Depressive Symptoms in Early Adolescence: Their Relations with Classroom Problem Behavior and Peer Status

Transcription

1 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, 12(4), Copyright 2002, Society for Research on Adolescence Depressive Symptoms in Early Adolescence: Their Relations with Classroom Problem Behavior and Peer Status Jeff Kiesner University of Padua It has been suggested that early antisocial behavior plays a causal role in the development of depression during childhood and adolescence through pervasive failures in social competence and social acceptance (Patterson & Capaldi, 1990). The present study was conducted to test this hypothesis by examining longitudinal data from a sample of 215 Italian middle school students. Analyses revealed that Time 1 (T1) problem behavior predicted both Time 2 (T2) peer status and T2 depressive symptoms, even after controlling for T1 peer status and depressive symptoms, respectively. Moreover, T1 peer status predicted depressive symptoms at T2, even after controlling for prior levels of depressive symptoms. However, analyses did not support the hypothesis that peer rejection mediates the effects of problem behavior on depression. Adolescence is a period in which both depressive symptoms (Fleming & Offord, 1990; Lewinsohn, Hops, Roberts, Seeley, & Andrews, 1993) and some types of antisocial behavior (see Moffitt, 1993) show significant increases in both prevalence and incidence. Although depression and antisocial behavior are conceptually distinct, and factor analytic studies consistently find separate factors (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978; Quay, 1986), a robust finding is that they frequently co-occur (Angold & Costello, 1993; Capaldi, 1991; Caron & Rutter, 1991). Moreover, individuals who demon- Requests for reprints should be sent to Jeff Kiesner, Dipartimento di Psicologia dello Sviluppo e della Socializzazione (DPSS), Università di Padova, via Venezia 8, Padova, Italy. jeff.kiesner@unipd.it

2 464 KIESNER strate both problems during adolescence have been found to demonstrate poorer overall adjustment as adults, as compared with individuals who demonstrate only one type of problem during adolescence (Capaldi & Stoolmiller, 1999). At a theoretical level, Caron and Rutter (1991) have suggested three explanations for the existence of comorbidity in child psychopathology: (1) two separate disorders may share the same risk factors, (2) the comorbid occurrence may represent a distinct syndrome, or (3) one disorder may increase the risk for the second disorder. The third explanation suggests that one disorder plays a causal role in the development of the second. For example, the failure model, proposed by Patterson and Capaldi (1990), predicts that antisocial behavior results in profound failure (across settings, tasks, and relationships), and that this failure then leads to depressive symptoms. This set of relations suggests that antisocial behavior should predict poor peer relations and that poor peer relations should predict depressive symptoms. Research that has tested this model has examined a variety of behavior problems including aggression and general constructs of antisocial behavior. In the following review of these studies the specific terms used by the original authors are used. Early tests of the failure model have provided support for the concurrent and longitudinal relations between antisocial behavior and depression. For example, with a sample of 203 sixth-grade boys at risk for conduct problems, Capaldi (1991) found the expected relation between conduct problems and depressive symptoms, r.32. Capaldi (1992) later found that conduct problems during the sixth grade predicted depressive symptoms in the eighth grade, after controlling for depressive symptoms 2 years earlier. Also consistent with the failure model, Boivin, Poulin, and Vitaro (1994) found that among 9-year-old boys and girls, both aggression and peer rejection were risk factors for depressed mood. However, the mediational role of poor peer relations, or other measures of social or academic failure that are predicted by the model, were not tested in any of these studies. With a sample of fourth-grade boys and girls (N 1,464), Cole and Carpentieri (1990) found a relatively strong correlation, r.73, between conduct disorder and depression. These researchers also found that rejected participants had higher scores than did average participants on both depression and conduct disorder. Finally, it was suggested that the relation between depression and peer status may have been attributable to a subgroup of depressed children who also demonstrated high levels of conduct disorder. This is consistent with the failure model. Possibly the most direct test of the failure model was conducted by Panak and Garber (1992). Using a longitudinal design with a sample of 521 third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade boys and girls, these authors concluded that

