse lack of status with lack of love and low status with loneliness, but these are not the same. Many studies show that high status popular teens are not “loved” and that loved teens are not necessarily popular (Allen et al., 2005; Cillessen & Rose, 2005). Although there is a strong desire for status in teens (and adults too for that matter), status striving is associated with illbeing and not wellbeing (Johnson et al., 2012). Wellbeing does come from having medium levels of status, being loved and having a few close friends (Ferguson & Ryan, 2019). Competition for status gives rise to egocentrism or the tendency to emphasize one’s own needs, concerns, and outcomes rather than those of others (agency over communion) (Johnson et al., 2012). Elkind (1967) may not have recognized the connection between adolescent egocentrism and the increase in status concerns that happens after puberty; but he did introduce two constructs related to egocentrism that describe the thinking of many adolescents. The Personal Fable is composed of three sets of beliefs: 1) I am special and unique (i.e., “No one under-stands me”); 2) I am omnipotent (i.e., a source of special authority or influence); 3) I am invulnerable (i.e., incapable of being harmed or injured). Adaptively, agency and the personal fable may facilitate taking appropriate risks, motivate psychological separation from parents, and provide the resources for adolescents to explore new ideas, identities, roles, and tasks (Aalsma et al., 2006). Maladaptively, the Personal Fable is linked to risk taking behavior especially in boys (Greene et al., 2000; Jack, 1989). The Imaginary Audience is the belief that others are constantly focusing attention on the adolescent, scrutinizing behaviors, appearance, and the like. The adolescent feels as though they are 70 continually the central topic of interest to a group of spectators (i.e., an audience). Girls are more affected by the Imaginary Audience than are boys (Vartanian, 2000). Belief in one’s uniqueness (Personal Fable) is a part of the narcissism that goes along with being preoccupied with status (Aalsma et al., 2006; Johnson et al., 2012). For those pursuing status, the Imaginary Audience is not so imaginary since attractiveness is important to popularity. Consistent with behavioral systems theory and contrary to Elkind’s initial hypotheses, both forms of egocentrism persist into early adulthood (Frankenberger, 2000; Vartanian & Powlishta, 1996) along with status concerns. Behavioral systems theory also says that caring and empathy regulate the dominance system (Leedom, 2014). As predicted by behavioral systems theory, adolescents become less egocentric when they have high emotional empathy and develop greater perspective taking ability (Lapsley & Murphy, 1985). Instructions: Circle the names of three people you: Like the best (positive nominations) Like the least (negative nominations) Think are popular (perceived popularity) Think are "easy to push around," (low in dominance) Think are "kind and someone you can trust" (likeable) Think start fights (aggressive) You think are “stuck-up” (grandiose) You think “can’t take teasing” (high dominance) Table 5-8. Measurement of peer perceived and sociometric popularity (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). Researchers study status and popularity by giving students a list of the names of all the peers in the class or grade and asking them to circle the names of peers who fit descriptors (Table 5-7). This method uncovers two types of popularity, peer perceived and sociometric popularity. Peer perceived popularity equates with status and social dominance. Sociometric popularity equates with peer liking and acceptance. Peer liking and not liking ratings uncover five groups, well-liked (23%), rejected (11%), controversial (21%), average (23%), neglected (20%) students (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). There are therefore adolescents who are well-liked but not popular (10%); these teens are not high in status. There are teens who are high in popularity only (12%); these teens are high status but not well-liked. Lastly there are teens who are BOTH popular and well-liked (5%) (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). Teens who are BOTH have high levels of fighting and being “stuck-up” and are similar to their “popular only” peers. The group of high status people who are also well-liked are considered by some to be most socially competent (Hawley, 2007). Irrespective of whether they are liked, popular teens are the most visible members of the social group, they are preferred social partners, and others want to be like them (Dijkstra et al., 2010). In 71 our discussion the term “popularity” is synonymous with status whether or not someone is liked. How do teens achieve status with their peers? Increases in gonadal steroids give rise to sexual and status/dominance motivation, but teens still need to learn how to interact with romantic partners and how to obtain status/dominance. It is common for teens to intensely want romance and/or popularity and yet not know how to achieve these goals (Wright et al., 2021). Beginning in early adolescence teens increase focus on dress and physical attractiveness, vie for attention and peer leadership positions, and increase their rough and tumble play (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Pellegrini, 2002). They evaluate one another’s ability to remain cool under the pressure of joking and teasing, and to resist domination. Teens learn status behaviors by observing and emulating peers and by the reactions of peers to their own behavior. Behavior that results in higher status is rewarded and repeated. Behavior that results in humiliation or rejection is punished. If teens lack self-regulation skills, they may not be able to inhibit or hide behavior that gets them rejected (punished). Teens with low self-regulation are more likely to be rejected by peers due to impulsive behavior (Hladik et al., 2022). Attractiveness Many teens are preoccupied with their appearance and self-presentation― Imaginary Audience. Far from reflecting aberrant cognition in adolescents (Elkind, 1967), this preoccupation