Adolescent Social Support Network Student Academic Success as It Relates to Source and Type of Support Received

ADOLESCENT SOCIAL SUPPORT NETWORK:

STUDENT ACADEMIC SUCCESS AS IT RELATES TO

SOURCE AND TYPE OF SUPPORT RECEIVED

by

Maryanna Fezer

April 3, 2008

A dissertation submitted to the

Faculty of the Graduate School of

the State University of New York at Buffalo

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Counseling, School and Educational Psychology

UMI Number: 3307683

33076832008

UMI MicroformCopyright

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

ii

Acknowledgements

There were many supportive individuals who assisted me throughout this process.

Their belief in me carried me through my course work and completion of my dissertation. Their

presence in my life was invaluable. I would like to extend my gratitude to those individuals.

First, I would like to thank God for giving me the ability to accomplish this degree and

for giving me my family. Heartfelt thanks to my parents, Steve and Rosaline Fezer, for instilling

in me my value of education, desire to learn, and drive to excel. With their love, support and

prayers, this arduous project was made possible. Thanks Mom and Dad. My brothers, Steve,

Andrew, Peter, thanks for keeping me grounded and reminding me not to forget about other

important things in life.

I would like to thank my advisor Dr.Tom Frantz for his patience, support, and advice.

For the past year, he gladly met with me and walked me through the process as I wrote each

paragraph, organized each chapter, and analyzed my statistics. You made this an enjoyable

process. I was very lucky to have you as my advisor.

Thank you to Dr. Jim Donnelly and Dr. Scott Meier for being on my committee. The

material you taught, in various classes throughout the years, assisted me to write this dissertation.

Your wisdom and humor were greatly appreciated.

Dr Susan Horrocks, thanks for being my student mentor, advising me on classes and

being my role model, as well as for the hours you and Mr. Horrocks spent on data entry. It

would have been a near impossible task without your assistance. Thanks to Dr. Sue Gerber for

all of the assistance with SPSS. Because of you, I learned to enjoy data analysis.

Finally, thank you to Superintendent Dr.George Batterson, Superintendent Dr. Barbara

Peters, Assistant Superintendent Mrs. Mary Beth Scullion, Assistant Superintendent Peter

iii

Michaelsen, Principal Mrs. Susan Frey, and to my Board of Education. By granting my

sabbatical, I was able to complete my necessary classes, collect my data, and begin my

dissertation. Thank you for valuing my education. Your encouragement and support will be

remembered and appreciated always.

iv

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements................................................................................................................ ii

List of Statistic Tables ...........................................................................................................vii

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................ix

Chapter 1 – Introduction ........................................................................................................1

Definition of Social Support ..................................................................................................2

Models of Social Support.......................................................................................................3

Benefits of Social Support .....................................................................................................6

Social Support and Academics ..............................................................................................7

Measuring Social Support......................................................................................................8

Research Questions................................................................................................................9

Chapter II – Review of the Literature ....................................................................................11

Social Support – A Multifaceted Construct ..........................................................................11

Purpose of Support – Buffering or Main Effect.....................................................................11

Importance Verses Frequency of Social Support...................................................................16

Sources of Support .................................................................................................................17

Types of Support....................................................................................................................25

Gender and Developmental Differences ................................................................................28

Adolescent Perceptions of Social Support .............................................................................30

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................31

Research Questions and Predictions ......................................................................................32

Summary Chart of Social Support Studies ............................................................................36

v

Chapter III – Methodology ....................................................................................................38

Introduction............................................................................................................................38

Subjects ..................................................................................................................................38

Variables ................................................................................................................................39

Instrumentation ......................................................................................................................40

Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (CASSS)...........................................................41

Demographic Survey .....................................................................................44

Data Collection Procedure.........................................................................................45

Research Questions and Data Analysis .....................................................................46

Chapter IV – Results Of Data Analysis .................................................................................49

Introduction............................................................................................................................49

Preliminary Analysis..............................................................................................................49

Analysis of Hypotheses..........................................................................................................52

Summary of the Results .........................................................................................................59

Chapter V – Discussion .........................................................................................................62

Introduction............................................................................................................................62

Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................................................64

Importance Versus Frequency ...............................................................................................65

Age and Gender Differences..................................................................................................66

Types of Support....................................................................................................................68

Sources of Support .................................................................................................................71

Sources and Type Together ...................................................................................................74

Importance of Support ...........................................................................................................76

vi

Regression Predictions...........................................................................................................77

Limitations and Future Research ...................................................................82

References..............................................................................................................................85

Appendix A – Statistic Tables ...............................................................................................96

Appendix B – Graph and Histograms....................................................................................111

Appendix C – Demographic Survey......................................................................................115

Appendix D – Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale...................................................118

Appendix E - Internal Review Board Requirements .............................................................123

vii

List of Statistic Tables

1 Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients - Descriptive Statistics for Test Items ..................96

2 One Way ANOVA – Impact of Grade Level (Importance and Frequency Scales .96

3 Independent t Tests – Impact of Gender (Importance and Frequency Scales.........97

3a Descriptive Statistics – CASSS Importance Scale................................................98

3b Descriptive Statistics – CASSS Frequency Scale.................................................99

4 Descriptive Statistics – Ranking Sources of Support .............................................100

5 Descriptive Statistics – Ranking Types of Support ................................................100

6 Correlation - Frequency Scale and Importance Scale for Support Sources............101

7 Correlation -Frequency Scale and Importance Scale for Support Types................101

8 Friedman Analyses – Significant Differences within Each Source ........................102

9 Friedman - Rank Order of Social Support ..............................................................102

10 Paired t Tests – Significant Differences for Females Rank of Support ................103

11 Paired t Tests – Significant Differences for Males Rank of Support....................103

12 Descriptive Statistics - Types and Sources of Support .........................................104

13 Correlations – Type and Sources of Support with Dependent Variables .............104

13a Summary of Correlations - Support Type with Dependent Variables ................105

13bSummary of Correlations - Support Source with Dependent Variables ..............105

14 Correlations - Types of Support from Sources of Support with Dependent Variables

for Males ..............................................................................................................106

15 Correlations - Types of Support from Sources of Support with Dependent Variables

for Females...........................................................................................................107

16 Summary of Correlations- (Table 14 and 15) Types of Support from Sources of

viii

Support with Dependent Variables for Males and Females.................................107

17 Regression Analysis – Predictions for Social Support .........................................108

17aSummary for Regression Predictions...................................................................109

ix

Abstract

Social support is a multifaceted construct offering a multitude of benefits. The purpose

of this study is to assess the impact of social support on high school adolescents and their success

in school. The focus was on the source of support and on the type of support given. The sources

of social support were: teachers, parents, close friends, classmates, and the school. The types of

support were: emotional, informational, instrumental, and appraisal support. These types of

support from specific sources were believed to have an impact on important indicators of

academic success including; academic average, school attendance, school satisfaction, and

behavior. In addition, preliminary analyses were conducted to assess the variables of gender and

grade level to determine if they have an impact on perceived social support.

A total of 471 high school adolescents from grades 9 to 12 from a suburban school

district participated in this study. The subjects completed the Child and Adolescent Social

Support Scale (Malecki, Demaray, & Elliott, 2000) and a demographic questionnaire. The

students self reported the frequency and importance of social support received and their

indicators of success.

The findings indicated that females perceive more support than males from all of the

sources and of all types of support given. Though they perceive more support, it appeared they

were not receiving the type of support that contributed to their school success, instrumental and

appraisal support. Though males perceived less support overall, emotional support had the

greatest contribution to their school success and was the type most frequently given. Close

friend support was perceived most frequently however, supportive behaviors from parents had

the strongest correlations with the dependent variables. Finally, though teacher informational

x

support was perceived frequently, teacher emotional support contributed to student success in

school.

The conclusions of this study are intended to heighten awareness of the importance and

the impact of a social support network for the adolescent. Each source in the network has some

form of support that can be offered, impacting various aspects of the adolescent’s behavior and

success. Investigations of student’s perceptions of social support will assist educators and

parents identify crucial supportive behaviors that can be targeted for interventions.

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Educational attainment is a necessity for today’s youth. It is a significant predictor of

individual outcomes and general wellbeing (Dryfoos, 1990; Rumberger, 1995). The deleterious

consequences of dropping out of school include unemployment, criminal activity, delinquency

and poverty (Rumberger, 1995). Alarmingly, it is predicted that 10% to 30 % of United States

students will not complete their high school education on time, and in urban areas, more than

50% will drop out of school (Karam, 2006). In 1983, the National Commission of Excellence in

Education published A Nation At Risk indicating that students from other nations were out

performing US students in a number of educational measures. Education At a Glance indicated

that the US had fallen behind other nations in terms of high school diplomas earned, ranking

tenth among other industrialized nations (Study: US lags in high school diplomas, 2004).

Nearly a generation since A Nation at Risk was first published and the search for a solution to

this dilemma continues.

A student’s decision to drop out of school is a cumulative consequence of several factors;

lack of academic motivation, lack of achievement, and low parent and teacher support (Bean,

1985, Rumberger, 1995; Tidwell, 1988). Researchers, acknowledging the value of social

support, have begun to investigate its benefits as it relates to academic attainment. Scales &

Taccogna (2001) believe social support is a key asset contributing to academic success, and

Malecki & Demaray (2003) support the theory that educational attainment needs social

connections. Interpersonal relationships promote student motivation by enhancing a sense of

belonging and facilitating interest in academic success (Wentzel, 1994). To address the lack of

2

academic success of our youth, it is important to analyze the value of social support and its

impact on academic success.

Definitions of Social Support

Prior to understanding the academic benefits of social support for students, it is essential

to define the concept. Social support has been defined and measured in various ways. Some

researchers believed the concept to be too vague to be applied in scientific studies (Barrera,

1986). The lack of conceptual clarity was an impediment in the development of instruments

used to measure the construct (Procidano & Heller, 1983). Initially definitions were simple, but

grew to be more specific and encompassing. Caplan (1974) defined social support as a range of

significant interpersonal relationships that were considered important to an individuals’

functioning. Barrera (1986) used three general categories, social embeddedness, perceived social

support, and enacted supports. Dunn, Putallaz, Sheppard and Lindstrom (1987) emphasized the

sources, as friends and family, within an individual’s environment. Flaherty & Richmond (1989)

defined social support as one type of social exchange between network members.

Tardy (1985) believed that social support was a multifaceted construct and reduced its

lack of conceptual clarity by proposing a model of social support (Figure 1). He included five

salient aspects of the construct: direction, disposition, description/evaluation, content, and

network. Direction pertained to the path of social support; it is received from others, or provided

to others. Disposition referred to available or enacted social support. Available support was

quantity or quality of support that was accessible, and enacted support referred to actual

utilization of the social support resource. Description/evaluation represents two aspects.

Description refers to the qualitative characteristics of social support where as evaluation assesses

one’s satisfaction with social support received. The fourth aspect was content, a description of

3

the nature or type of support. Last was network, critical people giving or receiving social

support.

Social Support Model

DISPOSITION

Provided

~ Available Enacted

~ Described Evaluated

DIRECTION Received

DESCRIPTION/

EVALUATION

NETWORK

Community Professionals

_ CONTENT

Co-Workers

Figure 1. Tardy's model of aspects of social support.

4

Tardy incorporated the ideas of House (1981) into his model, for the aspect of content of

support (Nolton, 1994). House’s types of support were: emotional, instrumental, informational,

and appraisal support. Emotional support reflects caring, and refers to the provision of love,

empathy and trust. Instrumental support refers to the provision of helping behaviors as offering

of financial support, time or skills. Informational support refers to the provision of advice.

Appraisal support refers to evaluative feedback.

Tardy’s model/definition of social support, with the help of House, was adopted by many

researchers. The multifaceted definition had tremendous impact in assisting researchers to

measure the construct.

The definition of social support for the current study is based on the model of support

from Tardy. Social support is “an individual’s perception of general support or specific

supportive behaviors (available or enacted on) from people in their social network, which

enhances their functioning or may buffer them from some adverse outcomes (Malecki &

Demaray, 2002, p. 2).

Models of Social Support

How and when does social support assist an individual? There are two distinct

theoretical models of social support that both focus on the benefits provided; the stress buffering

and the main effect model. The stress buffering model based on the ideas of Cassel (1974) states

that support is beneficial in times of illness and stress, acting as a buffering mechanism. The

stressful life experience, psychological or physical, would be lessened under conditions of social

support, allowing for a better outcome (Cohen, Gottlieb, & Underwood, 2000). Under this

model the perception of the individual enables support to work in several ways; reducing the

negative affect surrounding the stressful event, reducing the perceived severity of the event, or

5

by increasing the problem solving ability of the individual. For example, some studies have

found significant negative correlations between social support and anxiety (Demaray & Malecki,

2002; White, Bruce Farrell & Kliewer, 1998), depression, (Cheng, 1997, 1998; Compas, Slavin,

Wagner & Vanatta, 1986; Demaray & Malecki, 2002) and drug use in adolescence ( Piko, 2000;

Frayenglass, Routh, Pantin, & Mason, 1997; Licitra-Kleckler & Waas, 1993).

The main effect model is based on the idea that support can be beneficial to all people at

any time, in the presence or absence of stress. As a main effect, support improves one’s overall

psychological well being therefore reducing psychological problems (Cohen et al., 2000; Cohen

& Willis, 1985). According to Cohen et al., (2000) these benefits of social support are gained in

two ways; first, when a person is integrated in a social support network, and second, when an

individual perceives support availability. Being integrated in a support network can give one a

sense of belonging, stability, and security encouraging one’s sense of self worth. This

integration can also reduce stress by providing helpful information and by being a source of

positive affect. Secondly, the perception that support is available if needed can be emotionally

and mentally satisfying. The perception of its availability can result in security and stability and

aid in a positive outcome when an individual is in distress.

The current study was guided by the main effect model. Social support from the network

of parents, teacher, close friend, classmate, and school can give a student a sense of security,

belonging, and a positive affect. It offers benefits to students at all times, in the presence or

absence of stress. This social support network, perceived or enacted, can impact the students’

academic outcome.

6

Benefits of Social Support

Research on the concept of social support is not new. It has proven advantageous for a

multitude of psychological and physical problems for a variety of subjects. Varri, Barani,

Wallander, Roe and Frasier (1989) analyzed social support and its impact on self-esteem and

psychological adjustment for youth with diabetes. Both peer and family support were predictors

of externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Young children were best able to cope with their

illness when they received support from family, while adolescents coped best with support from

peers. Cauce, Felner and Primavera (1982) investigated the affect of support on self-concept

with high risk adolescents. They found that a higher perception of overall support was related to

better peer self-concept for adolescents in lower socioeconomic, inner city environments.

Coldwell, Antonucci, Jackson, Wolford, and Osofsky (1997) were interested in the relationship

between social support and depression. A negative correlation was found indicating that when

children and adolescents perceived higher levels of support, depression was low. If the subjects

did not perceive support, depression increased. Other internalizing behaviors, as anxiety,

somatization, interpersonal sensitivity, and depression were also found to be negatively

correlated with children’s overall satisfaction with social support, while Obsessive Compulsive

Disorder was unaffected (Compas, Slavin, Wagner, and Vanatta, 1986)

While some researchers were interested in social support as an independent variable,

others were equally interested in the variables that impacted social support. Researchers

analyzed the effects of race, age and gender on social support. White, Bruce, Farrell, and

Kliewer (1998) found a stronger negative relationship for African Americans than Whites when

looking at anxiety and family support. Demaray and Malecki (2002) looked at the difference

between, Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanics and Whites and their reaction to

7

social support. Native Americans reported less perceived social support from parents,

classmates, and friends than all others. African Americans perceived higher support than

Whites, who perceived higher support than Hispanics. In addition, younger children reported

more social support than older children from the sources of parents and teachers, and older girls

reported significantly more support from friends than males (Demaray et al., 2002).

Social Support and Academics

The concept of social support as it relates to academic success is far less researched, yet

has proven advantageous. Results have been documented in peer reviewed literature,

unpublished dissertations, and by not-for profit institutions.

The not- for profit Search Institute in Minneapolis, Minnesota has done extensive

research on asset building on nearly 100,000 students from 6th through 12th grade, from 213

American communities. In 1989, the Search Institute began studying the concept of assets in

youth, and in 1996, they developed a framework of forty developmental assets. Developmental

assets, or building blocks, are necessary for children to develop as healthy, responsible, caring

individuals (Keith, Huber, Griffin, & Villarruel, 2002: Scales, 1999; Hillaker, 2004). In general,

youth who possess many assets are more likely to report multiple thriving indicators including

school success, maintaining good health, resisting danger, impulse control, over coming

adversity, as well as avoid dangerous risk-taking behaviors (Search Institute, 2005).

The 40 assets are divided into two main categories, representing External and Internal

assets. Support, an External asset, is divided into: Family Support, Positive Family

Communication, Other Adult Relationships, Caring School Climate, and Parental Involvement in

Schooling. These Support assets have a major impact on school success. “Strong, nurturing

8

relationships support youth, engage them in learning, and focus them on positive thinking and

behavior” (Scales & Taccogna, 2001, p. 35).

Other researchers have analyzed specific variables of academic success and social

support. Forman (1988) believes that social support and educational placement is a predictor of

scholastic competence, conduct, athletic competition, physical appearance, general self worth

and self esteem. Malecki and Elliott (1999) also found a positive relationship between academic

performance, educational focus, social skills, self concept and social support. Wenz-Gross and

Siperstein, (1997) discovered that students with learning disabilities sought problem-solving

support less often than non-disabled students from family and peers. While Forman (1988)

found that if students with learning problems or disabilities sought support, they had higher

scores on self worth.

Measuring Social Support

To fully understand social support, and reap its benefits, a global view is not adequate,

specifics are important. Nolton (1994) measured various sources of adolescent social support,

parent, teacher close friend, and classmate, and how these sources impacted the success of

elementary and middle school students. Furthering this research, Malecki and Demaray (2003)

analyzed of the same sources of support, and included an additional dimension, type of support.

They investigated the affects of emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental support,

from the sources of parent, teacher close friend, classmate, and school, for middle school

children. By viewing these specifics of the construct, source and type, greater detail of the

impact of social support was discovered.

The current study will analyze the source and type of social support perceived by the high

school adolescent. The sources are parent, teacher, classmate, close friend, and school. The

9

types are emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental. Each source of support offers

varying forms of support, impacting various aspects of the adolescents’ behavior and success.

These relationships will be correlated with indicators of academic success; grade point average,

school satisfaction, behavior, attendance, and extracurricular participation.

An understanding of these variables of support, and how they relate to the indicators of

success, can assist parents, educators, and other professionals to identify supportive behaviors as

tools for intervention. Methods of teaching, parenting practices, clinical services and

preventative educational programs, can be improved from the knowledge gained through the

analysis of adolescent social support networks.

Research Questions

There are nine main research questions. The scores analyzed are from both frequency

and importance ratings, and from the type and source of support. The main questions are:

1.) What source of support (parent, teacher, classmate, close friend, or school) is

perceived most frequently?


perceived to be the most important?

3.) What type of support (emotional, informational, appraisal, or instrumental) is




5.) What types of support (emotional, informational, appraisal, or instrumental) do the

students most frequently perceive from within each source of support (parent, teacher, class mate

10

close friend, and school)? This question will be addressed separately for males and females, and

for each of the grade levels.


students consider most important from within each source of support (parent, teacher, class mate



7.) Are certain types of social support, (emotional, informational, appraisal, or

instrumental) related to students’ academic success, attendance, extra curricular participation,

behavior, and school satisfaction indicators? This question will be addressed separately for

males and females, and for each of the grade levels.

8.) Are certain sources of support (parent, teacher, close friend, classmate, or school)

related to students’ academic success, attendance, extra curricular participation, behavior, and

school satisfaction indicators? This question will be addressed separately for males and females,

and for each of the grade levels.


instrumental) from specific sources (parent, teacher, close friend, classmate, or school) related to

students’ academic success, attendance, extra curricular participation, behavior, and school

satisfaction indicators? This question will be addressed separately for males and females, and


11

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Social Support - A Multifaceted Construct

Social support is a multi faceted construct, allowing for multiple forms of analysis.

