adolescents with learning disabilities: socioemotional and behavioral functioning and attachment...

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Adolescents with Learning Disabilities: Socioemotionaland Behavioral Functioning and Attachment Relationshipswith Fathers, Mothers, and Teachers

Michal Al-Yagon

Received: 7 February 2012 / Accepted: 8 April 2012 / Published online: 21 April 2012

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract Investigation of the role of adolescents pat-

terns of close relationships with significant adults may be

of particular interest in populations with learning disabili-

ties (LD) during adolescence, because attachment rela-

tionship variables may act as risk or protective factors

during this developmental period when trajectories are set

that can lead to difficulties in adulthood. Specifically, this

study examined a model of protective factors comprising

patterns of close relationships between adolescents (n=369;

53 % female; aged 1517) and significant adults (mother,

father, homeroom teacher) for explaining adolescents

socioemotional and behavioral adjustment, comparing

adolescents with and without LD. The current assessment

of adolescents socioemotional adjustment included both

internalizing aspects (loneliness, affect, and internalizing

behavior syndrome) and externalizing aspects (externaliz-

ing behavior syndrome). On most measures, significant

group differences emerged between adolescents with LD

(n=181) and adolescents with typical development

(n=188). SEM analysis found high fit between the theo-

retical model and empirical findings. Both groups showed

similar paths between adolescent-mother attachment and

adolescent adjustment, whereas significant group differ-

ences emerged for the contribution of adolescents close

relationships with fathers and teachers to adolescents

adjustment. The discussion focuses on the possible unique

value of close relationships with each attachment figure at

home and at school for adolescents with LD versus typical

development.

Keywords Learning disabilities Attachment Fathers Mothers Teachers Affect Behavior problems

Attachment theory, considered a highly relevant and well-

validated framework for explaining individual variations in

adjustment across the lifespan (Grossmann et al. 2006;

Mikulincer and Shaver 2007), served as the focus of the

current study exploring variations in socioemotional and

behavioral adjustment among adolescents with learning

disabilities (LD) or with typical development. Exploration

of the role of adolescents patterns of close relationships

with significant others may be of particular interest in LD

populations during adolescence, because attachment rela-

tionship variables may act as risk or protective factors

during this developmental period when trajectories are set

that can lead to difficulties in adulthood. Adolescents

diagnosed with LD in the current study (in line with DSM-

IV-TR criteria, American Psychiatric Association 2000)

manifested an average IQ level and substantially lower

achievements on standardized tests (in reading, writing,

and/or mathematics) than expected for age, schooling, and

level of intelligence.

Based on the recent upsurge of interest in fathers

important role for their childrens development and later

adjustment (Bretherton 2010; Christie-Mizell et al. 2011;

Marsiglio et al. 2000; Parke 2004), adolescent-father and

adolescent-mother attachments comprised equal foci in the

current study. This studys simultaneous investigation of

both parents, aiming to narrow the gap in the literature for

older children (adolescents) and for the LD population,

stemmed from prior research highlighting possible

The author would like to express her appreciation to Dee B. Ankonina

for her editorial contribution.

M. Al-Yagon (&)Special Education Program, Constantiner School of Education,

Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:12941311

DOI 10.1007/s10964-012-9767-6

differences in younger childrens attachments to mother and

father (see Grossmann et al.s 2002 review) and suggesting

that fathering tends to be more sensitive than mothering to

contextual factors such as childrens characteristics (e.g.,

NICHD 2000). Additionally, inasmuch as close relation-

ships with significant others extend beyond the family in

adolescence (e.g., Murray and Greenberg 2006; Murray and

Pianta 2007), the current study design reflected this com-

plexity. Thus, uniquely, the present study of adolescents

focused concurrently on three attachment-based factors,

namely, measures designed to capture processes identified

as important in attachment theory (Kerns et al. 2001): with

mothers, with fathers, and with homeroom teachers. As

suggested by prior research on younger children, teacher-

child relationships play an important role in understanding

childrens adjustment (Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004b;

Murray and Greenberg 2001, 2006; Pianta 1999). Together,

this study on adolescents attachment-based factors exam-

ined global attachment relationships (i.e., with the primary

caregiversmother and father) and specific attachment

relationships (i.e., with the teacher), and explored the extent

to which each of these three different attachment-based

relationships could explain variation in adjustment among

adolescents with and without LD.

An Attachment Perspective on Caregiver-Adolescent

Relationships

Bowlbys attachment theory (1973, 1982/1969) highlights

the role that interactions with significant others play in

personality and socioemotional development, extending

beyond early and middle childhood. Briefly, infants innate

attachment behavioral system targets restoration or main-

tenance of proximity to supportive others in times of need.

Thus, infants develop a differentiated and enduring rela-

tionship with their primary caretakers (Ainsworth and

Wittig 1969; Bowlby 1973, 1982/1969). Over time, these

interactions with significant others are internalized into

internal working models that comprise mental repre-

sentations of significant others and of the self. During

development, such mental representations set in motion the

interpretive filters that shape childrens beliefs and

expectations from their interpersonal milieu. These pro-

cesses may lead to unique and stable attachment styles

patterns of cognitions and behaviorsthat are expressed

both in later close interpersonal relationships (e.g., trust,

caregiving capacity) and in intrapersonal organization (e.g.,

emotional well-being, mental health).

Over recent decades, data from numerous empirical

studies have pinpointed the association between parent

child attachment style and typically developing childrens

socioemotional functioning and developmental outcomes

(e.g., for a review, see Grossmann et al. 2006), but these

associations were rarely studied in children with LD. The

many studies on typical development emphasized that

attachment relationships continue to influence interper-

sonal and psychosocial functioning beyond early and

middle childhood (Allen 2008; Al-Yagon 2011; Brenning

et al. 2011; Cassidy and Shaver 2008; Engels et al. 2001;

Gresham and Gullone 2012; Maysless and Scharf 2007).

The few existing studies on children with LD reported a

lower prevalence of secure attachment with parents, com-

pared to their non-LD peers (Al-Yagon 2007, 2010;

Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004a, b). Therefore, for ele-

mentary-school-age children with LD, research has

emphasized insecure parental attachment as a risk factor in

increasing socioemotional maladjustment (Al-Yagon and

Mikulincer 2004b; Murray and Greenberg 2006). The

internal neurological factors previously shown to corre-

spond with the academic aspects of LD (e.g., information-

processing disorders, impulsivity, performance and

production deficits) also have been associated these chil-

drens and adolescents social and emotional perceptions

and interpretations (see Al-Yagon and Margalit in press for

a research review). In turn, deficits in socio-cognitive pro-

cessing may be assumed not only to impair these youngsters

social, emotional, and behavioral skills but may also to

impair their specific and enduring relationships with signif-

icant others (Al-Yagon 2010; Bauminger and Kimhi-Kind

2008). Moreover, in line with attachment theorys emphasis

of caregivers quality of care as explaining individual dif-

ferences in attachment patterns, LD studies assumed that the

deficits experienced by youngsters with LD (e.g., in atten-

tion, language, and perception) may affect their parents

quality of care and ability to interpret accurately their

offspring needs for comfort and exploration (e.g., Al-Yagon

2010; Murray and Greenberg 2001).

