Introduction to the Youth Connectedness Project

1. Introduction to the Youth Connectedness Project 4 October, 2007 Connectedness in Youth Seminar Paul Jose--Senior Researcher

2. A brief history • Official title of the FRST grant: “Connectedness in young New Zealanders: Social connectedness, transitions, and well-being” • We began in mid-2004 and are scheduled to finish the grant in mid-2009. • Our chief goal is to collect annual longitudinal data on a large sample of early adolescents over three years (’06, ’07, and ’08). • We succeeded in getting the first wave of data in ’06, and we are almost done with the data collection in ’07.

3. Adolescent development • Western societies (and related research) have emphasised the separation of the adolescent from the family: • individuation • construction of the self • autonomy • Our team believes that an important dynamic in the adolescent period has been overlooked: • connectedness • In the last decade more work has been devoted to understanding how these opposing tendencies co-occur and play out over the adolescent years.

4. Healthy development • A healthy trajectory for adolescents seems to be a combination of independence and interdependence • But we don’t know as much as we should about the ties and connections that youth foster, retain, or weaken • The chief aim of the present longitudinal study was to track degree and type of connectedness from 10 to 16 years: • School • Family • Peers • Community • So let’s briefly discuss the dataset.

5. First year of data We collected data in four ways: • lap-top administered self-report surveys from about 2,175 adolescents (10-15 years); • Self-report surveys from one of the parents of the adolescent; • Surveys from most of the principals of the schools from which we accessed participants; and • NZCER-focused interviews and digital storytelling.

6. Sampling goals • Equal numbers of males and females: 52% females and 48% males. • Equal numbers of Maori and ENZ: 50% ENZ; 30% Maori, and 20% Other. (Note: “Maori” defined as anyone who ticked that option, can include bicultural individuals.) • Equal numbers of three cohorts (Years 6, 8, & 10): slightly more of the younger kids. • A wide range of school deciles: average was 5.2, and we obtained schools at every point on the scale.

7. Year of school Total 6 8 10 Ethnicity NZ European Count 388 346 377 1111 % within Year of school 50.3% 49.6% 56.6% 52.0% Maori Count 250 197 192 639 % within Year of school 32.4% 28.2% 28.8% 29.9% Other Count 134 155 97 386 % within Year of school 17.4% 22.2% 14.6% 18.1% Total Count 772 698 666 2136 Ethnicity by Age breakdown

8. School decile range

9. Location Type Frequency Percent % 2001 Census Major Urban 1326 61.0 71 Secondary Urban 297 13.7 6 Minor Urban 432 19.9 8 Rural 119 5.5 14 Total 2174 100.0 100.0 Covering geographical regions

10. Did we get a good sample? • On balance, we feel that we did. • We sought to overrepresent Maori adolescents, and we did. • We underrepresented rural youth (well, maybe), but did well on school decile, gender, and age. • Can we hold on to this sample? We are doing reasonably well finding and retaining adolescents: anticipate 5-7% loss.

11. Overall analytic plan • Literally hundreds of possible analyses are possible due to the diversity of the sample and the wide range of assessed constructs. • Main goal is to see whether connectedness is associated (predictive of) wellbeing. • How have we done with this prediction?

12. Quick tour of the constructs • Demographic variables • Support • Wellbeing • Coping & stress • Family dynamics • School achievement and relationships • Bullying (actor and receiver) • Peer relationships • Technology • Spirituality • Ethnic identity • Community connections [Each is composed of many individual questions and subscales.] Let’s see how the four areas of connectedness played out over our age range.

13. Family connectedness decreased with age

14. So does connectedness with school

15. Peer connectedness didn’t seem to change much

16. Connectedness with community increased

17. Gender differences • Females report higher: • School connectedness • Peer connectedness • No gender differences for: • Community connectedness • Family connectedness

18. What about wellbeing? • Composed of: • Personal Identity • Morality of Action • Aspirations/Direction • Positive Relations with Others • Confidence • Negative Affect(reverse-coded) • Positive Affect • Life Satisfaction • Depression Orientation(reverse-coded)

19. Age trend is typical Overall, no gender difference, but females tend to show more decrement over early adolescence than males.

20. Family connectedness .31*** School connectedness .23*** Wellbeing .24*** Peer connectedness .04* Community connectedness Connectedness seems to be related to wellbeing Note that this is cross-sectional data and we can’t determine the direction of causality. It is possible that wellbeing predicts connectedness, as well as the reverse (depicted here). Once we have longitudinal data, we will be able to examine the direction of causality. Also, we seek to determine which of the potential moderators (age, gender, SES, ethnicity, etc.) affect this basic relationship and how. R2 = .39

21. Much remains to be done • The basic hypothesis seems to have validity, but we need to probe this basic relationship. • Many other variables other than connectedness and wellbeing need examination (bullying, technology, family dynamics, etc.). • We are motivated to see how we can triangulate in on adolescents’ lives with the different sources of data (adolescent; parent; school). • The programme today will relate the early findings based on these cross-sectional data. We are excited by the prospect of longitudinal data. • Now let’s hear from the KMRG group.