Researchers have used numerous angles of examination. Social support has been examined as a

buffering agent, helping individuals through stressful situations, and as a resiliency agent

assisting individuals to excel. Components of social support have been investigated including

source (parents, teachers, friends, and classmates) and content (emotional, informational,

appraisal, and instrumental). The quantity and quality of the construct have been examined,

answering questions on frequency and importance of support. It has been analyzed as both a

criterion variable and a predictor variable. Considerations have been given to the effects of age,

gender, race, and group affiliation. The multifaceted nature of social support has contributed to

the opportunities for researchers to investigate the construct using a multitude of hypotheses.

Purpose of Support – Buffering or Main Effect

A review of the literature, on social support for children, indicated that the traditional

focus of support was on the stress buffering model. Researchers analyzed factors that placed

children at risk for developing emotional, cognitive, and behavioral difficulties (Malecki and

Demaray, 2002). For example, Cowen, Pedro-Carroll, and Gillis (1990) researched the effects of

social support for children of divorce, revealing that it can lead to more positive outcomes.

Some looked at the benefits of social support as it is applied to children with learning disabilities

(Forman, 1988; Kloomok & Cosden, 1994; Rothman & Cosden, 1995; Wenz-Gross &

Siperstein, 1997). Others looked at the buffering effects of social support for high risk or

disadvantaged children (Cauce, Felner & Primavera, 1982) gifted children (Dunn, Putallaz,

12

Sheppard, & Lindstrom, 1987) and children victims of war (Llabre and Hadi, 1997).

Considerable evidence has encouraged others to examine the relationship between stressful

events or chronic life strain and mental or physical outcomes (Cohen & Willis, 1985).

Stress Buffering Studies of Social Support

Llabre and Hadi (1997) looked at the effect of social support on children who were

victims of the Gulf Crisis in Kuwait. Two years after the crisis, they examined the role of social

support in relation to trauma, psychological and physical distress. Participants were Kuwaiti

children who were exposed to various aspects of the war and varying degrees of trauma. The

results indicated social support did not mediate the relations between trauma and the outcome of

distress for boys, but it did for girls.

Foreman (1988) analyzed the buffering effects of social support and educational

placement on self esteem. She hypothesized that students with learning disabilities who

perceived access to support from parents, teachers, and peers would demonstrate higher levels of

self-concept compared to learning disabled students who perceived less access to social support.

She also predicted that students, placed in a special education program, would have better self-

concept than students who were not yet placed in a special education program.

The subjects in the Foreman study included 51 students, all diagnosed with learning

disabilities. There were 34 boys and 17 girls located in several elementary schools. The

instruments in the study included the Self-perception Profile for Learning Disabled Children

(SPPLD; Harter, 1985a), and the Social Support Scale for Children (SSSC; Harter, 1985b).

Results indicated that social support was a significant predictor of behavioral conduct,

athletic competence, scholastic competence, physical appearance, and general self-worth. Each

source of support, parents, teachers, and peers, had various effects on the out come variables.

13

High levels of classmate support had the greatest predictive impact on the students’ self-worth,

athletic competence, scholastic achievement, and physical appearance. Parental support had the

greatest predictive impact on students’ behavior. High levels of support from several sources

were predictive of high levels of self-esteem in various domains. Interestingly, social support

from teachers or close friends did not appear to have any statistically significant affect on the

students.

Cauce, Felner, and Primavera, (1982) examined social support as a buffering agent for

children at risk hypothesizing that support would help with adjustment for children from lower

socioeconomic and inner-city backgrounds. They examined dimensions of perceived support,

relationships between support and characteristics of the child, and indices of personal and

academic adjustment. Two hundred and fifty ninth and eleventh grade students were

administered the Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS; U. S. Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare, 1975). The scale measured the perceived helpfulness of teachers, clergy, friends,

and others.

Results were mixed. Support from the total network of sources was not significantly

related to achievement or self-concept, and support from friends was negatively correlated to

academic averages and greater absenteeism. Overall, family support was positively correlated

with scholastic self concept. For males, perceived support from teachers, counselors, and clergy

was associated with higher self-concept. Though results varied, in general, perceived social

support was positively related to the adjustment abilities of the at risk adolescents.

Main Effect Studies of Social Support

Recently, however, there has been increasing interest in studying the benefits of social

support under the main effect model, offering protective factors that promote resiliency in all

14

children (Brooks, 1994). The co-occurrence of support and life satisfaction in adolescents

(Suldo & Huebner, 2005), and peer support and adolescent happiness (Dew and Huebner, 1994)

have been analyzed. For the children in these studies, support assisted them to avoid problems,

find happiness, and obtain success.

Suldo and Huebener (2005) looked at difference in degrees of satisfaction and its

associations to adaptive functioning or maladaptive functioning in adolescents. Six hundred

ninety-eight students from three middle and two high schools were analyzed through the use of

seven self report instruments. Based on a life satisfaction report, adolescents were identified as

having extremely high, average, or low life satisfaction. Satisfaction was defined in terms of

interpersonal variables (social support from numerous sources), intrapersonal variables

(temperament and psychopathology) and cognitive variables (self-efficacy) (Suldo et al., 2005).

Results indicated that high life satisfaction co-occurred with high social support from

parents, close friends, classmates and teachers. Specifically, social support from classmates was

more closely related to high satisfaction than close friend support, and students who had high

teacher support also had high life satisfaction. Students who did not have high teacher support

had average and medium life satisfaction. The relationship between strong support from

classmate and teacher with high satisfaction suggests the school environment has a strong impact

on the life satisfaction of an adolescent. The schools made an important contribution to the well-

being of the adolescents.

Continuing with the main effect model of support, Demaray and Malecki, (2002a)

examined the levels of perceived social support and their impact on academic, social, and,

behavioral indicators considered important for the overall adjustment of children and adolescents

15

in school. They operationalized the construct into three levels of support; low, average, and,

high. The study consisted of students in grades 3 -12 from seven states (N = 1,711).

First, the researchers looked at the over all effects of perceived social support. Total

support had a high statistically significant negative relationship with both externalizing and

internalizing problem behaviors; a low but significant relationship with academic competence;

and moderately significant relationships with self-concept and adaptive skills.

Next, students categorized as low, average, or high recipients of support were compared.

The results indicated that overall, there was almost no difference between students with average

and high support regarding the academic, behavioral, and, social indicators. Both students with

high and average support had far fewer problematic indicators than students with low perceived

support. Students with high support were distinguished from students with average support by

their significantly higher scores on self-concept and student rated social skills.

Researchers suggested that there is a “critical level of perceived support that is adequate

with regard to relationships with other indicators and there is not a significant difference beyond

this average or adequate level. High levels of support did not significantly improve scores on

indicator variables” (Malecki et al., p 236, 2002).

In summary, social support has been thoroughly investigated as a buffering agent,

assisting children to overcome unfortunate difficulties, trials, and tribulations of life. Far less

research has focused on the benefits of social support for all individuals as they go about daily

activities accomplishing normal developmental tasks. Based on the overall benefits social

support has provided as a buffering agent, it has proven to be a valuable construct that should be

investigation further as an enhancer of performance, behavior, academics, and a catalyst for

success.

16

Importance Verses Frequency of Social Support

There is a difference between frequency of social support and importance of social

support. Frequency pertains to how often one reports obtaining social support and importance

refers to the value one places on social support. Prior studies focused on the frequency and paid

little attention to what students considered important. One may receive little support from a

classmate, which may be detrimental to one individual, or a group of individuals, but irrelevant

to another. “Almost all research on social support has investigated individuals’ perception of the

frequency with which they receive socially supportive behaviors from individuals in their social

network. Virtually no data are available that indicate what socially supportive behaviors are

important to the students” (Demaray and Malecki, p 109, 2003). This critical role of importance

has been overlooked, ignoring a valuable form of social validity (Wolf, 1978). Recent research

suggests that students of various groups rate the frequency and importance scores differently

(Demaray and Malecki, 2003).

In 2001, Demaray and Elliott targeted a specific group of students as they investigated

the importance of support. A total of 94 boys, 48 diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder (ADHD) and 46 without the disorder, reported on the importance and frequency of

social support with the use of the Student Social Support Scale (Nolton, 1994). Results indicated

that the boys with ADHD received overall less support than the boys without the disorder. The

importance of social support, however, did not differ. Both groups of boys considered social

support as important.

In 2003, Demaray targeted middle school students grouped as bullies, victims,

victim/bullies, or as a control group. Subjects, 499 students 6th through 8th grade, were given

the Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (Malecki, Demaray, and Elliott, 2000), and a

17

bully questionnaire based on the Bully Survey (Swearer, 2001). Results indicated that the

frequency of social support was highest for the control group. The Importance of social support

was rated highest for the victim or victim/bullies group of students.

In 1999, Malecki and Elliott analyzed importance of social support for 198 students from

7 through 12 grade. No particular group was targeted. They used the Social Support Scale for

Students (Nolten, 1994), measuring sources of support from parents, teachers, classmates and

close friends, and types of support, emotional, informational, appraisal, instructional.

Results indicated that frequency and importance scores correlated significantly but

moderately with each other. Inspection of the top10 ranked items indicated that close friend

support was the most important source (4 out of 10 items), and emotional support was the most

important type of support (6 out of 10 items). Though importance and frequency were

moderately correlated, the researchers considered them as two distinct values of the construct.

In summary, research typically ignored importance and focused on the frequency of

support. The above mentioned studies however, considered importance and frequency as

separate and valuable research constructs. Differences have been discovered regarding

importance verses frequency scores for social support based on ones gender, grade levels, race

and disability status (Demaray and Malecki, 2003).

Sources of Support

Traditionally, overall global support was analyzed for adults and children. More recently

various sources of support have been taken into consideration. “Social development of

adolescents is best considered in the contexts in which it occurs; that is relating to peers, family,

school, work, and community” (American Psychological Association, 2002, p. 64). When the

factor of source is not included in a study, a researcher runs the risk of misinterpreting results.

18

Overall support may not be significant but further analysis of the benefits provided by the

various sources may prove significant. Researchers have gained valuable data on the construct

of support by analyzing support from various sources.

Peer Support

A natural progression in adolescents is the shift of focus from the importance of the

family to the importance of the peer group. As an adolescent attempts to establish a sense of

independence, he or she spends less time with parents and family, and more time with his or her

friends. For the adolescent, peers are a valuable and influential factor in everyday life, and

support from peers has a variety of consequences. A peer group has a function and an

importance that no other means of support can provide.

Friends and classmates function as a reference point for adolescents as their identity

develops. Through this identification with peers they begin to develop moral judgments and

refine values (Bishop & Inderbitzen, 1995). Psychosocial adjustments have been linked to

positive peer relations during adolescents. Simultaneously, peer rejection and social isolation

has resulted in a variety of negative behaviors and poor psychosocial adjustment (American

Psychological Association, 2002).

Friends and classmates also function as a source of powerful reinforces of ones

popularity, status, prestige, and acceptance. Acceptance by peers has a short term affect as well

as a long range impact, lasting well into adulthood. Bagwell, Newcomb, & Bukowski, (1998)

found that an adult, who as a fifth grader, had at least one close friend, had better self-worth

compared to an adult who had been friendless as a child.

East, Hess, and Lerner (1987) hypothesized that students of different sociometric groups

varied in regard to perceived peer social support, behavioral, psychosocial, and academic

19

achievement. One hundred and one sixth graders, categorized as peer-rejected, peer-neglected,

popular, or controversial, were included in this study. Their results indicated that students

rejected by peers experienced significantly less social support from peers, than did popular

children. Teacher ratings indicated that peer rejected children received significantly lower

scholastic and classroom conduct scores than controversial and popular children. Peer rejected

students also experienced more adjustment problems than popular students and exhibited

significantly lower self worth than popular students. The researchers suggested that rejected

children’s awareness of their status encouraged their social withdrawal, resulting in diminished

social support.

Several studies, already discussed, further support the importance of the adolescent peer

group. They found positive effects of classmate support on self worth (Foreman, 1998) and life

satisfaction (Suldo et al., 2005). Some believed that classmate support was consistently stronger

in its predictive abilities than any other source of support (Nolton 1994). In one study,

adolescents rated close friend support as the most important source (Malecki et al.,1999), and in

another, classmate and close friend support was rated highly by students with disabilities

(Demaray et al.,2003). Not all peer support was positive. Cauce et al., (1982) found that support

from friends was linked to lower academic averages and greater absenteeism.

No study of adolescent support should ignore the value, impact, or enormous influence of

peer group members. Thus, this study takes into account the effects of social support from peers.

It assesses the emotional, instrumental, appraisal, and instrumental support offered by classmates

and close friends to high school peers.

20

Parental Support

The parents of an adolescent may often feel that their ability to impact their son or

daughter is limited. Their adolescent is more interested in listening to the advice given by his or

her peers. Increased peer contact among teens is a healthy developmental stage, not an

indication that parents are less important to them (OKoon, 1997). In fact, teens often strive,

sometimes covertly, to identify with a parent (American Psychological Association, 2002).

Parents need to be aware of the continued value they have, the role they play, and that the

support they offer is crucial for the continued healthy development of their adolescent.

Numerous studies have attributed parental support for assisting their adolescent through

this often difficult developmental period. Foreman (1988) believed parental support had the

greatest predictive impact on a student’s behavior. Nolton (1994) found parental support to be

negatively correlated with teachers’ ratings of problem behaviors.

Other studies have found academic achievement affected by parental support (Karam,

2006). Specifically, students who experience high support from parents had significantly higher

academic achievement. In addition, high life satisfaction and low absenteeism were also

associated with high parental support (Suldo et al., 2005). Positive parental impact has been

seen in overall wellbeing. Family closeness and attachment in general, was deemed the most

important factor linked to not smoking, less use of drugs and alcohol, fewer suicide attempts, and

postponement in sexual intercourse for adolescents (Resnick, Bearman & Blum, 1997).

Identity development is often generally considered to be established in early childhood.

Research has indicated, however, that identity formation continues into young adulthood

Hillaker, (2004). Research has also indicated that for the adolescent, healthy identity

development involves a restructuring of the parent-child relationship, not a severing of ties or

21

attachments to parents (Brook, Whiteman & Finch, 2000). In fact, the provision of parental

emotional support and parental knowledge of their adolescent’s daily activities have been linked

with stronger identity achievement (Sartor & Youniss, 2002).

Gambone, Klem and Connell (2002) performed a meta-analysis of longitudinal data

based on what matters most for today’s youth. They confirmed the importance and the impact of

the supportive parent. The researchers stated:

The dimensions of support from parents that matter are; they offer help when needed, discuss school and future plans with their child, check up on homework, know what the child is doing with his/her time, know his/her friends, discipline consistently, and are emotionally supportive. When children have these supports they get better grades, have higher test scores, better attendance, participate in more extra curricula activities, and are less likely to drop out… are more likely to have adaptive coping mechanisms and less likely to engage in risky behavior. (p 29-30)

No study of adolescent support should ignore the value, impact, or enormous influence of

parents. Thus, this study takes into account the effects of social support from parents. It

assesses the emotional, instrumental, appraisal and instrumental support offered by parents as

they raise their son or daughter from early adolescence into young adulthood.

Teacher Support

Children bring to school a multitude of problems and many of these negative experiences

have to do with problems in emotional and social behavior related to adult child interactions

(Erickson & Pianta, 1989). According to Pianta (1999) adult – child relationships are crucial for

the healthy development of the child and underlie much of what a child is called to do in school.

Pianta believes that the strain, placed on these relationships, contributes to the rates of school

related difficulties faced by our children.

Extant research suggests that adult-child relationships can be some of the most frequently

reported protective factors in relation to associations with competence in school age children (Garmez

22

1993). An under researched source of such adults is teachers and other adults in school settings (Pinata et

al, 1999). These relationships may be a crucial key in helping a child succeed in school.

In 1989, Pianta and Nimetz did a pilot study examining the student-teacher relationships

of 72 kindergartners and 24 teachers. Three instruments were used gathering information from

the perspective of teachers and parents. The Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta,

1989) looked at the dimensions of security and insecurity in the teacher-child relationship.

Security was reflective of a secure, warm relation with the student, one with trust, where the

teacher felt in tune with the student, a perception that the student felt safe with the teacher and

the teacher could console the student. Insecurity was a rating given to children who were

perceived as a challenge to their efforts to teach, constantly sought reassurance and help, reacted

negatively to separation from the teacher and responded negatively to consolation. The Teacher-

Child Rating Scale (TCRS) assessed the teacher’s ratings of problem behaviors and

competencies of the students. It was a measure of children’s social, behavioral and academic

competencies and difficulties. The Preschool Behavior Rating Scale (PBRS) was a behavior

rating scale administered to the parent and assessed their child’s competence, acting out, and

anxiety.

The results indicated a positive correlation between the teachers’ rating of security and

competency and between ratings of insecurity and acting out. A similar correlation existed

between the parents’ rating of their child’s relationship score and child’s competence and acting

out score. Reported by the teachers, children who had more secure relationships were rated to

have more competence: insecure children were rated as having more behavior problems and less

competence. Thus, the relationship between the teacher and student was believed to effect

competence and behavior.

23

Karam, (2006) identified critical variables in the students perceptions of good student-

teacher relationships. Her sample was composed of 575 middle school students in grades 6-8.

She hypothesized that students would express a preference for teachers who promote class

structure, autonomy, and emotional support. Students completed four self reports in order to

assess attendance, life satisfaction, perception of social support, and academic success.

Results indicated that academic achievement was related to teachers’ provision of

autonomy support, emphasis on mastery learning, and on high expectations. Self-reported life

satisfaction was related to teachers’ emotional support (teacher involvement), emphasizing

mastery over performance learning, and having high expectations, while attendance was related

to teachers emphasizing mastery learning. Teacher support was also linked to student

engagement and to academic achievement.

In summary, research has indicated that teacher relationships and support are crucial for

the success of the child. The teacher-student relationship had an impact on academic

competence and acting out behaviors for kindergarten children (Pianta). For middle school

children, teacher support was a positive link to academic success and life satisfaction (Karam,

2006). Unfortunately, far less research exists focusing on the importance of these relationships

to high school adolescents. Thus, in addition to peers and parents, no study of adolescent

support should ignore the impact of the teacher. This study takes assesses the emotional,

instrumental, appraisal, and instrumental support offered by teachers as the students progress

through their high school journey.

School Support

A school is more that the sum of its parts, it is an environment, a community in which an

adolescent spends approximately eight hours a day for five days a week, and often more if a

24

student is actively involved in sports, clubs, or other related school social activities. The school

community has a climate that is acknowledged by the Search Institute of Minnesota as having an

important role in creating developmental assets in youth. Creating a caring school community is

systemic, and involves fostering positive relationships between and among students, teachers,

parents, counselors, administrators, hall monitors, secretaries, custodians, cafeteria workers, and

security guards, all of whom have some form of interaction with the students (Scales, 1999).

According to Starkman, Scales and Roberts (1999), it is necessary to use relationships as a lens

through which to: view school policies, procedures, and practices; create permanent changes in

school organization; develop school support services and cocurricular programs; effect changes

in curriculum and instruction; foster community partnerships, all in an attempt to make the entire

school environment a caring community and more conducive to school engagement, academic

achievement, great teaching, and learning. Unfortunately, schools often adopt organizational

practices that can undermine an adolescents’ experience of membership in a supportive school

community (Osterman, 2000). Schools that focus on the inadequacy and pathology of the student

miss the opportunity to discover systemic deficiencies that maybe causing the original problem.

A person’s functioning should be viewed as the product of reciprocal interplay between

person and environment (Bandura, 1978) thus, this study assessed how school, as a community,

offers support that impacts students’ ability to be successful. It assessed the emotional,

instrumental, appraisal, and instrumental support offered by the school, to the students as they

progress through their high school years.