3 DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS IN ADOLESCENCE 465 (1) change in aggression from Time 1 (T1) to Time 2 (T2) predicted change in depression, (2) both T1 aggression and change in aggression predicted change in peer rejection, (3) change in peer rejection predicted change in depression, and (4) peer rejection mediated the effect of aggression on depression. Panak and Garber suggested that there was evidence for mediation because the effect of aggression on depression was reduced after the effects of peer rejection were included (following procedures outlined by Baron & Kenny, 1986). However, according to the data presented in their article (see Table 2, p. 154), the partial correlation between change in aggression and depression dropped from pr.16 to pr.13, a very minimal change for which no test of significance is presented. The present author believes that this pattern does not provide support for a mediational effect. Thus, although some studies have examined the failure model, none have provided clear support for the mediational role of social failure. Therefore, the present study tested the mediational hypothesis of the failure model. In doing so, problem behavior and peer relations were examined within the classroom setting. Although problem behavior typically extends across contexts, and social relations include school-based peer relations and out-of-school peer relations, as well as family relations, previous research regarding the failure model has also conceptualized problem behaviors and social failure in similar ways. For example, Panak and Garber (1992) used teacher ratings of aggressive behavior and peer nominations of peer status; Cole and Carpentieri (1990) used self-, peer, and teacher reports of problem behavior, and peer nominations for peer status; and Boivin et al. (1994) used classroom-based peer nominations for both peer status and social behavior measures. Thus, the conceptualizations of problem behavior and peer relations in the present study were consistent with previous studies on this topic. It should be noted that previous research has shown cross-national differences between Italian and North American samples with regard to family and peer relations. For example, Italian youth report more contact with extended family members (Claes, Lacourse, Bouchard, & Luckow, 2001), a greater degree of stability in friendships (Schneider, Fonzi, Tani, & Tomada, 1997), and lower levels of conflict in their friendships (Schneider et al.). Other research, however, has shown that Italian and North American youth show similar relations among measures of individual adjustment and peer relations. For example, research also has shown significant relations between aggressive behavior and peer acceptance for Italian youth (Attili, Vermigli, & Schneider, 1997; Tomada & Schneider, 1997), that peer status is stable from one year to the next among Italian middle school students (Kiesner, Cadinu, Poulin, & Bucci, 2002), and that positive aspects of social reputation are related to peer acceptance and negative aspects of

4 466 KIESNER social reputation are related to peer rejection among Italian early adolescents (Casiglia, Lo Coco, & Zappulla, 1998). Thus, although cultural differences may exist, previous research suggests that important similarities in peer relations and social adjustment also exist. Peer rejection in the Italian school system may be an especially important factor when individual adjustment is considered. In Italian schools, students stay with the same teacher and the same peers for the entire school day across all 3 years of middle school. Thus, in the eighth grade, the same group of students are together in the same class with the same teacher as they were in the sixth grade. The implication of this is that if individuals become rejected in the sixth grade, they will likely be rejected across all 3 years of middle school. This can be compared with North American systems in which students frequently change classrooms and classmates, not only from one year to the next, but from one semester to the next, and even from one class period to the next. Finally, in most of the above studies (except those of Capaldi, 1991, 1992), samples included preadolescents. Because adolescence is a period in which important changes occur in problem behavior (see Moffitt, 1993), depression (see Angold & Rutter, 1992; Compas, Ey, & Grant, 1993), and peer relations (see Parker, Rubin, Price, & DeRosier, 1995; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998), this could be an especially important age for understanding the failure model. Therefore, in the present study, the failure model was tested with a sample of early adolescents (ages 11 12). In the present study longitudinal data were used to test the mediational hypothesis of the failure model. Analyses were conducted according to the recommendations of Baron and Kenny (1986) and paralleled those conducted by Panak and Garber (1992). To test the mediational hypothesis, four hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted. The first model tested whether T1 problem behavior predicted T2 depression, after controlling for T1 depression, and whether T2 problem behavior further contributed to explaining T2 depression after controlling for T1 depression and T1 problem behavior. By including T2 problem behavior after controlling for T1 depression and problem behavior, this model essentially tested whether change in problem behavior contributed to change in depression. In the second and third models, parallel analyses were performed. Specifically, the second multiple regression analysis used T2 peer status as the dependent variable and T1 peer status, T1 problem behavior, and T2 problem behavior as the predictors. The third multiple regression analysis used T2 depression as the dependent variable and T1 depression, T1 peer status, and T2 peer status as the predictors. Finally, a fourth analysis tested whether the magnitude of the effect of