To date, attachment patterns and their associations

among older children with LD, in adolescence, have not yet

been examined. Studies on typically developing adoles-

cents have shown profound changes in the attachment

processes that coincide with adolescent psychological

development, such as more explorative behaviors, less

dependency on parents and more productive problem-

solving during conflicts with parents (for a review, see

Allen 2008). Nevertheless, substantial associations con-

tinue to emerge between typical adolescents attachment

organization and various maladjustment measures such as

depression, anxiety, behavior problems, and low self-

esteem (Allen 2008; Irons and Gilbert 2005; Lee and

Hankin 2009; Muris et al. 2003). Moreover, research

studies suggested that adolescents developmental tasks,

such as autonomy and exploration, may unfold more easily

in the context of close, enduring, secure relationships with

parents (Allen and Land 1999; Steinberg and Morris 2001).

J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:12941311 1295

123

Even in typically developing adolescents, attachment

relationships with fathers have been investigated less than

those with mothers. However, research on father-child

attachment relationships among younger children showed

inconsistent findings. For example, several prior studies on

middle childhood linked secure attachment with fathers to

childrens positive interactions with peers, whereas other

studies failed to support such associations (for a review, see

Parke 2004). As argued by Grossmann et al. (2002), chil-

drens attachment with their fathers and mothers may

derive from different sets of early social experiences. Thus,

mothers often act as a secure base in times of distress,

whereas fathers often act as a challenging but reassuring

play partner (Lamb 2002; Lieberman et al. 1999). Fur-

thermore, studies on younger children also have reported

that secure attachment with fathers correlated with chil-

drens peer acceptance in the larger social network,

whereas secure attachment with mothers correlated with

childrens relationships in intimate small groups or dyadic

interactions (Verschueren and Marcoen 2005).

An Attachment Perspective on StudentTeacher

Relationships

According to Bowlbys (1973, 1982/1969) assumptions,

once a childs security needs are met and the parental figure

becomes a secure base, the child can then direct attention

and energy toward exploring the environment and engag-

ing in social interactions with others. These social inter-

actions may result in the formation of new, specific,

attachment-like relationships with different partners com-

prising siblings, other relatives, peers, as well as nonfa-

milial caregivers such as teachers. These partners also may

act as attachment figures, providing care and support in

times of need and becoming a source of secure base for

further exploration and learning skills (e.g., Bowlbys

1973, 1982/1969; Pianta 1999; Weiss 1998). Thus, in line

with Bowlby (1973), a childs working models of

attachment, originally developed based on early rela-

tionships with the primary caregivers, gradually become

generalized into new, specific attachment relationships

with others. Hence, these global working models are

assumed to affect childrens cognitions and behaviors in

these new specific attachment relationships.

Thus, the relationships that children form with teachers

at school may provide a crucially important sense of secure

base in the specific school context. Research has explored

child-teacher relationship qualitys impact on typically

developing childrens socioemotional functioning and

adjustment (Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2006; Pianta 1999).

Al-Yagon and Mikulincer (2006) identified two aspects of

childrens appraisal of their teachers as a secure base

teachers availability/acceptance and teachers rejection

that were linked differentially to childrens socioemotional

measures.

Studies on child-teacher relationships for children with

disabilities are scarce (e.g., Al-Yagon and Mikulincer

2004b; Murray and Greenberg 2001, 2006). For instance,

Al-Yagon and Mikulincer (2004b) found that elementary-

school-age children with LD appraised their homeroom

teachers as more rejecting and as less available and

accepting than did typical peers. The teachers themselves

also reported lower levels of emotional closeness to the

children with LD, and the study demonstrated these rela-

tionships role in childrens socioemotional adjustment.

For adolescents with LD, even less is known about

patterns of studentteacher relationships. Research on

typically developing early adolescents showed that the

quality of studentteacher relationships often deteriorates

following the transition from elementary to middle school

(e.g., Murray and Pianta 2007), with direct influences on

adolescents emotional and social health. For example,

Reddy et al. (2003) reported that the steepest declines in

studentteacher relationships from grades six through eight

correlated with early adolescents highest increases in

depression. Taken together, these findings call for addi-

tional investigations of studentteacher relationships

among adolescents with LD in high school and the possible

role of these relationships in explaining differences in

adolescents adjustment. To be noted, although homeroom

teachers in middle schools and high schools in Israel spend

less time with their students than in elementary schools, the

homeroom teachers continue to play a central role for

students in adolescence. Homeroom teachers usually spend

at least 12 weekly hours with the high school class as a

whole, discussing students specific social and educational

needs, including socioemotionally oriented curricula. In the

high school years, homeroom teachers also serve a variety

of roles such as mediating between students and their

teachers and coordinating communication between parents

and teachers.

Adolescents Socioemotional and Behavioral

Adjustment

A sharp increase has been well documented during ado-

lescence in the vulnerability, morbidity, and mortality

associated with various emotional, social, and behavioral

problems (e.g., Dahl 2004; Forbes and Dahl 2012; Jackson

and Goossens 2006; Lee and Hankin 2009; Muris et al.

2003; Steinberg and Morris 2001). In contrast, less research

has investigated the pervasiveness of such difficulties

among adolescents with LD, despite growing evidence that

younger children with LD demonstrate not only academic

1296 J Youth Adolescence (2012) 41:12941311

123

dysfunction but also prevalent co-occurring socioemotional

difficulties such as social information-processing difficul-

ties, peer rejection and loneliness, low self-concept, high

levels of depression and anxiety, more behavioral prob-

lems, and more withdrawn behaviors (Al-Yagon and

Margalit in press; Dyson 2003; Estell et al. 2008; Margalit

2006). The few studies existing on adolescents with LD

demonstrated the vulnerability of these adolescents to

higher levels of internalizing difficulties like loneliness,

stress, and anxiety (Feurer and Andrews 2009; Lackaye

and Margalit 2006; Wilson et al. 2009) as well as higher

levels of externalizing behaviors such as aggression,

delinquency, and risk-taking behaviors (McNamara et al.

2008). Thus, the current assessment of adolescents

socioemotional adjustment included both internalizing

aspects (loneliness, affect, and internalizing behavior syn-

drome) and externalizing aspects (externalizing behavior

syndrome), as described next.

