A Multivariate Model of Gender Differences in ...

Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0012-1649/99/S3.00

Developmental Psychology 1999, Vol. 35, No. 5, 1268-1282

A Multivariate Model of Gender Differences in Adolescents' Internalizing and Externalizing Problems Christopher Hertzog

Bonnie J. Leadbeater, Gabriel P. Kuperminc, and Sidney J. Blatt

Georgia Institute of Technology

Yale University Gender differences observed in interpersonal and self-critical vulnerabilities, reactivity to stressful life events, quality of relationships, and self-concepts inform a multivariate theoretical model of the moderating effects of gender on internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescence. To test this model, data were collected in a 1-year prospective study from an ethnically diverse sample of 460 middle school students. Increases in girls' internalizing symptoms, compared with boys', were partly explained by greater stability in girls' interpersonal vulnerabilities and greater magnitude in coefficients linking girls' relationships with parents and peers and internalizing problems. Boys' risks for externalizing problems, compared with girls', were partly explained by the greater stability in boys' vulnerability to self-criticism. Coefficients for most pathways in the model are similar for boys and girls.

Theories of developmental psychopathology emphasize the complex transaction of antecedent conditions, levels of adjustment or vulnerability, and risk and protective factors in the etiology of negative outcomes (Block & Gjerde, 1990; Cicchetti & Toth, 1998; Rutter, 1990). A variety of developmental pathways can lead to the same disorders (equifinality), although particular risk factors may not lead to the same outcomes for every individual (multifinality; Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1996). Trait or genetic factors, in part, explain the considerable continuity that has been observed in psychopathology from childhood to adolescence, particularly in externalizing problems (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998). However, explanations of discontinuities in development are of particular concern for understanding why some adolescents' problems persist or escalate whereas the majority show few or declining problems as they grow older. Continuities and discontinuities in behavioral and emotional problems from childhood to adolescence are moderated by gender. Increases of internalizing problems in adolescent girls exceed these rates for boys (Angold & Rutter, 1992). On the other hand, boys exceed girls in rates of externalizing problems throughout childhood and adolescence (Lewinsohn, Hops, Roberts, Seeley, & Andrews, 1993; Zahn-Waxler, 1993). Studies also show gender differences in prevalence of the vulnerability and risk factors associated with internalizing or externalizing problems (Leadbeater, Blatt, & Quinlan, 1995). The conceptual clarity and distinctiveness of vulnerability, risk, and protective factors have been the subject of considerable debate

(Cicchetti & Toth, 1998). In some studies, protective factors constitute continuous variables that contribute to positive outcomes regardless of risk status (sometimes called resource variables). Others insist that protective factors operate only as moderators in the context of risk (Conrad & Hammen, 1993). Protective factors have also been operationalized on the basis of their anticipated effects in decreasing psychopathology (e.g., beliefs, activities, or commitments that are incompatible with deviant activities), whereas risk factors are seen to increase psychopathology (e.g., by instigating negative behaviors or by increasing opportunities for them; Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa, & Turbin, 1995). In this study of the moderating effects of gender on the development of internalizing and externalizing problems, we conceptualized prior levels of these adjustment problems, as well as dysphoric personality traits (interpersonal vulnerability and self-criticism), as vulnerability factors. Protective and risk factors were conceptualized, respectively, as the resources and stresses that decrease or increase the likelihood of adjustment problems. We used a 1-year longitudinal design to investigate the effects of specific vulnerability, risk, and protective factors, which have been previously shown to differ in prevalence for boys and girls, in predicting the intraindividual stability of (or rates of change in) internalizing and externalizing problems. These factors have been reviewed elsewhere (Block & Gjerde, 1990; Leadbeater et al., 1995; Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994; Zahn-Waxler, 1993), and their main features are briefly presented below. Gender Differences in Internalizing and Externalizing Problems

Bonnie J. Leadbeater, Gabriel P. Kuperminc, and Sidney J. Blatt, Department of Psychology, Yale University; Christopher Hertzog, Department of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology. Gabriel P. Kuperminc is now at the Department of Psychology, Georgia State University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bonnie J. Leadbeater, who is now at the Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 3050, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 3P5. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

Adolescent problem behaviors have been frequently dichotomized into two empirically established syndromes reflecting internalizing disturbances (including depression, anxiety, withdrawal, and eating disorders) and externalizing disturbances (including aggression, oppositional disorders, delinquency, and school problems; Achenbach, 1991). Although some adolescents' problems are primarily internalizing or externalizing, these problems co1268

GENDER DIFFERENCES

occur at high rates in children and adolescents (Angold & Costello, 1995; Nottelmann & Jensen, 1995). Nevertheless, in research with community-based samples, few children are expected to meet criteria for specific mental disorders. Thus, the empirically derived syndromes have an advantage as assessments of early indicators of problems. Some common causal factors may create risks for both types of disturbances. On the other hand, gender differences in the prevalence of internalizing and externalizing problems suggest that unique predictors of each may also be important (Allen, Leadbeater, & Aber, 1994). Controlling for baseline levels of both internalizing and externalizing problems, we examined the common and unique predictors of changes in each of these syndromes 1 year later.

Gender-Linked Vulnerability, Risk, and Protective Factors Recent reviews have suggested that girls' greater socialization for self-regulation and sensitivity to interpersonal concerns increases their vulnerability to internalizing problems compared with boys (Gore, Aseltine, & Colten, 1993; Leadbeater et al., 1995; Zahn-Waxier, 1993). Girls show greater vulnerability to interpersonal concerns, reactivity to stressful life events involving others, reliance on support from parents and peers for coping, and social competence compared with boys. On the other hand, dispositional differences in aggression, as well as socialization practices that emphasize self-assertion and underemphasize empathy and selfregulation, may put boys at higher risk for externalizing problems.

Interpersonal and Self-Critical Vulnerabilities Researchers have differentiated interpersonal (sociotropic) and self-critical personality styles in individuals at risk for depression (see, e.g., Beck, 1983; Blatt, 1974; Robins & Luten, 1991). These vulnerabilities are also associated with other problem behaviors in high school students (Blatt, 1991; Blatt, Hart, Quinlan, Leadbeater, & Auerbach, 1993). Interpersonal vulnerability is associated with higher levels of internalizing problems, whereas self-criticism is associated with higher levels of both internalizing and externalizing problems. Individuals with heightened interpersonal vulnerability are preoccupied with the quality of their interpersonal relationships and experience feelings of loneliness and helplessness, fears of abandonment, and desires for intense closeness. Because of their concerns about maintaining relationships, they also often have difficulty in expressing anger overtly. On the other hand, individuals with high levels of self-critical vulnerability are preoccupied with their sense of self and experience excessive feelings of guilt, hopelessness, worthlessness, and inadequacy. In adolescence, girls report higher levels of interpersonal vulnerability than boys, but gender differences in self-criticism are typically not significant (Leadbeater et al., 1995). Gender differences were found in the co-occurrence of extreme levels of these vulnerabilities and syndromes (Leadbeater et al., 1995). Girls were more likely than boys to be categorized as high (one standard deviation above group means) in both interpersonal vulnerability and internalizing (10% of girls compared with 3% of boys), as well as in both interpersonal vulnerability and externalizing (7% of girls vs. 2.3% of boys). By contrast, boys were more likely to be categorized as high in both self-criticism and externalizing (7% of

1269

boys vs. 3% of girls). Gender differences for high levels of both self-criticism and internalizing were slight.

Stress and Adolescent Problem Behaviors Girls are more likely than boys to report stressful events involving others, whereas boys and girls are equally likely to report events that directly affect themselves (e.g., academic failures; Gore et al., 1993; Wagner & Compas, 1990). Girls may experience more stress related to simultaneously occurring developmental transitions (e.g., puberty and the transition to middle school) since, on average, they mature earlier than boys (Petersen, Sarigiani, & Kennedy, 1991). More negative societal responses to female than male sexual maturation may also lead to greater parental restrictions and conflict and to poorer self-concepts or body images, particularly for early maturing girls (Ge, Conger, & Elder, 1996). Stressful life events were associated with adolescents' internalizing and externalizing problems in cross-sectional analyses (Colten, Gore, & Aseltine, 1991; Compas, Howell, Phares, Williams, & Guinta, 1989) but predicted increase in internalizing symptoms only for girls (Ge, Lorenz, Conger, Elder, & Simons, 1994).

