(Dis)continuation of Peer Experiences
Average changes in attachment, loneliness, and victimization over the transition from primary to secondary school were explored by evaluating the mean delta’s (m Δ) of the univariate models of these variables. The model fit the data well for attachment (χ2(12, N = 649) = 6.74, p = 0.874, RMSEA = 0.000[0.000; 0.020], CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.005, SRMR = 0.025) and loneliness (χ2(42, N = 649) = 32.09, p = 0.866, RMSEA = 0.000[0.000; 0.015], CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.009, SRMR = 0.063). For victimization, only one item was used, leading to a fully identified model and, hence, a perfect fit. Results of the estimated means indicate that students slightly increased in attachment (mT1 = 3.37, mT2 = 3.45, mΔ = 0.082, se = 0.023, p < 0.01) and decreased in loneliness (mT1 = 1.29, mT2 = 1.21, mΔ = −0.074, se = 0.015, p < 0.01) between primary and secondary school. No significant average change in victimization between primary and secondary school was found (mT1 = 1.30, mT2 = 1.24, mΔ = −0.060, se = 0.042, p = 0.152). To gain more insight into the (dis)continuation of victimization, the percentage of students who were persistently victimized across the transition based on the single-item measure for victimization was calculated. Of the 649 students, 38 (5.9%) were victimized at least once or twice in the past months in primary- as well as secondary school.
Model 1 in Table
1 shows the results of the multivariate LSC model including attachment, loneliness, and victimization in primary school as predictors for change scores of these variables, controlled for gender. The model fit the data well (χ2(146, N = 649) = 108.18,
p = 0.992, RMSEA = 0.000[0.000; 0.000], CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.010, SRMR = 0.045). Hypotheses 1A, 1B and 1C were tested with the paths denoted as ‘(a)’, ‘(b)’, and ‘(c)’ in Fig.
1, of which the results are shown in Table
1 (model 1). Higher attachment in primary school related to a smaller change (i.e., a smaller increase or a decrease) in attachment over the transition from primary to secondary school (ATT 1 → Δ ATT = −0.638, se = 0.052,
p < 0.001), in line with hypothesis 1 A. Specifically, the amount of change can be derived from the formula: Δ ATT = (ATT 1 → Δ ATT) * ATT 1 + I Δ ATT. With an intercept of the change in attachment (I Δ ATT) of 2.365, students who were not attached to peers in primary school experienced a larger increase in attachment than the average increase (Δ ATT(ATT 1 = 1) = 1.727), while students with high initial attachment experienced a small decrease in attachment (Δ ATT(ATT 1 = 4) = −0.187). These estimated effects are conditional on all other variables being constant.
Table 1
Results of three multivariate multiple-indicator latent change score models on change in attachment, loneliness, and victimization
m Δ ATT | 0.088 (0.025) | <0.001 | 0.088 (0.025) | 0.001 | 0.093(0.026) | <0.001 |
I Δ ATT | 2.365 (0.224) | <0.001 | 2.367 (0.225) | <0.001 | 2.527 (0.237) | <0.001 |
ATT 1 → Δ ATT (a) | −0.638 (0.052) | <0.001 | −0.644 (0.053) | <0.001 | −0.688 (0.056) | <0.001 |