Peer-Network and Peer-Dyadic Loneliness

The loneliness experience refers to a global indicator of

dissatisfaction from the quality and/or the quantity of

individuals social interrelations (Asher et al. 1990; Peplau

and Perlman 1982). Prior studies revealed that younger

children with LD often reported higher loneliness levels

compared to non-LD children (Al-Yagon 2010; Al-Yagon

and Mikulincer 2004b; Margalit 2006). Although there is

wide agreement that the loneliness experience is particu-

larly prevalent in the adolescent developmental period

(e.g., Brennan 1982; for a review, see Goossens 2006), the

rare studies on loneliness in adolescents with LD revealed

inconsistent findings (Lackaye and Margalit 2006; Tur-

Kaspa 2002), calling for additional exploration. Recently,

borrowing from Weisss (1973) theoretical distinction

between emotional and social loneliness dimensions,

studies on loneliness (Hoza et al. 2000; Qualter and Munn

2002) have underscored the need for separate assessments

of peer-dyadic loneliness (the emotional dimension),

which emerges from a deficiency in intimate close rela-

tionships and interpersonal bonding, as well as peer-net-

work loneliness (the social dimension), which emerges

from a deficiency in the social competencies necessary to

establish and maintain a social network.

Affect

Positive affect and negative affect hold unique importance

for understanding individuals mental health and well-

being (Clark and Watson 1988; Folkman and Moskowitz

2004), and their differential impact has been documented

widely (Watson et al. 1999). Negative emotions often may

restrict yet focus individuals thought-action repertoires

(e.g., fight or flight), whereas positive emotions may

increase global attention and information processing,

thereby enabling more flexible and creative thinking. Such

expansion may predict a positive spiral toward improved

well-being and resilience, thereby building psychological

resources and a coping arsenal for handling future adver-

sities (Fredrickson and Joiner 2002).

Over the transition from childhood to adolescence,

individuals experience an increase in negative emotions, a

reduction in positive emotions, and greater emotional

lability (Irons and Gilbert 2005; Larson 2000; Lee and

Hankin 2009). Research also suggested the association

between adolescents frequency of negative emotions and

their level of externalizing and internalizing behavior

problems (Goossens 2006; Silk et al. 2003). The rare

research examining affect among adolescents with LD

reported lower positive affect and higher negative affect

than their non-LD peers (e.g., Lackaye and Margalit 2006;

Maag and Reid 2006).

Externalizing and Internalizing Behavior Problems

A large body of evidence suggests that childrens mal-

adaptive functioning falls into two categories (Achenbach

1991; Achenbach and Dumenci 2001): internalizing (e.g.,

loneliness, anxiety, social withdrawal) and externalizing

(hyperactivity, aggression). Recent reviews for adolescence

(Lee and Hankin 2009; Steinberg and Morris 2001).

showed an inverted U-shaped curve depicting externalizing

problems (e.g., aggression, delinquency), with prevalence

peaking during the middle adolescent years and then

declining, whereas the prevalence rate for internalizing

problems (e.g., depression, anxiety) showed an increase

during adolescence that continued into adulthood.

Although widely examined among younger children with

LD, behavioral difficulties persistence into adolescence

has not been well investigated. A rare study on adolescents

with LD reported higher levels of externalizing behaviors

such as aggression, delinquency, and risk-taking than in

typically developing adolescents (McNamara et al. 2008).

The Current Study

Taken together, the literature reviewed here reveals some

important gaps calling for additional exploration. Few

studies on attachment and adjustment have extended their

investigation of LD from childhood to adolescence despite

growing awareness about the importance of close relation-

ships for adjustment throughout adolescence, about the

heightened vulnerability of the adolescent period, and about

the heightened vulnerability of the LD population. Greater

understanding of adolescents global and specific attachment


123

relationships, as well as the possible unique value of close

relationships with each attachment figure in adolescents

socioemotional functioning, may be of particular interest in

adolescents with LD, because these variables may act as risk

or protective factors during this period.

Thus, the present study aimed to examine two major

objectives among adolescents with LD in comparison to

adolescents with typical development: to investigate the

features of adolescents socioemotional adjustment, and to

explore the role of adolescents global and specific attach-

ment relationships (i.e., with parents and the homeroom

teacher), in explaining differences in adjustment measures

(positive/negative affect, peer-network/peer-dyadic loneli-

ness, and externalizing/internalizing problems). Corre-

sponding with these objectives, the present study sampled a

group of Israeli high-school students with formally diag-

nosed LD who attended regular classes, and a comparison

group of typically developing high-school students, to test

four general hypotheses. First, in line with prior research on

younger children, adolescents with LD will report a higher

level of socioemotional difficulties (e.g. Estell et al. 2008;

Margalit 2006; McNamara et al. 2008), as well as a lower

incidence of secure relationships with parents and teachers

maladjustment (e.g. Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004b;

Murray and Greenberg 2006) compared to typically

developing peers. Second, in accordance with previous

studies on typically developing adolescents (e.g. Engels

et al. 2001; Gresham and Gullone 2012; Maysless and

Scharf 2007), a higher level of well-adjusted functioning

will be explained by adolescents higher scores on attach-

ment-based factors in both groups. Third, adolescents with

LD will be more vulnerable to insecurity in close relation-

ships (as shown by previous studies on younger children

with LD (e.g. Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004b; Murray and

Greenberg 2006); therefore, they will demonstrate a greater

number of significant paths between attachment-based

factors and socioemotional/behavioral adjustment than the

non-LD group. Fourth, in line with prior research on

fathers possibly greater sensitivity than mothers to con-

textual factors like offsprings characteristics (e.g., NICHD

2000), differences will emerge regarding the contribution of

adolescents relationships with fathers versus with mothers;

thus, a greater number of significant paths will emerge

between adolescent-mother attachment and adjustment

measures, than for adolescent-father attachment.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 369 Jewish adolescents in the 10th

and 11th grades from three regular public high schools

serving similar demographic neighborhoods in urban areas

of Israel: 181 adolescents with formally diagnosed LD (100

girls, 81 boys) and 188 typically developing adolescents

(98 girls, 90 boys). Adolescents ages ranged from 15 to 17

years (M = 15.90, SD = .71), with 184 adolescents in the

10th grade and 185 in the 11th grade. Demographic char-

acteristics of the families of the adolescents in both groups

are presented in Table 1. A set of t test analyses as well as

Chi-square tests revealed no significant differences

between the LD and non-LD groups regarding adolescents

age or sex, or regarding parents education, marital status,

or work status.

LD Group

In accordance with the educational policy of the Israeli

Ministry of Education, all 181 adolescents in this group had

undergone previous psycho-educational evaluations that

yielded an LD diagnosis based on the DSM-IV-TR

(American Psychiatric Association 2000). The DSM-IV-TR

criteria comprised: (a) substantially lower achievements

(2? standard deviations below average) on standardized

tests in reading, writing, and/or mathematics than those

expected for age, schooling, and level of intelligence; and

(b) an average IQ level ranging from 85 to 115. As con-

firmed by school counselors, these 181 adolescents prior

DSM-based diagnosis of LD in reading, writing, and/or

mathematics also underwent a validation process by the

school psycho-educational team and by the national Min-

istry of Education committee, in order to: verify the diag-

nosis based on full access to the diagnostic evaluation

details; recommend appropriate remedial treatments; and

authorize the appropriate level and type of accommoda-

tions for everyday study and for the national matriculation

examinations. Along with these data obtained from the

school psychological staff, the adolescents themselves

reported: (a) age of diagnostic evaluation; (b) diagnostic

evaluations they had undergone (e.g., neuropsychological,

psychodidactic); (c) specific interventions received from

school psycho-educational staff and from out-of-school

resources; and (d) testing accommodations received from

the school psycho-educational team and the national Min-

istry of Education committee.