5 DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS IN ADOLESCENCE 467 problem behavior on depression was reduced when the mediator variable (peer status) was entered into the model along with problem behavior. In this model T2 depression was the dependent variable, and T1 depression, T1 problem behavior, and T1 peer status were the predictors. If peer status plays a mediational role between problem behavior and depression, significant effects should be found for the predictor variables in the first three models, and the magnitude of the effect of problem behavior should be reduced in the fourth model, after controlling for peer status. That is, there should be a significant decrease in the regression coefficient for T1 problem behavior from Model 1 to Model 4. One methodological note is important. In the present study, different sources were used when measuring the three constructs of interest. Depression was measured using self-reports, peer status was measured using peer reports, and problem behavior was measured using teacher reports. By doing so, spurious relations due to response biases were reduced. Participants METHODS The present data came from a 2-year longitudinal study conducted in the Veneto region (northeast) of Italy. For the original sample, the parents of all sixth-grade students from four middle schools (13 classrooms), and all seventh-grade students from one of those schools (two classrooms), were asked for permission for their child to participate. Of these 295 children, permission to participate was obtained for 249 (84%). Participation rates across the participating classrooms ranged from 62% to 100%. Of these 249 students (111 girls, 138 boys), 213 were sixth graders, and 36 were seventh graders. Of the original 249 participating students, 216 (87%) also participated during the second year. There were no differences in attrition rate between boys and girls, or between the two grade levels. The present analyses were based on participants who participated during both years of data collection, and for whom sufficient data were available. In all, 215 participants (105 girls, 110 boys) were used for the present analyses. The mean age of these 215 participants at the time of the second data collection was 13.2 years (SD.43). Although socioeconomic status was not directly measured, these schools included students from a wide range of social classes (low and working classes through upper middle class). Those who completed both years of the study differed from the rest of the baseline sample on only one of the study s three major variables at baseline; namely, they had significantly lower levels of problem behavior, t 2.72, p.01. Furthermore, correlations among baseline variables for

6 468 KIESNER the longitudinal sample were not significantly different from correlations for the full baseline sample. Measures Depressive symptoms. The Italian version of the Children s Depression Inventory (CDI; Camuffo, Cerutti, Lucarelli, & Mayer, 1988a; Kovacs, 1980) was used to assess adolescents level of self-reported depressive symptoms. This version of the CDI has been shown to be internally consistent and negatively related to teacher ratings of peer status and academic performance of Italian middle school students (Camuffo, Cerutti, Lucarelli, & Mayer, 1988b). The scale is composed of 26 items (one of the original items regarding suicide was not included in the questionnaire) to which participants are asked to respond by considering the past 2 weeks. Participants were asked to select one of three descriptive answers, which were then coded as 0, 1, 2. These item scores were then summed across all 26 items, with a possible range of 0 to 52. The Year 1 Cronbach s for the 26 items was high,.84. The correlation between the 2 years of data collection was r.73, p.001. The overall means and standard deviations for this measure are presented in Table 1. The T1 and T2 means were not significantly different from one another. Consistent with a review of earlier research that showed that gender differences do not become apparent until after the age of 15 (Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994), no gender differences were found at either time point with the present sample. Because participants were nested within school, the intraclass correlation for the dependent variable (T2 depression) was calculated. This intra- TABLE 1 Correlations among all Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2) Measures T1 Depression T2 Depression T1 Problem T2 Problem T1 Peer Status a T1 Depression T2 Depression.73*** T1 Problem.26***.31*** T2 Problem.28***.32***.66*** T1 Peer status.17*.23** T2 Peer status.22**.24***.16*.17**.68*** M SD a Peer status was standardized within classroom to have a mean of 0 and a SD of 1. * p.05; ** p.01; *** p.001.