results from teens’ correct perception that attractiveness has many benefits. Teens want the benefits that attractiveness brings. Attractiveness “influences assessments of others; people perceived to be attractive are thought to be talented, kind, honest, and intelligent” (Borch et al., 2011). In other words, attractiveness results in undeserved positive social evaluations and social rewards. Indeed physical attractiveness accounts for as much as 38% of individual differences in popularity/status (Borch et al., 2011). The phenomenon of the “selfie” points to the importance of attractiveness to status. The word “selfie,” in wide use since 2013, refers to a photograph that one has taken of oneself, taken with a smartphone or webcam and shared via social media (Boursier & Manna, 2018). Selfies shared through social media using platforms such as Instagram makeup 30% of the total photos shared. Selfies are a global phenomenon with 98% of US teens and young adults sharing them and 69% sharing selfies 3 to 20 times daily (Boursier & Manna, 2018). Behaviors associated with status can become compulsive because rewards tied to the pursuit of status are “addicting” (Johnson et al., 2012). Compulsive selfie taking and selfies in general are linked to anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and suicidal ideation (Griffiths & Balakrishnan, 2018; Kaur & Vig, 2016). Eating disorders also connect to selfie behavior (Lonergan et al., 2020); eating disorders are another example of clinical problems that connect to concern for attractiveness and status (Smink et al., 2018). 72 Aggression “Dominance is a social reward of aggression and for the majority of individuals within a group hierarchy, aggressive behavior is positively associated with dominance as well as reputations of competence and adjustment” (Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003, p. 312). For many years, researchers and clinicians viewed aggression as “maladaptive” and aggression was studied in isolation, disconnected from fundamental motives (Blanchard & Blanchard, 2003; Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Hawley, 2007). This view of aggression occurred in the context of lack of understanding of the dominance system and motivation for power. Recent research has established that far from being maladaptive, aggression leads to status and popularity in every age group studied and in every place on the planet (Y. Li & Hu, 2018). Any program aimed at improving teen mental health and the quality of the teen peer environment must intervene in the relationship between bullying and social status. If those who bully reliably achieve status and power, bullying and aggression will continue to claim child, teen, and adult victims. Here we briefly review the types of aggression and the link between aggression and popularity/status. Forms of aggression include overt and less obvious or covert aggression. Overt aggression can be physical (hitting, kicking, pushing) or psychological (threatening, teasing, calling names). Covert aggression includes relational (using friendships aggressively—saying that they will not be their friend, excluding someone from the group of friends, or giving someone the 'silent treatment'), and reputational aggression (damage someone's social reputation—through rumors, gossiping, and saying mean things behind their back). Popular male and female adolescents use all forms of aggression more and their use of aggression is related to keeping status over time (Borch et al., 2011; Dijkstra et al., 2009; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Wright et al., 2021). The Halo Effect The halo effect is partly responsible for why aggression is not a total turn-off. The halo effect is a thinking error that causes people to automatically make positive assumptions about others based on something positive they notice (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). The halo effect is a form of stereotyping. In the adolescent peer group, physical attractiveness, prosocial behavior and athleticism create halos (Dijkstra et al., 2009). Peers assume that attractive people are good at things and have many positive character traits. Similarly, individuals who publicly display prosocial behaviors create reputations for themselves as being “nice.” Athletic individuals are assumed to be competent. Humans don’t deal well with contradictory information and so the aggressive behavior of people with such halos may be ignored or underestimated especially if it is covert. Apart from the halo effect, hanging out with a popular peer 73 makes a teen popular so teens are motivated to ignore peer aggression in the service of their own popularity goals (Dijkstra et al., 2010). Individual Differences in Social Goals Status goals become important in early adolescence but there are individual differences in how important status is to teens. In addition to status goals teens also have communal goals. Communal goals stem from the attachment and caregiving systems and reflect how enjoyable warm and caring relationships are. Status goals and communal goals are not mutually exclusive, however communal goals impact the expression of status goals. High status goals predict lower levels of altruism but higher levels of helping aimed at achieving status (Findley-Van Nostrand & Ojanen, 2018). Individuals who value communal goals are high in warmth, empathy and altruism and are expected to refrain from using aggression to achieve status goals (Sijtsema et al., 2020). In childhood status goals predict peer dislike whereas in early adolescence status goals predict popularity. The amount of dislike created by aggression decreases after puberty. Characteristics of Popular (High Status) Youth Research has consistently identified three groups of popular youth, prosocial controllers who have high prosocial behavior and low levels of aggression; coercive controllers who have high levels of aggression; and bistrategic controllers who have high levels of status-oriented prosocial behavior and high levels of aggression (Hartl et al., 2020; Hawley et al., 2007; Wurster, 2014). Of those individuals who are motivated to achieve status, bistrategic