In summary, sources of support are critical and their analysis is essential when

researching the construct of social support. Each source plays a different role, and possesses

different opportunities to impact students. This study examines social support from class mates,

25

close friends, parents, teachers, and the school. These sources are an integral part of the high

schools adolescents’ daily life, and impact their ability to be successful.

Types of Support

Traditionally social support was viewed and measured in global terms. In 1993,

Winemiller, Mitchell, Sutliff, and Cline performed a meta-analysis, categorizing studies of adult

social support conducted between 1980 and 1987. Their findings indicated that 68.3% of the

studies focused on global support, 37.8% focused on esteem support 28.2 % focused on

instrumental support, 20.2 % assessed informational support. More recently, Malecki and

Demaray (2003), believed that studies have demonstrated that support played an important role

impacting outcomes however, these conclusions often did not consider the type of support

investigated. Despite the existence of a conceptual framework necessary to investigate types of

support, this aspect has been overlooked. Theoretical examinations of social support indicate

however, that content/type of support needs to be incorporated when examining this construct

(Winemiller et al., 1993).

Richmond, Rosenfeld, and Bowen, (1998) looked at types of support and their impact on

several dependent variables for middle school children. Their findings indicated that different

types of support affect different aspects of one’s life. For example, listening support from peers

correlated with student grades, technical challenge support from parents correlated with

attendance; emotional support, emotional challenge support, and reality confirmation support,

from parents, peers, and teachers was associated with school satisfaction.

Cheng (1998) looked at Chinese adolescents and types of support. He found gender

differences in the relationship between support types and outcomes. Depression for adolescent

males was associated with a lack of instrumental support; depression for females was associated

26

with a lack of socioemotional support. Thus, Cheng found that there may be significant

differences in the interaction of gender, type of support, and outcome.

This present study is an extension of the research from Malecki and Demaray, (2003) that

focused on the type of social support children need. The researchers had two main hypotheses;

1.) that certain types of support (emotional, informational, appraisal, and instructional) were

most often perceived from certain sources of support (parent, teacher, classmate, and close

friend) and 2.) that certain types of support (emotional, informational, appraisal, and

instructional), from specific sources, were more frequently related to students’ social, behavioral,

and academic indicators.

The subjects of the Malecki et al., (2003) study were middle school age children.

Included were 263 students from grades 5 through 8, and 49 teachers. All were given a self-

report instrument. Teachers completed the Social Skills Rating System-Teacher version (SSRS-

T, Gresham & Elliott, 1990), focusing on the social skills, problem behaviors, and academic

competence of their students. Students were given the Child and Adolescent Social Support

Scale (Malecki et al., 2000) focusing on the source and type of perceived social support.

Frequency scores were indicators of the number of times a student perceived specific

types of support from within a specific source. Emotional and informational supports were

reported most frequently from parents; informational support was reported most frequently from

teachers and the school; emotional and instrumental supports were reported most frequently from

classmates and close friends. Not surprisingly, teacher informational support was perceived

significantly higher than teacher emotional, appraisal, and instrumental support.

Importance scores were an indicator of the value students placed on the type and source

of support. The importance scores had a similar pattern to the frequency scores. The most

27

important type of supports from within a specific source were; emotional support from parents;

informational support from the teacher and the school; emotional support from classmates and

close friends. Again, teacher informational support was rated significantly more important than

emotional, appraisal and instrumental support.

In looking at the sources and types of support as predictors of social skills, behavioral,

and academic indicators, no type of parental support was a significant predictor, however, all

types of parental support collectively were related to personal adjustment. Researchers suggest

that parental support is related to students’ well-being. Unexpectedly, no type of classmate or

close friend support was significantly correlated with any of the outcome variables. Past

research had associated peer support types with student successes (Demaray and Malecki, 2002a,

2002b). Surprisingly, teacher emotional support was the only significant predictor of social skills

and academic competence.

In summary, the Malecki et al., (2003) study of social support type and source proved

valuable, in terms of the detailed results. Most interesting were the data on support type as an

academic predictor. Though teacher informational support was perceived significantly higher

and significantly more important than teacher emotional support, it was teachers’ emotional

support that was the sole predictor of students’ academic success and social skills. Though

parental and peer emotional support were perceived as frequent, and important, they were not

predictors on any outcome variables. Teachers need to be aware that there should be a balance

between informational and emotional support provided by them to ensure student success and

well-being.

28

Gender and Developmental Differences in Social Support

It is crucial to consider the factor of gender when examining social support (Rhodes,

1998). Although both males and females value their friendships, there are gender differences in

the quality of their relationships (Buhrmester, 1996; Rhodes, 1998). In general, young males are

more involved with action oriented pursuits with friends, and girls are more interested in talking

(Smith, 1997). The age of a child also affects the structure of ones social support network.

Middle school adolescents tend to spend more time in groups where as the high school

adolescent often replace peer groups with one-on-one friendships and romantic relationships

(Micucci, 1998). It is difficult to separate the factors of gender and age when examining social

support. They have an interaction effect that needs to be assessed (Demaray & Malecki, 2003),

in addition to separate effects of their own.

Nolton (1994) developed the Student Social Support Scale in order to consider both

sources and content of support, and to investigate details of the construct of social support. In

the first phase, teachers, parents and students helped to develop and refine test items (N = 25). In

the second phase he verified the psychometric properties of the scale and validation of the

construct (N = 298 third through eighth grade students).

Results indicated that the perception of social support varied depending on the students’

grade and gender. As predicted, females perceived higher levels of support than males within all

grade levels, from all sources of support. Both males and females reported a decrease of parent

support as the grade level increased, while the perception of classmate and close friend support

remained constant across all grade levels.

Malecki and Demaray (2002) examined the differences in students’ perception of social

support based on their age, gender, and race. They combined data from several studies, which

29

assessed support through the use of the Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale. In addition

280 sixth through eighth grade students were recruited school wide and added to the study. The

total sample was 1110 students from grades 3 to 12.

Results were as predicted; age, gender and race all had a significant impact on perceived

support. The pattern of social support in relation to age indicated a developmental trend.

Support scores were high with the younger children, and decreased with age. Specifically,

perceived parent and teacher support was significantly higher for middle school students than for

high school adolescents. The gender of the student had a significant impact; females Total

support score was significantly higher than the male Total support score. Elementary females

perceived higher support from classmates than elementary males. Middle school and high school

females perceived more support from close friends and classmates, than did their male

counterparts. The study also reported that race and disability status also had an impact on social

support.

In 2003, Demaray and Malecki researched the developmental (elementary, middle, and

high school) and group (race, disability and gender) differences in students perceptions of

support. This study utilized data from extant research resulting in 1,688 students in grades 3

through 12 from seven states.

Results indicated gender differences and grade differences. In terms of gender, girls

reported higher importance scores than boys F (1, 1681) = 15.61, p <.001. Specifically, girls

reported more importance on support from teachers, classmates and close friends, than did boys.

In terms of grade, elementary students considered support to be more important than middle

school students, who considered support to be more important than high school students. The

younger students reported all sources of support as more important.

30

A significant grade and gender interaction was reported, F (2, 1521) = 11.18, p < .001. In

elementary and middle school, both girls and boys reported similar importance scores for social

support. At the high school level, females reported significantly higher rating on the importance

of support than the males. In high school, the females’ ratings remained consistent, and the

males’ important ratings dropped. Thus, the gender differences did not occur until the high

school level.

Thus no study of adolescent support should ignore the impact of gender and age. A

preponderance of support studies considering these variables focus on younger children, and

leave the adolescent less explored. The current study takes into account the effects of gender and

age on the perceptions of social support from the high school adolescent.

Adolescent Perceptions of Support

One last aspect to examine from the multifaceted construct of social support is

perception. Whose perception should be taken into account? Demaray & Malecki, (2003)

believe that adolescents’ perceptions of social support can be the basis for the development of

effective interventions intended to improve academic outcomes. An adolescent’s perception and

reporting are informative and provide researchers and educators with valuable information on

supportive teacher behaviors that they prefer (Karam, 2006) as well as appropriate parental and

peer behaviors. They articulate their perceptions in a reliable and consistent manner. Research

has shown a direct and positive relationship between students’ reports of perceived teacher

support and school achievement, academic motivation, and social-emotional and behavior status

(Brand & Felner, 1996; Eccles & Midgley, 1989). According to Wentzel (1997) adolescent

reporting of teacher support is probably a more powerful measurement method than other-person

reporting. Unfortunately, the predominance of the literature does not focus on the perception of

31

the student but from an adult’s perspective (Major-Ahmed, 2002). Differences between adult

reporting and student perceptions can lead to a misinterpretation of the situation. This current

study relies on the perception of the adolescents as they assess and report on their social support

network.

Conclusion

Several conclusions can be drawn from the extant research and from the empirical studies

in this literature review on social support. Few studies have examined the effects of social

support and the adolescent population, focusing far more on younger children or adults. Many

believe that by third grade, a child’s pathways are fairly set (Alexander & Entwisle, 1988). This

generally accepted belief has taken the focus off of examining the adolescent, leaving this age

comparatively less explored (Pianta, 2000).

Traditionally, studies of perceived social support are global in nature, at times

considering one or two sources, and possibly one type of support, usually emotional. This

approach short changes the multifaceted nature of the construct of support. As indicated in the

empirical studies reviewed, more knowledge has been extracted from an examination of the

details of both source and type of support. Support from specific sources, (i.e. parent, teacher,

classmate) offers different forms of support (i.e. emotional, appraisal) that assists the recipient in

accomplishing different tasks and completing various goals. Utilizing only a global examination

of perceived support may result in an inaccurate analysis.

In addition, specific factors of age and gender separately and interactively have been seen

to change the benefits provided by support, and impact the strength of its consequences, yet they

too have been overlooked in the majority of studies. The quantity (frequency) of support has

been far more examined than quality (importance) of support, even though some studies have

32

shown they are two separate constructs resulting in different reactions from subjects. Lastly, the

preponderance of studies are reactive in nature (buffering model), instead of proactive (main

effect model). They focus on how to help people out of bad situations, instead of how to prevent

the occurrence in the first place. Considering all the adolescent violence on the streets and the

recent shootings on school campuses, Columbine and Virginia Tech, researchers need to focus

more time, effort, and, resources on social support as a source of strength for all individuals as it

has been shown to guide adolescents on the path to success, happiness, and, life satisfaction.

This study adds to existing research by studying the impact of the adolescents’ social

support network. It is an extension of the Malecki and Demaray (2003) study that focused on

middle school students’ adjustment based on the type of support (emotional, informational,

appraisal, and instrumental) received from several sources of support (parent, teacher, close

friend and classmate). The subjects were from grades five to eight. The current study will be

examining high school students’ adjustment based on the type of support received from several

sources of support. In addition, this study will utilize the new measure of school support in the

Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale, not used in the Malecki and Demaray (2003) study.

Research Questions and Predictions.

Based on previous research, the current study was designed to answer the following

research questions:





33





5.) What type of support (emotional, informational, appraisal, or instrumental) do the

students most frequently perceive from within each source of support (parent, teacher, classmate








instrumental) related to students’ academic indicators of success, GPA attendance, extra

curricular participation, behavior, and school satisfaction? This question will be addressed

separately for males and females, and for each of the grade levels.


related to students’ academic indicators of success, GPA, attendance, extra curricular

participation, behavior, and school satisfaction? This question will be addressed separately for




students’ academic indicators of success, GPA, attendance, extra curricular participation,

34



Based on review of the research, the following predictions were developed and tested as a

means of addressing the research questions.

Prediction 1and 2. It was predicted the close friend and classmate support would be the

most frequent and most important source of support perceived by adolescents. This prediction

was based on the research from Malecki and Elliot (1999).

Prediction 3 and 4. It was predicted that emotional support would be perceived to be the

most frequent and most important type of support. This prediction was based on the research

from Malecki and Demaray (2003).

Prediction 5. It was predicted that different types of support would be perceived more

frequently from certain sources; from parents, emotional and informational support; from

teachers, informational support; from classmates and close friends, emotional support. No

prediction was made on the type of support most frequently perceived from the school due to

lack of data on this scale. This prediction was based on the research from Malecki and Demaray

(2003).

Prediction 6. It was predicted that different types of support would be perceived more

important from certain sources; from parents, emotional support; from teachers, informational

support; from classmates and close friends, emotional support. No prediction was made on the

type of support perceived most important from the school due to lack of data on this scale.

Malecki and Demaray (2003).

Prediction 7. It was predicted that certain types of social support (emotional,

informational, appraisal, or instrumental) would be related to students’ academic success,

35

attendance, extra curricular participation, behavior, and school satisfaction indicators. No

predictions were made based on the type of support.

Prediction 8. It was predicted that certain sources of support (parent, teacher, close

friend, classmate, or school) would impact students’ out come variables: GPA would be effected

by teacher support (Pianta et.al, 1989; Karam, 2006), attendance would be effected by parent

support (Suldo & Huebner ,2005) and teacher support (Karam, 2006), extracurricular

participation would be effected by classmate support (Foreman, 1988), behavior would be

effected by parent support (Nolton 1994; Foreman, 1988), and school satisfaction would be

effected by teacher and classmate support (Suldo & Huebner ,2005).

Prediction 9. It was predicted that certain types of support from specific sources would

impact students’ outcome variables; GPA would be affected by teacher emotional support

(Malecki and Demaray, 2003), school satisfaction would be effected by teacher emotional

support (Karam, 2006). It was further predicted that grade and gender would impact the effects

of the types of support from the sources as they relate to students’ out come variables. It is

predicted that younger students would perceive higher levels of support and girls would perceive

more support than males. This prediction was based on the research from Malecki and Demaray

(2002), Demaray and Malecki (2003), and Nolton (1994).

.

36

Summary of Social Support Studies

Author Description of Support, Source, Type,& Impact (positive correlations unless indicated otherwise)

Situation Age, Gender

Llabre & Hadi (1997)

Relieved stress for females Gulf War Victims

children

Foreman (1988) Classmate support – predictive of self worth, athletic competence, scholastic achievement, physical appearance. Parental support – predictive of behavior. Teacher support- no predictive effect. Close friend- no predictive effect.

Learning Disabled

Elemen-tary school

Cauce, Felner & Primavera (1982)

Friend support- negatively correlated to academics and to greater absenteeism. Family support- correlated to scholastic self-concept. Teacher support- correlated to males’ self concept.

At Risk, Disadvant-aged

Grades 9 & 11

Suldo & Huebener (2005)

Parental support- correlated with high life satisfaction, low absenteeism. Classmates support- high life satisfaction. Teachers support- high life satisfaction.

Life Satisfaction

Middle and High School

Demaray & Malecki (2002a)

Total support- negative correlation to externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors, positive correlation to academic competence, self concept and adaptive skills. High support- linked to high self concept & high social skills.

Critical Levels of Social support

Grades 3 to 12

Demaray & Elliott, (2001)

Boys with ADHD received less support than boys without, however, both groups considered social support as equally important.

Boys with ADHD & Importance

Elemen-tary school

Demaray, (2003)

Importance of support was highest for victims & victim/ bullies compared to bullies/control group.

Bullies & bullies/victim

Grades 6 to 8

Malecki & Elliott (1999)

Close friend support- was the most important & frequent followed by classmate, parent & teacher. Emotional support- was the most important type

Importance of support & psychometric properties

Grades 7 to12

East Hess & Lerner (1978)

Rejected peers- lower academics, poor conduct, adjustment problems, lower self-worth. Popular peers- higher academics, good conduct, fewer adjustment problems, higher self-worth.

Impact of Peer support

Grade 6

Karam (2006) Parent support- linked to academic achievement. Teacher emotional support – linked to life satisfaction, teachers mastery learning approach linked to attendance, teachers overall support linked to engagement and achievement.

Teacher Support

Grades 6 to 8

37

Pianta & Nimetz (1989)

Secure relationship with teacher correlated to better grades & behavior

Teacher Support

Kinder-garten

Richmond Rosenfeld & Bowen,(1998)

Peer listening support –linked to student grades. Parent technical challenge support- attendance. Emotional support and reality confirmation from parents, peers & teachers - associated with school satisfaction

Types of support

Middle school

Cheng (1998) Instrumental support- negatively correlated with depression for males Socioemotional support- negatively correlated with depression for females

Type, source & outcome variables

adolescents

Malecki & Demaray, (2003)

Most important type of support from sources; parents - emotional, teachers -informational, friends & classmates – emotional. Most frequent types of support from sources; parents- emotional & informational, teachers- informational, friends & classmates – emotional& instrumental. Teacher emotional support was a predictor of social skills & academic competence. Parental support was not a predictor variable, though it was related to personal adjustment. Classmate & friend support were not correlated with dependent variables.

Type, source & outcome variables

Middle School

Nolton (1994) Classmate support had strongest predictive abilities. Parental support was linked to behavior. Females had more support than males. Younger had more support than older from parents & teachers. Classmate & friend support remained consistent across grades.

Source, grade & gender

Grades 3 to 8

Malecki & Demaray (2002)

Perceived parent & teacher support decreased with age. Females perceived more support than males. Race & disability also affected support.

Age, gender & race

Grades 3 to 12

Demaray & Malecki (2003)

Girls perceived support to be more important from teachers, classmates & friends than boys. Younger students perceived support to be more important in general than older. Gender differences occurred at the high school level, not prior. Students with disabilities rated classmate and close friend as more important than students without disabilities.

Importance ratings – age & gender

Grades 3 to 12

38

Chapter 3

Methodology

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of social support on the high school

adolescent. Social support is multifaceted. The focus in this study is on the source of support

and on the type of support given. The sources of social support are teachers, parents, close

friends, classmates, and the school. The types of support are emotional, informational,

instrumental, and appraisal support. The sources and the types of support are believed to have an

impact on several important, developmental dependent variables; academic performance, school

attendance, school satisfaction, participation in extra curricular activities, and behavior. In

addition, the variables of gender and grade level are assessed to determine if they have an impact

on perceived social support.

The conclusions of this study are intended to heighten awareness of the importance and

the impact of a social support network for the adolescent. Each source of the network has some

form of support that can be offered, impacting various aspects of the adolescent’s behavior and

success. Adolescents face many obstacles, their perception of a social support network is

crucial. Investigations of student’s perceptions of social support will assist educators and parents

identify crucial supportive behaviors that can be targeted for interventions.

Subjects

This study took place in a school district serving a student population of 2252 students in

the western part of New York State. According to the US Census Bureau of 2007, the

community had a population of 16,136, encompassed 4.09 square miles and had a house hold

median income of $37, 523, where as the New York State median house hold income was

39

$41,763.00 (factfinder.census.gov). The district was composed of 4 elementary buildings,

containing grades kindergarten to 5th grade, one middle school containing grades 6-8, and one

high school for grades 9-12.

For the purposes of this study only the high school population was asked to participate.

The high school was composed of 750 students with the following ethnic breakdown; 96.0 %

white, 0.9% black, 1.0% Hispanic and 1.4% Asian or American Indian. The special education

students composed 14% of the population and 15% of the student body was eligible for a free or

reduced lunch.

The present research was performed in a natural setting, thus the students were subjects

of convenience. All high school students were asked to be volunteer participants however, only

471 students completed the questionnaires: 243 female, 214 male and 14 students who did not

indicate their gender. Included were 134 freshmen, 107 sophomores, 127 juniors, and 103

seniors. Special education students with guided study and resource room were included in the

study however, self-contained special education students were not included. The non

participants were absent or chose not to participate.

Variables

There were five dependent variables analyzed; academic performance, extracurricular

participation, school satisfaction, attendance, and behavior. The measures were obtained from a

demographic self report. Academic performance referred to the grades obtained in English,

mathematics, social studies, and sciences for the 2006 – 2007 school year. They were the core

subjects, required by New York State. Extracurricular activity referred to school or community

athletic programs and organized clubs. School attendance acknowledged full days of

absenteeism, excused or unexcused. School satisfaction was defined in general terms. Students

40

indicated the degree that they were generally satisfied or dissatisfied with their high school

experience.