LON 1 → Δ ATT | −0.139 (0.067) | 0.039 | −0.144 (0.068) | 0.033 | −0.213 (0.080) | 0.008 |
VIC 1 → Δ ATT | −0.036 (0.040) | 0.357 | −0.035 (0.040) | 0.383 | 0.016 (0.047) | 0.728 |
GEN → Δ ATT | 0.062 (0.043) | 0.145 | 0.070 (0.043) | 0.108 | 0.092 (0.045) | 0.043 |
CTP → Δ ATT | | | 0.035 (0.067) | 0.603 | | |
m Δ LON | −0.077 (0.016) | <0.001 | −0.080 (0.016) | <0.001 | −0.093 (0.017) | <0.001 |
I Δ LON | 0.691 (0.145) | <0.001 | 0.727 (0.148) | <0.001 | 0.736 (0.154) | <0.001 |
LON 1 → Δ LON (b) | −0.647 (0.056) | <0.001 | −0.643 (0.057) | <0.001 | −0.674 (0.065) | <0.001 |
ATT 1 → Δ LON | −0.020 (0.031) | 0.521 | −0.014 (0.032) | 0.659 | −0.023 (0.034) | 0.488 |
VIC 1 → Δ LON | 0.058 (0.033) | 0.078 | 0.053 (0.033) | 0.110 | 0.042 (0.039) | 0.289 |
GEN → Δ LON | 0.037 (0.027) | 0.170 | 0.035 (0.028) | 0.200 | 0.045 (0.029) | 0.124 |
CTP → Δ LON | | | −0.172 (0.041) | <0.001 | | |
m Δ VIC | −0.060 (0.042) | 0.152 | −0.066 (0.043) | 0.121 | −0.064 (0.045) | 0.153 |
I Δ VIC | 0.657 (0.361) | 0.069 | 0.647 (0.368) | 0.079 | 0.795 (0.398) | 0.046 |
VIC 1 → Δ VIC (c) | −0.755 (0.118) | <0.001 | −0.758 (0.119) | <0.001 | −0.766 (0.147) | <0.001 |
LON 1 → Δ VIC | 0.171 (0.140) | 0.221 | 0.184 (0.141) | 0.193 | 0.145 (0.179) | 0.419 |
ATT 1 → Δ VIC | 0.035 (0.079) | 0.654 | 0.049 (0.080) | 0.537 | 0.014 (0.089) | 0.871 |
GEN → Δ ATT | −0.049 (0.070) | 0.482 | −0.058 (0.072) | 0.418 | −0.067 (0.077) | 0.382 |
CTP → Δ VIC | | | −0.118 (0.114) | 0.299 | | |
Δ ATT → AP | | | | | 0.050 (0.081) | 0.583 |
Δ LON → AP | | | | | 0.150 (0.095) | 0.113 |
Δ VIC → AP | | | | | −0.055 (0.058) | 0.336 |
GEN → AP | | | | | 0.283 (0.084) | 0.001 |
Δ ATT~Δ LON | −0.102 (0.008) | <0.001 | −0.100 (0.008) | <0.001 | −0.101 (0.009) | <0.001 |
Δ ATT~Δ VIC | −0.055 (0.018) | 0.002 | −0.051 (0.018) | 0.006 | −0.056 (0.020) | 0.004 |
Δ LON~Δ VIC | 0.091 (0.017) | <0.001 | 0.087 (0.018) | <0.001 | 0.082 (0.019) | <0.001 |
R2 Δ ATT | 30.0% | | 30.6% | | 32.7% | |
R2 Δ LON | 30.9% | | 31.5% | | 33.4% | |
R2 Δ VIC | 38.7% | | 39.1% | | 36.4% | |
R2 AP | | | | | 5.0% | |
Higher initial loneliness was associated with decrease in the difference in loneliness over the transition (LON 1 → Δ LON = −0.647, se = 0.056, p < 0.001), in line with hypothesis 1B. Given this decrease in the difference, students who were more lonely in primary school experienced greater decreases in loneliness across the transition. With an I Δ LON of 0.691, the formula gives that students who were not lonely in primary school experienced small increases in loneliness (Δ LON(LON 1 = 1) = 0.044), whereas students who were more lonely experienced decreases in loneliness (Δ LON(LON 1 = 4) = −1.897). Higher victimization in primary school related to a decrease in the difference in victimization over the transition (VIC 1 → Δ VIC = −0.755, se = 0.118, p < 0.001), in line with hypothesis 1 C. Given this decrease in the difference, students who were more victimized in primary school experienced greater decreases in victimization across the transition. An I Δ VIC of 0.651 gives that all students decreased in victimization (Δ VIC(VIC 1 = 1) = −0.104), with greater decreases for students who were more victimized in primary school (Δ VIC(VIC 1 = 5) = −3.124).