Comparison Group

To match the size of the LD group (who comprised about

10 % of the students in each classroom), 188 of their

classmates were randomly selected to serve as the non-LD

comparison group. These students without LD were mat-

ched to the students with LD for sex and class and also met

the following inclusion criteria for non-LD status. First,

according to self-reports on a demographic lifespan


123

information checklist, they: (a) had no difficulties in aca-

demic skills, specifically in reading, writing, or mathe-

matics; (b) had received no diagnostic evaluation or special

assistance from school staff or other professionals

(including medical treatments for severe or chronic ill-

ness); and (c) had received no testing accommodations

from the school psycho-educational team. Second, the

school counselors confirmed that these students showed

regular academic functioning without any remarkable

social, behavioral, emotional, or physical problems.

Instruments

Attachment Security to Parents

The 15-item Hebrew adaptation (Granot and Maysless

2001) of the Attachment Security Style scale (Kerns et al.

1996) assessed adolescents perceptions of security in

parentchild relationships using Harters (1982) 4-point

Some kids other kids format. The scale was admin-istered twice, once about mothers and once about fathers.

Participants were asked to respond these scales with regard

to their biological parents. Scores for each parent ranged

from 15 to 60, with a categorical cut-off point of 45 dis-

tinguishing secure from insecure adolescent-parent attach-

ment (Kerns et al. 1996). Previous findings demonstrated

the validity and reliability of the Attachment Security Style

scale (Kerns et al. 1996) in early adolescents (Lieberman

et al. 1999). In the current study, the Cronbach alphas were

.82 for the adolescent-mother scale and .85 for the ado-

lescent-father scale.

The Homeroom Teacher as an Attachment Figure

The 25-item Childrens Appraisal of Teacher as a Secure

Base (CATSB) scale (Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2006)

assessed adolescents perceptions of their homeroom tea-

cher as an attachment figure along a 7-point scale. Previous

findings demonstrated the validity and reliability of this

scale (e.g., Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004a, b, 2006). The

availability and acceptance subscale comprised 17 items

assessing the teacher as caring and as available in times of

need (e.g., My teacher is always there to help me when I

need her; Cronbach a = .94). The rejection subscalecomprised 8 items tapping the extent to which the ado-

lescent perceived the teacher as rejecting (e.g., My tea-

cher makes me feel unwanted; Cronbach a = .88).

Loneliness

The 16-item Hebrew adaptation (Al-Yagon 2011) of the

Peer-Network Loneliness and Peer-Dyadic Loneliness

Scale (PNDLS; Hoza et al. 2000) assessed two subscales of

loneliness using Harters (1982) 4-point Some kids

other kids format. The peer-network loneliness sub-scale comprised 8 items such as Some kids hardly ever

Table 1 Demographiccharacteristics

a e.g., computer technician

Adolescents with learning

disabilities (n = 181)

Adolescents with typical

development (n = 188)

n % n %

Parents marital status

Married 138 76 142 75.5

Divorced 43 24 46 24.5

Mothers education

University education 106 59 111 59

Professional coursesa 37 20 42 22

High school education 38 21 35 19

Mothers work status

Full time work 127 70 135 72

Part time work 34 19 31 16

Unemployed 20 11 22 12

Fathers education

University education 99 55 105 56

Professional coursesa 33 18 33 17.5

High school education 49 27 50 26.5

Fathers work status

Full time 156 86.2 160 85

Part time 13 7.2 16 8.5

Unemployed 12 6.6 12 6.5


123

feel accepted by others their ageButother kids feel

accepted by others their age most of the time (Cronbach a= .85). The peer-dyadic loneliness subscale comprised 8

items such as Some kids dont have a friend that they can

talk to about important thingsButothers kids do have a

friend that they can talk to about important things

(Cronbach a = .87). Prior findings demonstrated thevalidity and reliability of this scale (e.g., for a review, see

Hoza et al. 2000).

Affect

The 28-item Hebrew adaptation (Margalit and Ankonina

1991) of the two-factor Affect Scale (Moos et al. 1987)

reflected adolescents view of their own affect. Participants

rated the extent to which each item described their affect in

the last month, on a 5-point scale from Not at all appro-

priate (1) to Very appropriate (5). The positive affect

factor (including a positive affect subscale and a self-

confidence subscale) comprised 14 items such as ener-

getic and happy, and the negative affect factor

(including a negative affect subscale and a global depres-

sion subscale) comprised 14 items such as feel guilty or

worried. Higher scores reflected higher perceived type

of affect. Previous findings demonstrated the validity and

reliability of this scale (for a review, see Moos et al. 1987).

In the current study, the Cronbach alphas were .86 for the

positive affect factor and .88 for the negative affect factor.

Externalizing/Internalizing Behavior

The externalizing and internalizing syndrome scales from

the well-known standardized Youth Self-Report Version

for Age 1118 (YSR; Achenbach 1991) comprised 112

items addressing emotional and behavioral problems

among youth (Hebrew adaptation: Zilber et al. 1994) on a

3-point scale ranging from Not true (0) to Very/Often true

(2). Achenbachs (1991) principal components analyses

yielded eight narrow-band syndrome scales and two broad-

band syndrome scales. The present study used these two

broad-band syndromes scales, internalizing and external-

izing scales. Prior studies demonstrated the validity and

reliability of this scale (e.g., Achenbach 1991; Zilber et al.

1994). Internalizing syndrome scale consists of behaviors

such as withdrawal, somatic complaints, and anxiety/

depression (Cronbach a = .88) and externalizing syndromescale consists of behaviors such as delinquency and

aggressiveness (Cronbach a = .90).

Procedure

After obtaining approval from the Israeli Ministry of

Education and parental consent, one member of the

research team (comprising graduate students in educational

counseling) entered each classroom. A high percentage of

students agreed to participate in the study (more than 95 %

in both groups) and also had prior parental approval. All

data were collected from the three schools within one

month. At the start of the session, the team member dis-

tributed a set of five questionnaires (attachment, CATSB,

loneliness, affect, and YSRs behavioral subscales) to each

adolescent present in class. Before asking adolescents to

complete the questionnaire packet, the team member read

sample items aloud from each scale to ensure adolescents

understanding. During the session, as adolescents individ-

ually completed the scales, the team member provided

additional help if necessary (i.e., reading items aloud,

administrative guidance). Requests for such help were rare

and handled easily. As described above, information

regarding adolescents affiliation to LD/non-LD groups

were collected by both adolescents self-report and con-

firmation by the school counselors. All students who

qualified as LD were included in the current sample, and

then students without LD, matched for sex and class, were

randomly selected to form the non-LD comparison group.

