Age and gender differences in perceived social support from parents, friends, classmates, and teachers were investigated in 304 boys and 351 girls aged 9-18 years. The social support scale for children and adolescents was used for this purpose. Analyses showed that the level of perceived social support from parents and friends was similar across age groups. The study of the prominence of social support sources showed that parents and friends were perceived as equally supportive; only for the ages 16-18 years did friend support exceed parent support. Support from teachers was lower in the older age groups, and this was related to the transition from primary to secondary school. Finally, girls perceived more support from teachers, classmates and friends than boys did.

Common folklore seems to suggest that adolescents are particularly susceptible to peer influence. However, from the literature the exact age differences in susceptibility to peer influence remain unclear. The current study's main focus was to chart the development of general susceptibility to peer pressure in a community sample of 10–18 year olds (N = 464) with the recently developed Resistance to Peer Influence Scale (RPI). The one‐factor structure of the RPI was cross‐validated in the present sample, and the RPI was equally reliable at all ages. As expected, general resistance to peer influence increased during adolescence. In addition, gender differences were most pronounced during mid‐adolescence, when girls were more resistant to peer influence than boys. These findings are explained in terms of psychosocial maturation during adolescence.

In a sample of 157 monozygotic and dizygotic twins, genetic and environmental influences on infant attachment and temperament were quantified. Only unique environmental or error components could explain the variance in disorganized versus organized attachment as assessed in the Ainsworth Strange Situation Procedure. For secure versus nonsecure attachment, 52% of the variance in attachment security was explained by shared environment, and 48% of the variance was explained by unique environmental factors and measurement error. The role of genetic factors in attachment disorganization and attachment security was negligible. Genetic factors explained 77% of the variance in temperamental reactivity, and unique environmental factors and measurement error explained 23%. Differences in temperamental reactivity were not associated with attachment concordance.

No abstract

No abstract