controllers are the most successful (Olthof et al., 2011). Popular youth tend to associate with one another and perceived popularity is a relatively stable characteristic of a teen (Mayeux et al., 2008). Popular youth are more likely to be sexually active, drink alcohol and engage in minor delinquency (Kreager et al., 2011; Mayeux et al., 2008; Weerman & Bijleveld, 2007). Although popular youth highly value status, attaining it does not tend to bring them satisfaction. Highly popular youth report low best friendship quality, low social satisfaction, and low social self-concept (Ferguson & Ryan, 2019). Antisocial Behavior The word “antisocial” is perhaps the most confusing of the many confusing words psychologists use. Many students confuse antisocial with asocial. An asocial person wants to be alone but antisocial people can be highly social. Antisocial people have behavior that sharply deviates from social norms because it violates other people's rights. Lawbreaking or criminal behavior is antisocial, but not all antisocial behavior is criminal. Antisocial behavior results from striving for dominance/power. Antisocial individuals strive for power more than other individuals in society and the need for power is highly predictive of antisocial behavior (Johnson et al., 2012). Antisocial interpersonal or peer behavior includes lying and manipulation, and charming for the purposes of fooling someone (Hare & Neumann, 2008). Habitual lying is the 74 most important interpersonal antisocial behavior because it is a marker for antisocial personality. Lying is directly tied to power; note that the liar controls the other person’s perception of reality. Gonadal steroids regulate both power striving and sexual motivation and so antisocial behavior is strongly linked to unrestricted sociosexuality and early first sex in teens (Harris et al., 2007). Delinquency and Conduct Disorder Antisocial behavior is common in adolescents. One or more episodes of antisocial behavior, including substance abuse, is admitted to by up to 80% of adolescents (Searight et al., 2001). Delinquency refers to youth who have elevated levels of antisocial behavior. In one study only 55% of the adolescent sample was classified as nondelinquent, 30% had minor delinquency and 12.5% had serious delinquency (Kreager et al., 2011). Antisocial behavior is more common in males in whom criminal offending peaks between 17 and 19 years of age. Most (40-60% of) adolescent offenders do not continue this behavior into adulthood (National Institute of Justice, 2014). Violent victimization also peaks in adolescence and early adulthood and is the number one cause of death in this age group (16-24) (National Institute of Justice, 2014). DSM-5 Conduct Disorder A repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age appropriate societal norms or rules are violated, as manifested by the presence of at least three of the following 15 criteria in the past 12 months from any of the categories below, with at least one criterion present in the past 6 months: Aggression to People and Animals 1. Often bullies, threatens, or intimidates others. 2. Often initiates physical fights. 3. Has used a weapon that can cause serious physical harm to others (e.g., a bat, brick, broken bottle, knife, gun). 4. Has been physically cruel to people. 5. Has been physically cruel to animals. 6. Has stolen while confronting a victim (e.g., mugging, purse snatching, extortion, armed robbery). 7. Has forced someone into sexual activity. Destruction of Property 8. Has deliberately engaged in fire setting with the intention of causing serious damage. 9. Has deliberately destroyed others’ property (other than by fire setting). 75  Deceitfulness or Theft 10. Has broken into someone else’s house, building, or car. 11. Often lies to obtain goods or favors or to avoid obligations (i.e., “cons” others). 12. Has stolen items of nontrivial value without confronting a victim (e.g., shoplifting, but without breaking and entering; forgery). Serious Violations of Rules 13. Often stays out at night despite parental prohibitions, beginning before age 13 years. 14. Has run away from home overnight at least twice while living in the parental or parental surrogate home, or once without returning for a lengthy period. 15. Is often truant from school, beginning before age 13 years. Table 5-9. Criterion A for DSM 5 Conduct Disorder. DSM 5 uses the term conduct disorder to describe seriously delinquent youth. In up to 40% of youth with conduct disorder (CD), delinquency persists into adulthood and becomes antisocial personality disorder. Youth with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) also have excessive dominance and are at increased risk for adult antisocial personality disorder even if they do not also have characteristics of CD (Langbehn et al., 1998). Adult antisocial personality can also begin in the late teens and early 20s (Moffitt et al., 2001; Pulkkinen et al., 2009). The earlier in life excessive dominance manifests as either ODD or CD the more stable it tends to be and the harder it is to treat (Broidy et al., 2003). CD and ODD demonstrate that although normative and adaptive, dominance and aggression can be excessive and maladaptive (Table 5-8). It is most useful to understand these conditions in the context of normal developmental processes. The best way to treat CD and ODD is to prevent these from happening in the first place (Leedom, 2006). Genes contribute to the cause of these disorders but they are by no means the complete cause (Rhee & Waldman, 2002). Three broad factors underlie the expression of antisocial disorders in youth, an interpersonal factor, an affective factor and a self-regulation factor (Kosson et al., 2002). The interpersonal factor represents social dominance, the affective factor lack of remorse and empathy, and the self- regulation factor impulsivity and irresponsibility. Genes and life experiences produce antisocial disorders by skewing development toward dominance, and away from loving social connections and self-regulation. Prevention and treatment are most effective when each of these areas is targeted (Kolko et al., 2009). Family Processes that Increase