Data Analysis

The first set of analyses, focusing on descriptive statistics,

investigated group differences: adolescents with LD versus

without LD. Second, analyses were conducted via the

structural equation modeling (SEM) method (AMOS pro-

gram). These analyses comprised the estimation of the

model examined in the current study, simultaneously for

the two groups. This multigroup SEM approach (MSEM)

measures the contribution of the interaction between the

group and the models components. Variable fitness to the

base model simultaneously considers the relationships

between the correlation and the existence of two groups

(Byrne 2001; Kline 1998).

Results

Descriptive Statistics for Adolescents with LD Versus

with Typical Development

To examine group differences in adolescents adjustment

and attachment-based measures and to decrease the chance

of Type 1 errors, a multivariate analysis of variance

(MANOVA) was conducted on group differences (adoles-

cents with/without LD), with the following 10 adolescent-

rated variables: attachment relationship with mothers,

attachment relationship with fathers, teachers availability/

rejection, peer-network/peer-dyadic loneliness, positive/

negative affect, and externalizing/internalizing behavior.


123

As hypothesized, the MANOVA yielded a significant main

effect for study group, F (10, 358) = 2.03, p = .03, g2 = .06.Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and

F scores for the univariate ANOVAs of all adolescents

measures for the two study groups: adolescents with/

without LD. Significant intergroup differences emerged on

most of the adolescents measures except for their positive

affect subscale. Thus, adolescents with LD reported sig-

nificantly higher negative affect, peer-network/peer-dyadic

loneliness, and externalizing/internalizing syndromes than

adolescents with typical development.

Regarding adolescents attachment-based factors, the

present findings showed that, as a group, adolescents with

LD reported lower scores on attachment relationships with

mothers and higher scores on the rejection subscale of the

CATSB (i.e., appraisal of the teacher as a secure base),

compared to non-LD adolescents. However, no significant

group differences emerged for adolescents attachment

with fathers or for the availability subscale of the CATSB

scale.

Estimations of the Model

This section describes the estimations of the model tested

in the current study via the SEM approach, which tests

simultaneously for its applicability to the two groups of

children. The correlation matrices of all the measured

variables are presented in Table 3. Testing of the current

model was conducted in three steps of estimation: (1) the

base model, (2) modified models consisting of the signifi-

cant pathways that emerged in the first step, and (3) group

comparisons.

Step 1: Estimation of the Base Model

The first step of analysis attempted to estimate the base

model simultaneously for the two groups (adolescents with

and without LD) by examining variable fitness to the base

model. Inasmuch as this approach simultaneously considers

the relationships between the correlation and the existence of

two groups, fitness is therefore reported once (Kline 1998).

This base model assumed that the exogenous variables of

adolescents close relationships with mothers, fathers, and

teachers (i.e., the independent variables; see left columns of

figures) would contribute to the endogenous socioemotional

variables (i.e., the dependent, variables; see figures right

columns) as follows. First, adolescents attachment with

fathers/mothers was assumed to contribute to each of their

socioemotional measures, whereas adolescents appraisal of

the teacher as a secure base (i.e., availability/rejection of the

CATSB subscales) was assumed to contribute only to ado-

lescents positive/negative affect subscales and externaliz-

ing/internalizing syndromes. Second, the model assumed a

relationship between the three exogenous variables them-

selves (i.e., among adolescents attachment with fathers/

mothers and appraisal of teachers as a secure base). Third, the

model assumed a relationship between the six endogenous

variables (i.e., feelings of peer-network/dyadic loneliness,

negative/positive affect, and externalizing/internalizing

problems). This examination of the base model demon-

strated a good fit, shown by the nonsignificant Chi-square

test, v2 (4, 369) = 3.60, p[.05, and by the high indices-of-fitvalues: NFI = 0.997, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 0.998, and RMSEA =

0.00. Thus, the first step of analysis revealed a high fit

between the theoretical model and the empirical data.

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and F scores of adolescents measures according to study group

Adolescents with learning

disabilities (n = 181)

Adolescents with typical

development (n = 188)

F (1,367) g2

M SD M SD

Socioemotional and behavioral measures

Negative affect 36.10 11.24 32.90 11.13 7.22** .02

Positive affect 51.08 9.90 52.20 8.80 1.34 .00

Peer-network loneliness 14.43 4.83 13.20 3.80 7.13** .02

Peer-dyadic loneliness 13.25 5.03 12.00 4.02 6.71** .02

Externalizing behaviors 16.60 9.70 13.72 8.17 9.22** .03

Internalizing behaviors 13.80 11.00 11.10 9.08 6.34* .02

Attachment-based measures

Adolescent-mother attachment 46.80 7.07 48.30 6.70 4.00* .01

Adolescent-father attachment 44.50 8.00 45.60 8.10 1.48 .00

Teachers availability 75.83 22.66 78.80 22.00 1.60 .00

Teachers rejection 16.20 9.60 14.00 7.85 5.80* .02

* p \ .05. ** p \ .01


123

Step 2: Estimation of the Modified Model

To design more parsimonious models for the empirical data,

only paths (relationhips) with significance higher than t [|2.00| were considered (Byrne 2001; Kline 1998). Thus, in

estimating the modified model, the following six non-signif-

icant paths were omitted: the path between adolescents

attachment with fathers and the externalizing syndrome, the

paths between adolescents appraisal of the teacher as caring

and available and adolescents negative affect and externa-

lizing/internalizing problems, the paths between adolescents

appraisal of the teacher as rejecting and the negative/positive

affect subscales. Therefore, the modified model comprised

only the significant remaining paths. Thus, the current out-

come of the Chi-square test was nonsignificant, v2 (10, 369) =11.56, p [ .05, and the indices-of-fit values demonstrated ahigh fit: NFI = 0.991, CFI = 0.999, GFI = .994, and RMSEA =

0.02. This step indicated a high fit between the modified model

in both groups and the empirical findings (see Fig. 1).

Step 3: Group Comparison

In this step, a group comparison was conducted in order to

estimate the contribution of the interaction between the two

groups and the models components. This analysis showed

significant group differences between the modified model

for the adolescents with LD versus the modified model for

the adolescents with typical development: CMIN (i.e.,

minimum value of the Chi-square discrepancy) = 112.22,

p \ .001. The outcome of the Chi-square test was non-significant, v2 (20, 369) = 15.13, p [ .05, and the indices-of-fit values demonstrated a high fit: NFI = 0.989, CFI =

1.00, GFI = 0.992, and RMSEA = 0.00. Figures 2 and 3

present the modified models for the adolescents with and

without LD, respectively.