Quality of Relationships to Parents and Peers The protective influences of quality of attachments to parents, positive parent-child interactions, and authoritarian parenting styles on the development of internalizing and externalizing problems have been supported by previous research (Cicchetti & Toth, 1998; Ge, Best, Conger, & Simons, 1996; Loeber & StouthamerLoeber, 1998; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Positive relationships with nondeviant peers have also been associated with better outcomes (Jessor et al., 1995). Gender differences have been found in the intimacy of adolescents' relationships with both parents and peers (see review by Buhrmester, 1996) and in young adolescents' use of social supports (Copeland & Hess, 1995). Preschool girls, but not boys, whose mothers received higher scores for authoritarian control, cognitive resourcefulness (a positive teaching style), and positive engagement had higher levels of depressive symptoms 18 years later (Gjerde, Block, & Block, 1991). Adolescents' perceptions of the quality of their attachments to parents and peers may be particularly important in influencing whether adolescents view these relationships as available resources in times of stress or see the disapproval of parents and peers as a deterrent to antisocial behaviors.

Individual Differences in Self-Concept Associations among poor self-esteem (or negative selfconcepts) and adolescents' emotional and problem behaviors are well established (Jessor et al., 1995; Masten et al., 1988). On the other hand, positive self-concepts can reflect perceptions of competence accrued across several domains of adolescent development, including academics, socialization, physical appearance, and romantic appeal (DuBois, Felner, Brand, Phillips, & Lease, 1996; Harter & Whitesell, 1996). The widely quoted report by the American Association of University Women (1992) emphasized difficulties many adolescent girls have in maintaining a sense of competence compared with boys.

1270

LEADBEATER, KUPERMINC, BLATT, AND HERTZOG

A Multivariate Model of Gender Differences in the Development of Problem Behaviors We examined whether gender differences in interpersonal and self-critical vulnerabilities, reactivity to stressful life events, quality of relationships with parents and peers, and several domains of self-concept explained the moderating effects of gender on changes over 1 year in internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescence. Two models specifying the relations among these variables are proposed. Individuals with heightened interpersonal vulnerability (who are more likely to be girls) are preoccupied with their relationships with others and have difficulty expressing anger overtly. They are more likely to report internalizing than externalizing symptoms. Stressful events involving others are related to increase in internalizing symptoms for individuals high in interpersonal vulnerability, whereas stable supports from parents and peers are related to declines in internalizing. We expected these pathways to be stronger for girls than boys. On the other hand, individuals with high levels of self-critical vulnerability (who are as likely to be girls as boys) are preoccupied with feelings of guilt, hopelessness, worthlessness, and inadequacy. Others are perceived as critical, and intimate relationships are avoided or reacted to with anger and hostility. These individuals are more likely to report externalizing behaviors that build up their sense of self or deflect criticism, including defiance of authority, delinquency, aggression toward others, school disciplinary problems, and high-risk sexual activity. Stressful life events that negatively affect perceptions of self-worth are related to increases in externalizing for individuals high in self-criticism, whereas a stable, positive self-concept based on perceived competence in some domain may protect against threats to self-esteem and decrease externalizing behaviors. No gender differences in the occurrence of heightened self-critical depressive vulnerability or in reactivity to stressful life events involving the self have been found. Nevertheless, externalizing disorders are more frequent in boys, possibly reflecting their socialization for self-assertion and aggression. Self-critical girls who are concurrently more likely to experience heightened interpersonal vulnerability may also be less likely to exhibit externalizing behaviors. Thus, we expected that these pathways would be stronger for boys. Investigators have used different statistical procedures to assess continuities or discontinuities in development either between groups or for individuals, and their findings yield different information. Analyses of group data offer information about how group scores (mean differences) change or remain the same or about the extent to which the rank orderings of group scores (correlations) are similar over time. However, these analyses do not give information about changes that may be occurring within individuals regarding the prevalence or seriousness of their problems (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998) or about differences in the developmental process that contribute to changes in psychopathology for some individuals but not others (Cicchetti & Toth, 1998). We investigated both group differences and predictors of intraindividual changes. Gender differences in mean levels of vulnerability, risk, and protective factors were assessed at two time points using multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) with repeated measures. We also used structural equation modeling to construct latent

variables for each of the predictors and adjustment variables— except for interpersonal and self-critical vulnerabilities. For these two variables, factor scores were computed to maintain comparability with past literature. We first tested the statistical equivalence of the constellations of symptoms that comprise internalizing and externalizing syndromes across gender and time of assessment. We next computed the fit of the multivariate model, hypothesizing that intraindividual changes in internalizing and externalizing syndromes over a 1-year period were related to interpersonal and self-critical vulnerabilities. The relationships between these vulnerabilities and adjustment problems were expected to be mediated by stressful life events. We focused on proximal experiences of stress (i.e., those that occurred within 3 months of the final adjustment assessments) to test whether predisposing vulnerabilities to interpersonal or self-critical depressive experiences (assessed at baseline) would be mediated by subsequently occurring stressful life events in predicting increases in adjustment problems. We expected that the quality of parental and peer relationships and self-concept would also predict individual differences in changes in internalizing and externalizing. After evaluating the overall fit of the multivariate model combining data for boys and girls, we used multiple group comparisons to test for gender interactions in the magnitude of the structural regression coefficients for hypothesized pathways.

Method Participants The sample consisted of 230 boys and 230 girls (aged 11-14 years at the first assessment) recruited from the 6th and 7th grades of a large public middle school in a socioeconomically and ethnically diverse metropolitan community in New York State. The school district served approximately 83% of the 6th through 8th grade population, with an overall racial or ethnic makeup that included 42% non-Hispanic White, 29% African American, 27% Hispanic, and 3% Asian students. Thirty-eight percent of students were eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches. Prior to the first assessment, parental consent was obtained for 528 students (64% of the 6th and 7th grades). Of those students, 499 completed the questionnaire (25 declined to participate, and 4 dropped out before completing all the baseline questionnaires). At the second assessment 1 year later, 92% of the original students participated. Attempts were made to contact families of students who had moved away from the school district, and questionnaires were mailed to those who agreed to continue their participation. Attrition was due to an inability to contact students who had moved away from the school district, failure of contacted students to return questionnaires, or student refusals. Spearman correlations of attrition with all Year 1 study variables were examined to identify possible sources of bias in the sample. Only one correlation was significant, which was less than would have been expected by chance. Similar to the school population, 50% (n = 230) of the participants in the final sample were non-Hispanic White, 26% (n = 122) were Hispanic, 21% (n = 96) were African American, and 2.6% (n = 12) were Asian. The majority (78%) lived with two parents (i.e., biological, adoptive, or stepparents), 20% lived with one parent (usually the mother), and 2% lived with other parents or guardians. Thirty-three percent received federally subsidized school lunches.

Procedure Data were collected in two assessments 1 year apart in January 1995 and January 1996. In each year, $10 was donated to the school's student

GENDER DIFFERENCES activity fund on behalf of each participating student; participants were also treated to snacks at the end of the assessment day. Questionnaires were group administered in classrooms of 20-25 students, and make-up sessions were conducted for absent students. Each questionnaire was introduced by a member of the research team, and each item was read aloud by the classroom teacher to control for reading comprehension. A Spanish version was administered in separate bilingual sessions for students who requested it, and special education students were also tested in separate sessions and allowed extra time.

Measurement At Years 1 and 2, identical self-report measures were used to tap externalizing and internalizing problems, self-critical and interpersonal vulnerability, quality of relationships with parents, quality of peer relations, and self-concept. Measurement of stressful life events was included only at Year 2 to test pathways from vulnerabilities to stressful life events that occurred subsequent to the assessment of initial levels of vulnerabilities. Table 1 provides summary information for the scales used in the structural model. Self-critical and interpersonal vulnerability. The 66-item Depressive Experiences Questionnaire for Adolescents (DEQ-A) was developed for participants ranging from early (Age 12) through late adolescence (Blatt, Schaffer, Bers, & Quinlan, 1993) and was based on the widely used adult Depressive Experiences Questionnaire. Three factor scores have been consistently identified in data from adults, college students, and adolescents. They are Dependency (or Interpersonal Vulnerability), with high loadings for items such as "Without the support of others who are close to me, I would be helpless"; Self-Criticism, with high loadings for items such as "If I fail to live up to expectations, I feel unworthy"; and Efficacy, with high loadings for items such as "I have many strengths and abilities." The