Aggressive Dominance and Delinquency The family processes that increase risk for aggression and delinquency start with the child’s relationship with parents and with siblings. In both types of family relationships coercive family interactions train children and teens in dominance and aggression (Dishion et al., 1994; Patterson, 1984). Social Dominance and power relations rather 76 than love form the family climate where coercive interactions take place. Parents model power assertion with the way they make demands on the child. They may also model coercion with each other and other adults. Children typically respond to parental demands with refusal and negativity. They escalate this behavior until the parent gives up. When the parent gives up the demand, the child is rewarded for the negative coercive behavior. The child then learns coercion through the family climate, adult modeling, and direct training. The problem in coercive families is both an absence of loving connection and the presence of coercion. Treatment must target both. Adolescents and pre-adolescents also practice coercive interactions with older siblings. Older siblings with delinquent behavior are role models for brothers and sisters. The impact of coercive delinquent older siblings is strongest for same sex siblings but is also present with opposite sex siblings (Compton et al., 2003; Snyder et al., 2005). Impact of Delinquency on the Adolescent Peer Network Although adolescents choose friends on the basis of similarity, they are similar in many different ways. In high school most best friends are same sex but as teens get older they form some friendships with the opposite sex. Recent research on adolescent social networks shows that friends often have differing levels of delinquency (Haynie & Payne, 2006; Weerman & Bijleveld, 2007). Even teens with high levels of delinquency have nondelinquent friends. The one consistent finding is that delinquent teens have more opposite sex friends than nondelinquent teens, and this is especially true of boys. Moderate levels of delinquency are associated with popularity. The mixing of teens with different levels of delinquency in friend groups can act to decrease delinquency if the number of friends with antisocial behavior is low. Mixing can increase delinquency if antisocial teens are numerous and influential. The presence of antisocial teens increases risk for violence and sexual assault. When delinquency is high, popular girls have higher rates of sexual assault (Stogner et al., 2014). When delinquency is high popular boys are at high risk for violent victimization (Schreck et al., 2004). Street Gang Involvement National Gang Center Criteria for classifying groups as gangs: The group has three or more members, generally aged 12–24. Members share an identity, typically linked to a name, and often other symbols. Members view themselves as a gang, and they are recognized by others as a gang. The group has some permanence and a degree of organization. The group is involved in an elevated level of criminal activity. The National Gang Center explains that street gangs share commonalities with terrorist groups, prison gangs, motorcycle gangs, and organized crime, but youth street gangs 77 are less well organized and may be connected to these other organizations. Street gangs consist of different types of members including core and leaders, associates or regulars, peripheral or fringe, and "wannabees" or recruits (Justice Manual | 103. Gang Statistics | United States Department of Justice, 2015). The latest National Youth Gang Survey found there are nearly 30,000 gangs and 850,000 gang members across the United States (National Youth Gang Survey Analysis, 2012). The prevalence of youth gang membership varies by city size. In large cities up to 15% of youth join gangs by their early 20’s. The overall prevalence of youth gang membership is about 2.0% (1.2%–2.8%), peaking at age 14 years at 5.0% (3.9%–6.0%). Every year, 401,000 (204,000–639,000) teens join gangs and 378,000 (199,000–599,000) exit gangs, with a turnover rate of 36% (Pyrooz & Sweeten, 2015). For most youths gang involvement is time-limited, a year or two. Risk factors for gang involvement cluster into 5 domains― individual, family, school, peer, and neighborhood/community factors. These risk factors may be especially prevalent in impoverished urban centers where BIPOC youths live (see National Gang Center Video on causes of gang involvement and their discussion of risk factors). They are also prevalent in parts of the world where teens join violent extremist groups or are recruited as soldiers into war. Street gang involvement provides benefits to youth such as feelings of belonging and power, as well as protection in a dangerous environment. Gang involvement is connected to juvenile delinquency and crime perpetration. Gang membership likely worsens criminal involvement by promoting moral disengagement, criminal thinking styles, rumination and appetitive aggression (Köbach et al., 2015; Wood, 2014). Of the 15,000 homicides that occur annually in the US, 15% are gang related. In Chicago and Los Angeles, nearly half of all homicides were attributed to gang violence from 2009- 2012 (Federal Data | Youth.Gov, n.d.). Beyond homicide, youths with active gang membership commit more serious crimes (compared with before joining the gang and after leaving the gang). Both prolonged periods of gang involvement and greater embeddedness in the gang are associated with higher levels of criminal involvement (Frequently Asked Questions About Gangs | National Gang Center, n.d.). Teen Violent Extremism and Teen Soldiers Risk factors for gang involvement overlap considerably with those for youth involvement in violent religious extremism and armed conflict. Similar individual, family, school, peer, and neighborhood/community risk and protective factors are seen (Klass & Kohut, 2020). The same factors that cause teens in WEIRD nations to join gangs cause teens in other parts of the world to become terrorists. In parts of the world affected by war, young teens may be recruited or forced to fight. Studies of these teens reveal that exposure to violence may sensitize the teen brain to enjoy aggression. Men who participated in violence as teens, through gangs or through the military have increased risk for criminal behavior. Ages 16-18 appear to be a sensitive period for learning to enjoy violent acts (Köbach et al., 2015). Violent behavior can become an addiction (Köbach et al., 2015). 