Modified Model for Adolescents with LD

Contribution of Exogenous Variables to the Endogenous

Variables

As seen in Fig. 2, in the model modified for the adolescents

with LD, the exogenous variable attachment with mothers

significantly contributed to the explanation of all of the

endogenous variables: negative and positive affect (B =

-.49 and B = .40, respectively), peer-network/peer-dyadic

loneliness (B = -.42 and B = -.27, respectively), and

externalizing/internalizing behavior syndromes (B = -.25

and B = -.32, respectively). Adolescents with LD who felt

more securely attached with the mother thus reported lower

negative affect, higher positive affect, lower feelings of

peer-network/peer-dyadic loneliness, as well as lower

levels of externalizing and internalizing behavior problems,

compared to adolescents with LD who felt less securely

attached. In contrast, the exogenous variable attachment

with fathers significantly contributed only to one endoge-

nous variable: positive affect (B = .12). Adolescents with

LD who felt more securely attached with the father

reported higher positive affect than adolescents with LD

who felt less securely attached with the father.

Regarding the exogenous variables of adolescents

appraisal of the teacher as a secure base, the current results

indicated that the exogenous variable teacher availability

significantly contributed to the explanation of adolescents

positive affect (B = .15), and the exogenous variable tea-

cher rejection significantly contributed to the explanation

of adolescents externalizing behavior syndrome (B = .37).

Thus, adolescents with LD who appraised their teachers as

more caring and as available in times of need reported a

higher level of positive affect compared to adolescents with

LD who appraised their teachers as less caring and

Table 3 Correlation matrices of the study variables for the two groups

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Adolescents with typical development (n = 188)

1. Adolescent-mother attachment .46 .18* -.18* -.43 .32 -.33 -.26 -.28 -.43

2. Adolescent-father attachment .34 .20** -.27 -.45 .39 -.38 -.31 -.21** -.34

3. Teachers availability .24 0.12 -.60 -.16* .26 -0.06 -0.13 -.25 -.18*

4. Teachers rejection -.16* -0.06 -.60 -.23 -.28 0.09 .17* .41 .31

5. Negative affect -.41 -.30 -.22** .17* -.69 .29 .18* .38 .60

6. Positive affect .40 .34 .33 -.23** -.67 -.41 -.25 .20** -.46

7. Peer-network loneliness -.34 -.24** -.18* .18* .38 -.45 .59 0.12 .43

8. Peer-dyadic loneliness -.22** -0.13 -0.12 0.09 .15* -.33 .58 0.11 .35

9. Externalizing behaviors -.28 -0.07 -.23** .40 .29 -0.13 .21** .15* .54

10. Internalizing behaviors -.27 -.21** -.15* .17* .62 -.49 .53 .28 .45

Adolescents with learning disabilities (n = 181)

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; p \ .001


123

Independent/ Dependent/ exogenous endogenous

factors factors

Negative affect

Positive affect

Peer-network loneliness

Internalizing problems

Externalizing problems

Peer-dyadic loneliness

-.38-.27

-.31.27

.16-.31

-.21

-.23-.15

.39-.26

.09

-.16

-.31

Adolescent-mother attachment

Adolescent-father attachment

Teachers availability and acceptance

Teachers rejection

Fig. 1 Modified model for bothgroups. NFI = 0.991, CFI =

0.999, GFI = .994, and RMSEA

= 0.02. All presented paths are

significant. Exogenous factors

(i.e., independent variables) are

presented within rectangles in

the left column. Endogenous/

latent factors (i.e., dependent

variables, in the right column)

are presented within ovals

Independent/ Dependent/ exogenous endogenous factors

factors

Negative affect

Positive affect





-.49

.40.12

-.42

-.27

-.32

-.25

.15

.37




Teachers rejection

Fig. 2 Modified model foradolescents with learning

disabilities. All presented paths

are significant


123

available. In addition, adolescents with LD who appraised

their teachers as more rejecting reported a higher level of

externalizing behavior problems compared to adolescents

with LD who appraised their teacher as less rejecting.

Modified Model for Adolescents without LD

Contribution of Exogenous Variables to Endogenous

Variables

Similarly to the model modified for the adolescents with

LD, in the model modified for the adolescents with typical

development (seen in Fig. 3), the exogenous variable

attachment with mothers significantly contributed to the

explanation of all of the endogenous variables: negative

and positive affect (B = -.35 and B = .21, respectively),

peer-network/peer-dyadic loneliness (B = -.25 and B =

-.19, respectively), and externalizing/internalizing behav-

ior syndromes (B = -.25 and B = -.48, respectively).

Typically developing adolescents who felt more securely

attached with the mother thus reported lower negative

affect, higher positive affect, lower feelings of peer-net-

work/peer-dyadic loneliness, as well as lower levels of

externalizing and internalizing behavior problems com-

pared to typically developing adolescents who felt less

securely attached with the mother.

In contrast to the model modified for adolescents with

LD, in the model modified for the non-LD group, the

exogenous variable attachment with fathers significantly

contributed to a greater number of significant paths of the

endogenous variables: negative and positive affect (B =

-.31 and B = .28, respectively) and peer-network/peer-

dyadic loneliness (B = -.29 and B = -.19, respectively).

Typically developing adolescents who felt more securely

attached with the father reported lower negative affect,

higher positive affect, and lower feelings of peer-net-

work/peer-dyadic loneliness than typically developing

adolescents who felt less securely attached with the

father.

Regarding the exogenous variables of adolescents

appraisal of the teacher as a secure base, the exogenous

variable teacher availability significantly contributed to the

explanation of adolescents positive affect (B = .18), and

the exogenous variable teacher rejection significantly

contributed to the explanation of adolescents externalizing

and internalizing behavior syndromes (B = .40 and B = .21,

respectively). Thus, typically developing adolescents who

appraised their teachers as more caring and as available in

times of need reported a higher level of positive affect

compared to typically developing adolescents who

appraised their teachers as less caring and available. In

addition, typically developing adolescents who appraised

their teachers as more rejecting reported a higher level of

both internalizing and externalizing behavior problems

compared to those typically developing adolescents who

appraised their teacher as less rejecting.

Independent/ Dependent/ exogenous endogenous

factors factors

Negative affect

Positive affect





-.35 -.31

.21 .28

.18

-.25 -.29

-.19

-.48

-.25

-.12

.21

.40




Teachers rejection

Fig. 3 Modified model foradolescents with typical

development. All presented

paths are significant


123

Discussion

The current study aimed to investigate two major objec-

tives among adolescents with LD in comparison to ado-

lescents with typical development. First, the present study

aimed to examine the features of adolescents socioemo-

tional adjustment comprising positive/negative affect,

peer-network/peer-dyadic loneliness, and externalizing/

internalizing problems. And second, to explore the role of

adolescents attachment relationships with significant

adults (mother, father, and homeroom teacher) in explain-

ing differences in these adjustment measures. These

objectives are of particular interest due to the scarcity of

research on prevalence rates of socioemotional difficulties

among adolescents with LD, despite growing evidence

of such difficulties among younger children with LD

(Al-Yagon and Margalit in press; Dyson 2003; Estell et al.