The latent change scores of the multivariate model were similar to those from the univariate models, which implies that the intercepts and changes in one peer experience barely affect the mean change in the other peer experience. The degree of change in attachment was negatively related to the degree of change in loneliness and victimization, as shown by the covariances between the residuals and the estimated correlations (Δ ATT~Δ LON = −0.102, se = 0.008, p < 0.001, r = −0.477; Δ ATT ~ Δ VIC = −0.055, se = 0.018, p = 0.002, r = −0.179), and the degrees of change in loneliness and victimization were positively related (Δ LON ~ Δ VIC = 0.091, se = 0.017, p < 0.001, r = 0.278). Higher loneliness in primary school related to smaller increases in attachment over the transition (LON 1 → Δ ATT = −0.193, se = 0.067, p = 0.039). Gender did not relate to changes in attachment, loneliness, and victimization.
Co-transitioning Peers
The number of co-transitioning peers was added to model 2 to test hypotheses 2A, 2B, and 2C on the effect of the percentage of students’ co-transitioning peers on changes in attachment, loneliness, and victimization. The model fit the data well (χ2(158, N = 633) = 114.74,
p = 0.996, RMSEA = 0.000[0.000; 0.000], CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.012, SRMR = 0.044). On average, 31.1% of students’ primary school peers co-transitioned into the same secondary school. Table
1 shows the results of Model 2. The estimated means of the delta’s and covariances between the delta’s are similar to those in Model 1. Having more co-transitioning peers (CTP) did not relate to changes in attachment (CTP → Δ ATT = −0.035, se = 0.067,
p = 0.603) and victimization (CTP → Δ VIC = −0.118, se = 0.114,
p = 0.299), contrary to hypotheses 2A and hypotheses 2C. Having more co-transitioning peers related to larger reductions in loneliness (CTP → Δ LON = −0.127, se = 0.041,
p < 0.001). It was expected that having co-transitioning peers would relate to fewer changes in loneliness over the transition, but the findings indicated that there are
more changes in loneliness when there are more co-transitioning peers. Therefore, the findings are not in line with hypothesis 2B.
The number of co-transitioning peers was replaced with the number of co-transitioning same-gender peers as a proxy for friends in an additional model. On average, 32.0% of students’ primary school peers with the same gender co-transitioned into the same secondary school. The model had acceptable fit (χ2(178, N = 633) = 487.95, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.052 [0.047; 0.058], CFI = 0.936, TLI = 0.924, SRMR = 0.077). The results were similar to model 3. Having more co-transitioning peers with the same gender did not relate to changes in attachment (CTP → Δ ATT = 0.019, se = 0.064, p = 0.761) and victimization (CTP → Δ VIC = −0.085, se = 0.108, p = 0.433), and related to larger reductions in loneliness (CTP → Δ LON = −0.111, se = 0.038, p = 0.004).
In Model 3, the changes in attachment, loneliness, and victimization were regressed on academic performance to test hypothesis 4 on the extent to which changes in peer relationships relate to higher academic performance. The model had acceptable fit (χ2(199, N = 559) = 160.28,
p = 0.980, RMSEA = 0.000[0.000; 0.000], CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.012, SRMR = 0.047). Table
1 shows the results of Model 3. The estimated latent mean of academic performance shows that on average, students scored 7.26 out of 10. Results indicate that changes in attachment (Δ ATT → AP = 0.050, se = 0.081,
p = 0.538), loneliness (Δ LON → AP = 0.150, se = 0.095,
p = 0.113), or victimization (Δ VIC → AP = −0.055, se = 0.058,
p = 0.336) over the transition from primary to secondary school had no relevant and significant effect on academic performance (AP) in secondary school. This does not support hypotheses 4A, 4B, and 4C. Girls had a higher academic performance compared to boys (GEN → AP = 0.283, se = 0.084,
p = 0.001).