The independent variable of social support was measured from the students’ point of

view. Social support was defined as “an individuals perceptions of general support or specific

supportive behaviors from people in their social network, which enhances their functioning or

may buffer them from some adverse outcomes” (Malecki & Demaray, 2002, p. 2). Support can

be divided into four distinct supportive constructs: emotional, instrumental, informational, and

appraisal support (House, 1981). According to House, emotional support consists of feelings of

love and trust; appraisal support consists of evaluative feedback; informational support is advice

or information; and instrumental support is the provision of resources including time, money and

materials. All forms of support are necessary for adolescent development.

Instrumentation

No construct is accurately reflected in a single operation of measurement (Meier, 2006).

Aggregation of data collected through a variety of methods improves reliability and validity of

measurements, and alleviates mono-method, mono-operation biases (Meier, 2006). However,

due to the constraints of the school system, (principal, superintendent, and board of education

members) a mono-method was the only option allowed for this study. According to Kagan

(1988), most personality research was based on the use of the self-report. In addition, self

reports used to assess perceptions make unobservable data available for analysis (La Greca,

1990). In this study, the data were collected via two self-report rating scales, completed by the

students. The instruments were the Child and Adolescent Support Scale (CASSS; Malecki and

Demaray, 2003), and a demographic questionnaire (Appendix C and D).

41

Child and Adolescent Support Scale.

Social support was measured with the CASSS (Malecki et al., 2003), a rating scale that

measures students’ perceived social support. Its purpose is to theory build and to identify

students in need of additional social support. The CASSS acknowledges the multidimensions of

the social support construct. It measures support in terms of source and type, and rates them by

importance and frequency scores. There are four types of perceived support, (emotional,

informational, appraisal, and instrumental) from five sources of social support (parents, teachers,

classmates, close friends and school).

Each source of support is a subscale, containing three items from each type of support,

for a total of 12 items per subscale, resulting in a total of 60 items. “My parents understand me”

is an item exemplifying emotional support from the parent subscale. “My teacher spends time

with me when I need help” is an instrumental item from the teacher subscale. “My classmates

tell me I’ve done a good job when I’ve done something well” is an appraisal item from the

classmate subscale, and “My close friend gives me ideas when I don’t know what to do” is an

informational item form the close friend scale.

The five sources (parents, teachers, classmates, close friends and school) have both

frequency and importance scores. The frequency score indicates how often a certain behavior is

perceived by the adolescent. They are measured by a 6 point Likert scale with scores ranging

from 1 (never) to 6 (always). The importance score indicates how important that behavior is

considered to be, according to the adolescent. Importance ratings are measured by a 3 point

Likert scale with scores ranging from 1 (not important) to 3 (very important).

Scoring the CASSS is a matter of calculating frequencies from a variety of sources.

Scores can be obtained to determine the difference between each source as well as differences

42

within each source. The between group comparisons allow the sources of support to be compared

to each other, by frequency and importance (i.e. teacher’s support verses parental support).

These calculations, for both frequency and importance ratings, can be performed by summing the

frequency on the 12 items for each subscale (parent, teacher, classmate, close friend, and school).

Each type of support may be scored for each source of support (i.e. parental emotional

support, parental informational support, parental appraisal support, and parental instrumental

support). Thus, items representing each type of support (emotional, informational, appraisal, and

instrumental) can be summed separately, within each source of support.

The CASSS has gone through several revisions. The original version was called the

Student Social Support Scale, (SSSS; Nolten, 1994). The SSSS was designed to address the lack

of comprehensiveness of instruments measuring social support. It was observed that many

researchers measured social support from only one source, as in parents, or teachers. The scale,

created by Nolton (1994) was influenced by Tardy’s (1985) multidimensional view of social

support. The SSSS “was designed to assess emotional, instrumental, and appraisal support from

parents, teachers, classmates and close friends, and describes social support that is available and

received by children” (Malecki et al., 1999, p. 474). It was a 60 item questionnaire that

assessed social support, from the students’ perspective, and was considered appropriate for

students from grade 3 to 12.

In 1999, the scale was adjusted, and the name was changed to the CASSS (Malecki,

Demaray, Elliott, & Nolton, 1999). Questions were made age appropriate, by the creation of two

levels; level 1 addressed students from grades 3-8 and level two addressed students in grades 9-

12. In addition, the instrument was scaled down to 40 questions. In 2000, the CASSS (Malecki,

Demaray, & Elliott, 2000) was revised again. The final revision included three changes; the

43

instrument changed from two forms to one form, appropriate for grades 3 -12; new items were

added, and others were deleted to create an equal number of items for the four subscales; lastly,

an additional subscale for school support was added, resulting in a 60 item scale.

The original CASSS (Malecki et al., 1999) had evidence for reliability and validity from

data on over 1,000 students (Malecki & Demaray, 2002). The recent version (CASSS, 2000) has

also been vigorously analyzed through numerous unpublished studies (Karam, 2006; Lang, 2005;

Poll, 2003) as well as published studies (Demaray & Malecki, 2002; Demaray & Malecki, 2003;

Malecki & Demaray 2003). The three published studies, included 905 students from grades 3-8,

provided strong evidence for psychometric properties for the CASSS (2000); alpha = .96

reliability for the total score, and r. = .78 for test retest reliability . In addition, the CASSS

manual (Malecki, Demaray & Elliott, 2004) provided strong evidence for internal consistency for

the subscale scores with alphas ranging between .93 to .96 (n = 586 for parent, teacher, close

friend, classmate, and school) and .97 (n= 657) for the total frequency score. Test-retest

correlations, established 8 to 10 weeks after the initial administration, ranged from .75 to .78 for

the frequency total score and from .58 to .74 on the frequency subscale scores (Malecki et al.,

2004).

The CASSS manual contained evidence for factor structure. Factor analysis from data on

586 fifth to twelfth graders indicated a clear five-factor structure, corresponding to the five

subscales (parent, teacher, classmate, close friend and school), ranging from .60 to .84 within

each factor. No items were dual loaded. The factors contained eigenvalues that ranged from

22.147 to 2.65 (Malecki et al., 2004).

Inter rater reliability was calculated for the CASSS 2000, focusing on the type of support

given (emotional, appraisal, instrumental, and informational) (Malecki and Demaray, 2003).

44

Five graduate students were asked to categorize each item in terms of the four types of support.

Ninety two percent of the items were categorized correctly, demonstrating that the items reflect

the type of support as intended by the authors.

Validity is evidenced by convergent, divergent or predictive validity. The CASSS was

tested through comparisons with numerous similar instruments indicating strong convergent

validity; the Social Support Scale for Children (SSSC; Harter, 1985) r = .70 (Demaray &

Malecki, 2002), and the Social Support Appraisal Scale (SSAS; Dubow & Ullman, 1998) r = .56

(Malecki & Demaray, 2003). Construct validity was supported by divergent validity with other

measures of separable psychological constructs as social skills, self-concept, externalizing and

internalizing behaviors, while possessing high correlations with measures of similar constructs

(Malecki et al., 2000; Malecki & Elliott, 1999).

Demographic Survey

A Survey was developed to collect demographic information on the dependent variables

of academic success, extracurricular activities, school satisfaction, attendance, and behavior. For

academic success, students self reported their overall grade average as well as grades in English,

math, social studies, and science by a Likert-type scale, indicating grades ranging from A (100 -

90) to F ( 64 and lower). For extracurricular activities students were given a list of all possible

school related activities and asked to identify the activities, in which they participated, during

their high school career. General school satisfaction was assessed on a seven point Likert-type

scale with questions ranging from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. School attendance was

assessed via items inquiring on the frequencies of excused and unexcused absences. It was

measured on a seven point Likert-type scale with answers range from never, to over 25 times a

year.

45

Data Collection Procedure

Approval was obtained from the building principal, the Assistant Superintendent and the

Superintendent of the school system. Passive consent was obtained from all of the students’

parents via the principal’s monthly school news letter. The passive consent letter informed the

parents of the nature and focus of the research, as well as informing them of the potential benefit

of improving the social support system found within the school (Appendix E). If parents did not

want their adolescent to participate, they were asked to call the school Guidance Department. In

addition, during the administration, students were given the opportunity not to participate.

Prior to surveying the student body, the primary researcher gave the survey to nine

student volunteers in order to gauge the time needed to complete the questions. Three students

were freshmen, two were sophomores, and four were seniors. One student had a 504 Plan, and

one had guided study. The nine students took the survey after school and were allowed to move

at their own pace, which indicated that 30 minutes were optimal.

To administer the survey to the entire student body, the primary investigator had

assistance from the high school principal and the teaching staff who were informed of this study

at a staff meeting. Survey administration took place in an extended home room period, allowing

the students 30 minutes to complete the survey. The student body was divided among 50

homerooms allowing for approximately 15 to 18 students per teacher. All home rooms were

equipped with TV monitors. From the high school’s Media Center, speaking via a live TV

broadcast, the primary investigator introduced herself and read the student Verbal Consent Letter

(Appendix E). The letter explained the nature of the research, indicating that their responses to

the surveys were voluntary, anonymous and confidential. No names were requested on any of

the survey forms. The primary investigator then asked the teachers to pass out the survey packet

46

to the students. The students had prior knowledge of this event via the announcements from the

principal earlier in the week and through a parent information letter sent home, however, the

primary investigator was accessible to the teachers, if their students had any questions. Teachers

were informed to call the primary investigator in the media center to address the questions. If the

student chose not to participant, he/she remained in the class, and focused on other school work.

Teachers collected the materials and delivered them to the Guidance Center at the end of the

period.

Research Questions and Data Analysis

There are nine main research questions. The scores analyzed are from both frequency

and importance ratings, and from the type and source of support. The main questions are:










students most frequently perceive from within each source of support (parent, teacher, class mate



47






instrumental) related to students’ academic success, attendance, extra curricular participation,




related to students’ academic success, attendance, extra curricular participation, behavior, and

school satisfaction indicators? This question will be addressed separately for males and females,

and for each of the grade levels.



students’ academic success, attendance, extra curricular participation, behavior, and school

satisfaction indicators? This question will be addressed separately for males and females, and


Data Analysis

The data from the questionnaires were entered into an excel program and transferred into

the computer program SPSS. A total of 63 scale scores were computed (i.e. parent emotional

support for frequency and for importance) allowing for the necessary data analysis.

48

Research Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the frequency

and importance in the source of support, and to assess the frequency and importance in the type

of support.

Research Question 5. The Friedman analysis and paired t tests were used to determine

what types of support (emotional, informational, appraisal, instrumental) students most often

perceive from within each of the sources (parent, teacher, classmates, close friend and school).

Paired t tests were used to see if the differences of the support types from the support sources,

found with the Friedman, were statistically significant. To assess the impact of gender and

developmental differences, independent t tests and one way ANOVAS were used respectively.

Research Question 7 and 8. To determine if (7) certain types of support and if (8) certain

sources of support were more related to student academic indicators of success (attendance,

GPA, school satisfaction, and extracurricular participation) a series of Pearson correlations were

conducted. To assess the impact of gender and developmental differences, independent t tests

and one way ANOVAS were used respectively.

Research Question 9. To determine if certain types of support from specific sources were

more related to student academic indicators of success (attendance, GPA, school satisfaction, and

extracurricular participation) a series of Pearson correlations and regression analyses were

conducted. To assess the impact of gender and developmental differences, independent t tests

and one way ANOVAS were used respectively.

49

Chapter IV

Results of Data Analysis

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to analyze the value of social support and its impact on

academic success for the high school adolescent. The sources of support - parent, teacher,

classmate, close friend, and school, and the types of support - emotional, informational,

appraisal, and instructional, were assessed. Each source of support offered various types of

support, impacting adolescent behavior. These supportive relationships were correlated with

indicators of academic success; grade point average, school satisfaction, behavior, attendance,

and extracurricular participation. In addition, the impacts of gender and grade level were

evaluated, as independent variables.

Preliminary analyses were performed that resulted in the consolidation of several

variables and for the consolidation of several research questions. Afterward, data were further

analyzed to determine the accuracy of the research predictions. A variety of statistical

techniques were utilized including Pearson correlations, paired t tests, Univariate Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA), regression analysis, and descriptive statistics. In addition, the Friedman

was used to establish statistical significance and to designate rank, followed by paired t tests for

further analysis. Each hypothesis is followed by a report of the analysis used and subsequent

results.

Preliminary Analysis

The preliminary analyses began with close look at the reliability of each of the test

scales. Cronbach’s Alpha test of reliability was performed for each of the five subscales (see

Table 1). The alphas provided strong evidence for internal consistency and reliability of the

50

CASSS (2000). The average alpha score was .95. Individually, the alphas were; Parent .943,

Teacher .939, Classmate .943, Close Friend .954, and School .967. The new School subscale,

not yet assessed for its psychometric properties, had the highest reliability of the five scales.

Second, a preliminary analysis of the data tested for differences in grade level (grades 9,

10, 11, and 12) on sources and types of support using a one way ANOVA. The analysis included

40 calculations, combinations of source and type of support (i.e. parent emotional support), for

both Importance and Frequency Scales. The ANOVA for grade level (see Table 2) resulted in

only four significant differences: for the Frequency Scale, only classmate instrumental support

was significant (F = 2.99), p< .05, and for the Importance Scale, close friend emotional support

(F = 4.15), p < .01, close friend appraisal support (F = 2.86), p <.05, and close friend

instrumental support (F = 4.70), p < .01.were significant. The remaining 36 grade level analyses

were statistically insignificant

Since the grade level had little overall significant impact on the sources and types of

support for these adolescents, the variable was removed from further calculations. The sample

was viewed as one, a sample of high school students.

A third preliminary analysis resulted in the decision to use the variable of gender in the

analyses. A series of t tests assessed the overall impact of a student’s gender on the sources and

types of support (see Table 3). Descriptive statistics can be found in Table 3a and 3b. These

analyses included 40 calculations, combinations of source and type of support (i.e. parent

emotional support), for both Importance and Frequency scales. The analyses indicated 18

significant gender differences that led to the decision to use gender as an independent variable.

A fourth preliminary analysis of the data examined the relationship between the

Importance and Frequency Scales of the CASSS. The Frequency scale, a Likert scale ranging

51

from 1to 6 (Never to Always), indicated how often a student perceived the support. The

Importance Scale, a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 3 (Not Important to Very Important),

indicated the importance of the support considered by the student. Descriptive statistics

indicated identical ranking for the five sources and for the four types of support for both

Importance and Frequency scales. For sources, the rank order was: close friend, teacher, parent,

classmate, and school (see Table 4). For type, the rank order was: emotional, informational,

instrumental, and, appraisal (see Table 5).

The Importance and Frequency scales were further analyzed with Pearson correlations for

both sources and types of support. For example, parent support from the Importance scale was

correlated with parent support from the Frequency scale for males and females. All 10

correlations were significant at the .01 level (2- tailed) with an average correlation of .56 (see

Table 6). Correlations ranged from medium to medium high. Likewise, as an example of

support types, emotional support from the Frequency scale was correlated with emotional

support from the Importance scale for males and females. All 8 correlations were significant at

the .01 level (2- tailed) with an average correlation of .64 (see Table 7). Correlations ranged from

medium to high further supporting the idea to collapse the two scales into one.

Since the types and sources of support from the Frequency and Importance scale were

ranked identically, and were significantly correlated, only one scale was used in further

calculations. The Frequency scale was maintained simply because it had a wider range

containing 6 options ranging from 1-6 as compared to the Importance scale containing 3 options

ranging from 1-3. In addition, the Frequency scale, source and type, was completed by more

students (M = 455 students), in comparison to the Importance scale, source and type (M = 433

students).

52

Analyses of Hypotheses

Because of the high correlation between the Frequency and Importance scales and the

resulted decision to use only the Frequency as a dependent variable, hypotheses 2, 4 and 6 were

not examined.

Hypotheses 1: Partially Supported

What source of support (parent, teacher, classmate, close friend, or school) is perceived

most frequently? It was predicted the close friend and classmate support would be the most

frequent source of support perceived by adolescents. This prediction was based on the research

from Malecki and Elliot (1999). Descriptive statistics indicated that close friend support was

perceived the most frequent for all students (see Table 4). However, for the high school

adolescents, teacher support was next in frequency followed by parent support. Classmate

support was fourth in frequency followed only by school support (see Table 4).

Hypotheses 3: Supported

What type of support (emotional, informational, appraisal, or instrumental) is perceived

most frequently? It was predicted that emotional support would be perceived to be the most

frequent type of support. This prediction was based on the research from Malecki and Demaray

(2003). Descriptive statistics indicated that emotional support was perceived the most frequent

(see Table 5).

Hypotheses 5: Partially Supported

What type of support (emotional, informational, appraisal, or instrumental) do the

students most frequently perceive from within each source of support (parent, teacher, classmate

close friend, and school)? It was predicted that different types of support would be perceived

more frequently from certain sources; from parents, emotional and informational support would

53

be perceived most frequently; from teachers, informational support; from classmates and close

friends, emotional support. No prediction was made on the type of support most frequently

perceived from the school due to lack of data on this scale. These predictions were based on the

research from Malecki and Demaray (2003).

To analyze the data for this hypothesis the Friedman and paired t tests were used. First,

Freidman analyses, using Chi-square tests, were performed indicating that there were

quantitative differences between the types of support, found within each source of support (i.e.

parent emotional support, parent informational support, parent appraisal support, and, parent

instructional support). The results indicated a significant difference existed for all sources

(parent, teacher, classmate, close friend, and, school) (see Table 8). In addition, the Friedman

placed the support types, within one support source, in a rank order (Table 9). Ten Friedman

Chi-square analyses were performed allowing for separate comparisons for both males and

females.

The Friedman analyses results for males supported the hypothesis and were as follows:

from parents, emotional and informational supports were the most frequent; from teachers,

informational support was the most frequent; from classmates and close friends, emotional

support was the most frequent (see Table 9). Partially supporting the hypothesis, females

perceived the following: from parents and teachers, informational support was the most frequent;

from classmates and close friends, emotional support was the most frequent.

No hypothesis was made regarding the types of school support. Results indicated that

males most frequently perceived emotional support and females most frequently perceived

informational support from the school (see Table 9).

54

Paired t tests were used to see if the differences (found in the ranks of the Friedman

analyses) were statistically significant. Was there a statistical difference between the rank of 1

and 2 or between 2 and 3 within each source? Thirty comparisons were analyzed for males and

for females. For the females 23 out of a possible 30 were statically significant (see Table 10),

and for the males, 22 of 30 were statically significant (see Table 11). These results indicate that

over half of the ranks, results of the Friedman analysis, were statistically different from each

other, supporting the hypothesis that different types of support were perceived more frequently

from certain sources.

Hypothesis 7

Are certain types of social support, (emotional, informational, appraisal, or instrumental)

related to students’ academic indicators of GPA, attendance, extra curricular participation,

behavior, and school satisfaction? No predictions were made based on the type of support. Forty

Pearson correlations were performed to answer this question, correlating each dependent variable

(grade point average, behavior, attendance, extracurricular activities, and, satisfaction) with each

support type (emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental) Descriptive statistics can be

found in Table 12, and Pearson correlations are located in Table 13 and summarized in Table

13a.

School behavior and school satisfaction were significantly correlated with all types of

support (emotional, informational appraisal, and instrumental) for both males and females, and

were significant at the p <.01 level. The correlations were positive, as support increased, good

behavior and satisfaction increased. The correlational average for satisfaction was medium, .423

for males and females combined, and the average correlation for behavior was low, .240 for

males and females combined.

55

School attendance was negatively correlated with the types of social support, indicating

that as support increased, absences decreased. Attendance significantly correlated with

emotional and informational support for males and with appraisal support for females. All three

correlations were low, with an average of -.152, significant at the p < .05 level.

Grade point average (GPA) correlations were positive, as support increased, the students’

GPA tended to increase. GPA was significantly correlated with females’ emotional, appraisal,

and instrumental types of support. The three correlations were low, with an average of .152. No

support types correlated with GPA for the males.

Unfortunately, the data for extracurricular activities were discarded for two reasons.

