↓ Skip to main content

Peer Acceptance Protects Global Self-esteem from Negative Effects of Low Closeness to Parents During Adolescence and Early Adulthood

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Youth & Adolescence, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
Peer Acceptance Protects Global Self-esteem from Negative Effects of Low Closeness to Parents During Adolescence and Early Adulthood
Published in
Journal of Youth & Adolescence, February 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10964-013-9929-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marianne Skogbrott Birkeland, Kyrre Breivik, Bente Wold

Abstract

Having a distant relationship with parents seems to increase the risk of developing a more negative global self-esteem. This article describes a longitudinal study of 1,090 Norwegian adolescents from the age of 13-23 (54 % males) that explored whether peer acceptance can act as a moderator and protect global self-esteem against the negative effects of experiencing low closeness in relationships with parents. A quadratic latent growth curve for global self-esteem with closeness to parents and peer acceptance as time-varying covariates was modeled, taking partial measurement invariance in global self-esteem into account. Peer acceptance was found to have a general protective effect on global self-esteem for all adolescents. In addition, at most ages, peer acceptance was found to have a protective-stabilizing effect on the relationship between closeness to parents and global self-esteem. This indicates that peer acceptance can be an especially valuable source of global self-esteem when closeness to parents is low.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 84 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Unspecified 9 11%
Other 22 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 43 51%
Unspecified 11 13%
Social Sciences 10 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Other 13 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,289,189
of 8,276,988 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Youth & Adolescence
#396
of 895 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,127
of 118,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Youth & Adolescence
#18
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,276,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 59th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 895 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 118,275 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.