deprimere 1986 1990 2000 1995 1998 Social status can be defined in at least two ways: in terms of achievements (being admired) and in terms of affection (being liked). These two definitions are related, but by no means interchangeable, and could be differentially linked to depressive problems. The former contains an element of competition (being better than others), while the latter relates to being accepted or rejected by the social group. We will compare the relative importance of both of them with respect to depressive problems in early adolescent girls and boys. 2006 1991 2004 1998 1999 Achievement- and affection-related social status 1998 1972 1990 1990 1994 2001 1995 1998 1989 2001 2003 1995 2004 1990 1985 1988 1994 2002 2004 2005 2001 1995 2005 Gender differences 1998 1991 1998 2002 2005 2001 2005 1994 2006 2000 2004 Present study 1995 1998 1983 2006 2002 We hypothesized that low peer status in the achievement-related domain would be most relevant for depressive problems in boys, whereas girls’ depressive problems would be more strongly associated with low affection-related peer status. A further hypothesis was that high peer status in a particular area, although not necessarily associated with the probability of depressive problems in itself, would reduce the association between depressive problems and low status in another status area. Method Sample The TRacking Adolescents’ Individual Lives Survey (TRAILS) is a prospective cohort study of Dutch (pre)adolescents, with the aim to chart and explain the development of mental health from preadolescence into adulthood, which started in 2001. Sample selection involved two steps. First, five municipalities in the North of the Netherlands, including both urban and rural areas, were requested to give names and addresses of all inhabitants born between 10‒01‒1989 and 09‒30‒1990 (first two municipalities) or 10‒01‒1990 and 09‒30‒1991 (last three municipalities), yielding 3483 names. Simultaneously, primary schools (including schools for special education) within these municipalities were approached with the request to participate in TRAILS. School participation was a prerequisite for eligible children and their parents to be approached by the TRAILS staff. Of the 135 primary schools within the municipalities, 122 (90.4% of the schools accommodating 90.3% of the children) agreed to participate in the study. N N SD 2005 SD N SD Subsample with peer information χ 2 N p t p SD SD t p Measures Affection- and achievement related status 2001 1991 1992 Depressive problems 1991a 1995 1991b 2003 2005 r r 2003 SD SD r n n Disruptive behavior Disruptive behavior was included to adjust for comorbidity. Disruptive behavior was assessed with the CBCL and the YSR, by combining the items for Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder, which resulted in a scale of 22 (CBCL, Cronbach’s α = 0.86) or 20 (YSR, Cronbach’s α = 0.79) items. Statistical analysis t z 2003 p Finally, we examined whether low status in (at least) one area could be compensated by high status in one or more other areas. Peer-status variables that were significantly related to depressive problems (as established by correlations with the effects of gender and disruptive behavior partialled out) were used to create four combined status groups: 1 = low & high, referring to adolescents with a low status (i.e., below the 20th percentile) in at least one area and a high status (above the 80th percentile) in at least one area; 2 = only low, designating adolescents with a low status in at least one area and no high status; 3 = only high, representing adolescents with a high status in at least one area and no low status, and 4 = intermediate, that is, adolescents with an intermediate status in all areas. Depressive problems in the only-low, only-high, and intermediate group were compared to those in the low & high group (the reference category) by linear regression analysis, adjusting for disruptive behaviors and for dependent observations within classes. Gender differences in each of the associations were tested by interaction effects. A lower depression score in the low & high group than in the only-low group suggests that compensation of a low status by a high status in another area is possible; a lower depression score in the only-high group than in the low & high group suggests that a low status counteracts the benefits of a high status in another area. Comparison of the intermediate group with the low & high group provides insight in the differences between being extraordinary (in any direction) and being average. To take into account that the specific areas may represent the two broad domains of achievement-related and affection-related status disproportionately, this procedure was repeated for the strongest predictor of each. p Results Descriptive statistics 1 Table 1 Mean (standard deviation) of peer status and mental health, by gender  SD    N N b c Proportion nominations for being Liked 0.56 (0.21) 0.55 (0.20) t p 0.05 Disliked 0.10 (0.13) 0.12 (0.15) t p −0.14 Best friend 0.20 (0.12) 0.21 (0.13) t p −0.04 Good at sports 0.22 (0.21) 0.40 (0.29) t p −0.71 A good learner 0.33 (0.26) 0.28 (0.25) t p 0.20 Good-looking 0.27 (0.22) 0.12 (0.13) t p 0.83 Mental health a 0.24 (0.21) 0.19 (0.18) t p 0.26 a 0.21 (0.15) 0.25 (0.18) t p −0.24 a b c d M 1 M 2 σ pooled M 1 M 2 σ pooled \documentclass[12pt]{minimal}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{wasysym} 