1271

Efficacy factor was not used here. Responses were given on a 7-point Likert-type scale (7 = strongly agree). The reliability and validity of these factors for the DEQ-A have also been documented in high school samples of middle and upper middle socioeconomic status (Blatt, Hart, et al., 1993; Blatt, Schaffer, et al., 1993) and lower socioeconomic status (Luthar & Blatt, 1995). To maximize consistency with prior research (Zuroff, Quinlan, & Blatt, 1990), we computed orthogonal factor scores for self-critical and interpersonal vulnerabilities. These scores were derived from principalcomponents analysis with varimax rotation of adolescents' responses to the DEQ-A items; factor-scoring coefficients from the Year 1 data were also used to construct scores for the Year 2 responses. In previous analyses (Kuperminc, Blatt, & Leadbeater, 1997), the factor structure of the DEQ-A for this young adolescent sample was congruent with that obtained for older adolescents (coefficients of congruence ranged from .81 to .94 for the Interpersonal Vulnerability and Self-Criticism factor scores). Factor scores for interpersonal and self-critical vulnerabilities, however, appeared less distinct than scores computed from factor analysis of the high school students, suggesting that these may be less differentiated in young adolescents. Externalizing and internalizing problems. Latent variables of externalizing and internalizing problems consisted of scores from the Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach, 1991). The YSR has been used widely with normal and clinically referred youths and has shown adequate reliability and validity in assessing a broad range of behavioral and emotional problems experienced by youths aged 11 to 18. Adolescents rated how well each of 112 items described them over the past 6 months on a 3-point scale (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, 2 = very true or often true). Scores were computed for two syndromes indicative of externalizing problems—delinquent behavior and aggressive behavior—and three syndromes indicative of internalizing

Table 1 Description of Questionnaires Used in Structural Equation Models Including Instrument Name, Source, Scales Contributed to Latent Constructs, and Internal Consistency Estimates at Year 1 and Year 2 Internal consistency Instrument Depressive Experiences Questionnaire for Adolescents (DEQ-A) Youth Self-Report (YSR)

Source

Latent variable

Blatt et al. (1992)

Year 2

75 81 83 61 76

Buhrmester (1990)

Peer relations

Armsden & Greenberg (1987)

Peer relations

Attachment to peers (25)

84

.83

Quality of parent relations

Attachment to mother (25) Attachment to father (25)

63 69

.63 .74

Externalizing problems Internalizing problems

Adolescent Perceived Events Scale (APES)

Compas et al. (1987)

Stressful events

Adolescent Self-Perception Profile (ASPP)

Harter (1988)

Self-concept

Peer relations

a

Year 1

Interpersonal vulnerability Self-critical vulnerability Delinquent behavior (11) Aggressive behavior (19) Depression/anxiety (16) Social withdrawal (7) Somatic complaints (9) Involving the self (10) Involving peers (8) Involving parents (8) Physical appearance (5) Athletic competence (5) Scholastic competence (5) Global self-worth (5) Social acceptance (5) Close friendship (5) Interpersonal competence (30)

Achenbach (1991)

Adolescent Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (AICQ) Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA)

Indicators (no. of items)

75 81 76 75 63 75 93

.80 .82 .86 .67 .77 .63 .67 .69 .80 .83 .73 .75 .78 .72 .94

Coefficient alpha cannot be calculated for the DEQ-A factor scores, which were derived from principal-components analysis. However, Kuperminc et al. (1997) reported good reliability and validity data on the DEQ-A for this sample. Scores for stressful events were included only for Year 2.

1272

LEADBEATER, KUPERMINC, BLATT, AND HERTZOG

problems—anxious-depressed mood, social withdrawal, and somatic complaints (Achenbach, 1991).1 Stressful life events. An adaptation of the junior high school version of the Adolescent Perceived Events Scale (APES; Compas, Davis, Forsythe, & Wagner, 1987) was used to assess adolescents' exposure to stressful events in the 3 months preceding the final assessment. Adolescents indicated whether or not each of 108 events describing major events and daily hassles had occurred within the prior 3 months and then rated each event that had occurred on a 5-point scale (1 = felt bad about the event; 5 = felt good about the event). We constructed three indicators for the latent variable of stressful life events using selected items from the APES. Self-related stresses were events that might evoke feelings of disappointment, embarrassment, or having failed to achieve goals (e.g., failing a grade or not liking your appearance). Stresses in peer relationships were events that involved conflicts or changes in relationships with peers or with boyfriends or girlfriends (e.g., hassles, arguments, or fights with peers). Stresses in family relationships were events that involved conflicts or problems with parents (e.g., parents discover something you didn't want them to know). These stress scores were moderately correlated with similar scores computed from data collected about 9 months earlier from these participants (r = .62 for total, r = .47 for self, r = .57 for peer relationships, and r = .52 for family relationships). Correlations of total stress scores with the parents' reports, which were available for 397 of our participants, of major stressful life events assessed with the Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes (McCubbin, Patterson, Bauman, & Harris, 1981) were also significant (r = .22, p < .001). Self-concept. This latent variable consisted of four subscales from the Adolescent Self-Perception Profile (ASPP; Harter, 1988) that assess domains of perceived competence: Physical Appearance (the degree to which adolescents are happy with the way they look), Athletic Competence (adolescents' perceptions of their ability and competence at sports), Scholastic Competence (perceptions of ability within the realm of scholastic performance), and Global Self-Worth (perceptions of one's worth as a person, rather than domain-specific competency). The approach of including both domain-specific and global indicators of self-concept takes account of the complexity of adolescents' overall judgments about themselves (Harter & Whitesell, 1996). Adolescents completed each 5-item scale using a modified format designed to simplify the administration of the measure. For each item, two contrasting stems were presented side by side and were read out loud together, for example: "Some teenagers are not happy with the way they look, but other teenagers are happy with the way they look." Adolescents were first instructed to circle the stem that best described them and subsequently asked to rate whether the statement they had circled was "sort of true" or "really true" for them. Quality of peer relations. Given that quality of relationship with peers is multidimensional and reflective not only of current attachments but also of general social competence in relationships with peers and social selfconcept, this latent variable consisted of (a) two subscales taken from the ASPP, Social Acceptance and Close Friendship (adolescents' perceptions of their popularity and capacity for intimacy in relationships with peers); (b) the total Interpersonal Competence score from the Adolescent Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (AICQ; Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, & Reis, 1988); and (c) the total Peer Attachment score from the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). The AICQ assesses five domains of competence in peer relationships (Self-Disclosure, Providing Emotional Support, Conflict Management, Assertiveness, and Initiation of Friendships). The original 40-item AICQ was shortened to the 30 items that contributed most strongly to the internal consistency of each subscale. The AICQ was developed for adolescents aged 10 through 16, and the total score has been found to correlate positively with self-reported intimacy in reciprocated friendships and negatively with depression and anxiety (Buhrmester et al., 1988). The Peer Attachment scale of the IPPA assesses the perceived trust, communication, and alienation (loaded negatively) in close relationships.

Quality of relationships with parents. This latent variable was constructed from scores for attachment to mother and father on the parent version of the IPPA. Students were asked to "Circle the answer that best describes how you feel about your mother/father or the woman/man you feel closest to (e.g., mother, step-mother, grandmother)." Total scores were computed on the basis of the perceived quality of mutual trust and communication and the extent of alienation in relationships with each parent.

Results Preliminary Analysis Means, standard deviations, and F tests from the two-way (Gender X Time) MANOVA with repeated measures are displayed in Table 2. There were significant differences in the expected directions in all constructs across time and gender. Girls generally reported higher levels of internalizing symptoms, whereas boys reported more externalizing problems. Reported internalizing symptoms (withdrawal, somatic complaints, and anxious-depressed mood) declined over time for boys, but somatic complaints increased for girls. Delinquency increased for both boys and girls, but reported levels of aggression were similar at each assessment. Interpersonal vulnerability was higher for girls than boys at both assessments but declined for both over time. Self-critical vulnerability was higher for boys at Year 2 and also declined for both boys and girls. A higher proportion of girls than boys had extreme scores (one or more standard deviations above the mean) for interpersonal concerns at each assessment, and these percentages increased for girls but not boys (25% compared with 7%, respectively, at Year 1 and 42% compared with 7% at Year 2). On the other hand, percentages of boys and girls scoring one standard deviation above the mean for self-criticism were similar at both assessments and declined for both (33% and 35%, respectively, at Year 1 and 20% and 24% at Year 2). Girls were also more likely than boys to score one standard deviation above the mean on both self-critical and interpersonal vulnerabilities (4% compared with 0.4%, respectively, at Year 1 and 1.7% compared with 1% at Year 2). Girls had higher scores for attachment to mothers and peers, whereas boys had higher scores for attachment to fathers. Attachment scores declined for all students from Year 1 to Year 2. Overall levels of self-concept were similar across gender; however, scores for athletic competence and physical appearance were lower for girls, and scores for physical appearance declined for girls but not boys.