2008; Margalit 2006). Furthermore, patterns of close rela-

tionships with significant adults are of particular interest in

LD populations during adolescence, because attachment

relationship variables may act as risk or protective factors

during this developmental period (e.g., Allen 2008; Engels

et al. 2001; Gresham and Gullone 2012; Maysless, and

Scharf 2007). Thus, in accordance with these objectives,

the present study sampled a group of high-school students

with formally diagnosed LD who attended regular classes,

and a comparison group of their typically developing

classmates.

Overall, the findings supported the hypotheses, indicat-

ing significant group differences between adolescents with

and without LD on most of the socioemotional measures as

well as a high fit between the theoretical model and the

empirical findings. Results demonstrated similar paths

between adolescent-mother attachment and adolescent

adjustment for the two populations studied, but significant

group differences emerged for the contribution of adoles-

cents close relationships with fathers/teachers to adoles-

cents adjustment. Before addressing the results of the

SEM analyses, the following section first briefly discusses

the findings yielded by the descriptive statistics.

LD Versus Typical Development Groups

In line with the hypotheses, the current findings clearly

demonstrated that adolescents with LD manifested more

socioemotional difficulties than did their typically devel-

oping peers. As a group, these adolescents with LD

reported higher levels of negative affect, peer-network and

peer-dyadic loneliness, and externalizing and internalizing

behavior problems. As noted above, few prior studies on

LD have examined the prevalence rates of such socio-

emotional difficulties in adolescence (e.g., Lackaye and

Margalit 2006; McNamara et al. 2008), despite LD

research pinpointing younger childrens vulnerability to a

variety of difficulties in the social and emotional domains

(e.g., Pavri and Monda-Amaya 2000; Weiner and Schnei-

der 2002).

Group differences also emerged on several of the

attachment-based factors, which rarely have been examines

among adolescents. Thus, the adolescents with LD reported

less secure attachment relationships with mothers and

higher appraisals of teachers as rejecting, compared to their

typically developing peers. These new outcomes regarding

adolescents attachment relationships with mothers

resembled those reported for younger children with LD

(Al-Yagon 2010; Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004b; Murray

and Greenberg 2001, 2006). However, with regard to

adolescents attachment relationships with fathers, the

current findings were at odds with the studys hypotheses,

indicating no significant group differences. It should be

noted that adolescents from both groups reported lower

scores on the adolescent-father attachment scale than the

adolescent-mother attachment scale, revealing a similar

pattern to elementary-school-age children in previous

research (e.g., Verschueren and Marcoen 2005). This

finding also resembled prior outcomes indicating that, from

early to late adolescence, both female and male adolescents

rated the quality of their affect toward fathers as lower than

toward mothers and tended to use their fathers less often

than their mothers for support and proximity (e.g., see

Lieberman et al. 1999 for review). Thus, one may speculate

that this decrease in turning to fathers as a source of

emotional support as children grow into adolescence may

contribute to the patterns found here (the paths between

adolescent-father relationships and socioemotional mea-

sures) for the two groups. However, inasmuch as adoles-

cents attachment relationships with fathers rarely have

been investigated, more explanations for this finding

should await further investigation.

Data from the current study also suggested that adoles-

cents with LD appraised their teachers as more rejecting

figures, compared to their typically developing peers

appraisals. Although close relationships with teachers were

not often examined among adolescents with LD, these

results did resemble prior findings where elementary-

school-age children with LD appraised their teachers as

more rejecting than did typical peers (Al-Yagon and Mi-

kulincer 2004b; Murray and Greenberg 2001, 2006). With

regard to adolescents appraisal of teachers as available in

times of need, the current results were at odds with the

studys hypothesis, revealing no significant differences

between the two groups. These findings raise some

important questions regarding the possible factors that may

affect adolescent-teacher relationships. For example, is it

possible that the additional assistance provided to adoles-

cents with LD from teachers (e.g., test accommodations,


123

special instructions) comprises an important but insuffi-

cient factor in determining these adolescents appraisal of

teachers as a secure base? Do schools organizational

structures like school climate and values contribute to

adolescents appraisal of teachers as a secure base? Such

questions emerge from the database produced in the current

study, calling for additional qualitative exploration.

Overall, although the current findings based on com-

parisons of these two groups are preliminary, these initial

evidences suggest that maladjustment and less secure

attachments in individuals with LD may extend into ado-

lescence. Presumably, as described above, these adoles-

cents internal neurological functioning that corresponds

with their academic difficulties such as information-pro-

cessing disorders or impulsivitymay similarly influence

their social and emotional perceptions and interpretations.

These socioemotional processing deficits may, in turn,

impair childrens social, emotional, and behavioral skills

(for a review, see Al-Yagon and Margalit in press), with

deleterious impact on the development of specific and

enduring relationships with significant others in adoles-

cence. Furthermore, in keeping with attachment theorys

focus on caregivers quality of care as explaining individ-

ual differences in attachment relationships, disorders like

attention, language, and perception deficits may interfere

with parents quality of care and their capacity to accu-

rately interpret their offsprings needs for comfort and

exploration (e.g., Al-Yagon 2010; Murray and Greenberg

2001).

Estimation of the Model

Caregiver-Adolescent Relationships

As hypothesized, the current study highlighted the signifi-

cant role of attachment relationships with mothers and

fathers in explaining differences in adolescents well-

adjusted functioning, among both populations studied.

Indeed, the modified models for the two groups showed a

similar contribution of adolescent-mother attachment to

adolescents adjustment measures. However, group differ-

ences emerged regarding the contribution of adolescents

close relationships with fathers and teachers. Findings also

revealed differences in the role of adolescent-mother

attachment versus adolescent-father attachment, in

explaining adolescents measures.

Several of the present findings may expand knowledge

regarding the role of attachment relationships among ado-

lescents with and without LD. Studies rarely have exam-

ined the possible contribution of these relationships to

well-adjusted functioning among adolescents with LD,

despite prior studies pinpointing a lower prevalence of

secure attachment with parents among younger children

with LD compared to their typically developing counter-

parts (Al-Yagon 2007; Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004a,

b), and despite research reporting the role of insecure

attachment as a risk factor in increasing maladjustment in

these younger children with LD (Al-Yagon and Mikulincer

2004b; Murray and Greenberg 2006). Thus, the current

findings highlighted the relevance and validity of attach-

ment theory for explaining differences in the socioemo-

tional difficulties of individuals with LD at later ages, in

high school.

Moreover, the current findings suggested a possible

unique role played by adolescents attachment to each

parent. Specifically, a greater number of significant paths

emerged between adolescent-mother attachment relation-

ships and adolescents socioemotional measures than for

adolescent-father attachment. In fact, adolescent-mother

attachment contributed to all of the adolescents socio-

emotional measures in both groups. Namely, adolescents

who viewed themselves as more securely attached with the

mother reported having lower negative affect, higher

positive affect, lower peer-network/peer-dyadic loneliness,

and lower levels of internalizing/externalizing behavior

problems, compared to adolescents with less secure rela-

tionships with the mother. On the other hand, typically

developing adolescents who viewed themselves as more

securely attached with the father showed fewer significant

paths in their modified model (having lower negative

affect, higher positive affect, and lower peer-network/peer-

dyadic loneliness compared to adolescents with less secure

relationships). As for the adolescents with LD, their model

revealed only one significant path, indicating that those

with a more secure attachment to the father reported higher

positive affect.