First, hind sight indicated that it was inappropriately collected and tabulated. The test item

focused on quantity, thus a membership in a club, that met three times a year, was given the

same value as a membership on a sport team, that practiced five days a week, possibly for

several months. Secondly, variability was low. Of the 165 students who participated in

extracurricular activities, 72% participated in 2.5 activities or less. Low variability was evident

with an ocular inspection of the data in a graph format (see Graph 1). Thus, the variable of extra

curricular participation was removed from further calculations.

Hypothesis 8. Partially Supported

Are certain sources of support (parent, teacher, close friend, classmate, or school) related

to students’ academic indicators of GPA, attendance, behavior, and school satisfaction? It was

predicted that certain sources of support would impact students’ out come variables: GPA would

be effected by teacher support (Pianta et. al, 1989; Karam, 2006), attendance would be effected

by parent support (Suldo & Huebner, 2005) and teacher support (Karam, 2006), behavior would

be effected by parent support (Nolton 1994; Foreman, 1988), and school satisfaction would be

56

effected by teacher and classmate support (Suldo & Huebner, 2005). Thirty-two Pearson

correlations were performed to answer this question, correlating each dependent variable with

each support source (parent, teacher, classmate, close friend and school). Descriptive statistics

can be found in Table 12, and Pearson correlations are located in Table 13 and summarized in

Table 13b.

School satisfaction was significantly correlated with all sources of support (parent,

teacher, classmate, close friend and school) for both males and females, and school behavior was

significantly correlated with all sources of support except classmate support for females. For

males and females, the correlational average for satisfaction and behavior were low, .340 and

.193 respectively.

Attendance and GPA significantly correlated with parent support for both males and

females; as support increased, absences decreased, and GPA increased. The correlations were

low, and at the p < .01 level. The average significant correlations for attendance and GPA were

.182, and .245 respectively.

Hypothesis 9: Partially Supported

Are certain types of social support, (emotional, informational, appraisal, or instrumental)

from specific sources (parent, teacher, close friend, classmate, or school) related to students’

academic indicators of GPA, attendance, behavior, and school satisfaction? In general, it was

predicted that certain types of support from specific sources would have an impact on various

outcome variables. In specific, teacher emotional support would effect academic success

(Malecki and Demaray, 2003), and school satisfaction (Karam, 2006).

Pearson correlations and linear regression analyses were used to test this hypothesis.

First, eighty separate correlations were calculated for males (see Table 14) and for females (see

57

Table 15). For the males, parent appraisal support had the highest correlation with GPA and

parent informational support had the highest correlation with attendance, while teacher emotional

support had the highest correlation to behavior and satisfaction (see summary Table 16). For the

females, parent instrumental support had the highest correlations with GPA and attendance,

while teacher emotional support had the highest correlations with behavior and classmate

emotional support had the highest correlation with satisfaction (see summary Table 16).

Next, linear regression analyses were calculated for all students to assess the

predictability of the academic indicators based on the support received (see Table 17). Only the

results where social support had a statistically significant impact on a variable will be reported

(all results, including non significant ones, were included in Table 17). The R squares provided

information on the percentage of variation, in each dependent variable, in relation to the source

of support. The standardized betas provided detailed information on each type of support,

holding constant the other types of support within the same source. The results of the regression

analyses indicated that various supports were predictors of the indicators of academic success.

Parent support was a statistically significant predictor of all the dependent variables.

Results were as follows: for GPA R square = .07; for attendance R square = .043; for behavior R

square = .078; and for satisfaction R square = .12. All R square results were significant at the p

<.01 level. The standardized betas provided detailed information on each type of parent support,

holding constant the other types of parent support. The betas for parent support were as follows:

for GPA, parent appraisal beta = .179, p <.05 and parent instrumental beta = .170, p <.05; for

behavior, parent appraisal beta = .249, p <.01; for satisfaction, parent emotional beta = .238, p

<.01. No specific type of parent support had a significant impact on attendance.

58

Teacher support was a statistically significant predictor of all of the dependent variables.

Results were as follows: for GPA R square = .037; for attendance R square = .025; for behavior

R square = .095; and for satisfaction R square = .149. All R square results were significant at the

p <.01 level. The standardized beta scores provided detailed information on each type of teacher

support, holding constant the other types of teacher support. The betas for teacher support were

as follows: for GPA, teacher emotional support beta = .263, for attendance teacher emotional

support beta = -.209, for satisfaction, teacher emotional support beta = .245. For behavior, two

types of teacher support were significant predictors: teacher emotional support beta = .317 and

teacher appraisal beta = -.236. All betas were significant at the p <.01 level.

Classmate support was a statistically significant predictor of two variables, behavior and

satisfaction. For behavior, R square = .036, p <.01, and for satisfaction, R square = .169, p <.01.

The standardized beta scores provided detailed information on each type of classmate support,

holding constant the other types of classmate support. For behavior, classmate appraisal support

was significant, beta = .203, p < .01. For satisfaction two types of support were significant:

classmate emotional support, beta = .270, p <.01 and classmate instrumental, beta = .155, p <.05.

Close friend support was a statistically significant predictor of two variables, similar to

classmate support, predicting behavior and satisfaction. For behavior, R square = .029, p <.01

and for satisfaction, R square = .072, p <.01. The standardized beta scores provided detailed

information on each type of close friend support, holding constant the other types of close friend

support. While no specific type of close friend support had a significant impact on behavior,

close friend emotional support had an impact on satisfaction, beta = .310, p <.01.

Finally, school support was a statistically significant predictor of attendance, behavior

and satisfaction. For attendance, R square = .029; for behavior, R square = .060; for satisfaction,

59

R square = .134. All R squares were significant at the p <.01 level. The betas provided detailed

information on each type of school support, holding constant the other types of school support.

For attendance, school appraisal and school instrumental support were significant, beta = -.257

and .255 respectively. For behavior, both school informational and school instrumental support

were significant, beta = .283 and beta = -.253, respectively. For satisfaction, school emotional

support was significant, beta = .293. All betas were significant at the p <.01 level.

Summary of the Results

The preliminary analysis indicated two changes were necessary. First, the students’

grade levels were eliminated as a variable based on the results of a One Way ANOVA. It

appeared that differences among grade levels from 9th grade students to 12th grade students were

statistically negligible in relationship to the types and sources of support studied in this research

project. In contrast, independent t tests indicated that the students’ gender was considered to be a

statistically significant variable in relation to types and sources of support. Males and females

differed in their perception of social support, and in the impact support had on them.

Second, the Frequency and Importance Scales were analyzed, resulting in the elimination

of the Importance Scale. Both descriptive statistics, through the use of rank, and statistically

significant correlations, focusing on the similarities of the two scales, resulted in the decision that

the two scales were highly overlapping and that including both in the analyses would be

redundant. The Frequency Scale was maintained because it had a wider range containing more

options compared to the Importance Scale and it was completed by more students. This decision

resulted in the elimination of hypothesis, 2, 4, and, 6, that focused on the Importance Scale.

Summaries, from the analysis of the hypotheses are presented next. First, according to

descriptive statistics, the most frequently perceived source of support was close friend, and the

60

most frequently perceived type of support was emotional. After close friend support, and in

descending order, were; teacher, parent, classmate and school. After emotional support, and in

descending order were; informational, instrumental, and appraisal.

The Friedman and Paired t tests indicated that various sources of support (parent, teacher,

classmate, close friend, and school) provided certain types of support (emotional, informational,

appraisal, and instrumental) more often. Females perceived the following most frequently: from

classmates and close friends they received emotional support; from parents, teachers, and the

school, informational support. Males perceived the following most frequently: from classmates,

close friends, and the school they received emotional support; from teachers, informational

support. Equally frequent, from parents, males received emotional and informational support.

The impact of the types of support (emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental)

and the sources of support (parent, teacher, classmate, close friend, and school) on GPA,

attendance, behavior and satisfaction, was assessed by Pearson correlations. The dependent

variable of extra curricular activities was omitted due to a poor data collection method, and to

low variability with the results. For males, the most significant correlations came from two

sources of support: parent support with GPA, attendance, and behavior; teacher support with

satisfaction. In addition, for males the most significant correlations with the types of support

were: emotional support with behavior and satisfaction; informational support with attendance;

no type of support significantly correlated with GPA. For females the most significant

correlations came from two sources of support: parent support with GPA, attendance, and

behavior; classmate support with satisfaction. The most significant correlations, with the types

of support, for females were: instrumental support with GPA and behavior; appraisal support

with attendance; emotional support with satisfaction.

61

Pearson correlations were performed in order to analyze the impact of the types of

support from various sources. For males, the most significant correlations were: parent appraisal

and parent informational support with GPA and attendance respectively, and teacher emotional

support with both behavior and satisfaction. For females, the most significant correlations were;

parent instrumental support with GPA and attendance, teacher emotional and classmate

emotional support with behavior and satisfaction respectively.

Finally, linear regression analyses indicated that certain types of support from specific

sources were statistically significant predictors of GPA, attendance, behavior and satisfaction.

The strongest predictor was teacher emotional support, and the dependent variables most

influenced by social support were student behavior and school satisfaction. The regression

analysis supported the findings of the Pearson correlations regarding the strength of parent and

teacher support for the high school adolescent.

62

Chapter V

Discussion

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of a social support network on the

academic success of the high school adolescent. Academic success in high school is crucial and

can be measured through a variety of indicators. This study considered GPA, attendance,

behavior in school, satisfaction with school, and participation in school related activities as

indicators of academic success, and utilized them as dependent variables. How does social

support impact these indicators of success?

The construct of support, utilized for this study, was originated by Tardy (1985) and

utilized by Nolton (1994) and Malecki and Demaray (2003). They viewed social support as a

multifaceted construct composed of multiple sources of support and various types of support.

The sources of support in this study were parents, teachers, classmates, close friends, and,

school, and the types of support were emotional, informational, appraisal, and, instrumental.

These specific aspects of support enable a thorough understanding of the construct and greater

detail of its impact.

It was hypothesized that for high school students, the provision of different types of

support, from different sources of support, would positively impact various academic indicators

of success. The participants were from a public high school in Western New York, with a school

population of 750 students from grades nine to twelve. School demographics were as follows;

96 % white, .9% black, 1.0% Hispanic and 1.4% Asian. All participants were a sample of

convenience and volunteers in the study. Passive parental consent was obtained from the

guardians. Not included in the study were 72 students who were absent, 17 self-contained

63

special education students, and 190 students who chose not to participate. A total of 471

questionnaires were analyzed in this study, 243 females 214 males and 14 who did not indicate

their gender. The later 14 were used in the analysis of hypotheses 1 and 3, where gender was not

a variable, and removed from the analysis of the remaining hypothesis where it was considered.

The student breakdown included 134 in grade nine, 107 in grade ten, 127 in grade eleven and

103 in grade twelve.

The data were collected through the use of two questionnaires, the Child and Adolescent

Social Support Scale (CASSS) (Malecki and Demaray, 2003) and a demographic questionnaire

(Appendix C and D). The CASSS was composed of 60 declarative sentences that were divided

into five subscales, indicating the various sources of support (parent, teacher, classmate, close

friend, and school). Within each subscale, there were three questions that reflected each type of

support (emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental) thus each subscale contained 12

statements. The sources of support, indicated by the subscales, were evident to the students

however, the types of support were not indicated on the questionnaire. Participants were

instructed to mark two responses for each statement, one indicating the frequency, the second

indicating the importance of the support. The CASSS gathered information on the independent

variables of support source (parent, teacher, classmate, close friend, and school) and support type

(emotional, informational, appraisal, and instructional).

The demographic questionnaire was composed of six items utilizing a Likert scale, or a

fill in the blank question. The questionnaire gathered information on the dependent variables:

the students GPA, behavior, attendance, school satisfaction, and participation in extracurricular

activities. The students gender and grade level were requested on a coversheet that accompanied

64

the questionnaire packet. No names were required on either the CASSS or the demographic

questionnaire, thus the method of collection was a self report from the student’s perspective.

The packets were distributed in an extended homeroom period by the homeroom

teachers. The primary researcher spoke to the students from the media center, giving instructions

to them via classroom television monitors. Students had approximately 30 minutes to complete

the forms. Afterward, homeroom teachers returned the forms to the guidance department by the

end of the school day.

All data were entered into an excel program by three people, allowing for a built in

checking procedure for data entry, and transferred to the SPSS program where the subscale

variables were computed allowing for the statistical analysis of the information. Preliminary

analysis of the data led to the removal of the Importance Scale from the CASSS, the variable of

grade level, and, the dependent variable of participation in extracurricular activities. The

elimination of the Importance Scale resulted in the elimination of hypothesis 2, 4, and, 6 which

focused on the students’ perception of the importance of social support.

Summary and Conclusion

First, a general look at the results of the preliminary analysis will be reviewed including

the frequency of support compared to the importance of support and the impact of the variables

of age and gender. Second, the types of support will be discussed, followed by an examination

of the various sources of support and how they, independent of each other, impact the academic

variables of success. Third, the discussion will focus on how various types of support from

specific sources have an impact on the academic indicators of success, and predict academic

success. The results are mixed. In some instances, results of the current study supports findings

65

of previous research, while some conclusions from the data pose contradictions to the extant

research. Finally limitations and suggestions for future research will be presented.

Importance versus Frequency

The critical role of importance versus frequency of support was a focus of several studies

(Demaray and Elliott, 2001; Demaray, 2003; Malecki and Elloitt, 1999). The current study

found statistically insignificant evidence indicating a difference in the measurements of

frequency of support versus the importance of support. The frequency of support and the

importance of support exhibited identical patterns in ranking the sources of support (close friend,

teacher, parent, classmate, school ) and types of support (emotional, informational, appraisal, and

instrumental), and both constructs (importance and frequency of support) were significantly

correlated with each other. These findings support the research of Malecki and Elloitt (1999),

whose subjects were students in grades 7 through 12. Their results indicated that frequency

scores moderately correlated with importance scores of support. Though significantly correlated,

Malecki and Elloitt did consider them to be two distinct aspects of the construct of support.

In contrast to the findings of this study, the studies of Demaray and Elliott (2001) and

Demaray (2003) indicated differences between the frequency of support and importance of

support. Demaray et al., (2001) compared the two constructs while studying boys diagnosed

with ADHD. Results indicated the ADHD subjects received less support (frequency) than a

control group, however both groups considered it to be equally important. Demaray (2003)

categorized middle school subjects as bullies, victims, victim/bullies, or placed into a control

group. Of the 499 subjects, the control group received the greatest amount of support

(frequency) however, support was considered to be the most important by the victim and

victim/bullies.

66

A critical difference in comparing the four studies was the pool of subjects. In the

current study, and the study of Malecki and Elloitt (1999), no particular population was

identified, unlike the targeted groups of the Demaray et. al, (2001) and Demaray (2003) studies.

Thus, the current research supports the theory that subjects, of a target or homogeneous group

(i.e. bullies), rate frequency and importance differently, while students of a broad heterogeneous

sample rate frequency and importance of support similarly. These findings might suggest that

when the sample of subjects is composed of a non targeted sample of adolescent high school

students, the difference between frequency and importance of support types and sources is

negligible, however, when the comparison is made with a targeted sample of adolescents,

compared to a control group, a difference exists between frequency and importance.

Age and Gender Differences

The current study found gender to be a variable having an impact on the perception of

perceived social support. Females reported receiving more social support than boys from all the

sources of support and for all types of support (see Table 12). This supports the research of

Malecki and Demaray (2002), Demaray and Malecki (2003), Jackson and Warren, (2000) and

Nolton (1994), who reported that females received more social support than males.

The current study did not find a developmental difference on the perception of social

support. The sample contained adolescents from grades 9 to 12 who were predominantly 14 to18

years of age, covering a four year span. The sources of support (parents, teachers, classmates

and close friends) did not appear to vary in the support they provided for these adolescents. Like

wise, types of support (emotional, informational, appraisal, or instructional) did not seem to vary.

Other studies found a developmental impact on the perception of social support (Nolton,

1994; Malecki and Demaray, 2002; Demaray and Malecki 2003). In general, their findings

67

indicated social support, predominantly from adults, decreased with age. Younger children had

more support than older children, especially from parents and teachers. The difference was

observed however, when comparing the children over a greater span of developmental time, not

within the high school age range itself. Elementary children perceived more support than middle

school children, and middle school children perceived more total support than the high school

children.

Furthermore, Demaray and Malecki’s (2003) findings indicated an interaction affect

between age and gender. Gender differences were not observed in the elementary or middle

school. However, at the high school age level, gender became an influential variable, indicating

girls perceived support more frequently and considered it to be important than boys.

In summary, the findings from the current study appear to be supported by extant

research: at the high school level, females perceive more social support than males, and the

perception of social support appears to remain consistent for adolescents within grades nine to

twelve. Regarding the variable of gender, these combined results might suggest that for the high

school adolescent, boys do receive less support than girls, or that girls are better at recognizing

support that is offered to them. Either way, considering the proven benefits of social support, in

either the buffering or main effect model, female adolescents appear to be at an advantage.

Females may be reaping the psychological and physical benefits of social support over males. In

contrast, adolescent males may be at a greater risk, as they face challenges in their lives, without

the support system afforded to females. Regarding the variable of age, these findings suggest

that high school adolescents perceive the same amount, and similar types of social support.

Freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors equally share the advantages provided from a social

support system.

68

Types of Support

The type of support studied in an investigation of social support has been historically

overlooked (Malecki et al., 2003), however the current study has taken this variable into account.

It found the most to least frequently perceived types of support were; emotional, informational,

instrumental, and appraisal support (Table 5). However, the order of support, listed by

frequency, is different from the order of support listed by the impact they had on the indicator

variables. The support types, listed from most to least influential (strength of correlation) on the

dependent variables were; emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal (Tables 13 and

13a). They are further discussed in order of perceived frequency.

Emotional Support. Emotional support was exemplified by words and behaviors that

reflected feelings of love, caring, empathy, compassion, and by words and behaviors that

encouraged the development of trust. By both males and females, emotional support was

perceived most frequently and had the strongest correlation with the indicator variables.

Compared to the other support types, it had the strongest correlation with satisfaction for females

and satisfaction and good behavior for males. As emotional support increased, school

satisfaction for both genders increased and good behavior for males increased. Though it was

not the support type with the strongest correlation to attendance, GPA, or female behavior, it did

have a significant correlation with them. For males, it was related to improved attendance and

for females it was related to improved GPA, and behavior. Altogether, emotional support had a

significant impact on every indicator variable.

Surprisingly, emotional support had a statistically stronger impact for males than females.

Traditionally, females are viewed to be more emotional than males however, this study indicated

69

that the male students were more sensitive to emotional support particularly in terms of their

school behavior and school satisfaction (Table 13a).

Informational Support. Informational support was exemplified through giving advice,

and instruction. It was perceived as the second most frequent support type. Though it was given

relatively frequently, it did not have much of an impact on the outcome variables in terms of its

correlational strength. However, compared to the other support types, informational support had

the strongest correlation with attendance, for males (Table 13a). As informational support

increased, absences for male students decreased. Though it was not the support type with the

strongest correlation to behavior or satisfaction, it did have a significant impact on them for both

males and females. Altogether, informational support had a weak but significant impact on three

of the four variables (Table 13).

Instrumental Support. Instrumental support was reflected through helping behaviors as

offering of one’s time, skills, or finances to a person in need. Though it was the third most

frequent support type, it did have a significant impact on several variables. Compared to the

other support types, instrumental support had the strongest correlation with female GPA and

female behavior (Table 13a). As instrumental support increased, female students’ GPA

increased, and their behavior improved. Though it was not the support type with the strongest

correlation to male satisfaction or male behavior, it did have a statistically significant impact on

them. Overall, instrumental support had more impact on females than males and it had a

significant impact on three of the four variables, all at the p<.01 significance level (Table 13).

Appraisal Support. Appraisal support was the offering of evaluative feedback. It was

perceived the least frequent of the four, and it had the lowest statistical significance with

academic success. However, compared to the other support types, appraisal support had the

70

strongest correlation with attendance for females, as it increased, absences decreased (Table13a).