1 To obtain data from multiple informants, we also collected teacher report forms of the Child Behavior Checklist. The teachers' scores were correlated weakly with the youth self-reports, and loadings for teacher reports on the latent variables for internalizing and externalizing were low (ranging from .15 and .23, respectively). Also, the teacher scores exhibited a bimodal distribution and extreme negative skew. Hence, the teacher reports' data were not used. Although these findings were comparable to corresponding correlations in other studies (e.g., Ge, Best, et al., 1996), the loading suggests that internalizing and externalizing behaviors may differ systematically across settings for young adolescents and cannot be considered to be reflections of a single underlying construct.

1273

GENDER DIFFERENCES

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Measured Variables and Summary Statistics for Repeated Measures Analysis of Gender, Time, and Gender X Time Effects Girls Year I Latent construct and measured indicator Internalizing problems Withdrawn Somatic complaints Anxious-depressed mood Externalizing problems Delinquent behavior Aggressive behavior Vulnerability Interpersonal vulnerability Self-critical vulnerability Stressful life events Family relations Peer relations Self related Quality of parent relations Attachment to mother Attachment to father Quality of peer relations Attachment to peers Interpersonal competence Social acceptance Close friendship Self-concept Scholastic competence Athletic competence Physical appearance Self-worth

M

MANOVA statistics F(4, 455)

Boys Year 2

Year 1

Year 2

Gender X

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

3.94 4.49

2.46 3.47

3.57 4.56

2.68 3.49

3.48 3.89

2.34 3.24

3.31 3.15

2.32 2.87

7.74

5.67

6.37

5.35

6.13

4.89

5.10

4.62

2.99 9.46

2.69 6.02

4.10 9.55

3.71 5.95

4.29 10.62

3.31 5.60

5.25 9.72

3.70 5,74

0.31

0.97

0.08

0.98

-0.29

0.95

-0.52

0.95

-0.08

1.11

-0.29

0.94

0.07

0.88

-0.08

0.84

2.90 3.01 3.56

2.15 1.99 2.07

2.92 2.80 3.47

2.05 1.89 2.15

4.07 3.84

0.72 0.75

3.87 3.56

0.79 0.87

3.97 3.91

0.60 0.66

3.83 3.74

0.64 0.69

4.11

0.57

4.12

0.60

3.67

0.63

3.66

0.63

3.44 3.07 3.25

0.64 0.73 0.79

3.50 3.21 3.41

0.61 0.76 0.70

3.14 3.09 3.12

0.58 0.65 0.70

3.13 3.13 3.13

0.65 0.65 0.63

3.05 2.70 2.83 3.14

0.78 0.82 0.77 0.73

3.13 2.72 2.68 3.20

0.70 0.86 0.84 0.73

3.03 3.10 2.97 3.23

0.67 0.72 0.69 0.64

3.04 3.09 2.94 3.15

0.66 0.72 0.72 0.65

Gender

Time

Time

6.13*

8.93*

3.87*

13.03*

41.91*

2.11

33.06*

21.73*

0.30

6.42*

29.62*

1.31

28.00*

3.24*

1.77

12.47*

2.50*

3.64*

* p < .05.

Measurement Model To evaluate individual differences in the prediction of change in internalizing and externalizing problems, we estimated structural equation models with multiple measures for each latent variable using the EQS program (Bentler, 1995). This approach takes into account the correlated measurement errors that are usually present if the same measure is used at two points in time,2 which otherwise could bias the estimated stability and change in internalizing and externalizing behaviors as well as their concomitant predictors. The fit of the initial measurement model to the data was X2(ll06, N = 460) = 1,995.12, p < .001, comparative fit index (CFI) = .894, x*/df = 1.80. The CFI provides an estimate of the proportion of covariance in the variables explained in the model relative to a null baseline that accounts for no information in the covariance. Values for CFI typically range from zero to 1.00; in practice, values approximately equal to or greater than .90 indicate acceptable fit to the data (Bentler, 1990; Byrne, 1994). Values of less than 2.0 for the ratio )?idfalsQ indicate acceptable fit. We also tested the assumptions of the model that the unstandardized factor loadings were equivalent across time and gender

(see Hertzog & Nesselroade, 1987). Lack of equivalence could imply differences in the structure of internalizing or externalizing for boys and girls if, for example, their expression of these disorders differed greatly (Gjerde, 1995). To do this, we estimated the model again, this time omitting the equality constraints on factor loadings over time and across gender. The fit improved significantly, d - ^ ( 3 2 , N = 460) = 85.94, p < .001, with a small increase in the CFI (.900) and a modest decline in X^ldfxo 1.78. Follow-up examination of Lagrangian multiplier (LM) tests3 and standardized residuals for the constrained factor loadings revealed that this modest improvement in fit could be attributed to one 2

Each structural model reported in this article accounted for correlated measurement errors in the measures that were collected in both Years 1 and 2. For expedience, these data are not reported in the article but are available from the authors. 3 The LM test evaluates the effect of adding free parameter estimates to a restricted model (Bentler, 1995, p. 125). In this case, the test provided statistical information about the potential benefit (in x 2 units) of releasing one or more constraints on factor loadings for the latent variables.

1274

LEADBEATER, KUPERMINC, BLATT, AND HERTZOG

constraint on the criterion variables. Specifically, the loading of aggression on externalizing was lower for girls (.82) than boys (.96) in Year 2. Overt aggression appears to be a somewhat stronger indicator of externalizing over time for boys than girls. However, the overall pattern of factor loadings (and the absolute magnitude of most factor loadings) was similar across time and gender. We also evaluated the parameter estimates of the model, along with residual correlations and LM tests. There were no obvious fixed zero parameters that could be converted into freely estimated parameters to improve fit, and the pattern of residuals suggested that the sources of misfit in several cases were specific relationships between variables that were not of theoretical interest or importance given our research questions. We decided to retain the basic specification of the measurement model, making a few theoretically plausible modifications, which included (a) adding a secondary factor loading of peer attachment to the quality of parent relationships construct and (b) releasing the constraint that forced the loading of peer attachment on peer relations at Year 1 to be equal across gender. These modifications resulted in a final measurement model for which the overall fit to the data was adequate, ^(1099, N = 460) = 1,903.90, p < .001, CFI = .904, X^/df = 1.73. The accepted measurement model established a baseline against which to compare the goodness of fit of alternative structural regression models (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). We considered the measurement model to be an acceptable baseline, given both the adequate fit and the interpretability of the estimated factor loadings.

Standardized factor loadings for each latent construct are presented in Table 3. Nearly all factor loadings were positive and significantly different from zero. The only exception was a secondary loading of attachment to peers on the latent variable quality of relationships with parents, which was significant for boys but not for girls. This loading was retained to maintain comparability across gender for the protective factors. Factor correlations among all the variables at Years 1 and 2 and across time are given in Table 4. The factor correlations for constructs that were measured longitudinally can be interpreted as indexes of the stability of individual differences in latent attributes over a 1-year interval. Consistent with prior research, these stability coefficients (rs) were moderate for internalizing (rs = .66 for girls, and rs = .50 for boys) and externalizing problems (rs = .67 for girls, and rs = .53 for boys). Correlations were also moderate for interpersonal vulnerability (rs = .59 for girls, and rs = .50 for boys) and self-critical vulnerability (rs = .59 for girls, and rs = .56 for boys) and were moderate to high for protective factors (i.e., self-concept, quality of relations with parents and peers), with rs ranging from .69 to .83 for girls and from .61 to .70 for boys.

Structural Equation Model We next examined the hypotheses regarding risk factors and intraindividual changes within a structural regression model. This model tested (a) the stability and cross-lagged effects of prior levels of internalizing and externalizing and vulnerabilities to interpersonal and self-critical concerns on the same factors as-

Table 3 Standardized Factor Loadings for the Final Measurement Model Year 1 Latent construct and measured indicator Internalizing problems Anxious-depressed Somatic complaints Withdrawn Externalizing problems Delinquent behavior Aggressive behavior Quality of relations with parents Attachment to mother Attachment to father Attachment to peers Self-concept Scholastic competence Athletic competence Physical appearance Global self-worth Peer relations Interpersonal skills Attachment to peers Social acceptance by peers Ability to form close friendships Perceived stress Family events Peer events Self events

Year 2

Girls

Boys

Girls

Boys

.91 = .60 .79

.90= .57 .71

.94= .61 .78

.92= .61 .69

.78= .88

.74= .85

.84= .83

.68= .97

.88= .72 .04 ns

.84= .67 .36

.84= .65 .25

.78= .69 .40

.52 .42 .69 .92=

.42 .37 .61 .81 =

.52 .38 .65 .90=

.46 .38 .65 .85 =

.50 .56= .86 .71

.41 .39= .76 .64

.52 .51 = .80 .73

.40 .38= .73 .64

.77= .59 .76

.75 = .59 .70

Note. All parameters are significantly different from zero (p < .05) unless otherwise noted with ns. The = denotes parameters fixed at 1.0 in the unstandardized solution.

