Gender differences in the pathway from adverse life events to adolescent emotional and behavioural problems via negative cognitive errors

Abstract

The aim of this study was to test for gender differences in how negative cognitive errors (overgeneralizing, catastrophizing, selective abstraction, and personalizing) mediate the association between adverse life events and adolescents' emotional and behavioural problems (measured with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire). The sample consisted of 202 boys and 227 girls (aged 11-15 years) from three state secondary schools in disadvantaged areas in one county in the South East of England. Control variables were age, ethnicity, special educational needs, exclusion history, family structure, family socio-economic disadvantage, and verbal cognitive ability. Adverse life events were measured with Tiet et al.'s (1998) Adverse Life Events Scale. For both genders, we assumed a pathway from adverse life events to emotional and behavioural problems via cognitive errors. We found no gender differences in life adversity, cognitive errors, total difficulties, peer problems, or hyperactivity. In both boys and girls, even after adjustment for controls, cognitive errors were related to total difficulties and emotional symptoms, and life adversity was related to total difficulties and conduct problems. The life adversity/conduct problems association was not explained by negative cognitive errors in either gender. However, we found gender differences in how adversity and cognitive errors produced hyperactivity and internalizing problems. In particular, life adversity was not related, after adjustment for controls, to hyperactivity in girls and to peer problems and emotional symptoms in boys. Cognitive errors fully mediated the effect of life adversity on hyperactivity in boys and on peer and emotional problems in girls.

The Impact of Negative Life Events on Young Adolescents: Comparing the Relative Vulnerability of Middle Level, High School, and College-Age Students

“…This finding is consistent with the professional literature describing the impact of NLEs on boys' and girls' emotional outcomes. Numerous studies have described girls experiencing a comparatively higher number of cumulative NLEs than boys (Flouri & Panourgia, 2011;Harkness et al, 2010;Sigfusdottir & Silver, 2009), and the present study adds support to those findings. Girls consistently experienced NLEs more frequently than boys in the same grade.…”

“…Many studies support the stronger influence of NLEs on rates of girls' depression and anxiety (Flouri & Panourgia, 2011;Harkness et al, 2010;Sigfusdottir & Silver, 2009), and higher rates of both depression and anxiety have been regularly associated with girls experiencing NLEs. However, previous research has been inconsistent regarding the influence of NLEs on rates of girls' anger.…”

Research in developmental psychology on gender and relationships: Reflections on the past and looking into the future

“…Most of the contributors considered children's gender development in the context of peer relationships. Some of the topics addressed in these studies include gender‐related variations in play (Ensor, Hart, Jacobs, & Hughes, 2011; Mathieson & Banerjee, 2011), conflict and aggression (Ensor et al , 2011; Flouri & Panourgia, 2011; Hay et al , 2011; Ewing Lee & Troop‐Gordon, 2011; Mathieson & Banerjee, 2011), communication (Psaltis, 2011; Valkenburg, Sumter, & Pete, 2011), and in‐group identity (Kurtz‐Costes, DeFreitas, Halle, & Kinlaw, 2011; Zosuls et al , 2011).…”

Poverty-Related Adversity and Emotion Regulation Predict Internalizing Behavior Problems among Low-Income Children Ages 8–11

“…Individual differences in FEA are predictive of grave social and clinical outcomes, including higher risk of rejection from peers, feelings of failure in social situations, social isolation, and loneliness [6,7,19]. In addition, lower levels of accuracy in identifying emotions by using appropriate emotion labels has been found to be robustly predictive of higher risk of internalizing difficulty among younger children [20,21].…”