Though it was not the support type with the strongest correlation to behavior, satisfaction, or

GPA, it did have a statistically significant impact on them. For females, in addition to

attendance, it was also related to GPA, behavior, and satisfaction, and for males it was related to

behavior and satisfaction (Table 13). Thus appraisal support had a greater impact on females

than males.

Regarding prior research, Cheng (1998) looked at support types using the buffering

model of support. He assessed the impact of support types on depression for males and females.

His findings have similarities and discrepancies with the findings of the current study. Cheng

found instrumental support helped males while socioemotional support helped females, where as

the current study, using a main effect model, found the opposite. In this study, emotional support

had the greatest impact on males and instrumental support had the greatest impact on females.

Regardless of the gender variable, both studies acknowledge the powerful impact of emotional

and instrumental support above other support types.

Summary for Types of Support. Though gender differences can be seen, it is apparent

that all types of social support are valuable and possess the ability to impact academic success.

When assessing impact on the dependent variables, females were more sensitive to instrumental

and appraisal support, where as males were more sensitive to emotional and informational

support. Though females may perceive more support than males (frequency), it appears they are

not receiving the type of support that would have the greatest impact on their academic success.

For example, more instrumental support may improve their GPA. Perhaps giving of ones time

and skills is more difficult, and requires more effort, and sacrifice from the giver than the caring

words of emotional or appraisal support. Though males perceive less support overall

71

(frequency), they may benefit more because emotional support, the type of support having the

greatest impact on their behavior and satisfaction, is most frequently given. Unfortunately for

male students, no support type had a statistically significant impact on GPA or perhaps the

critical level of support had not been reached.

Sources of Support

In the current study, the sources of support, listed from most to least frequently

perceived by the high school adolescent were; close friend, teacher, parent, classmate, and the

school (Table 4). Surprisingly the sources of support, listed from most to least influential

(strength of correlation) on the dependent variables of GPA, attendance, behavior, and

satisfaction were; parent, followed equally by teacher and classmate, and finally school and close

friend support (Tables 13 and 13b). They are further discussed by order of their effect on the

dependent variables.

Parent Support. It is customary that as children develop into adolescents, they turn away

from parental support, at times even rebelling against parental involvement, as they turn towards

support from friends (OKoon, 1997). However, the current study indicates that parent support

far out weighs the value of all other sources of support, including peers, as it relates to the

academic indicators of success. Compared to other support sources, parent support had the

primary correlation with three of the four variables, GPA, attendance, and behavior for both

males and females (Table 13b). Though it was not the support source with the strongest

correlation to satisfaction it did have a statistically significant correlation with satisfaction, thus

parent support had an impact on all four variables for both genders (Table 13).

The importance of parental support acknowledged in this study, is seen in the research of

others (Nolton, 1994; Foreman, 1988; Karam, 2006; Suldo et al., 2005; OKoon, 1997; American

72

Psychological Association, 2002; Nolton, Gambone et al., 2002; Hillaker, 2004). Parents need to

keep in mind that an increase in peer contact and a decline in parental contact by their adolescent

is not an indication that parents are less important, or less influential. The parent–child

relationship needs to be restructured as the child develops into an adolescent, however these ties

should not be severed (Brook et al., 2000). This study supports the premise that parental support

is crucial for the continued development and school success of the adolescent. It is a mistake for

parents not to remain supportive and actively involved in the life of their adolescent, equally for

males and females.

Teacher and Classmate Support. In the current study, teacher and classmate support

were the sources of support with the greatest impact on school satisfaction, specifically, teacher

support had the primary correlation with satisfaction for males, while classmate support had the

primary correlation with satisfaction for females (Table 13b). This finding is logical, since these

two sources of support are the main forms of social contact in the school setting. Though teacher

support did not have the strongest correlation with behavior, it had a statistically significant

impact on behavior for both males and females, and classmate support had a statistically

significant impact on behavior for males (Table 13). Thus both teacher and classmate support

had a significant impact on two of the four variables.

In relation to extant research on classmate and teacher support, the current study supports

their findings. Foreman (1988) found classmate support to have an impact on self worth, athletic

competence, physical appearance and scholastic achievement for elementary school students.

Suldo et al., (2005) found that classmate support was related to high life satisfaction. East et al.,

(1978) indicated that peer support was related to higher academics, good conduct, high self

worth, and fewer adjustment problems. Regarding the importance of teacher support, Pianta et

73

al., (1989) found teacher support to have an impact on academic success and behavior for

kindergarten students, and Karam (2006) found teacher support to have a positive impact on

academic engagement and achievement for middle school students. All of the studies found

classmate and teacher support to be an asset, in varying degrees, to students in school.

School Support. School support was not the primary form of support for any of the

indicator variables. It did however have a significant impact on both behavior and school

satisfaction for both males and females. Though school support was perceived the least frequent,

it had stronger correlations to the dependent variables than close friend support, the source

perceived most frequently.

Close Friend Support. Close friend support was the most frequent source of support

perceived by the high school student (Table 4). Surprisingly, compared to other sources, close

friend support did not have a primary correlation with any of the variables, though it was

significantly correlated with behavior and satisfaction (Table 13 and 13b). These findings

support the research of others before it. Several researchers (Malecki & Demaray, 2003; Nolton,

1994; Malecki & Elliott, 1999) found close friend support as the most important source of

support, while Foreman’s (1988) and Melecki et. al, (2003) indicated that close friend support

had no predictive or correlational relationship.

Summary for Sources of Support. In summary, all types of support as well as all sources

of support offer some statistically proven benefit. Though adolescents value and receive friend

support most frequently, contributing to their social development, parental support has more

potential to contribute to their academic success. Parental support had the primary correlation

with three of the four indicators of success for both males and females. Adolescents may be

suffering academically by the relative lack of parent support given.

74

In terms of the dependent variables, behavior and satisfaction were the academic

indicators affected most by the sources of support, and the types of support (Table 13). They

were statistically affected by all four support types (emotional, informational, appraisal, and

instrumental) for both genders, at the significance level of p <.01. Satisfaction was affected by

all sources (parent, teacher, classmate, close friend, and school) of support for males and females

at the significance level of p <.01, and behavior was affected by all source of support (except for

classmate support for females), predominantly at the significance level of p<.01. Overall,

satisfaction had the strongest correlations followed by behavior.

Social Support - Source &Type Together

This study has addressed the benefits of various types of support and the benefits of

various sources of support separately. However, further questions remain. Should certain

people, in an adolescent’s life, focus on providing specific types of support compared to others?

What type of support from a particular individual would have the greatest impact on a student’s

ability to be successful in school? Further discussion will focus on the benefits of types of

support from specific sources of support (Tables 14, 15, and 16). In addition, the information

from the Importance Scale (Table 3a) focusing on the importance of social support will be

utilized.

GPA and Social Support. For males and females, GPA was significantly correlated with

all support types from parents and one support type from teachers; parent emotional, parent

informational, parent instrumental, parent appraisal, and teacher emotional support. For males,

parent appraisal support had the primary influence on GPA, and for females, parent instrumental

support had the primary influence. The more parents gave of their time and skills, the more their

daughters grades improved. The more parents gave evaluative feed back, the more their sons’

75

GPA improved. In addition, the more teachers showed they cared about their students, the better

their students GPA became. No support from classmates, close friends or the school had any

significant impact on the students’ GPA.

Attendance and Social Support. Similarly to GPA, the majority of the support impacting

attendance came from parents and teachers with two exceptions for males. For males, three

types of parent support had a significant impact on attendance, emotional, informational and

appraisal. However, parent informational support was the primary form of support impacting

attendance. For females, three types of parent support had a significant impact on attendance,

emotional, appraisal, and instrumental. However, parent instrumental support was the primary

form of support impacting attendance. In addition, attendance was affected by two types of

support from teachers; teacher emotional support for all students and teacher appraisal support

for females. Finally for males, attendance was also affected by classmate appraisal and school

emotional support.

The pattern of emotional support having a greater impact on males continues, where

parent emotional, teacher emotional, and school emotional support had an impact on male

attendance. Likewise, the importance of instrumental and appraisal support for females

continues, where teacher appraisal, parent appraisal, and parent instrumental support had an

impact on female attendance.

Behavior and Social Support. Behavior was primarily affected by teacher emotional

support for all students (Table 16). In general the behavior of male students was more sensitive

to social support than the behavior of female students where 17 of the 20 social supports had an

impact on the males’ behavior compared to 10 of the 20 social supports that had an impact on the

females’ behavior (Table 14 and 15). Thus, almost every support type from all support sources

76

had an impact on the male students’ behavior. For females, predominantly support types from

parents and teachers affected their behavior. The pattern of emotional support having a greater

impact on males continues, where parent emotional, teacher emotional, and school emotional

support were the types from each source having strong correlations with the behavior for male

students.

Satisfaction and Social Support. Amongst the 80 correlations, satisfaction was the

dependent variable having the strongest correlation with all types of support from all sources of

support for all students (except for three instances: females’ GPA with parent appraisal and

parent instrumental support and females’ attendance with parent instrumental support). It was

significantly related to all types of support from all of the sources of support at the significance

level of p < .01(Tables 14 and 15). For all the sources of support (parent, teacher, classmate,

close friend, and school), emotional support was the strongest type that correlated to school

satisfaction for males, the primary source being teacher emotional support. For females, the

primary correlation for school satisfaction was classmate emotional support (Table 16).

The Importance of Support

According to the data on the Importance Scale, students rated teacher informational

support as the most important form of support a teacher could provide (Table 3a), a logical

thought considering that to teach means to impart information ( Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

Surprisingly however, teacher emotional support out weighted the impact of the other forms of

teacher support regarding all of the academic indicators, especially for males (Tables 14 and 15).

Regarding GPA, teacher emotional support was the only type of teacher support that had a

statistically significant impact on GPA for all students. The current data indicates that teachers

need to be aware that their words and behaviors, displaying care and concern, may increase the

77

GPA of their students more than the information given to them in the classroom lecture. In

addition, their emotional support is the best form of support that teachers can provide to

encourage good classroom behavior, improve class attendance, and contribute to the students’

school satisfaction. Students need to know that teachers care about them (Cauce et al., 1982;

Painta et al., 1989; Richmond et al., 1998; Malecki et al, 1999; Malecki, et al., 2002; Malecki, et

al., 2003; Demaray et al., 2003; Karam, 2006).

According to the data on the Importance Scale, the students rated parental emotional

support as the most important form of support that parents could provide (Table 3a). Though

parent emotional support may be very important in many aspects of their lives, it was not the

form of parental support having the most potential to assist them with their academic success.

The data indicates that parents need to provide instrumental, appraisal, and informational support

to help improve GPA and attendance for students. Though parent emotional support is

correlated to all of the dependent variables, ironically, overall parent emotional support was not

the primary form of social support related to the dependent variables (comparing it to other

support types from support sources) (Table 16).

Predictions from Regression Analysis

Researchers often use regression analysis to predict how well students would do in

school, based on various predictors. In the current study, regression was used to identify support

types from support sources that could be considered predictors of academic success (Table 17).

The analyses were performed on the students together, removing the factor of gender. A total of

80 regressions were performed, 16 within each source of support, and a total of 20 sources of

support with the various types of support (i.e. parent emotional) were assessed. All predictions

were based on statistically significant correlations that were low in strength.

78

Teacher Support Types. Regarding teachers, results indicated that teacher emotional

support was a predictor for all of the indicators of academic success, GPA, attendance, behavior

and satisfaction with a significance level of p <.01. For GPA and behavior, teacher emotional

support was the strongest predictor compared to the 20 other possible predictors. Teacher

emotional support had the strongest prediction, (for behavior, beta = .317**) compared to the 80

other possible predictions made in this analysis. In addition, teacher appraisal support was also a

predictor variable. It had however, an adverse affect on the students’ behavior. The data

predicted that the more a teacher used appraisal support, the worst the behavior would become.

Perhaps the evaluative feedback of appraisal support was more critical of bad behavior than

complementary of good behavior. Teachers need to be cognizant of how and when they use

appraisal support, for the consequences could result in positive reactions from the students or

negative reactions, as with student behavior.

Parent Support Types. An analysis of parent support revealed that parent appraisal

support, compared to other forms of parent support, had the strongest predictive abilities

(predicting two of the four possible dependent variables). It predicted student behavior however,

unlike teacher appraisal support, it had a positive affect. The more a parent used appraisal

support, the better the student behaved in school. Perhaps parents used more positive forms of

feedback, or had greater control of rewards and punishments accompanying the evaluative

feedback. An adolescent has more to lose and more to gain from parents (i.e. an ability to drive,

date, socialize, or to gain material possessions) compared to teachers and thus more reason to

respond positively to parent appraisal support.

To a lesser degree, parent appraisal support also predicted student GPA along with parent

instrumental support. Finally, parent emotional support predicted student satisfaction in school,

79

though it was not the strongest predictor of satisfaction overall (taking into account the other

sources of social supports).

Classmate Support Types. Regarding classmate support, classmate emotional, classmate

appraisal and classmate instrumental support were predictors of academic success. Classmate

emotional and instrumental support were predictors for satisfaction and classmate appraisal

support was a predictor for behavior at the significance level of p<.01, though they were not the

strongest predictors compared to the other sources of social support. GPA and attendance were

not related to any type of classmate support.

Close Friend Support Types. Close friend support contained the least amount of

predictive abilities with academic success, though it was rated the most frequent and the most

important type of social support for adolescents. Only close friend emotional support had a

predictive ability to an indicator of success, school satisfaction. It was, however the greatest

predictor of school satisfaction compared to the other social supports analyzed. Overall, it had

the second greatest predictive power; Beta = .310** (second to teacher emotional support on

behavior, Beta = .317**).

School Support Types. All types of school support had a predictive ability with at least

one indicator variable. School appraisal support had the strongest predictive ability on

attendance (beta = -.257) compared to the 20 other possible predictors with attendance. As

school appraisal support increased, absences decreased. Attendance was also related to school

instrumental support; surprisingly however, as school instrumental support increased, absences

increased (beta = .255). The more a school gave, in terms of helping behaviors, the more the

absences grew in number. Perhaps the school needs to adhere to a strict attendance policy and be

80

less lenient when allowing excuses for students with chronic attendance problems. For them,

schools may need to give less, expect and demand more.

The same seemingly converse predictive relationship existed with school instrumental

support and behavior (beta = -.253**), the more a school offered helping behaviors the worst the

students behaved. Again, perhaps it is the school’s role to offer less help, allow for fewer

excuses and demand more of students with chronic problem behaviors. Each source of support

plays a different role for the student, apparently the school support network needs to be firm on

its behavior and attendance policies in order to assistant students obtain success.

Compared to other types of school support, school emotional support had the strongest

predictive ability and compared to the 20 other social supports, it was the second strongest

predictor of school satisfaction (beta = .293**). The greater the atmosphere of caring, from the

school community, the greater the satisfaction for the students.

Extant Research on Predictions. Few researchers focused on assessing support types

from support sources and the impact on academic success, except for Malecki and Demaray,

(2003) and Karam (2006). Though the samples differ, middle school students compared to the

current study of high school students, some findings were the same. The current study was an

extension of the Malecki et al., (2003) study that looked at similar sources (less school support)

and types of support. Regardless of the grade level difference, a similarity between the two

studies was the students’ ratings of the types of support from the sources of support, where the

most important were; parent emotional, teacher informational, classmate emotional, and close

friend emotional. In addition, both studies found teacher emotional support was a predictor of

academic competence.

81

There were contradictions with the Malecki et al., (2003) study as well. This study found

that all sources of support (parent, teacher, classmate, close friend and school), depending on the

type of support used (emotional, informational appraisal, or instructional), had some predictive

abilities. Malecki et al., found no predictive abilities for parent, classmate or friend support,

regardless of the type of support offered. This is a critical difference in that the current findings

possess a more positive outlook indicating that there are more possibilities, more opportunities

for social support to assist adolescents in school.

Karam (2006) focused on the support types offered by teachers and how they had an

impact on indicators of academic success. She found that teacher emotional support was linked

to life satisfaction, teacher mastery learning approach was linked to attendance, and teacher

overall support was linked to school engagement and achievement. The current study focused on

several different aspects of success however, both studies found that teacher emotional support

correlated with satisfaction and that overall teacher support had a significant correlation with

academic success.

Summary of Social Support - Source &Type Together. In summary teacher emotional

support is the most important form of support a teacher can offer, impacting and having the

ability to predict GPA, attendance, behavior, and satisfaction. Unfortunately it is not the form of

support that is most frequently offered. On the contrary, parents who predominantly offered

emotional support, need to be aware that their appraisal and instrumental support has a greater

correlation with their adolescent’s academic success (GPA, attendance, and behavior). In

addition, parent appraisal, and parent instrumental support can predict GPA and behavior.

Support from close friends, containing the most value for the adolescent, has far less value

regarding its ability to impact academic success, though support from close friends and

82

classmates has strong ability to predict school satisfaction. Last of all, school support needs to

reflect a firm stance on attendance and behavior problems and a yet caring nature in general to

foster satisfaction.

Limitations and Future Research

Although the current study provides evidence that there is a correlational relationship

between adolescents’ social support network and important academic outcomes, it is incorrect to

assume a causal relationship and premature to claim that a particular level of social support can

predict those outcomes. Further research is necessary to contribute additional supportive data

adding to the current research findings. To ensure future findings are accurate, several

adjustments should be noted.

First, this study collected data on the construct of social support through a self-report

questionnaire. Thus it was a mono method, mono operation collection procedure. Collecting

data through a single operation and a single method may cause the construct of interest to be

masked by the measurement method (Meier, 2006). Covert feelings, however, as being cared for

by your teachers and parents, may only be collected through methods of self report (La Greca,

1990). None the less, the accuracy of future research on social support could be enhanced

through the use of additional instruments allowing for the aggregation of data, even if the sources

are additional self report questionnaires. An aggregated score more accurately reflects the

construct of interest, improving reliability and validity by decreasing random measurement errors

(Meier, 2006).

Second, self- report surveys are affected by the subjects’ response strategies. If subjects

attempt to leave a specific impression, social desirability would impact their responses to the test

items (Meier, 2006). Subjects are often inclined to present a positive image. This may have

83

occurred regarding the dependent variable of GPA. Since the survey was anonymous, individual

GPAs could not be compared however, there was a possible discrepancy between students’

reported grades and students’ actual averages. Student records indicate the actual GPA mean for

the school was 80.02 (N = 715) with numerous students having averages between 40% and 60%

(Histogram 1). In comparison, the self-reported GPA mean for the study sample was 85.82 (N =

454) and few students indicated averages between 50% to 60 % (Histogram 2). One of two

possibilities may have occurred: students were hoping to make a positive impression by

overstating their GPA; or, the 37% of the students in the school who did not participate in the

research project may have had substantially lower grades than students participating in the study.

This later possibility seems somewhat unlikely and thus conclusions about GPA may have to be

considered carefully.

Future research desiring demographic information can be enhanced through the use of

multiple methods other than self reports. The collection of data can be obtained from school

records as student report cards, behavioral referrals, and attendance records thus minimizing the

problems associated with a self-report procedure.

Third, the current study was performed as a single administration allowing for the

negative impact of affective mismatches, cognitive mismatches, and mismatches resulting from

environmental factors (Meier, 2006). For example, during the testing subjects may suffer from

personal problems or they may not be able to understand the directions given or they may feel

uncomfortable with teachers monitoring them and collecting the questionnaires. These

mismatches can lead to a systemic error (Meier, 2006). In place of a single administration, a

longitudinal research method could be employed. A longitudinal research method would also

facilitate the investigation of predictive relationships (Malecki et al., 2003).

84

Fourth, the sample from the current study was limited in grade level, including students

only from grades 9 to 12. Clear developmental trends have been documented in previous

research studies (Demaray et al., 2002) that are not observable within this range of grade levels.

Future research should expand the pool of subjects and include students from the elementary,

middle, and high school grade levels, allowing the researchers the opportunity to observe the

developmental changes and the diversity of the benefits of social support seen through out these

years.

