Predicting internalizing and externalizing behaviours of adolescents FAMILY ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, PSYCHOSOCIAL PROBLEMS AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES OF ADOLESCENTS IN THE TIME OF ECONOMIC CRISIS Nika Sušac, Linda Rajhvajn Bulat, Marina Ajduković Social Work Study Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Croatia INTRODUCTION Based on Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, when trying to explain the development of children, the context of the system of relationships in their environment should be taken into account. The aim of this study was to determine the contribution of some aspects of different microsystems to internalizing and externalizing behaviours of youth. Data were collected within the project “Family economic hardship, psychosocial problems and educational outcomes of adolescents in the time of economic crisis”, financed by the Croatian Science Foundation. METHODOLOGY The study was conducted using a two-stage stratified cluster sample of 1st grade pupils from 29 secondary schools in Croatia. Participants: 1 099 pupils 51,1% boys Age: M = 15,18; SD = .511 School they attend: 32.0% 3-year vocational school 31.3% 4-year vocational school 36.7% grammar school Instruments: NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1989) IPPA (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) Parental Monitoring Scale (Small, 1993) Perceived peer pressure questionnaire (Sušac, Rajhvajn Bulat & Ajduković, 2016) School bonding questionnaire (Sušac, Rajhvajn Bulat & Ajduković, 2016) DASS21 (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) Self-report questionnaire of risk and delinquent behaviours (Ajduković, Rajhvajn Bulat & Sušac, 2015) Table 1. Results of hierarchical regression analysis (last step) with externalizing behaviours as criterions Peer violence R = .523; %V = 26.3% Delinquent behaviour R = .520; %V = 26.0% Gender .09** .04 Family financial status .02 -.02 Neuroticism .10** Extraversion .14** .12** Openness .00 .05 Agreeableness -.29** -.16** Conscientiousness .07* Attachment - mother -.05 Attachment - father -.01 -.03 Parental monitoring -.11** -.17** Peer pressure to conform .07 Peer pressure to prosocial behaviours Peer pressure to problem behaviours .25** School bonding -.08* -.14** RESULTS Four hierarchical regression analyses were conducted (Tables 1 and 2). Sociodemographic variables (gender and family financial status) were entered in the first step, followed by personality traits, parental variables (attachment to both parents and parental monitoring), perceived peer pressure (to conform, to prosocial behaviours and to problem behaviours) and school bonding. All five predictor sets were significant in predicting all four criterions, with personality traits explaining the largest percentage of variance. Due to a large sample, significance level of p < .01 was used in the interpretation. As expected, girls were more likely to exhibit internalizing, while boys were more prone to externalizing behaviours, although the significant effect of gender in predicting delinquent behaviour was lost once peer pressure variables were introduced in the model. High extraversion and low agreeableness predict more externalized behaviours, while the most prominent predictor of internalized behaviours is high neuroticism, which also predicts more frequent perpetration of peer violence. Higher openness is also a risk factor for anxiety, probably due to socialization pressures in adolescence. Although parental variables were a significant predictor of both types of behaviours, lower monitoring was specifically predictive of externalizing, while lower attachment was a risk factor for internalizing behaviours (with maternal attachment being the only significant variable, due to high intercorrelation of attachment to both parents). Peer pressure proved to be especially important for predicting externalizing behaviours, specifically the perceived pressure to get involved in problem behaviours (e.g. smoking, drinking etc.), while it had little effect in predicting internalizing problems in youth. On the other hand, school bonding was a significant protective factor for all behaviours, with the least effect in predicting peer violence perpetration. Table 2. Results of hierarchical regression analysis (last step) with internalizing behaviours as criterions Depression R = .676; %V = 44,9% Anxiety R = .599; %V = 34.9% Gender -.08** -.09** Family financial status -.03 -.01 Neuroticism .46** .44** Extraversion -.06* .01 Openness .02 .09** Agreeableness -.07* Conscientiousness .00 .06* Attachment - mother -.14** Attachment - father -.05 Parental monitoring .03 .04 Peer pressure to conform .05 Peer pressure to prosocial behaviours .07* Peer pressure to problem behaviours School bonding -.11** CONCLUSION Gender differences obtained in earlier studies were confirmed, but their effect was relatively small after introducing other predictors. Personality traits were the best predictors of internalizing and externalizing behaviours, with different traits having specific predictive effects, depending on the criterion. All of the microsystems proved to be important for the development of adolescents. While lower parental monitoring and more perceived peer pressure are risk factors for externalizing behaviour, attachment to parents is a protective factor for internalizing problems. This suggest the existence of different underlying mechanisms in the development of youth problem behaviours and the need for providing different types of interventions. The importance of school bonding highlights the role of the educational system in the prevention of internalizing and externalizing behaviours and early interventions with adolescents. Contact: nika.susac@gmail.com 18th European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Abstract code: pos303.38