7 DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS IN ADOLESCENCE 469 class correlation was found to be very close to 0,.002, and thus did not present any problems of nonindependence. Teacher report of problem behavior. An adapted version of a Teacher Report Questionnaire (Kiesner, 1997) was used to measure problem behavior in the classroom (for the present study, two questions regarding inattention and impulsivity, and one question regarding substance use were dropped). Seven items from the questionnaire were used to measure problem behavior during the last week. These items were In the last week, this student responded badly to teacher? ; was argumentative? ; argued with classmates? ; disturbed classmates? ; disturbed the lesson by clowning around? ; demanded a lot of attention? ; and spent time with individuals who get in trouble? Using this questionnaire allowed for the ability to measure individual problem behavior in the same context in which peer status was measured, without burdening teachers with long questionnaires. All questions required a response using a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from No, not at all to Yes, frequently. Responses across the seven items were averaged to create the problem behavior score. A separate form was used for each student. The Year 1 Cronbach s for these seven items was high,.93. The correlation between the 2 years of data collection was r.66, p.001. Although the behaviors included in this questionnaire are not severe, previous research (Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982; Dodge, Coie, & Brakke, 1982) has shown that similar inappropriate, disruptive, and aversive classroom behaviors are consistently associated with peer rejection. Peer status. Peer nominations were conducted within each classroom by providing each participant with a list of his or her classroom peers who also were participating in the study. To assess each adolescent s level of peer status, unlimited and cross-gender peer nominations from classmates on the who do you like the most (LM) and who do you like the least (LL) questions were used (for information on the validity of cross-gender peer nominations, see Bukowski, Gauze, Hoza, & Newcomb, 1993). The LM and LL scores were first standardized within each classroom across gender. A social preference score (SP LM LL) was calculated for each participant. The Year 1 correlation between LM and LL was r.79, p.001. The correlation between the Year 1 and Year 2 social preference scores was r.68, p.001. Procedure Questionnaire booklets were administered to the students in the classroom during normal school hours. Two research assistants were present

8 470 KIESNER during all administrations, which lasted approximately 1 hr, 15 min. Administration of these questionnaires was highly structured, with all students completing the same section of the questionnaire booklet at the same time, and then waiting for instructions for the following section. In addition, teachers were asked to complete the Teacher Report Questionnaire of problem behavior. All measures were administered within each classroom on the same day. Descriptive Statistics RESULTS The correlations among all variables used in the following analyses are presented in Table 1. Of primary interest are the correlations between problem behavior and depressive symptoms. This correlation was r.26, p.0001, for the first year of data and r.32, p.0001, for the second year of data. The magnitude of this relation is comparable with data presented by Capaldi (1991), r.32, but weaker than the relation found by Cole and Carpentieri (1990), r.73. Multiple Regression Models Testing the Mediational Role of Peer Status To test for the mediational role of peer status, four multiple regression models were conducted. The first three models were conducted by hierarchically entering the T1 measure of the dependent variable in the first step (to control for prior levels of that measure), the T1 predictor variable of interest in the second step, and the T2 predictor in the third step. The rationale for these analyses is presented in the Introduction. Results from these models are presented in Table 2. It should be noted that for all of the following analyses, the distributions of the residuals were normal, and there were no nonlinear effects or outliers. In the first model, T2 depression was used as the dependent variable. In the first step, T1 depression explained 53.7% of the variance, F(1, 213) , p In the second step, T1 problem behavior was entered and explained an additional 1.6% of the variance, F change (1, 212) 7.41, p.01. The positive coefficient indicates that a high level of problem behavior at T1 predicted an increase in depression. In the third step, T2 problem behavior explained no additional variance, F change (1, 211) 1.13, ns. This suggests that T1 problem behavior did predict an increase in depression,

9 DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS IN ADOLESCENCE 471 TABLE 2 Regression Models Testing for Mediator Effects of Peer Status on Depression Outcome Variable Predictor Variable R 2 Change T2 Depression Step 1 T1 Depression.537***.73*** Step 2 T1 Problem behavior.016**.13** Step 3 T2 Problem behavior T2 Peer status Step 1 T1 Peer status.468***.68*** Step 2 T1 Problem behavior.010*.10* Step 3 T2 Problem behavior.012*.15* T2 Depression Step 1 T1 Depression.537***.73*** Step 2 T1 Peer status.013*.12* Step 3 T2 Peer status T2 Depression a T1 Depression.68*** T1 Problem behavior.13** T1 Peer status.11* T2 Depression a T1 Depression.68*** T1 Problem behavior.12** T2 Peer status.08 a In this model, all predictors were entered simultaneously. * p.05; ** p.01; *** p.0001; p.10. but that change in problem behavior did not contribute to explaining change in depression. In the second model, T2 peer status was used as the dependent variable. In the first step, T1 peer status was entered and explained 46.8% of the variance, F(1, 213) , p In the second step, T1 problem behavior was entered and explained an additional 1.0% of the variance, F change (1, 212) 3.96, p.05. The negative coefficient indicates that high levels of problem behavior at T1 predicted decreased levels of peer status at T2. In the third step, T2 problem behavior was added to the model and explained an additional 1.2% of the variance, which was significant, F change (1, 211) 4.91, p.05. Thus, both T1 problem behavior and change in problem behavior predicted change in peer status. In the third model, T2 depression was used as the dependent variable. In the first step, T1 depression was entered and, as in the first model,