Finally, the sample from the current study was also limited, composed predominantly of

Caucasian students. A more representative sample would allow for a possibility of

generalizability to the population beyond the school walls.

The results of this study support past research, offer new information, and increase

awareness regarding the benefits of social support utilized by parents, educators, and counseling

professionals. The data suggest that specific supportive behaviors from specific sources as

parents, teachers, classmates, close friends, and the school, can be employed as tools for

academic intervention. These supportive figures can now attempt to provide the necessary types

of support, offering the greatest impact, addressing the academic needs of the adolescent

students. Since a student’s decision to drop out of school is a cumulative consequence of several

factors including low parent and teacher support, perhaps this study, along with past and future

research on the benefits of social support, will help adolescents to avoid the deleterious

consequences of dropping out of school.

85

References

Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. R. (1988). Achievement in the first two years of school:

Patterns and process. Monographs of the Society fir Research in Child Development, 53

(2, Serial No. 219).

American Psychological Association. (2002) A reference for professionals: Developing

Adolescents. www.apa.org/pi/pii/develop.pdf.

Bagwell, C., Newcomb, A., & Bukowski, W. (1998). Preadolescent friendship and peer rejection

as predictors of adult adjustment. Child Development, 69, 140-153.

Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determination. American Psychologist, 33,

344-358.

Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an explanatory model of college

student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 521-540.

Bishop, J., & Inderbitzen, H. (1995). Peer acceptance and friendship: An Investigation. Journal

of Early Adolescence, 15, 476-489.

Brand, S., & Felner, R. D. (1996). Cross-situational inconsistency in behavioral assessments and

adaptive patterns of children and youth: The role of ecological congruence across

family/school environments. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 160-174.

Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., & Finch, S. (2000). Longitudinal foretelling drug use in the late

twenties: Adolescent personality and social-environmental antecedents. The Journal of

Genetic Psychology, 161 (1), 37-51.

Brooks, R. (1994). Children at risk: Fostering resilience and hope. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 64 (4), 545-553.

86

Barrera, M. (1986). Distinctions between social support concerns, measures, and models.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 413-445.

Buhrmester, D. (1996). Need fulfillment, interpersonal competence, and the developmental

contexts of early adolescent friendship. In W. Bukowski, A. Newcomb, & W. Hartup

(Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 158-185).

New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Caldwell, C. H., Antonucci, T. C., Jackson, J. S., Wolford, M. L., & Osofsky, J. D. (1997).

Perceptions of parental support and depressive symptomatology among black and white

adolescent mothers. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 5, 173-183.

Caplan, G. (1974). Support systems and community mental health: Lectures on conceptual

development. New York : Behavioral Publications.

Cassel, J. (1974). Psychological process and “stress”: Theoretical formulations. International

Journal of Health Services, 4, 471-482.

Cauce, A., Felner, R., & Primavera, J. (1982). Social support in high-risk adolescents: Structural

components and adaptive impact. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10 (4),

417-428.

Cheng, C. (1997). Role of perceived social support on depression in Chinese adolescents: A

prospective study examining the buffering model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

27, 800-820.

Cheng, C. (1997).Role of perceived social support on depression in Chinese adolescents: A

prospective study examining the buffering model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

27, 800-820.

87

Cheng, C. (1998).Getting the right kind of support: Functional differences in the types of social

support for depression on Chinese adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 845-

849.

Cohen, S., Gottlieb, B. H., & Underwood, L. G. (2000). Social Relationships and health. In S.

Cohen, L. G. Underwood, & B. H. Gottlieb, (Eds. ), Social support measurement and

interventions: A guide for health and social scientists (pp. 3-28). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Cohen, S., & Willis, T. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.

Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.

Compas, B. E., Slavin, L. A., Wagner, B. A., & Vannatta, K. (1986). Relationship of life events

and social support with psychological dysfunction among adolescents. Journal of Youth

and Adolescents, 15, 205-221.

Cowen, E. L., Pedro-Carroll, J. L., & Alpert-Gillis, L. J. (1990). Relationships between support

and adjustment among children of divorce. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,

31 (5), 727-735.

Demaray, M. K., & Elliott, S. N. (2001). Perceived social support by children with

characteristics of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly,

16, 68-90.

Demaray, M. K. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social

support by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle

school. The School Psychology Review 32, (3) 471-489.

Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2002a). Critical levels of perceived social support associated

with student adjustment. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 213-241.

88

Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2002b).The relationship between perceived social support

and maladjustment for students at risk. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 305-316.

Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2003).Importance ratings of socially supportive behaviors

by children and adolescents. School Psychology Review, 32, 108-131.

Dew, T. & Huebner, E. S. (1994). Adolescents’ perceived quality of life: An exploratory

Investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 33 (2), 185-189.

Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Dubow, E. F., & Ullman, D. G. (1989). Assessing social support in elementary school children:

The survey of children’s social support. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18, 52-64.

Dunn, S., Putallaz, M., Sheppard, B., & Lindstrom, R. (1987). Social support and adjustment in

gifted adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79 (4), 467-473.

East, P., Hess, L., & Lerner, R. (1987). Peer social support and adjustment of early adolescent

peer groups. Journal of Early Adolescents, 7 (2), 153-163.

Eccles, J., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate

classrooms for young adolescents. San Diego: Academic Press.

Education at a Glance (2004). Study: US lags in high school diplomas, 2004, from

www.cnn.com/2004EDUCATION/09/14education.compared.ap/index/html

Erickson, M. F., & Pianta, R. C. (1989) New lunchbox old feelings: What kids bring to school.

Early Education and Development, 1, 15-23.

Flaherty, J., & Richman, J. (1989). Gender differences in the perception and utilization of social

support: Theoretical perspectives and an empirical test. Social Science and Medicine, 28

(12), 1221-1228.

89

Foreman, E. (1988). The effects of social support and school placement on the self-concept

of the learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 115-124.

Frauenglass, S., Routh, D. K., Pantin, H. M., & Mason, C. A. (1997). Family support decreases

influence of deviant peers on Hispanic adolescents’ substance use. Journal of Clinical

Child Psychology, 26, 15-23.

Gambone, M. A., Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2002). Finding out what matters for youth:

Testing key links in a community action framework for youth development. Philadelphia:

Youth Developmental Strategies, Inc., and Institute for Research and Reform in

Education.

Garmez, N. (1993). Children in poverty: Resiliency despite the risk. Psychiatry, 56, 127-136.

Greshem, F., Elliott, S., & Evans-Fernandez, S. (1993). Student Self-Concept Scale. Circle

Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Harter, S. (1985a). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver: University of

Denver.

Harter, S. (1985b). Manual for the Social Support Scale for Children. Denver: University of

Denver.

Hillaker, B. (2004). The relationship of family-related developmental assets to positive values

and social competencies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

House, J. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Jackson, Y., & Warren, J. S. (2000). Appraisal, social support, and life events: Predicting

outcome behavior in school-age children. Child Development, 71, 1441-1457.

Kagan (1988). Measurements of divergent and complex thinking. Educational and

Psychological Measurement. 48, 873-884.

90

Karam, T. (2006). Middle schools’ perception of teacher support. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.

Keith, J. G., Huber, M.Q., Griffin, A., & Villarruel, F. A. (2002). Building best lives: Profiles of

24,000 michighan youth from 2 asset approaches.

Kloom, S., & Cosden, M. (1994). Self-concept in children with learning disabilities: The

relationship between global self-concept, academic “discounting,” nonacademic self-

concept, and perceived social support. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 140-153.

La Greca, A. M. (1990). Issues and perspectives on the child assessment process. In A. M. La

Greca (Ed.), Through the eyes of the child: Obtaining self-reports from children and

adolescents (pp. 3-17). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Lang, S. (2005). Social support: An examination of adolescents’ use of strategies for obtaining

support. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Licitra-Kleckler, D M., & Wass, G. A. (1993). Perceived social support among high-stress

adolescence: The role of peers and family. Journal of Adolescent Research, 8, 381-402.

Llabre, M. & Hadi, F. (1997). Social support and the psychological distress in Kuwaiti boys and

girls exposed to the gulf crisis. Journal of Clinical and Child Psychology, 26 (3), 247-

255.

Malecki, C., & Demaray, M.(2002). Measuring social support: Development of the Child and

Adolescent Social Support Scale (CASSS). Psychology in the Schools 39, 1-18.

Malecki, C., & Demaray, M.(2003). What type of support do they need? Investigating student

adjustment as related to emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental support.

School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 231-252.

91

Malecki, C., & Demaray, M. & Elliott, S. (2000). The Child and Adolescent Social Support

Scale. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University.

Malecki, C., & Demaray, M. & Elliott, S. (2004). A Working Manual on the Development of the

Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (2000). DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois

University.

Malecki, C., & Demaray, M. & Elliott, S. & Nolton, P. W. (1999). The Child and Adolescent

Social Support Scale. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University.

Malecki, C. K., & Elliott, S. N. (1999). Adolescents’ ratings of perceived social support and its

importance: Validation of the Student Social Support scale, Psychology in the Schools 36,

473-483.

Meier, S. T. (2006). Compassionate data: Measuring change in counseling and psychotherapy.

Draft, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York.

Micucci, J. A. (1998). The adolescent in family therapy: Breaking the cycle of conflict and

control. Guilford family therapy series. New York: Guilford Press.

Major-Ahmed, M. (2002). Adolescent psycho-social development and motivation: Connecting

student-teacher relationships. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation: Harvard University.

Nolton, P. W. (1994). Conceptualization and measurement of social support: The development of

the student social support scale. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation: University of

Wisconsin-Madison.

O’Koon, J. (1997). Attachment to parents and peers in late adolescence and their relationship

with self-image. Adolescence, 32, 471-482.

Osterman, K. (2000). Students need for belonging in the school community. Review of

Educational Research, 70 (3) 323-367.

92

Pianta, R. C. (2000). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington

D.C: American Psychological Association.

Pianta, R. C., Nimetz, S. L. (1989). The Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: Results of a Pilot

Study. James Madison University, Harrisburg, Va.; Virginia Univ., Charlottesville.

Piko, B. (2000). Perceived social support from parents and peers: Which is the stronger predictor

of adolescent substance use? Substance Use and Misuse, 35, 617-631.

Poll, N. (2003). The role of social support in the career decision-making of urban adolescents.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University at Albany, State University of New York.

Powless, D. (1995). Social support and school adjustment: A comparison study of Native

American and non-Indian adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Wisconsin, Madison.

Procidano, M., & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived social support from friends and from

family. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 1-24.

Resnick, M. D., Bearman P. S., & Blum, R. W. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm:

Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. JAMA. 278 (10),

823-832.

Rhodes, J. (1998). Family, friends, and community: The role of social support in promoting

health. In P. Camic and S. Knight (Eds. ), Clinical handbook of health psychology: A

practical guide to effective interventions (pp. 482-493).

Richman, J. M., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Bowen, G. L. (1998). Social support for adolescent at risk

of school failure. Social Work, 43, 309-323.

93

Rothman, H. R., & Cosden, M. (1995). The relationship between self-perception of a learning

disability and achievement, self-concept and social support. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 18, 203-212.

Rumberger, R. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students of

schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 583-625.

Sartor, C. E., & Youniss, J. (2002). The relationship between positive parental involvement and

identity achievement during adolescence. Adolescence, 37 (146), 221.

Scales, P. C. (1999). Reducing risk and building developmental assets: Essential actions for

promoting adolescent health. Journal of School Health, 69(3), 113-119.

Scales, P. C. (1999). Care and Challenge: The sources of student success. Middle Ground 3 (2):

19-21.

Scales, P. C., & Taccogna, J. (2001). Developmental assets for success in school and life. The

Educational Digest, 66 (6), 34-39.

Search Institute. (2005) Technical manual for Creating a Great Place to Learn Survey.

Minneapolis, MN: Author.

Smith, T. (1997). Adolescent Gender differences in time alone and time devoted to conversation.

Adolescence, 32 (126), 1-10.

Starkman, N., Scales, P. C., and Roberts, C. (1999). Great plans to learn: How asset-building

schools help students succeed. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Search Institute.

Suldo, S. M. & Huebner, E. S. (2005). Is extremely high life satisfaction during adolescents

advantageous? Social Indicators Research 78, 179-203.

94

Sweater, S. M. (2001). Bully Survey. Unpublished survey, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Tardy, C. (1985). Social Support Measurement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13

(2), 187-202.

Tiddwell, R. (1988). Dropouts speak out: Qualitative data on early school departures.

Adolescence, 23, 939-954.

U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1975). National Longitudinal Study of the

High School Class of 1972: Student questionnaire and test results by sex, high school

program, ethnic category, and father’s education. Washington D. C.: U. S. Government

Printing Office.

Varni, J., Babani, L., Wallander, J., Roe, T., & Frasier, S. (1989). Social support and self-esteem

effects on psychological adjustment in children and adolescents with Insulin-Dependent

Diabetes Mellitus. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 11 (1), 1-17.

Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom behavior,

and perceived social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 173-182.

Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical

caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 411-419.

Wenz-Gross, M., & Siperstein, G. N. (1997). Importance of social support in the adjustment of

children with learning problems. Exceptional Children, 63, 183-193.

White, K. S., Bruce, S. E., Farrell, A. D., & Kliewer, W. (1998). Impact of exposure to

community violence on anxiety: A longitudinal study of family social support as a

protective factor for urban children. Journal of child and Family Studies, 7, 187-203.

95

Winemiller, D. R., Mitchell, M. E., Sutliff, J., & Cline, D. (1993). Measurement strategies in

social support: A descriptive review of the literature. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49,

638-648.

Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social Validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied

behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203-214.

96

Appendix A

Statistic Tables

~

_

97

Table 1. Cronbach’s Alpha and Descriptive Statistics for the Test Items for Each Scale of the

CASSS

Scales N N of items Mean Std Deviation Alpha

Parent 442 12 50.73 13.29 .943

Teacher 456 12 53.85 11.71 .939

Classmate 445 12 46.87 13.28 .943

Close Friend 450 12 59.73 11.96 .954

School 442 12 44.21 14.40 .967

Table 2. One Way ANOVA- Comparing the Impact of the Students’ Grade Level on Their Perceptions of Support from the Frequency and Importance Scales

Frequency Scale Importance Scale

Source Type F df Sig. F df Sig.

Parent Emotional 1.846 465 .138 1.522 451 .208

Informational .605 464 .612 .732 449 .533

Appraisal 2.403 466 .607 .335 448 .800

Instrumental 1.385 465 .247 1.163 450 .323

Teacher Emotional 1.381 466 .248 1.403 448 .241

Informational .722 464 .536 1.758 448 .155

Appraisal .578 467 .630 .345 447 .793

Instrumental .091 466 .965 .244 447 .866

Classmate Emotional 2.109 466 .098 .211 450 .889

Informational .979 464 .402 .010 441 .999

Appraisal 1.166 466 .322 .221 448 .882

Instrumental 2.995 468 .031* .686 449 .561

Close Friend Emotional .614 466 .606 4.155 451 .006**

Informational .693 467 .590 2.325 452 .074

Appraisal .694 468 .556 2.868 452 .036*

Instrumental .506 468 .678 4.706 454 .003**

School Emotional 1.135 462 .335 2.585 446 .053

Informational .510 461 .676 .444 447 .722

Appraisal .483 460 .694 .262 442 .853

Instrumental .524 463 .666 .621 445 .602

98

Table 3. Independent t - Tests - Comparing the Impact of the Students’ Gender on Their Perceptions of Support from the Frequency and Importance Scales

Source of Support Type of Support Frequency Scale Importance Scale

t df Sig. t df Sig.

Parent Emotional .150 450 .881 -5.01 439 .000**

Informational -.318 449 .750 -3.64 437 .000**

Appraisal -.342 451 .732 -2.21 436 .028*

Instrumental -.529 450 .597 -2.67 438 .008**

Teacher Emotional -.506 451 .613 -2.70 436 .007**

Informational -1.03 449 .300 -2.46 436 .014*

Appraisal -2.08 452 .038* -3.29 435 .001**

Instrumental -.702 451 .483 -1.29 435 .196

Classmate Emotional -1.13 451 .257 -1.42 438 .154

Informational -2.19 449 .028* -2.41 432 .016*

Appraisal -1.15 451 .249 -.746 436 .456

Instrumental -.821 453 .412 -1.12 437 .261

Close Friend Emotional -5.57 451 .000** -7.85 439 .000**

Informational -5.56 452 .000** -6.39 440 .000**

Appraisal -3.58 453 .000** -4.10 440 .000**

Instrumental -5.20 453 .000** -5.89 442 .000**

School Emotional -.651 448 .515 -.963 435 .336

Informational -1.36 447 .172 -1.76 436 .087

Appraisal -.996 446 .320 -1.17 431 .240

Instrumental -1.45 449 .885 -.590 434 .555

99

Table 3a. Importance Scale; Descriptive Statistics for the Types of Support from Specific Sources for Males and Females

Gender Source Type N Mean Std Deviation

Males Parent Emotional 208 6.78 1.81

Informational 206 6.51 1.74

Appraisal 204 6.45 2.72

Instrumental 207 6.34 1.64

Teacher Emotional 203 6.76 1.71


Appraisal 202 6.41 1.77


Classmate Emotional 206 6.42 1.86


Appraisal 206 5.87 1.94


Close Friend Emotional 206 7.19 1.76


Appraisal 206 6.72 2.04


School Emotional 204 6.09 1.95


Appraisal 202 5.82 1.84


Females Parent Emotional 233 7.55 1.39


Appraisal 234 6.92 1.64




Appraisal 235 6.92 1.39




Appraisal 232 6.00 1.71




Appraisal 236 7.44 1.65




Appraisal 231 6.02 1.69


100

Table 3b. Frequency Scale; Descriptive Statistics for the Types of Support from Specific Sources for Males and Females

Gender Source Type N Mean Std Deviation

Males Parent Emotional 212 13.00 3.78


Appraisal 211 12.41 3.45




Appraisal 212 13.06 3.50




Appraisal 212 10.26 4.08




Appraisal 212 13.70 3.70




Appraisal 211 10.86 4.11


Females Parent Emotional 240 12.95 3.69


Appraisal 242 12.52 3.89


teacher Emotional 241 13.51 3.05


Appraisal 242 13.70 3.05




Appraisal 241 10.71 3.91




Appraisal 243 14.89 3.13




Appraisal 237 11.22 3.70


101

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics Ranking the Sources of Support Perceived by All Students for Both Frequency and Importance Scales.

Scale Items Source of Support

N Mean Standard Deviation

Rank Position

Frequency Parent 456 50.745 13.32 3

Teacher 458 53.834 11.72 2

Classmate 459 46.736 13.29 4

Close Friend 464 59.599 12.13 1

School 455 43.888 14.53 5

Importance Parent 438 27.223 5.79 3

Teacher 438 27.700 5.44 2

Classmate 436 25.245 6.27 4

Close Friend 446 29.634 6.10 1

School 438 23.805 6.53 5

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics Ranking the Type of Support Perceived by All Students for Both Frequency and Importance Scales.

Scale Type of Support


Rank

Frequency Emotional 454 65.41 12.58 1

Informational 446 64.84 12.98 2

Appraisal 453 61.48 13.14 4

Instrumental 456 62.83 12.90 3

Importance Emotional 430 34.55 6.30 1

Informational 424 33.66 6.26 2

Appraisal 422 32.23 6.67 4

Instrumental 430 32.93 62.9 3

102

Table 6. The Correlation of the Frequency Scale to the Importance Scale for the Sources of Support

Parent Importance

Teacher Importance

Classmate Importance

Close Friend Importance

School Importance

Parent Frequency

Male = .61** Female = .53**

Teacher Frequency

Male = .50** Female = .49**

Classmate Frequency

Male = .47** Female = .52**

Close Friend Frequency

Male = .60** Female = .64**

School Frequency

Male = .66** Female = .57**

** Correlations are significant at the p < 0.01 level (2 tailed)

Table 7. The Correlation of the Frequency Scale to the Importance Scale for the Types of Support

Emotional Importance

Informational Importance

Appraisal Importance

Instrumental Importance

Emotional Frequency

Male = .59** Female = .52**

Informational Frequency

Male = .64** Female = .66**

Appraisal Frequency

Male = .88** Female = .57**

Instrumental Frequency

Male = .62** Female = .64**

** Correlations are significant at the p < 0.01 level (2 tailed)

103

Table 8. Friedman: Chi Squares Indicate Significant Differences Between the Types of Support Within Each Source of Support for both Males and Females

Females Males

Source of Support N Chi Square df Sig. N Chi Square df Sig.