\usepackage{amsfonts} 
\usepackage{amssymb} 
\usepackage{amsbsy}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{upgreek}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}
\begin{document}$$\surd [(\sigma _1^2 + \sigma _2^2 )/2]$$\end{document} Bivariate associations 2 Table 2 Correlations between peer status and mental health, in girls (above the diagonal) and boys (below the diagonal)        Depressive Disruptive  Liked Disliked Best friend Good at sports Good learner Good-looking problems behavior Liked  .62 .4 9 .34   .06 .55 .17 −.07 Disliked .68  .34 .23 .18 .36 .21 .14 Best Friend .49 .36  .34   .08 .46 −.06 .11 Good at sports .38 .25 .34  .21 .44 .15 −.04 A good learner .14 .16 .15 .15    .07 .14 .21 Good-looking .42 .28 .30 .51   .09  .10   .01 a .16 .16 .11 .19 −.09 .12  .52 a −.09 .20 .02   .03 .20 −.04 .48  Note. p : a Hierarchy of status areas To distinguish between associations with low and high status, each of the peer-status variables was categorized into low status (below the 20th percentile), high status (above the 80th percentile), and intermediate status (between the 20th and 80th percentile). For being disliked, high status referred to the lowest 20% (few nominations) and low status to the highest 20% (many nominations). The distribution of the peer nominations precluded that the high-status group of being disliked contained approximately 20% of the cases: 32.0% of the adolescents were nominated by no one and hence classified as having high disliked status. 3 Table 3 Prediction of depressive problems by low and high peer-status in several areas, adjusted for disruptive behavior, stratified by gender   B p   Unadjusted for other areas Adjusted for other areas Status area Status Girls Boys Girls Boys Affection      Liked Low 0.41 (<.001)   0.16 (.05) 0.33 (.02)   0.02 (.85)  High −0.07 (.48) 0.21 (.008) −0.03 (.80) −0.10 (.28) Disliked a   0.21 (.08)   0.00 (.95)   0.05 (.72) −0.11 (.33)  a −0.13 (.11) 0.22 (.002) −0.06 (.47) −0.14 (.05) Best friend Low 0.24 (.02) 0.22 (.02)   0.08 (.47)   0.13 (.19)  High −0.14 (.15) 0.15 (.046) −0.07 (.47) −0.05 (.49) Achievement      Good at sports Low 0.27 (.004) 0.44 (<.001)   0.19 (.08) 0.38 (.005)  High −0.12 (.34) 0.17 (.02) −0.07 (.57) −0.10 (.17) Good learner Low   0.12 (.35)   0.08 (.39)   0.05 (.68)   0.02 (.79)  High −0.02 (.83) −0.01 (.91)   0.01 (.88)   0.04 (.68) Good-looking Low   0.12 (.40) 0.17 (.04) −0.10 (.52)   0.01 (.92)  High −0.11 (.13) −0.13 (.19)   0.06 (.45) −0.04 (.67) Note. a p B p 1 p B p B p p Across-area compensation r p χ 2 N p 4 Table 4 Prediction of depressive problems by cross-area peer status groups, adjusted for disruptive behavior Status group n B p Low & high (reference category) 183 – Only low 335 0.30 (.001) Only high 427 −0.11 (0.12) Intermediate 101   0.02 (0.87) Note. p p B p B p B p p Discussion 2001 We hypothesized that peer status in the achievement-related domain would be most relevant for depressive problems in boys, whereas girls’ depressive problems would be more strongly associated to their affection-related peer nominations. A further hypothesis was that high alternative hierarchical positions would (wholly or partly) counteract the association between depressive problems and low status in a particular status area. These hypotheses were largely supported by the data, although it should be noted that the expected patterns were not found in all status areas investigated. Compared with other status areas, not being good at sports, hence a low achievement-related status, was most strongly associated with depressive problems in boys; while not being liked, hence a low status on an affection-related area, had the strongest association with depressive problems in girls. However, our data suggest that not being good at sports may affect girls’ well-being as well, and the gender difference regarding this status domain, although showing a trend, was not statistically significant. Not being liked, on the other hand, appeared to be related to depressive problems in girls only. Hence, girls seem to be more sensitive than boys to affection-related status, particularly to a lack of peers that like them. Low status versus high status 2001 1985 1988 2002 2003 1995 Gender differences 2005 2006 2006 Differences between specific status areas 2001 2006 1992 1987 1980 1996 1970 2000 1992 1995 2000 1999 dis 1995 2004 Limitations, strengths, and recommendations for future research 1997 1988 1996 2005 2006 2001 1997