1275

GENDER DIFFERENCES

Table 4 Factor Correlations From the Final Measurement Model for All Constructs Measured at Years 1 and 2 Variable

1

1. Grade level (6-7) 2. Interpersonal vulnerability 3. Self-critical vulnerability 4. Internalizing problems 5. Externalizing problems 6. Parent relations 7. Self-concept 8. Peer relations

_ .10 -.12 -.12 -.01 .05 -.01 .12

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

.02 -.12 -.51 -.53 -.17 .30 .64 —

-.06 .59 .00 .26 .00 .10 -.19 -.07

.07 .00 .59 .46 .36 -.44 -.39 -.47

.02 .26 .41 .66 .44 -.41 -.41 -.44

-.10 .01 .19 .30 .67 -.48 -.27 -.13

.03 -.42 -.43 -.56 .73 .41 .30

-.08 -.22 -.24 -.06 .30 .36 .61 .24

— .00 .37 -.02 .12 -.40 -.19 .24

.00 — .42 .36 -.48 -.20 -.20 .14

.26 .62 — .70 -.29 -.45 -.30 .43

.00 .47 .63 — -.32 -.24 -.05 .45

.07 -.70 -.63 -.70 — .08 .21 -.32

15

16

-.19 -.42 -.48 -.40 .48 .69 .50

-.03 -.09 -.54 -.50 -.27 .34 .51 .83

.16 .12 .07 .28 .46 -.31 -.20 -.02

-.19 -.58 -.60 -.40 .62 — .59 -.29

-.08 -.54 -.52 -.16 .44 .68 — .15

.12 .35 .48 .63 -.46 -.35 -.08

14

Year 1 variables -.02 — .00 .32 .11 .19 -.14 .03

.01 .00 — .43 .34 -.26 -.23 -.39

.04 .44 .56 — .67 -.16 -.43 -.29

.09 .08 .30 .58 — -.41 -.20 -.05

-.09 .11 -.34 -.40 -.53 — .19 .26

-.15 -.28 -.22 -.51 -.37 .49 — .57

.05 -.07

Year 2 variables 9. Interpersonal vulnerability 10. Self-critical vulnerability 11. Internalizing problems 12. Externalizing problems 13. Parent relationships 14. Self-concept 15. Peer relationships 16. Stressful events

.02 -.12 -.10 -.05 .07 .10 .17 -.03

.50 .00 .21 -.05 .09 -.16 .04 .02

.00 .56 .17 .10 -.28 -.14 -.21 -.13

.33 .25 .50 .29 -.19 -.36 -.26 .15

-.17 .25 .28 .53 -.25 -.12 -.01 .22

.20 -.36 -.15 -.25 .70 .00 .18 -.13

-.24 -.22 -.37 -.17 .14 .58 .29 -.02

Note. Correlations above the diagonal are for girls, and correlations below the diagonal are for boys. Correlations are corrected for measurement error except those involving grade level, interpersonal concerns, and self-criticism. One-year stability coefficients appear in boldface type. Correlations between internalizing and externalizing problems also appear in boldface type.

sessed 1 year later, (b) the mediating effects of stressful life events, and (c) the effects of protective factors in the prediction of internalizing and externalizing problems. Effects involving stressful events included pathways from Year 1 interpersonal and selfcritical vulnerabilities and internalizing and externalizing to subsequent stressful life events and from stressful life events to Year 2 internalizing and externalizing. To assess the effects of protective factors, we included direct paths leading from positive parent and peer relations and perceived competence measured in Years 1 and 2 to concurrent internalizing and externalizing. Indirect paths from these protective factors, operating through interpersonal and self-critical vulnerability, were also examined. To incorporate prior findings of the importance of parental attachments to selfconcept and peer relations, we included additional paths from quality of parent relations to self-concept and quality of peer relations. We also included paths from Year 2 quality of parent relations to stressful events and from stressful events to Year 2 self-concept to address the impact of changes in family relationships on perceived stress and of stressful events on changes in self-concept. Finally, the model also accounted for effects of grade level on all Year 1 and Year 2 variables to control for differences that might be attributable to grade level, such as the transition from elementary school to middle school by the 6th graders or the more advanced puberty status of the 7th graders. This model fit the data reasonably well, * 2 (1202, N = 460) = 2,054.75, p < .001, CFI = .899, tfldf = 1.71. As noted earlier, the accepted measurement model is a baseline against which the fit of the structural model can be evaluated. Any structural equation model of interest accounts for the variances and covariance of the latent variables in the measurement model in terms of estimated parameters of the structural (or theorized) regression equations. Hence, any difference in fit between the measurement model and a structural regression model reflects the

loss of information caused by imposing the structural regression model as a hypothesis about the underlying causes of the covariances between latent variables (as estimated in the measurement model). There was some loss of fit in the structural model compared with the measurement model, d — A^(103, N = 460) = 150.85, p < .01. This indicates that the structural model did not perfectly reproduce the factor covariances. However, the model accounted for 95% of the information in the factor covariances as indexed by the relative fit index of Mulaik et al. (1989). Hence, the structural model was deemed to provide adequate reproduction of the relations among the latent variables. In reporting the results, we focus on Year 2 data predictors, which are of primary interest here. These longitudinal effects account not only for the prior levels of adjustment problems and interpersonal and self-critical vulnerabilities but also for the crosssectional relations among them. Thus, the structural paths leading to their Year 2 levels imply changes in these variables that are predicted by other variables. Standardized coefficients that were statistically significant for boys or girls are displayed in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. To simplify the diagram, we present estimates of explained variance for the final model in Table 5. For girls and boys, respectively, this model explained 66% and 53% of the variance in internalizing at Year 2 and 68% and 49% of the variance in externalizing at Year 2.

Stability and Change in Vulnerabilities and Internalizing and Externalizing Despite the relatively short interval of this study, there were considerable individual differences in internalizing and externalizing after 1 year. Table 6 shows standardized total effects describing the overall stability and change for the variables that were measured longitudinally, that is, the summed effects across all

1276

LEADBEATER, KUPERMINC, BLATT, AND HERTZOG

Externalizing \

.52

Problems T1

Figure 1. Final structural model for boys. Coefficients are standardized. All coefficients shown are significant (p < .05).

significant direct and indirect pathways. The standardized direct effects (i.e., reflecting direct pathways only) are shown in Figures 1 and 2. The standardized direct effects of externalizing at Year 1 on externalizing at Year 2 were moderate for girls (.52) and for boys (.52). The standardized total effects (including indirect effects mediated through self-criticism at Year 2) were slightly higher (.61 for girls and .59 for boys). Given that the reliability of the externalizing variable scale is relatively high (see Table 1), these total effects indicate indirectly that the adolescents were changing in their relative amounts of externalizing behaviors over the 1-year interval (Hertzog & Nesselroade, 1987). Significant coefficients for cross-lagged pathways demonstrated that high levels of internalizing contributed to decreases in externalizing by Year 2 for both girls (-.21) and boys (-.20). The estimated stability of internalizing was even lower than that of externalizing. Specifically, the standardized direct effects of internalizing at Year 1 on internalizing at Year 2 were .26 for girls and .29 for boys. The standardized total effects were similarly low (.29 for girls and .35 for boys). Internalizing at Year 2 was

predicted by a number of variables, including self-critical and interpersonal vulnerabilities. Cross-lagged pathways from externalizing were not significant for girls or boys. In sum, the protective factors (e.g., quality of parent relations) showed relatively high levels of stability over the 1-year time interval, whereas internalizing and externalizing behaviors showed considerably less stability. For internalizing behaviors, the direct effects for autoregression were smaller than the total effects, suggesting that some of the stability of internalizing symptoms was carried by the stable influence of protective and risk factors on internalizing at both times of measurement. Nevertheless, both internalizing and externalizing behaviors showed considerable instability (i.e., individual differences in longitudinal change). Thus, the critical question is which protective and risk factors predict these changes? Effects of interpersonal and self-critical vulnerability. As expected, self-critical vulnerability predicted increases in both internalizing (.21 for girls and .30 for boys) and externalizing problems (.15 for girls and .20 for boys). Interpersonal vulnerability pre-

GENDER DIFFERENCES

>(

1277

Internalizing Problems T1

Figure 2. Final structural model for girls. Coefficients are standardized. All coefficients shown are significant (p < .05).

dieted increases only in internalizing problems (.14 for girls and .15 for boys). Mediating effects of stressful life events. On the basis of previous research, it was expected that individuals with higher levels of self-critical and interpersonal vulnerability would report higher levels of subsequent stressful life events. Contrary to these expectations, however, high levels of self-critical vulnerability at Year 1 predicted fewer subsequent stressful life events for boys (—.30). Interpersonal vulnerabilities did not predict stressful life events for boys or girls. On the other hand, stressful events predicted increased interpersonal vulnerability at Year 2 for boys (.29) but not girls. The reciprocal effects of stress and vulnerabilities over time clearly need to be further studied. Stressful life events were also expected to be associated with increases in internalizing and externalizing. Consistent with these expectations, stressful events were associated with increases at Year 2 in internalizing (.22 for girls and .30 for boys) and externalizing (.34 for girls and .30 for boys). Year 1 externalizing predicted high levels of stressful events (.30) for girls.