10 472 KIESNER explained 53.7% of the variance. In the second step, T1 peer status was entered and explained an additional 1.3% of the variance, F change (1, 212) 6.16, p.05. The negative coefficient indicates that high levels of T1 peer status (popularity) predicted decreased depression at T2. In the third step, T2 peer status was entered and explained no new variance, F change (1, 211) 1.13, ns. Thus, although initial peer status did predict change in depression, change in peer status did not. The three hierarchical multiple regression models presented above provide some evidence in support of the failure model. However, it is also necessary that when both peer status and problem behavior are entered into the model together, the magnitude of the effect of problem behavior decreases. The fourth model tested for this change. If peer status mediated the effect of problem behavior on depression, the for problem behavior should be of smaller magnitude in the fourth model as compared with the first model. However, as can be seen in Table 2, the coefficient for problem behavior in both models is.13. Thus, although the present data show that both T1 problem behavior and peer status predicted change in depression, there was no evidence that peer status mediated the effects of problem behavior. The above analyses were limited by the fact that T1 problem behavior and T1 peer status were not significantly correlated. Thus, according to Baron and Kenny (1986), the present data did not meet the criteria for testing a mediational model. Therefore two additional sets of analyses were conducted to further test the mediational hypothesis. The first analysis predicted T2 depression (controlling for T1 depression) using T1 problem behavior and T2 peer status. Note that for this analysis all necessary relations had been previously demonstrated: T1 problem behavior had been shown to have a significant effect on T2 peer status (see Table 2) and T2 peer status had been shown to have a concurrent relation with T2 depression (see Table 1). The results are presented as the last analysis in Table 2. By comparing the relevant coefficients (compare.13 with.12), it is clear that the longitudinal effect of problem behavior on depression was not significantly affected by the inclusion of the peer status measure. Application of the modified Sobel test (Baron & Kenny, 1986) showed that this change in the regression coefficient was not different from 0, Z 0. Because all of the correlations among T2 depression, T2 problem behavior, and T2 peer status were significant and in the predicted directions, a third set of analyses was conducted to again test the mediational model, using only T2 measures. These data are presented in Table 3. As can be seen from these data, the strength of the for problem behavior showed only a small decrease after controlling for the effects of peer status. Appli-

11 DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS IN ADOLESCENCE 473 TABLE 3 Regression Models Testing for Mediator Effects of Peer Status on Depression for Year 2 Only Outcome Variable Predictor Variable R 2 Change T2 Depression T2 Problem behavior.102***.32*** T2 Peer status T2 Problem behavior.029**.17** T2 Depression T2 Peer status.060***.24*** T2 Depression a T2 Problem behavior.29*** T2 Peer status.19** a In this model, both predictors were entered simultaneously. ** p.01; *** p.001. cation of the modified Sobel test (Baron & Kenny, 1986) showed that this change in the regression coefficient was not different from 0, Z 0. Moreover, as in the earlier analyses, both problem behavior and peer status uniquely contributed to explaining variance in depression. Finally, because the T2 measures of problem behavior and peer status had no effects on T2 depression after controlling for T1 measures of problem behavior and peer status (i.e., change in the predictors had no effect on change in depression), mediation could not be tested using change in problem behavior and peer status as predictors. DISCUSSION The primary goal of the present study was to test the failure model of the co-occurrence of problem behavior and depression in adolescence (Patterson & Capaldi, 1990). To do so, longitudinal data was examined and the effects of classroom problem behavior on both peer status and depressive symptoms, as well as the effects of peer status on depressive symptoms, were tested. Time 1 problem behavior and peer status predicted T2 depressive symptoms, after controlling for T1 depressive symptoms; and T1 problem behavior predicted T2 peer status, after controlling for T1 peer status. However, the data did not support the hypothesis that peer status would mediate the effects of problem behavior. In fact, when predicting T2 depression, the magnitudes of the effects for both problem behavior and peer status were nearly unchanged after controlling for the effects of the other. Moreover, two sets of follow-up analyses with the present data also failed to support the mediational hypothesis. Thus, although both problem behavior and peer status showed predictive rela-

