Youth Perceived Social Support and Symptom Distress: A Random-Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model

Eline M. Meuleman*, William M. van der Veld, Odilia M. Laceulle, Paul T. van der Heijden, Maaike Verhagen, Elisa van Ee

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Although social support and mental health associations have been extensively investigated, their reciprocal relations in vulnerable youth remain understudied. This study investigated the relations between perceived social support and symptom distress over time whilst differentiating between support from caregivers and significant others. The sample included 257 youth (79% self-identified women, M age = 19.2, SD = 2.5) who were receiving mental health treatment. Using a Random-Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model, results revealed no significant concurrent associations, between-person effects, or cross-lagged effects. The autoregressive effects suggested that perceived social support from caregivers was relatively stable over time, while symptom distress and support from a significant other were not. In all, this study challenged the validity of the social causation and social erosion models in the context of perceived social support and symptom distress among vulnerable youth, revealing an absence of significant reciprocal associations. The stable nature of perceived social support from caregivers compared to support from significant others was highlighted. The study design, hypotheses, and target analyses were preregistered under https://osf.io/f4qpg .

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)117-129
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Youth and Adolescence
Volume53
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2024

Keywords

  • Caregivers
  • Reciprocal relations
  • Social support
  • Symptom distress
  • Youth

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Youth Perceived Social Support and Symptom Distress: A Random-Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this