Table 5 Squared Multiple Correlations (Explained Variance) in Vulnerabilities, Stressful Events, Protective Factors, and Problem Behaviors Year 1

Year 2

Latent construct

Girls

Boys

Girls

Boy

Interpersonal vulnerability Self-critical vulnerability Internalizing problems Externalizing problems Quality of parent relationships Self-concept Quality of peer relations Stressful events

.15 .36 .61 .36 .01 .27 .11

.07 .18 .40 .24 .00 .04 .08

.38 .59 .66 .72 .54 .61 .70 .30

.52 .44 .53 .48 .48 .49 .37 .22

Note. Squared multiple correlations (R2) were obtained from the distur bance estimates (D) using the formula R2 = 1 — D2.

LEADBEATER, KUPERMINC, BLATT, AND HERTZOG

1278

Table 6 Standardized Total Effects Describing the Overall Stability and Change for Variables Measured Longitudinally Latent construct

Girls

Boys

Interpersonal vulnerability Self-critical vulnerability Internalizing problems Externalizing problems Quality of parent relations Self-concept Quality of peer relations

.54 .31 .29 .61 .74 .56 .77

.44 .46 .35 .59 .69 .64 .58

Note. Coefficients describe the percentage of explained variance in each Year 2 constructs that is attributed to the Year 1 measurements of that construct.

Effects of protective factors. Protective factors influenced adjustment problems at Year 2 either directly or indirectly through their effects on reducing stress and interpersonal and self-critical vulnerabilities. The quality of relationships with parents and peers had a more central role in the adjustment of girls, showing both direct and indirect effects. Quality of relationships with parents directly predicted decreases in both internalizing (—.21) and externalizing (-.25). It was also associated with lower levels of stressful events (-.39) and predicted decreases in self-critical vulnerability (-.39). In addition, the quality of peer relations predicted decreases in self-critical vulnerability for girls (-.20), and self-concept predicted decreases in interpersonal vulnerability for girls (-.23). For boys, the quality of relationships with parents over the 1-year interval was associated with decreases in self-critical vulnerability (-.25) and lower levels of stressful life events (-.34). Boys with higher quality of parent relationships showed increases in interpersonal vulnerability at Year 2 (.14). Effects of selfconcept and quality of peer relations on the vulnerability and adjustment dimensions that were evident in Year 1 were not significant in Year 2, perhaps because of the high levels of stability in these protective factors. Gender differences. We constrained all pathways with significant coefficients for boys or girls to be equal to test the statistical significance of the observed gender differences in specific pathways. Statistically reliable gender differences were found for five of the pathways among vulnerability risk and protective factors

(see Table 7). Self-critical vulnerability was more stable for boys than girls. High quality of relationships with parents was associated more strongly with self-concept for girls than boys at Year 1 and predicted increases in girls', but not boys', self-concepts at Year 2. Positive relationships with parents predicted decreases in externalizing in Year 2 for girls but not boys. Finally, being a 7th grade girl in Year 1 was associated with decreased externalizing problems in Year 2. Discussion Consistent with previous research with adolescents (reviewed in Leadbeater et al., 1995), our findings show cross-sectional and longitudinal gender differences in the mean levels of vulnerability, risk, and protective factors that are associated with internalizing and externalizing problems. Assessments of intraindividual changes also demonstrate low to moderate levels of stability in internalizing and externalizing problems and provide evidence that contextual factors contribute to individual differences in the development of psychopathology in early adolescence. The predictive power of some of these factors differs for boys and girls.

Gender Differences and Changes in Mean Levels of Vulnerability and Risk Factors Focusing on our analyses of group data, gender differences were largely consistent with the results of previous research. Internalizing symptoms were reported more frequently by girls than boys. Significant interactions of gender and time showed that girls' reports of depressive symptoms and somatic complaints increased, whereas all internalizing problems declined for boys. More externalizing symptoms (delinquency and aggression) were reported by boys than girls, although delinquency increased for both. Also consistent with previous research (Leadbeater et al., 1995), interpersonal vulnerability was higher in girls than boys. Gender differences in self-criticism were significant at Year 2 (higher for boys) but not at Year 1. Gender differences evident in the protective factors were slight. Quality of relationships with mothers and peers were higher for girls than boys, although boys reported stronger attachments to fathers. Boys also had higher scores for athletic competence and physical appearance than did girls. Selfconcept was stable in all domains for boys but increased in girls in all domains except for physical appearance, which declined. The

Table 7 Significant Gender Interactions in Standardized Coefficients for Structural Equations Standardized coefficient Girls

Path Self-critical vulnerability, Year 1 Quality of parent relations, Year 1 Quality of parent relations. Year 2 Quality of parent relations, Year 2 Grade level, Year 1

Self-critical vulnerability, Year 2 Self-concept, Year 1 Self-concept, Year 2 Externalizing problems, Year 2 Externalizing problems, Year 2

Boys

.32 .50 .50 .19 .34 - . 1 3 ns -.25 - . 0 2 ns - 19 - . 0 2 ns

x! (1,

N

= 460)

5.68 7.08 8.50 3.69 5.90

Note. Chi-square estimates are from Lagrangian multiplier tests of unstandardized regression coefficients for a model in which all paths were forced to be equal across gender. All chi-square estimates are significant (p < .05), and all coefficients are significant (p < .05) unless noted otherwise.

GENDER DIFFERENCES

overall picture that can be gleaned from these analyses of group means confirms previous findings of increasing internalizing, declining self-esteem and interpersonal vulnerability, and greater intimacy with peers in girls relative to boys.

Intraindividual Stability and Change in Internalizing and Externalizing Problems Gender differences were found in the magnitude and significance of several pathways leading from vulnerabilities, risk, and protective factors to changes in internalizing and externalizing for boys or girls. Gender differences in the stability of self-criticism and for prediction of externalizing from relationships with parents were statistically significant in cross-model comparisons. Observations of significant coefficients in the structural models computed separately for boys and girls also revealed meaningful differences. These findings are discussed below, but should be considered descriptive in character and replicated in future research. In summary, girls' risks for increasing internalizing symptoms relative to boys' were predicted by (a) the greater stability of girls' interpersonal vulnerabilities, (b) the existence of exclusive pathways to triggers of internalizing in girls (specifically, externalizing predicted more subsequent stressful life events for girls but not boys, and stressful life events were related to increases in internalizing), (c) the direct effects of poorer relationships with parents in increasing internalizing for girls but not boys, and (d) the weakening of vulnerability to internalizing in boys (specifically, earlier externalizing predicted declines in boys', but not girls', interpersonal vulnerabilities). Boy's greater risks for increases in externalizing relative to girls were predicted by (a) the greater stability in boys' self-criticism and (b) the protective effects of relationships with parents in predicting declines in externalizing for girls but not boys. In addition, more self-critical boys reported fewer stressful life events, possibly reflecting their disengagement or alienation from others whom they perceived to be critical of them.

Common Pathways for the Development of Internalizing and Externalizing Common pathways across gender were also evident. The stability of externalizing was moderate for both boys and girls, and the stability of internalizing was low for both. Stressful life events were associated with internalizing and externalizing for both boys and girls. Self-criticism predicted increases in internalizing and externalizing for both boys and girls. However, given the greater stability of self-criticism in boys, compared with girls, selfcriticism may contribute more to the maintenance of adjustment problems in boys. Finally, both boys and girls with higher levels of internalizing at the baseline assessment showed less increase in externalizing over time. It is possible that externalizing behaviors may be dampened in more depressed boys and girls by the social withdrawal, fatigue, or anhedonia that characterize internalizing syndromes. Higher levels of externalizing did not relate directly to subsequent internalizing problems for girls or boys, contrary to findings in previous research with clinical samples (Harrington, Rutter, & Fombonne, 1996; Loeber & Keenan, 1994).