12 474 KIESNER tions with depressive symptoms, these effects appeared to be independent of each other. These results and conclusions are consistent with the present author s interpretation of previous research presented by Panak and Garber (1992). Considering the present data and those presented by Panak and Garber (1992) it appears that the relation between problem behavior and depression is not mediated by peer rejection. This is not to say, however, that the failure model is not valid. The failure model, as described by Patterson and Capaldi (1990), suggests that problem behavior leads to profound failures across tasks, relationships, and contexts. Peer relationships in the school represent only one type of relationship in one setting. It is possible that other types of relationships (i.e., with parents, siblings, or teachers) also may play a role. For example, rejection by or conflict with parents may be more important for the present sample of early adolescents than is peer rejection. Also, peer failure in the classroom does not consider peer relationships outside of the school. In fact, recent research that examined peer relations across contexts found that the relation between in-school peer rejection and depressive symptoms was moderated by out-ofschool peer relations: When the individual was popular outside of school the relation between in-school rejection and depressive symptoms was significantly reduced (Kiesner & Cadinu, 2001). Thus, to fully test the failure model it is probably necessary to consider a variety of social relationships in a variety of contexts. Moreover, to fully understand the implications of the model, nonsocial tasks also should be considered. For example, academic failure is also related to problem behavior and may play a mediational role between problem behavior and depression as well. Patterson and Stoolmiller (1991), for example, showed that both academic skills and peer relations predicted preadolescent boys depressed mood. However, these researchers did not include a measure of problem behavior, and thus no direct conclusions could be drawn with regard to the failure model. Further work is clearly needed to test and define the failure model. It is possible that in the present study, the strength of mediation was attenuated because the relation between problem behavior and peer status was weak. A comparison with Panak and Garber s data (1992) suggests that this is not the case. Even though, in Panak and Garber s study, the relation between peer status and teacher-rated aggression was stronger, r.27, the change in regression coefficients did not support a mediational model (see the Introduction). Thus, the lack of mediation does not appear to be specific to the present data set, or attributable to a weaker correlation between peer status and problem behavior. Considering the present study, and the study of Panak and Garber (1992), it appears likely that both problem behavior and peer status have

13 DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS IN ADOLESCENCE 475 independent effects on changes in depression. Thus, for understanding the co-occurrence of problem behavior and depression, future research should consider alternative causal models. For example, Fergusson, Lynskey, and Horwood (1996) presented data suggesting that the co-occurrence of conduct and affective disorders may be best explained by common risk factors. This suggests that future research should focus on how common risk factors may contribute directly, indirectly, or interactively to predict not only one problem or the other, but also the co-occurrence of these problems. Further research also is needed to clarify the relation between peer rejection and depression. For example, peer rejection has been shown to result from a variety of individual characteristics such as unattractiveness and snobbishness (Coie et al., 1982). It is possible that peer rejection mediates the effects of these other individual characteristics rather than problem behavior. In the present study, peer relations were measured using classroom nominations: that is, how much the individual was liked or disliked by his or her classmates. Considering past research that showed that even lowaccepted individuals frequently have friends (Parker & Asher, 1993), peer status or acceptance may not be the most sensitive measure of social failure. Other measures, such as not having a reciprocated friendship, may provide a more sensitive indicator of social failure. Unfortunately, the present study did not use friendship nominations, and thus could not test this possibility. A third approach would be to assess a more subjective aspect, such as friendship quality. This type of measure would provide more specific information on the individual s social experience, which may be more relevant to understanding depression. However, because both depression and friendship quality are based on self-reports, this approach would present the new problem of shared method variance. A final comment on two methodological issues should be made. First, because the present analyses are based on 73% of the total possible sample, the results may be biased. Second, analyses may also be biased because socioeconomic status was not included in the analyses. However, it should also be noted that the overall pattern of results is consistent with the previously published studies discussed in the Introduction. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to thank the school personnel, parents, and participants for their important collaboration.