78  Children have been combatants in the recent conflicts in Afghanistan, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Yemen. This is despite the addition of language to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to prohibit the involvement of children in armed conflict. Human rights law declares 18 as the minimum legal age for recruitment and use of children in hostilities. Recruiting and using children under the age of 15 as soldiers is prohibited under international humanitarian law – treaty and custom – and is defined as a war crime by the International Criminal Court. At the age of 13, Ishmael Beah (shown above) was forcibly recruited to fight in the civil war in Sierra Leone. He later worked with the UN to end the participation of children in war (see video). “Being a child in war is difficult. You learn to function in madness very quickly. You have to adapt to your situation in order to survive, and often you are exposed to extreme levels of violence you have never even heard of,” explained Ishmael, who, years later, wrote about his experiences in a book, A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier. References Aalsma, M. C., Lapsley, D. K., & Flannery, D. J. (2006). Personal fables, narcissism, and adolescent adjustment. Psychology in the Schools, 43(4), 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20162 Abeele, M. V., Schouten, A. P., & Antheunis, M. L. (2017). Personal, editable, and always accessible: An affordance approach to the relationship between adolescents’ mobile messaging behavior and their friendship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(6), 875–893. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516660636 About Teen Pregnancy | CDC. (2021, November 15). https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm Adolescent pregnancy. (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2023, from https://www.who.int/news- room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-pregnancy Allen, J. P., Porter, M. R., McFarland, F. C., Marsh, P., & McElhaney, K. B. (2005). The Two Faces of Adolescents’ Success With Peers: Adolescent Popularity, Social 79 Adaptation, and Deviant Behavior. Child Development, 76(3), 747–760. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00875.x Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., Rothstein, H. R., & Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 151–173. Baudry, C., Tarabulsy, G. M., Atkinson, L., Pearson, J., & St-Pierre, A. (2017). Intervention with Adolescent Mother–Child Dyads and Cognitive Development in Early Childhood: A Meta-Analysis. Prevention Science, 18(1), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0731-7 Beijersbergen, M. D., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2006). The concept of coherence in attachment interviews: Comparing attachment experts, linguists, and non-experts. Attachment & Human Development, 8(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730601048175 Birth rate 10-14 year-old girls U.S. 1991-2020. (2021). Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/410744/birth-rate-for-us-girls/ Blanchard, D. C., & Blanchard, R. J. (2003). What can animal aggression research tell us about human aggression? Hormones and Behavior, 44(3), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0018-506X(03)00133-8 Blaustein, M. E., & Kinniburgh, K. M. (2018). Treating Traumatic Stress in Children and Adolescents, Second Edition: How to Foster Resilience through Attachment, Self- Regulation, and Competency. Guilford Publications. Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the Forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Harvard University Press. Boele, S., Van der Graaff, J., de Wied, M., Van der Valk, I. E., Crocetti, E., & Branje, S. (2019). Linking Parent–Child and Peer Relationship Quality to Empathy in Adolescence: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(6), 1033–1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-00993-5 Booth-LaForce, C., Groh, A. M., Burchinal, M. R., Roisman, G. I., Owen, M. T., & Cox, M. J. (2014). Caregiving and Contextual Sources of Continuity and Change in Attachment Security from Infancy to Late Adolescence. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79(3), 67–84. Borch, C., Hyde, A., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2011). The role of attractiveness and aggression in high school popularity. Social Psychology of Education, 14(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-010-9131-1 80 Boursier, V., & Manna, V. (2018). Selfie Expectancies Among Adolescents: Construction and Validation of an Instrument to Assess Expectancies Toward Selfies Among Boys and Girls. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00839 Broidy, L. M., Nagin, D. S., Tremblay, R. E., Bates, J. E., Brame, B., Dodge, K. A., Fergusson, D., Horwood, J. L., Loeber, R., Laird, R., Lynam, D. R., Moffitt, T. E., Pettit, G. S., & Vitaro, F. (2003). Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescent delinquency: A six-site, cross-national study. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 222–245. Buist, K. L., Deković, M., Meeus, W., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2004). The reciprocal relationship between early adolescent attachment and internalizing and externalizing problem behaviour. Journal of Adolescence, 27(3), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.11.012 Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review, 108, 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.273 Calvert, S. L., Appelbaum, M., Dodge, K. A., Graham, S., Nagayama Hall, G. C., Hamby, S., Fasig-Caldwell, L. G., Citkowicz, M., Galloway, D. P., & Hedges, L. V. (2017). The American Psychological Association Task Force assessment of violent video games: Science in the service of public interest. American Psychologist, 72(2), 126. Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003). Sociocognitive and behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 23(1), 107–134. Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 31–44. CDC. (2013). CDC VitalSigns—Preventing Repeat Teen Births. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/teenpregnancy/index.html Chandra, A., & Batada, A. (2006). Exploring Stress and Coping Among Urban African American Adolescents: The Shifting the Lens Study. Preventing Chronic Disease, 3(2), A40. Chango, J. M., Allen, J. P., Szwedo, D., & Schad, M. M. (2015). Early Adolescent Peer Foundations of Late Adolescent and Young Adult Psychological Adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(4), 685–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12162 Cillessen, A. H., & Rose, A. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 102–105. 81 Compton, K., Snyder, J., Schrepferman, L., Bank, L., & Shortt, J. W. (2003). The contribution of parents and siblings to antisocial and depressive behavior in adolescents: A double jeopardy coercion model. Development and Psychopathology, 15(1), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579403000099 Costello, M. A., Narr, R. K., Tan, J. S., & Allen, J. P. (2020). The Intensity Effect in Adolescent Close Friendships: Implications for Aggressive and Depressive Symptomatology. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(1), 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12508 Davis, A. N., Martin-Cuellar, A., & Luce, H. (2019). Life Events and Prosocial Behaviors Among Young Adults: Considering the Roles of Perspective Taking and Empathic Concern. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 180(4–5), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2019.1632785 Davis, M. H. (1980). Interpersonal reactivity index. Dijkstra, J. K., Cillessen, A. H. N., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. (2010). Basking in Reflected Glory and Its Limits: Why Adolescents Hang Out With Popular Peers. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(4), 942–958. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532- 7795.2010.00671.x Dijkstra, J. K., Lindenberg, S., Verhulst, F. C., Ormel, J., & Veenstra, R. (2009). The Relation Between Popularity and Aggressive, Destructive, and Norm-Breaking Behaviors: Moderating Effects of Athletic Abilities, Physical Attractiveness, and Prosociality. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19(3), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00594.x Dishion, T. J., Duncan, T. E., Eddy, J. M., Fagot, B. I., & Fetrow, R. (1994). The world of parents and peers: Coercive exchanges and children’s social adaptation. Social Development, 3(3), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.1994.tb00044.x Doyle, A. B., Lawford, H., & Markiewicz, D. (2009). Attachment Style With Mother, Father, Best Friend, and Romantic Partner During Adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19(4), 690–714. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00617.x Ducharme, J., Doyle, A. B., & Markiewicz, D. (2002). Attachment security with mother and father: Associations with adolescents’ reports of interpersonal behavior with parents and peers. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(2), 203–231. East, P. L. (2010). Children’s Provision of Family Caregiving: Benefit or Burden? Child Development Perspectives, 4(1), 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00118.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00118.x Elkind, D. (1967). Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Development, 1025–1034. 82 Fearon, P., Shmueli-Goetz, Y., Viding, E., Fonagy, P., & Plomin, R. (2014). Genetic and environmental influences on adolescent attachment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(9), 1033–1041. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12171 Federal Data | Youth.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved January 4, 2024, from https://youth.gov/youth-topics/preventing-gang-involvement/federal-data Ferguson, S. M., & Ryan, A. M. (2019). It’s Lonely at the Top: Adolescent Students’ Peer-perceived Popularity and Self-perceived Social Contentment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(2), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0970-y Fertility rates by maternal age: United States, 2018-2020 Average. (n.d.). March of Dimes | PeriStats. Retrieved March 9, 2023, from https://www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/data?reg=99&top=2&stop=2&lev=1&slev=1&obj =1 Findley-Van Nostrand, D., & Ojanen, T. (2018). Forms of Prosocial Behaviors are Differentially Linked to Social Goals and Peer Status in Adolescents. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 179(6), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2018.1518894 Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123–151. Frankenberger, K. D. (2000). Adolescent egocentrism: A comparison among adolescents and adults. Journal of Adolescence, 23(3), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2000.0319 Frequently Asked Questions About Gangs | National Gang Center. (n.d.). Retrieved January 4, 2024, from https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/about/faq Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (2009). The Network of Relationships Inventory: Behavioral Systems Version. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(5), 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025409342634 Goodman, E., Adler, N. E., Kawachi, I., Frazier, A. L., Huang, B., & Colditz, G. A. (2001). Adolescents’ Perceptions of Social Status: Development and Evaluation of a New Indicator. Pediatrics, 108(2), e31. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.108.2.e31 Greene, K., Krcmar, M., Walters, L. H., Rubin, D. L., & Hale, L. (2000). Targeting adolescent risk-taking behaviors: The contributions of egocentrism and sensation- seeking. Journal of Adolescence, 23(4), 439–461. Gregory, A. M., Light-Häusermann, J. H., Rijsdijk, F., & Eley, T. C. (2009). Behavioral genetic analyses of prosocial behavior in adolescents. Developmental Science, 12(1), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00739.x 83 Griffiths, M. D., & Balakrishnan, J. (2018). The psychosocial impact of excessive selfie- taking in youth: A brief overview. Education and Health, 36(1), 3–6. Groh, A. M., Roisman, G. I., Booth-LaForce, C., Fraley, R. C., Owen, M. T., Cox, M. J., & Burchinal, M. R. (2014). Stability of Attachment Security from Infancy to Late Adolescence. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79(3), 51–66. Gui, M., Gerosa, T., Argentin, G., & Losi, L. (2021). Mobile Connectivity and Adolescent Well-being. Evidence from a Randomised Control Trial on a Media Education Training Programme in High Schools. Gunnerson, T. (2021). A growing phenomenon, youth caregivers need recognition, support. Www.Heart.Org. https://www.heart.org/en/news/2021/11/03/a-growing- phenomenon-youth-caregivers-need-recognition-support Hagen, E. H., & Barrett, H. C. (2009). Cooperative Breeding and Adolescent Siblings: Evidence for the Ecological Constraints Model? Current Anthropology, 50(5), 727–737. https://doi.org/10.1086/605328 Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–246. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452` Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Hilton, N. Z., Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (2007). Coercive and precocious sexuality as a fundamental aspect of psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2007.21.1.1 Hartl, A. C., Laursen, B., Cantin, S., & Vitaro, F. (2020). A Test of the Bistrategic Control Hypothesis of Adolescent Popularity. Child Development, 91(3), e635–e648. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13269 Hartup, W. W. (1996). The Company They Keep: Friendships and Their Developmental Significance. Child Development, 67(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131681 Haskett, M. E., Nears, K., Sabourin Ward, C., & McPherson, A. V. (2006). Diversity in adjustment of maltreated children: Factors associated with resilient functioning. Clinical Psychology Review, 26(6), 796–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.03.005 Hawley, P. H. (2007). Social dominance in childhood and adolescence: Why social competence and aggression may go hand in hand. In Aggression and adaptation: The bright side to bad behavior. (pp. 1–29). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Card, N. A. (2007). The allure of a mean friend: Relationship quality and processes of aggressive adolescents with prosocial skills. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(2), 170–180. 84 Haynie, D. L., & Payne, D. C. (2006). Race, Friendship Networks, and Violent Delinquency. Criminology, 44(4), 775–805. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745- 9125.2006.00063.x Helsen, M., Vollebergh, W., & Meeus, W. (2000). Social support from parents and friends and emotional problems in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(3), 319–335. Hilário, A. P. (2022). Sibling caring roles and responsibilities when a child suffers from a chronic illness. Sociology Compass, 16(1), e12950. Hladik, J., Hrbackova, K., & Petr Safrankova, A. (2022). Models of Self-Regulation Mechanisms in Peer-Rejected Students. SAGE Open, 12(2), 21582440221099516. Hollarek, M., & Lee, N. C. (2022). Current understanding of developmental changes in adolescent perspective taking. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, 101308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101308 Jack, M. S. (1989). Personal fable: A potential explanation for risk-taking behavior in adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 4(5), 334–338. Jaffee, S. R., Belsky, J., Harrington, H., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2006). When parents have a history of conduct disorder: How is the caregiving environment affected? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(2), 309–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021- 843X.115.2.309 Jaffee, S. R., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Taylor, A. (2003). Life with (or without) father: The benefits of living with two biological parents depend on the father’s antisocial behavior. Child Development, 74(1), 109–126. Johnson, S. L., Leedom, L. J., & Muhtadie, L. (2012). The Dominance Behavioral System and Psychopathology: Evidence From Self-Report, Observational, and Biological Studies. Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 692–743. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027503 Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29(4), 589–611. Justice Manual | 103. Gang Statistics | United States Department of Justice. (2015, February 19). https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-103-gang- statistics Kanhadilok, S., & McGrath, J. M. (2015). An Integrative Review of Factors Influencing Breastfeeding in Adolescent Mothers. The Journal of Perinatal Education, 24(2), 119– 127. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.24.2.119 85 Kaur, S., & Vig, D. (2016). Selfie and mental health issues: An overview. Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing, 7(12), 1149–1152. Klass, H. O., & Kohut, I. (2020). Adolescent Delinquency, Substance Abuse, Gang Membership and Violent Extremism in the US and Europe A comparative evaluation of risk and protective factors. Kline, G. C., & Killoren, S. E. (2022a). Adolescent sibling caregiving and responsibility: Retrospective reports among Mexican-origin young adults. Family Relations, 71(3), 953–967. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12646 Kline, G. C., & Killoren, S. E. (2022b). Adolescents’ Perceptions of Sibling Caregiving. Journal of Family Issues, 0192513X221079330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X221079330 Köbach, A., Nandi, C., Crombach, A., Bambonyé, M., Westner, B., & Elbert, T. (2015). Violent offending promotes appetitive aggression rather than Posttraumatic stress—A replication study with Burundian ex-combatants. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1755. Kolko, D. J., Dorn, L. D., Bukstein, O. G., Pardini, D., Holden, E. A., & Hart, J. (2009). Community vs. Clinic-Based Modular Treatment of Children with Early-Onset ODD or CD: A Clinical Trial with 3-Year Follow-Up. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(5), 591–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9303-7 Kosson, D. S., Cyterski, T. D., Steuerwald, B. L., Neumann, C. S., & Walker-Matthews, S. (2002). The reliability and validity of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) in nonincarcerated adolescent males. Psychological Assessment, 14(1), 97– 109. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.1.97 Kramer, K. L., & Veile, A. (2018). Infant allocare in traditional societies. Physiology & Behavior, 193, 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.02.054 Kreager, D. A., Rulison, K., & Moody, J. (2011). Delinquency and the Structure of Adolescent Peer Groups*. Criminology, 49(1), 95–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745- 9125.2010.00219.x Langbehn, D. R., Cadoret, R. J., Yates, W. R., Troughton, E. P., & Stewart, M. A. (1998). Distinct contributions of conduct and oppositional defiant symptoms to adult antisocial behavior: Evidence from an adoption study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55(9), 821–829. Lapsley, D. K., & Murphy, M. N. (1985). Another look at the theoretical assumptions of adolescent egocentrism. Developmental Review, 5(3), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(85)90009-7 Lau Clayton, C. (2016). The Lives of Young Fathers: A Review of Selected Evidence. Social Policy and Society, 15(1), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746415000470 86 Leedom, L. J. (2006). Just Like His Father? Healing Arts Press. Leedom, L. J. (2014). Human Social Behavioral Systems: Ethological framework for a unified theory. Human Ethology Bulletin, 29. https://ishe.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/04/HEB_2014_29_1_39-65.pdf Lessard, L. M., Kogachi, K., & Juvonen, J. (2019). Quality and Stability of Cross-Ethnic Friendships: Effects of Classroom Diversity and Out-of-School Contact. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(3), 554–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0964-9 Li, M., & Preziosi, D. (2022). Developing Resilience from Attachment Anxiety/Avoidance: The Roles of Self-Compassion and Self-Efficacy in An Adolescent Sample in the U.S. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 44(2), 318–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-022-09468-y Li, Y., & Hu, Y. (2018). How to Attain a Popularity Goal? Examining the Mediation Effects of Popularity Determinants and Behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(9), 1842–1852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0882-x Linden-Andersen, S., Markiewicz, D., & Doyle, A.-B. (2009). Perceived similarity among adolescent friends: The role of reciprocity, friendship quality, and gender. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(5), 617–637. Lonergan, A. R., Bussey, K., Fardouly, J., Griffiths, S., Murray, S. B., Hay, P., Mond, J., Trompeter, N., & Mitchison, D. (2020). Protect me from my selfie: Examining the association between photo-based social media behaviors and self-reported eating disorders in adolescence. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 53(5), 755–766. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23256 Lounds, J. J., Borkowski, J. G., & Whitman, T. L. (2006). The potential for child neglect: The case of adolescent mothers and their children. Child Maltreatment, 11(3), 281–294. Mannarino, A. P. (1975). Friendship Patterns and Altruistic Behavior in Preadolescent Males. [Ph.D., The Ohio State University]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/302780417/citation/A18CB704A9049ACPQ/1 Mayeux, L., Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2008). Is Being Popular a Risky Proposition? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18(1), 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00550.x Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study (2001-05975-000). Cambridge University Press. National Institute of Justice. (2014). From Youth Justice Involvement to Young Adult Offending. National Institute of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/youth-justice- involvement-young-adult-offending 87 National Youth Gang Survey Analysis: Demographics | National Gang Center. (2012). https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/survey-analysis/demographics Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250 Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A., Vermande, M. M., Aleva, E. A., & van der Meulen, M. (2011). Bullying as strategic behavior: Relations with desired and acquired dominance in the peer group. Journal of School Psychology, 49(3), 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.03.003 Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 18(2), 125–144. Patel, P. H., & Sen, B. (2012). Teen Motherhood and Long-Term Health Consequences. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16(5), 1063–1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995- 011-0829-2 Paterson, J., Pryor, J., & Field, J. (1995). Adolescent attachment to parents and friends in relation to aspects of self-esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(3), 365– 376. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537602 Patterson, G. R. (1984). Siblings: Fellow travelers in coercive family processes. Advances in the Study of Aggression, 1, 173–215. Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Rough-and-tumble play from childhood through adolescence: Development and possible functions. Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development, 438–453. Portt, E., Person, S., Person, B., Rawana, E., & Brownlee, K. (2020). Empathy and Positive Aspects of Adolescent Peer Relationships: A Scoping Review. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(9), 2416–2433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01753-x Preston, S. D. (2013). The Origins of Altruism in Offspring Care. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031755 Prinstein, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Forms and Functions of Adolescent Peer Aggression Associated With High Levels of Peer Status. Merrill-Palmer Qu