1279

Gender Differences in Interpersonal Vulnerability As expected, greater interpersonal vulnerability was directly related to increased risk for internalizing for boys and girls. Individuals with high interpersonal vulnerability are prone to see themselves as helpless, fear abandonment by others, and have extreme desires for closeness and nurturing. Depression occurs in these individuals in response to disruptions of satisfying interpersonal relations. It is possible that even normative pressures in adolescence for increases in responsibility and autonomy and ensuing tensions in parent-adolescent relationships could result in greater internalizing symptoms among vulnerable individuals. Our findings also indicate that interpersonal vulnerabilities also figured importantly in the development of both internalizing and externalizing for boys, acting as a risk factor for internalizing problems but as a protective factor for externalizing. More Year 1 externalizing was related to declines in interpersonal vulnerability, whereas more Year 1 internalizing was associated with increases in interpersonal vulnerabilities. For boys, but not girls, higher quality relationships with parents predicted increased interpersonal vulnerability. Individuals with high levels of interpersonal vulnerability endorse statements that denote feelings of helplessness and fears of abandonment and refute statements like "Even if the person who is closest to me were to leave I could still get along on my own." Declines in interpersonal vulnerabilities in boys with higher levels of externalizing behaviors may reflect counterdependent feelings (an alienated interpersonal style; Gjerde, 1995) in which others are experienced as untrustworthy and reliance on oneself becomes paramount. A severe lack of concern about maintaining positive relationships with others can be exhibited in behaviors that bring censoring from others that, in turn, confirms the adolescent's perception of them as untrustworthy and critical— possibly fueling self-critical vulnerability. Kobak, Sudler, and Gamble (1991) similarly suggested that depressed boys who show more anger with their mothers have fewer concerns about disruptions in relationships. Contrary to expectations in the current study, more self-critical boys reported fewer subsequent stressful life events, perhaps also reflecting a kind of bravado about self-related stresses and/or withdrawal of concern about stresses involving others. This dynamic of declining concerns about relationships creates serious challenges for interventions based on efforts to establish close relationships with externalizing youth. On the other hand, it suggests that early interventions that attempt to prevent alienation among middle school boys and girls (e.g., by promoting individual, school, or community involvement in self-enhancing or leadership activities or in caring for others) may be most effective in reducing externalizing (Allen, Kuperminc, Philliber, & Herre, 1994). On the other hand, boys with more internalizing symptoms at Year 1 (but not girls) showed increases in interpersonal concern over time. This, in turn, related to further increases in internalizing. Addressing excessive dependency concerns in the relationships of depressed boys may be particularly important to their recovery. Too early expectation of behavioral autonomy in middle school boys may make feelings of dependency or neediness the subject of ridicule or disapproval, also setting into motion a cycle of selfcondemnation and disapproval from others (Feldman & Wood, 1994).

1280

LEADBEATER, KUPERMINC, BLATT, AND HERTZOG

Gender Differences in Prior Adjustment The strength of the coefficients for the stability of and crosslagged pathways between prior levels of internalizing and externalizing did not differ for boys and girls. However, an indirect path from prior externalizing to stressful life events was significant for girls but not boys. Harrington et al. (1996) similarly reported that girls with conduct problems at the age of 10 were at twice the risk as boys were of encountering severe negative life events and experience (i.e., those that precipitate depressive disorders) 20 years later. Loeber and Keenan (1994) reported that paradoxically, in disorders with an unequal gender ratio, problems are more serious for individuals with lower prevalence rates. The causal relations among stress and externalizing in girls need to be studied further. Given the lower overall rates of externalizing in girls, compared with boys, it is possible that girls with early externalizing are also exposed to stressful life contexts that remain stable or increase over time. Alternately, some other factor such as early physical maturation may add to girls' experiences of stress and to their exposure to higher risk contexts involving older or deviant boys (Ge, Best, et al., 1996).

Gender Differences in Protective Factors The direct protective effects of attachments to parents on externalizing and internalizing problems were stronger for girls than boys. The indirect effects of parent attachment were also more pervasive in girls, relating not only to their perceptions of stress and self-criticism but also to the quality of their peer relationships and sense of personal competence or self-concept. Girls' interpretation of their parents' concerns as being trustworthy and available may protect them from externalizing, although more alienation and anger in these relationships may serve to increase the likelihood of externalizing. Alternately, adolescent boys may have more opportunities to exercise their autonomy and competence outside their family's supervision, whereas parents' protective concerns for (and possibly surveillance of) their daughters are likely to increase with the onset of puberty. It is somewhat surprising that pathways from self-concept to changes in adjustment problems were not significant. Mean levels of self-concept domains were stable in boys and showed increases in girls in all domains except for physical appearance, which declined. The association of negative body image with internalizing symptoms in girls has been demonstrated by previous research (Allgood-Merten, Lewinsohn, & Hops, 1990). At Year 1, selfconcept was negatively associated with interpersonal vulnerabilities for boys and girls; self-concept was also associated with internalizing for boys and with externalizing for girls. Given the stability of self-concept across time, it may be that only these early effects could be detected over a 1-year period. It is also possible that self-concept in various subdomains may have an effect on outcomes that is not detectable when these are combined in a latent construct (Harter & Whitesell, 1996).

Limitations and Future Research Limitations of this study should be noted. First, all measures were self-report, which can inflate the strength of the coefficients. Unreliability among self-report assessments was reduced through

the use of latent variable modeling with multiple measures. Multiple sources of data have been used in other studies in an effort to enhance the external validity of self-reports. However, informants often differ markedly in their assessments (Achenbach, 1991). Teacher reports of internalizing and externalizing were collected in this study, but their scores loaded weakly on the latent construct for these disorders and were not included (see Footnote 1). It is possible that the school context influenced the display of problem behaviors in young adolescents or that teachers in a large middle school with rotating classes did not know the students well enough to complete the teacher report forms. Alternately, the severity of problems may determine their effects on functioning across settings. Self-reports in community-based samples reflect the adolescents' perceptions of their own internalizing and externalizing, some of which may not be severe enough to draw the attention of teachers. Research on psychopathology has consistently demonstrated variability across informants, illustrating the need for research to illuminate factors contributing to this variability (Kazdin, 1994). The effects of protective factors on adolescent functioning must be considered in relation to co-occurring risk factors (Ge, Best, et al., 1996; Radke-Yarrow et al., 1995). Demographic and ethnic differences in the association of self-concept and relationship variables with markers of adjustment in this sample have been examined elsewhere (Blatt, Leadbeater, Kuperminc, & Sack, 1999). Minority and poor adolescents, especially girls, were more vulnerable than Caucasian adolescents to poor attachments to parents and higher levels of self-criticism. There is also growing evidence that protective factors in parent-youth relationships may differ for minority or urban youths. Beyond quality of attachment (trust, communication, and alienation), factors such as respect, loyalty strictness, warmth, and valuing of education may be protective for these youths (Leadbeater & Way, 1996). Previous research has suggested that the expression of internalizing and externalizing symptoms may differ for boys and girls, raising questions about the equivalence of these problems for each. For example, Gjerde (1995) has demonstrated a more allocentric pattern of symptom expression in boys (expressing unhappiness directly through anger) and a more autocentric pattern in girls (expressing their symptoms by withdrawal, introspection, and preoccupation with the self). Others have argued that aggression is more verbal, covert, and relational for girls than boys (Crick & Bigbee, 1996). Such differences could lead to nonequivalent assessments across gender if, for example, withdrawal characterized internalizing for girls but not boys or if overt aggression characterized externalizing for boys but not girls. In the current study, factor loadings for the latent constructs for internalizing and externalizing were similar for girls and boys both within and across time (although loadings for aggression on externalizing were somewhat higher for boys than girls at Year 2). However, it is possible that differences could emerge as these disorders become more differentiated in later adolescence. An additional limitation concerns the short time between assessments and the young age of the students at each assessment point. It is not clear that the observed gender differences in the patterns of vulnerability for adjustment problems will hold for the period of higher risk for adjustment problems that characterizes midadolescence. In addition, the findings describe predictors of changes in internalizing and externalizing that occur in early