14 476 KIESNER REFERENCES Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1978). The classification of child psychopathology: A review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychological Bulletin, 85, Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (1993). Depressive comorbidity in children and adolescents: Empirical, theoretical and methodological issues. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, Angold, A., & Rutter, M. (1992). Effects of age and pubertal status on depression in a large clinical sample. Development and Psychopathology, 4, Attili, G., Vermigli, P., & Schneider, B. H. (1997). Peer acceptance and friendship patterns among Italian schoolchildren within a cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, Boivin, M., Poulin, F., & Vitaro, F. (1994). Depressed mood and peer rejection in childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 6, Bukowski, W. M., Gauze, C., Hoza, B., & Newcomb, A. F. (1993). Differences and consistency between same-sex and other-sex peer relationships during early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 29, Camuffo, M., Cerutti, R., Lucarelli, L., & Mayer, R. (1988a). Children s Depression Inventory: Italian version. Firenze, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali. Camuffo, M., Cerutti, R., Lucarelli, L., & Mayer, R. (1988b). Il CDI (Children s Depression Inventory) nella scuola media: Indagine psicometrica [The CDI (Children s Depression Inventory) in the middle school: A psychometric study]. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 185, Capaldi, D. M. (1991). Co-occurrence of conduct problems and depressive symptoms in early adolescent boys: I. Familial factors and general adjustment at Grade 6. Development and Psychopathology, 3, Capaldi, D. M. (1992). Co-occurrence of conduct problems and depressive symptoms in early adolescent boys: II. A 2-year follow-up at Grade 8. Development and Psychopathology, 4, Capaldi, D. H., & Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Co-occurrence of conduct problems and depressive symptoms in early adolescent boys: III. Prediction to young-adult adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 11, Caron, C., & Rutter, M. (1991). Comorbidity in child psychopathology: Concepts, issues and research strategies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32, Casiglia, A. C., Lo Coco, A., & Zappulla, C. (1998). Aspects of social reputation and peer relationships in Italian children: A cross-cultural perspective. Developmental Psychology, 34, Claes, M., Lacourse, E., Bouchard, C., & Luckow, D. (2001). Adolescents relationships with members of the extended family and non-related adults in four countries: Canada, France, Belgium and Italy. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 9, Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, Cole, D. A., & Carpentieri, S. (1990). Social status and the comorbidity of child depression and conduct disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, Compas, B. E., Ey, S., & Grant, K. E. (1993). Taxonomy, assessment, and diagnosis of depression during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 114,

15 DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS IN ADOLESCENCE 477 Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Brakke, P. N. (1982). Behavior patterns of socially rejected and neglected preadolescents: The roles of social approach and aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, Fergusson, D. M., Lynskey, M. T., & Horwood, J. L. (1996). Origins of comorbidity between conduct and affective disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, Fleming, J. E., & Offord, D. R. (1990). Epidemiology of childhood depressive disorders: A critical review. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, Kiesner, J. (1997). The effects of a homework monitoring intervention on school engagement of high risk middle school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon, Eugene. Kiesner, J., & Cadinu, M. (2001, April). Peer relations across contexts: Individual group homophily and popularity in and out of school. In F. Poulin & J. Kiesner (Chairs), Mechanisms and moderators of peer influence on problem behavior: Relationship quality, group identification, and deviancy training. Symposium conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN. Kiesner, J., Cadinu, M., Poulin, F., & Bucci, M. (2002). Group identification in early adolescence: Its relation with peer adjustment and its moderator effect on peer influence. Child Development, 73, Kovacs, M. (1980). Rating scales to assess depression in school-aged children. Acta Paedopsychiatry, 46, Lewinsohn, P. M., Hops, H., Roberts, R. E., Seeley, J. R., & Andrews, J. A. (1993). Adolescent psychopathology: I. Prevalence and incidence of depression and other DSM-III-R disorders in high school students. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescent-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. (1994). The emergence of gender differences in depression during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115, Panak, W. F., & Garber, J. (1992). Role of aggression, rejection, and attributions in the prediction of depression in children. Development and Psychopathology, 4, Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, Parker, J. G., Rubin, K. H., Price, J. M., & DeRosier, M. E. (1995). Peer relationships, child development, and adjustment: A developmental psychopathology perspective. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp ). New York: Wiley. Patterson, G. R., & Capaldi, D. M. (1990). A mediational model for boys depressed mood. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp ). New York: Cambridge University Press. Patterson, G. R., & Stoolmiller, M. (1991). Replications of a dual failure model for boy s depressed mood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, Quay, H. C. (1986). Classification. In H. C. Quay & J. S. Werry (Eds.), Psychopathological disorders of childhood (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality development (5th ed., pp ). New York: Wiley.

16 478 KIESNER Schneider, B. H., Fonzi, A., Tani, F., & Tomada, G. (1997). A cross-cultural exploration of the stability of children s friendships and the predictors of their continuation. Social Development, 6, Tomada, G., & Schneider, B. H. (1997). Relational aggression, gender, and peer acceptance: Invariance across culture, stability over time, and concordance among informants. Developmental Psychology, 33,