Parent 235 25.279 3 .00 207 36.74 3 .000

Teacher 237 48.831 3 .00 207 39.24 3 .000

Classmate 236 108.95 3 .000 209 107.24 3 .000

Close Friend 242 108.55 3 .000 208 30.26 3 .000

School 235 41.58 3 .000 207 18.14 3 .000

Table 9. Friedman: Descriptive Statistics Indicate the Rank of Types of Support Within Each Source of Support for Males and Females

Female Male

Source of Support

Type of Support


Rank N Mean Standard Deviation

Rank

Parent Emotional 235 12.97 3.68 2 207 12.97 3.40 1

Informational 13.17 3.84 1 12.97 3.49 1

Appraisal 12.55 3.79 3 12.35 3.45 3

Instrumental 12.34 3.75 4 12.10 3.74 4

Teacher Emotional 237 13.53 3.04 3 207 13.29 3.56 2

Informational 14.27 3.03 1 13.96 3.27 1

Appraisal 13.69 3.06 2 13.02 3.52 3

Instrumental 13.04 3.43 4 12.79 3.59 4

Classmate Emotional 236 12.75 3.05 1 209 12.35 3.70 1

Informational 12.04 3.52 3 11.22 3.90 3

Appraisal 10.78 3.90 4 10.21 4.07 4

Instrumental 12.31 3.98 2 11.94 3.99 2

Close Friend

Emotional 242 16.08 2.60 1 208 14.45 3.70 1

Informational 15.63 2.67 3 13.96 3.81 3

Appraisal 14.82 3.12 4 13.70 3.71 4

Instrumental 15.94 2.66 2 14.45 3.41 2

School Emotional 235 11.43 3.33 2 207 11.19 4.00 1

Informational 11.54 3.64 1 11.03 4.01 2

Appraisal 11.23 3.66 3 10.86 4.11 3

Instrumental 10.57 4.02 4 10.50 4.00 4

104

Table 10. Paired t tests for Females Indicate Significant Differences in the Ranks of Types of Support from Specific Sources: df, t, and Significance Values for Each Type of Support Pair for each Source of Support

Parent Teacher Classmate Close Friend School

Type of Support Pairs

df t/Sig df t/Sig df t /Sig df t/Sig df t/Sig

Emotional – Informational

236 -1.13 .260

238 -4.71 .00**

238 4.53 .00**

241 3.43 .00**

237 -.732 .456

Emotional - Appraisal

239 2.93 .00**

239 -1.01 .316

238 10.55 .00**

242 8.23 .00**

236 1.35 .179

Emotional - Instrumental

237 3.91 .00**

238 2.73 .00**

239 2.71 .00**

242 1.32 .187

239 5.34 .00**

Appraisal - Informational

238 -3.58 .00**

239 3.86 .00**

237 8.09 .00**

241 6.63 .00**

234 2.30 .02*

Informational - Instrumental

237 4.59 .00**

238 7.17 .00**

238 -1.49 .137

241 -2.33 .021*

237 7.11 .00**

Appraisal - Instrumental

239 1.59 .122

240 4.58 .00**

239 -7.48 .00**

242 -7.68 .00**

236 4.75 .00**

Table 11. Paired t tests for Males Indicate Significant Differences in the Ranks of Types of Support from Specific Sources: df, t, and Significance Values for Each Type of Support Pair for each Source of Support

Parent Teacher Classmate Close Friend School

Type of Support Pairs

df t/Sig df t/Sig df t/Sig df t/Sig df t/Sig

Emotional – Informational

209 -.151 .880

208 -3.78 .00**

209 5.81 .00**

208 2.83 .005**

208 1.01 .313

Emotional - Appraisal

209 3.86 .00**

210 1.57 .118

210 9.27 .00**

208 4.32 .00**

208 2.22 .027*

Emotional - Instrumental

210 4.89 .00**

210 2.79 .00**

211 2.57 .011*

208 .000 1.00

208 4.13 .00**

Appraisal - Informational

208 -3.58 .00**

208 5.90 .00**

209 5.28 .00**

210 1.79 .076

209 1.43 .156

Informational - Instrumental

208 4.95 .00**

208 6.27 .00**

210 -3.01 .00**

210 -2.74 .007**

209 3.56 .00**

Appraisal - Instrumental

208 1.54 .124

210 1.42 .158

211 -6.97 .00**

211 -4.84 .00**

209 2.09 .038*

105

Table 12 .Descriptive Statistics for the Types of Support and Sources of Support for Males and Females

Male Female

Support Type and Source



Emotional 206 64.39 13.71 235 66.76 11.43

Informational 203 63.04 13.81 230 66.99 11.96

Appraisal 206 60.18 13.66 234 62.84 12.68

Instrumental 207 61.80 13.56 236 64.06 12.33

Parent 207 50.38 14.08 235 51.03 15.07

Teacher 207 53.06 13.92 237 54.54 12.59

Classmate 209 45.73 15.63 236 47.87 14.46

Close Friend 208 56.55 14.60 242 62.47 11.08

School 207 43.58 16.15 235 44.77 14.66

Table 13. Correlations of the Types of Support and Sources of Support with the Dependent Variables for Males and Females

Gender Support Type or Source

Dependent Variables

GPA Attendance Behavior Satisfaction

Males Emotional .103 -.147* .305** .496**

Informational .061 -.160* .240** .373**

Appraisal .089 -.124 .260** .358**

Instrumental .106 -.064 .221** .388**

Females Emotional .145* -.100 .203** .480**

Informational .085 -.031 .196** .419**

Appraisal .132* -.146* .218** .406**

Instrumental .178** -.114 .226** .418**

Male Parent .205** -.139* .243** .362**

Teacher .070 -.090 .194** .367**

Classmate -.001 -.079 .227** .322**

Close Friend -.010 -.064 .152* .242**

School .073 -.124 .222** .320**

Female Parent .276** -.223** .263** .315**

Teacher .117 -.083 .244** .364**

Classmate .067 -.054 .061 .429**

Close Friend -.081 -.015 .129* .226**

School .113 -.014 .149* .362**

106

Table 13a. A Summary Indicating the Types of Support Having the Greatest Correlational Value with Specific Dependent Variables for Males and Females

Dependent Variables

Gender GPA Attendance Behavior Satisfaction

Males Instrumental .106

Informational -.160*

Emotional .305**

Emotional .496**

Females Instrumental .178**

Appraisal -.146*

Instrumental .226**

Emotional .480**

Table 13b. A Summary Indicating the Sources of Support Having the Greatest Correlational Value with Specific Dependent Variables for Males and Females

Dependent Variables

Gender GPA Attendance Behavior Satisfaction

Males Parent .205** Parent -.139* Parent .243** Teacher .367**

Females Parent .276** Parent -.223** Parent .263** Classmate .429**

107

Table 14. Correlations of Types of Support from Specific Sources of Support with the Dependent Variables for the Males

Source of Support Type of Support Dependent Variables


Parent Emotional .166* -.179** .283** .341**

Informational .186** -.189** .170* .328**

Appraisal .191** -.173* .278** .328**

Instrumental .169* -.103 .158* .271**

Teacher Emotional .141* -.166* .301** .412**

Informational .054 -.089 .211** .336**

Appraisal -.002 -.034 .076 .309**

Instrumental .034 .000 .135* .269**

Classmate Emotional .008 -.097 .200** .353**

Informational -.060 -.108 .174* .286**

Appraisal .017 -.140* .237** .194**

Instrumental .039 -.039 .172* .293**

Close Friend Emotional .037 -.070 .125 .267**

Informational -.052 -.038 .133 .205**

Appraisal -.016 .014 .153* .196**

Instrumental .004 -.011 .151* .222**

School Emotional .062 -.150* .240** .367**

Informational .061 -.096 .240** .289**

Appraisal .091 -.133 .193** .275**

Instrumental .090 -.052 .177** .281**

**.Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2- tailed). *.Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2- tailed).

108

Table 15. Correlations of Types of Support from Specific Sources of Support with the Dependent Variables for the Females

Source of support Type of Support Dependent Variables


Parent Emotional .212** -.180** .204** .324**

Informational .173** -.121 .215** .260**

Appraisal .280** -.220** .245** .253**

Instrumental .319** -.290** .241** .273**

Teacher Emotional .177** -.127* .253** .334**

Informational .083 -.052 .192** .334**

Appraisal .058 -.127* .174** .333**

Instrumental .114 -.124 .245** .300**

Classmate Emotional .050 -.027 .073 .430**

Informational .043 -.084 .020 .370**

Appraisal .074 -.090 .101 .330**

Instrumental .084 -.003 .052 .400**

Close Friend Emotional -.025 .003 .111 .300**

Informational -.122 -.016 .097 .200**

Appraisal -.092 -.002 .094 .173**

Instrumental -.043 -.049 .176** .200**

School Emotional .081 -.041 .104 .352**

Informational .104 -.057 .187** .370**

Appraisal .122 -.091 .181 .360**

Instrumental .106 -.029 .094 .300**

**.Correlation is significant at the p< 0.01 level (2- tailed). *.Correlation is significant at the p< 0.05 level (2- tailed). Table 16. A Summary Indicating the Types of Support From Specific Sources Having the Greatest Correlational Value with Specific Dependent Variables for Males and Females

Dependent Variables


Males Parent Appraisal .191**

Parent Informational -.189**

Teacher Emotional .301**


Female Parent Instrumental .319**

Parent Instrumental -.290**


Classmate Emotional .430**

109

Table 17. Regression Analyses of the Dependent Variables and the Type of Support from Specific Sources of Support, Including R2, Beta Scores, and Significance Indicators

Source of Support

Type of Support

Dependent Variables


R2 Beta R2 Beta R2 Beta R2 Beta

Parent Emo. -.059 -.014 .126 .238**

Infor. -.023 .016 -.047 .077

App. .179* -.130 .249** .066

Instru. .170* -.090 -.058 -.014

.070** .043** .078** .121**

Teacher Emo. .263** -.209** .317** .245**

Infor. -.038 .053 .085 .116

App. -.142 -.008 -.236** .084

Instru. .038 .046 .096 -.026

.037** .025** .095** .149**

Classm. Emo. .006 -.032 .109 .270**

Infor. -.133 -.078 -.019 .108

App. .089 -.119 .203** -.105

Instru. .086 .135 -.024 .155*

.010 .021 .036** .169**

Friend Emo. .132 -.066 -.029 .310**

Infor. -.106 -.051 .033 -.049

App. -.074 .114 .004 .038

Instru. .090 -.039 .164 -.044

.018 .007 .029** .072**

School Emo. -.059 -.114 .014 .293**

Infor. .001 .016 .283** .091

App. .113 -.257** .156 .102

Instru. .046 .255** -.253** -.117

.012 .029** .060** .134**

110

Table 17a. Summary for Regression Table – Most Powerfully Significant Beta Score for Each Social Support with Each Dependent Variable and % of Variance Accounted for.

Source of Support

Type of Support


Parent Emotional. .238**

Informational

Appraisal .179* .249**

Instrumental .170*

R Square 7.0% 4.3% 7.8% 12.1%

Teacher Emotional. .263** -.209** .317** .245**

Informational

Appraisal -.236**

Instrumental

R Square 3.7% 2.5% 9.5% 12.1%

Classm. Emotional. .207**

Informational

Appraisal .203**

Instrumental .155*

R Square 3.6% 16.9%

Friend Emotional. .310**

Informational

Appraisal

Instrumental

R Square 2.9% 7.2%

School Emotional. .293**

Informational .283**

Appraisal -.257**

Instrumental .255** -.253**

R Square 2.9% 6.0% 13.4%

111

Appendix B

Graph and Histograms

112

Graph 1. Scatter Plot of Activities and Emotional Support

Scatter Plot of Activities and Support 1

E

moti

onal

Sup

port

Activities

12.0 10.0 8.06.0 4.02.00.0

100.00

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00

R Sq Linear = 1.18E-4

113

Histogram 1. Frequency Distribution of Actual Grad Point Averages Obtained from

Student Records

GPA

100806040

Fre

qu

en

cy

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Actual GPA

Mean =80.02�Std. Dev. =10.508�

N =715

Normal

114

Histogram 2. Frequency Distribution of Self Reported Grad Point Averages Obtained

from Demographic Survey

GPA

1009080706050

Fre

qu

en

cy

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Self Reoprted GPA

Mean =85.82�Std. Dev. =8.485�

N =454

Normal

115

Appendix C

Demographic Survey

116

Demographic Survey

1.) How are your GRADES? Please place a check mark (√) in the box that best reflects your overall grade for the following high school classes.

A (100-90) B (89-80) C (79-70) D (69-65) F (64 or less)

English

Mathematics

Social Studies

Science

2.) What is your approximate overall Grade Point Average? _________ 3.) How is your BEHAVIOR in the classroom? For example, do you listen to the teachers’ requests to be seated, not to talk, to be respectful of others, pay attention and not to fool around. My Behavior is… ____Outstanding ____Above Average ____Average ____Needs Improvement ____Unacceptable 4.) How is your ATTENDENCE? Think about how often you have been late or absent in the last year and check (√) the appropriate description.

I am late (at least 5 minutes late) for class…

I have an excused absence… I have an unexcused absence

____ Never ____ 1 – 5 times a year ____ 5 – 10 times a year ____ 10 – 15 times a year ____ 15 – 20 times a year ____ 20 – 25 times a year ____ Over 25 times a year



5.) How SATISFIED are you with your high school experience? I would describe my satisfaction with my overall school experience as… ____ Very Dissatisfied ____ Mostly Dissatisfied ____ Somewhat Dissatisfied ____ Mixed ____ Somewhat Satisfied ____ Mostly Satisfied ____Very Satisfied

117

6.) How often do you participate in EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES? Please place a check (√ ) mark in the box that indicates the activity/activities and the grade level during which you participated.

CLUBS/ACTIVITIES: Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

Art Club

Band

Book Club

Chess Club

Chorus

Class Officer

Environmental Club

French Club

FBLA

Game Club

Hockey Club

Holocaust Club

Mentor Club

Model UN

Mock Trial

National Honor Society

Peer Mediation

School Play (Drama)

School Musical

Science Club

Ski Club

Student Council

T – Talk ( School Paper)

Weight Lifting Club

Year Book

Youth Court

ATHLETICS

Basketball

Bowling

Cheerleading

Cross Country

Football

Golf

Soccer

Softball

Swimming

Tennis

Track & Field

Volleyball

Wrestling

118

Appendix D

Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale

119

120

121

122

123

Appendix E

Internal Review Board Requirements:

Letter to Parents

Information Sheet

Student Verbal Consent

124

Dear Parents, May, 2007

Tonawanda High School is dedicated to the healthy development of our students. The

Search Institute has recognized 40 developmental assets every child should have many of which involve student support. Support, an asset that all students need to thrive, comes from a variety of sources, parents, teachers, classmates and friends, and in a variety of forms, emotional, informational, appraisal, and instructional. Each source of the support network has some form of support that can be offered, impacting various aspects of the adolescent’s behavior and success. However, we are not sure of the specific affects that support may have on our students. Does it have an impact on their grades? Can it improve their attendance, or behavior? Does it affect their high school overall satisfaction?

Ms Fezer, one of our high school counselors, will be attempting to learn the ways in which support helps our students succeed in school. She will be administering a questionnaire to the student body in order to research the impact of social support on grades, behavior, attendance, school satisfaction and participation in extracurricular activities. She will be studying school wide data, thus no names of the students will be required on the questionnaires. The questionnaire will require approximately 25 minutes and will be done during the school day. Participation is on a voluntary basis. If you do not want your son or daughter to participate in this project, please call the guidance department.

The results of this survey will assist teachers, parents and the school to provide our

students with the support network necessary for them to be successful in school. Thank you in advance for your continued parental support. With your help we can continue to educate our students and ensure that they have the developmental assets necessary for a success in high school, college, chosen careers, and in life. Sincerely, Mrs. Frey, Tonawanda High School Principal Ms. Fezer, Tonawanda School Counselor

125

Information Sheet

Invitation to participate in a Research Project

Introduction

Your son/daughter has been invited to participate in a school wide research project titled the “Adolescent Social Support Network.” This study is being conducted by Ms. Maryanna Fezer under the supervision of Dr. Tom Frantz from the department of Counseling and Educational Psychology at the University at Buffalo, and with the support of the Tonawanda principal, Ms. Frey, and the Tonawanda Superintendent of Schools, Dr Barbara Peters. Volunteer Status

Your child’s participation in this study is completely voluntary. Refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits, to which your child is entitled as a student at Tonawanda High School. Your child has the right to refuse to answer particular questions and may choose to withdraw from the study at any time while answering the survey. The survey is anonymous therefore, once they have been collected, they can not be linked to a particular student. Should you not want your son/daughter to complete the surveys, please call the high school guidance department, 694-7673, or Ms. Maryanna Fezer, 432-4683. Purpose

The purpose of this research activity is to examine the impact of social support on the high school adolescent. Various sources types of support are believed to have an impact on academic performance, school attendance, school satisfaction, participation in extra curricular activities, and behavior. The results of this study should further our understanding of the effects of social support on the adolescent. This understanding will assist educators and parents identify crucial supportive behaviors that could be targeted for interventions. Procedure

Your son or daughter will complete two surveys. One will collect self reported information as overall grades, attendance, and school satisfaction. The second will collect information on his/her social support network. The questions are general in nature, and require the student to circle a response. Time Commitment

Your son/daughter’s participation in this study should take approximately 25 to 30 minutes during the school day. Risks

There are no known risks to participate in this study. However, there are four school counselors in the high school guidance office should your son/daughter want to discuss reactions to the survey. Benefits

126

There is likely no direct benefit to your son/daughter for participating in this study, but it will help us (and other school counselors and educators) to develop more effective intervention behaviors and programs that address the social support needs of the student. Payment

There is no cost to have your son/daughter participate in this survey. Confidentially

Your son/daughters privacy will be maintained. No names will be collected on either survey. Only the statistical details will be included in the ensuing paper. Protocol

The primary investigator will have assistance from the high school principal and the teaching staff. Each teacher will have approximately 20 students in an extended home room period. All home rooms are equipped with TV sets. The primary investigator will introduce herself and the read the student Verbal Consent Letter from the high school’s Media Center, speaking to the students via a live TV broadcast. She will then ask the teachers to pass out the survey packet to the students. The students will have prior knowledge of this event via the announcements from the principal earlier in the week and through a parent information letter sent home, however, should the students have any questions, the teachers will call the primary investigator in the media center, and she will address the questions to the classes via the TV broadcast. Teachers will collect the materials and deliver them to the Guidance Center at the end of the period. For further information

Any questions that you may have about this study can be answered by Maryanna Fezer. (716) 432-4683 or [email protected] or the high school principal, MS Frey who can be reached at 694-7670

127

Student Verbal Consent

The following will be read to the students prior to the administration the questionnaires.

You are about to participate in a research project intended to assess the impact of social support on the academic success of students. The results of this survey will be used to assist your teachers, parents and the school to provide you with the support network necessary to be successful in school.

You will be given two questionnaires. Your name is not required on any of the papers.

This will take approximately 30 minutes.

Your participation is voluntary. If you do not wish to participate, you may quietly sit and focus on other school work. You will not be penalized, in any way, if you choose not to participate.

If you choose to participate, please answer the questions to the best of your ability. It is your right to skip a question, skip a section, or to end your participation at any time while you have the survey. As you complete the surveys, please don’t hesitate to ask if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation.

Documents

Adolescent Social Support Network Student Academic Success as It Relates to Source and Type of Support Received