GENDER DIFFERENCES

adolescence rather than at the onset of such problems. Finally, merely accounting statistically for the shared variance between internalizing and externalizing to draw conclusions about their unique predictors may obscure the distinctiveness and importance of comorbid conditions in adolescents (Harrington et al., 1996; Nottelmann & Jensen, 1995). References Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4-8, YSR, and TRF Profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. Allen, J. P., Kuperminc, G., Philliber, S., & Herre, K. (1994). Programmatic prevention of adolescent problematic behaviors: The role of autonomy, relatedness, and volunteer service in the Teen Outreach Program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 617-638. Allen, J. P., Leadbeater, B. J., & Aber, L. (1994). The development of behavior syndromes in at-risk adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 323-342. Allgood-Merten, B., Lewinsohn, P. M , & Hops, H. (1990). Sex differences and adolescent depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 55—63. American Association of University Women. (1992). Shortchanging girls, shortchanging America: A call to action. Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, J. C , & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423. Angold, A., & Costello, J. (1995). Developmental epidemiology. Epidemiologic Reviews, 17, 74-82. Angold, A., & Rutter, M. (1992). The effects of age and pubertal status on depression in a large clinical sample. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 5-28. Armsden, G. C , & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: Relationships to well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-454. Beck, A. T. (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: New perspectives. In P. J. Clayton & J. E. Barrett (Eds.), Treatment of depression: Old controversies and new approaches (pp. 265-290). New York: Raven. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. Blatt, S. J. (1974). Levels of object representation in anaclitic and introjective depression. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 29, 107-157. Blatt, S. J. (1991). Depression and destructive risk-taking behavior in adolescence. In L. P. Lipsitt & L. L. Mitnick (Eds.), Self-regulatory behavior and risk-taking: Causes and consequences (pp. 285-309). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blatt, S. J., Hart, B., Quinlan, D. M., Leadbeater, B. J., & Auerbach, J. (1993). The relationship between dependent and self-critical depression and problem behavior in adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 253-269. Blatt, S. J., Leadbeater, B. J., Kuperminc, G., & Sack, A. (1999). Ethnic and gender differences in the associations of self-concept and relationships with early adolescent adjustment. Manuscript submitted for publication. Blatt, S. J., Schaffer, C. E., Bers, S. A., & Quinlan, D. M. (1993). Psychometric properties of the Adolescent Depressive Experiences Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59, 82-98. Block, J., & Gjerde, P. F. (1990). Depressive symptoms in late adolescence: A longitudinal perspective on personality antecedents. In J. E. Rolfe, A. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Neuchterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 334-360). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence,

1281

and adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1101-1111. Buhrmester, D. (1996). Need fulfillment, interpersonal competence, and the developmental context of early adolescent friendship. In W. Bukowski, A. Newcomb, & W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 158-185). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 991-1008. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/ Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1996). Equifmality and multifinality in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 597-600. Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (1998). The development of depression in children and adolescents. American Psychologist, 53, 221-241. Colten, M. E., Gore, S., & Aseltine, R. H. (1991). The patterning of distress and disorder in a community sample of high school aged youth. In M. E. Colten & S. Gore (Eds.), Adolescent stress: Causes and consequences (pp. 157-181). New York: Aldine. Compas, B. E., Davis, G. E., Forsythe, C. J., & Wagner, B. (1987). Assessment of major and daily stressful events during adolescence: The Adolescent Perceived Events Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 534-541. Compas, B. E., Howell, D. C , Phares, V., Williams, R. A., & Guinta, C. T. (1989). Risk factors for emotional/behavioral problems in young adolescents: A prospective analysis of adolescent and parental stress and symptoms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 732-740. Conrad, M., & Hammen, C. (1993). Protective and resource factors in high- and low-risk children: A comparison of children with unipolar, bipolar, medically ill, and normal mothers. Developmental Psychopathology, 5, 593-607. Copeland, E. P., & Hess, R. S. (1995). Differences in young adolescents' coping strategies based on gender and ethnicity. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 203-219. Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1996). Gender differences in children's normative beliefs about aggression: How do I hurt thee? Let me count the ways. Child Development, 66, 710-722. DuBois, D. L., Felner, R. D., Brand, S., Phillips, R. S. C , & Lease, A. M. (1996). Early adolescent self-esteem: A developmental-ecological framework and assessment strategy. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 543-581. Feldman, S., & Wood, D. N. (1994). Parents' expectations for preadolescent sons' behavioral autonomy: A longitudinal study of correlates and outcomes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 45-70. Ge, X., Best, K. M., Conger, R. D., & Simons, R. L. (1996). Parenting behaviors and the occurrence and co-occurrence of adolescent depressive symptoms and conduct problems. Developmental Psychology, 32, 717-731. Ge, X., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. (1996). Coming of age too early: Pubertal influences on girls' vulnerability to psychological distress. Child Development, 67, 3386-3400. Ge, X., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Trajectories of stressful life events and depressive symptoms during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 30, 467-483. Gjerde, P. F. (1995). Alternative pathways to chronic depressive symptoms in young adults: Gender differences in developmental trajectories. Child Development, 66, 1277-1300. Gjerde, P. F., Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1991). The preschool family context of 18 year olds with depressive symptoms: A prospective study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 63—91. Gore, S., Aseltine, R. H., Jr., & Colten, M. E. (1993). Gender, social-

1282

LEADBEATER, KUPERMINC, BLATT, AND HERTZOG

relational involvement, and depression. Journal of Research on Adolescents, 3, 101-125. Harrington, R., Rutter, M., & Fombonne, E. (1996). Developmental pathways in depression: Multiple meaning, antecedents, and endpoints. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 601—616. Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver. Harter, S., & Whitesell, N. R. (1996). Multiple pathways to self-reported depression and psychological adjustment among adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 761—777. Hertzog, C , & Nesselroade, J. R. (1987). Beyond autoregressive models: Some implications of the trait-state distinction for the structural modeling of developmental change. Child Development, 58, 93-109. Jessor, R., Van Den Bos, J., Vanderryn, J., Costa, R, & Turbin, M. S. (1995). Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 31, 923— 933. Kazdin, A. (1994). Informant variability in the assessment of childhood depression. In W. M. Reynolds & H. F. Johnston (Eds.), Handbook of depression in children and adolescents (pp. 249-271). New York: Plenum. Kobak, R. R., Sudler, N., & Gamble, W. (1991). Attachment and depressive symptoms during adolescence: A developmental pathways analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 461-474. Kuperminc, G. P., Blatt, S. J., & Leadbeater, B. J. (1997). Relatedness, self-definition, and early adolescent adjustment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 301-320. Leadbeater, B. J., Blatt, S. J., & Quinlan, D. M. (1995). Gender-linked vulnerabilities to depressive symptoms, stress, and problem behaviors in adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 1-29. Leadbeater, B. J. R., & Way, N. (1996). Urban girls: Resisting stereotypes, creating identities. New York: New York University Press. Lewinsohn, P. M., Hops, H., Roberts, R. R., Seeley, R. J., & Andrews, J. A. (1993). Adolescent psychopathology: Prevalence and incidence of depression and other DSM-HI-R disorders in high school students. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 133-144. Loeber, R., & Keenan, K. (1994). Interaction between conduct disorder and its comorbid conditions: Effects of age and gender. Clinical Psychology Review, 14, 497-523. Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1998). Development of juvenile aggression and violence: Some common misconceptions and controversies. American Psychologist, 53, 242-259. Luthar, S. S., & Blatt, S. J. (1995). Differential vulnerability of dependency and self-criticism among disadvantaged teenagers. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 431-449.

Masten, A. S., Garmezy, N., Tellegen, A., Pellegrini, D. S., Larkin, K., & Larsen, A. (1988). Competence and stress in school children: The moderating effects of individual and family qualities. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 29, 1A5-KA. McCubbin, H., Patterson, J., Bauman, E., & Harris, L. (1981). A-FILE: Adolescent-Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes (research instrument). St. Paul: University of Minnesota. Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430—445. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1994). The emergence of gender differences in depression during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 424-443. Nottelmann, E. D., & Jensen, P. S. (1995). Comorbidity of disorders in children and adolescents: Developmental perspectives. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, 17, 109-155. Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). A social interactional approach: IV. Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Petersen, A. C , Sarigiani, P. A., & Kennedy, R. E. (1991). Adolescent depression: Why more girls? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 247-272. Radke-Yarrow, M., McCann, K., DeMulder, E., Belmont, B., Martinez, P., & Richardson, D. T. (1995). Attachment in the context of high-risk conditions. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 247-265. Robins, C. J., & Luten, A. G. (1991). Sociotropy and autonomy: Differential patterns of clinical presentation in unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 74-77. Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In J. E. Rolf, A. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Neuchterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 181-214). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Wagner, B. M., & Compas, B. E. (1990). Gender, instrumentality, and expressivity: Moderators of the relation between stress and psychological symptoms during adolescence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 383-406. Zahn-Waxler, C. (1993). Warriors and worriers: Gender and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 79-90. Zuroff, D. C , Quinlan, D. M., & Blatt, S. J. (1990). Psychometric properties of the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 65-72.

Received February 13, 1998 Revision received March 6, 1999 Accepted March 6, 1999 •