Taken together, although adolescents attachment rela-

tionships with fathers have been less studied, the current

findings resemble prior studies that examined the possible

unique role of younger childrens attachment to each parent

(Lamb 2002; Lieberman et al. 1999; Verschueren and

Marcoen 2005). The present results also support previous

data that linked secure attachment with fathers to childrens

positive interactions with peers in middle childhood (for a

review, see Parke 2004). However, the scant contribution

found here for adolescent-father relationships in the group

of adolescents with LD raises some important questions

calling for additional investigation. For example, prior

research has suggested that fathering tends to be more

sensitive to contextual factors such as childrens charac-

teristics (e.g., NICHD 2000). Also, early studies on fami-

lies of children with severe disabilities have described a

maternal tendency toward over involvement with children

and a paternal tendency toward withdrawal behaviors,

either emotional or physical (Levy 1970). In light of these

earlier studies, one may speculate that fathers of


123

adolescents with LD may reduce their involvement and

availability in adolescents daily lives, which in turn may

contribute to more insecure patterns of adolescent-father

relationships. Such questions call for further empirical

exploration to deepen the understanding of these important

close relationships.

Adolescent-Teacher Relationships

The current findings highlighted the potential role of ado-

lescent-teacher relationships for several of the adolescents

adjustment measures. For both populations studied, ado-

lescents appraisal of the teacher as available in times of

need explained individual differences in their positive

affect. In addition, adolescents appraisal of the teacher as

rejecting explained individual differences in their exter-

nalizing behavior problems. In contrast, only for the non-

LD group, teachers rejection showed a significant contri-

bution to adolescents externalizing problems.

These preliminary findings may extend the literature in

this field, which scarcely examined the associations between

adolescents close relationships with teachers and their so-

cioemotional functioning. Based on the present findings as

well as prior studies indicating that younger children with

LD appraised teachers as more rejecting than their typically

developing peers did (Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004b;

Murray and Greenberg 2001, 2006). The present outcomes

showed fewer significant paths between adolescents

appraisal of teachers as a secure base and their adjustment

measures in the LD group than in the non-LD group. These

somewhat surprising findings for adolescents differed from

previous studies showing that younger children with dis-

abilities were more vulnerable to negative close relation-

ships with teachers (Al-Yagon and Mikulincer 2004b;

Murray and Greenberg 2001, 2006), thus raising some

important questions calling for further exploration. For

example, one may speculate that these adolescents inter-

actions with other attachment-like figures (e.g., educational

counselors, special education teachers) may play a more

important contribution than their interactions with home-

room teachers. In addition, future research should examine

the possible impact of the number of class hours spent with

the homeroom teacher versus other attachment-like figures

in school who are involved more intensely in these students

remedial education.

Implications

Overall, the implications of the current findings emphasizing

the possible protective role of adolescents close relation-

ships with mothers, fathers, and teachers, especially when

validated by further research, concern the development of

effective interventions among adolescents with LD in family

and school settings. Although interventions may be useful

for adolescents from both groups, the present findings clearly

revealed the LD groups heightened vulnerability to insecure

attachment relationships with significant others (more inse-

cure attachment to their mothers and greater sense of rejec-

tion to their teachers compared to the non-LD group). To this

end, family interventions targeting the LD group may focus

on enhancing the quality of parent-adolescent attachment

relationships. Empowering parents to establish a secure base

for their adolescent offspring may include encouraging

collaborative rather than coercive parenting strategies,

understanding the role of conflict in adolescence, and dealing

with youngsters emerging need for autonomy (Diamond

et al. 2003; Moretti and Obsuth 2009). Specifically for

fathers, such interventions may work toward increasing

paternal levels of involvement, availability, and support, to

provide more optimal care and secure base for both adoles-

cents with and without LD (Lamb and Billings 1997;

Saloviita et al. 2003). Schools interventions may focus on

fostering the quality of adolescents close relationships with

teachers through provision of an authoritative teaching style

that comprises warm but demanding behaviors along with

positive praise and feedback (for a review, see Murray and

Pianta 2007). Professionals who develop such family or

school-based programs (e.g., Van Ryzin 2011), should

examine their effectiveness in reducing adolescents socio-

emotional and behavioral problems.

Limitations and Directions for Future Study

Several limitations of this study call for further research.

First, the present findings were gathered at one point in

time and did not indicate causality. To facilitate validation

and generalization of these preliminary evidences, as well

as to promote greater understanding of the possibly unique

role of close relationships with each of these attachment

figures, for the socioemotional adjustment of adolescents

with LD, future studies should examine the longevity of

such perceptions over time and utilize qualitative interview

methods to elaborate on these adolescents structured self-

reports. Furthermore, it should be noted that although the

current preliminary outcomes as well as prior research

(e.g., Allen 2008; Irons and Gilbert 2005; Lee and Hankin

2009; Muris et al. 2003) suggested the contribution of

adolescents attachment relationships to various malad-

justment measures such as depression, anxiety, and

behavior problems, such findings may also may raise an

important question regarding the possible bidirectionality

of these interrelationships. In particular, adolescents mal-

adjustment, such as aggressive or oppositional behaviors,

may elicit more criticism or rejection from their teachers

and parents, thereby impairing the quality of their close

relationships.


123

Second, conceptual matters merit a word of caution

despite the current interesting findings regarding the role of

attachment-based factors. Inasmuch as attachment is only

one component of parent-adolescent relationships, addi-

tional aspects of these relationships should be considered,

such as parent-adolescent level of conflicts, parental

availability, parental monitoring levels, and parental sup-

port (White and Renk 2012). In this context, it also should

be noted that the present sample size did not permit

examination of parental and familial characteristics such as

parents marital status and various family life stressors and

changes. For example, the current sample showed a high

incidence of intact families. Thus, the present findings

should be interpreted with caution to avoid generalizing the

findings to divorced or separated families that may be

characterized by fathers low levels of availability.

Third, the current data focused exclusively on adolescents

perceptions, in line with prior studies emphasizing the higher

reliability found for childrens and adolescents self-reports

compared to others reports, when measuring perceptions of

close relationships and emotional features (e.g., Lynch and

Cicchetti 1997; Ronen 1997). However, one may speculate

that inclusion of additional information sources such as

parental, teacher, and peer evaluations, direct observations,

and interviews may provide a more complete picture.

Fourth, the present study, which addressed individual

differences in actual attachment relationships with each

parent, attempted to offer a complementary perspective for

investigating adolescents attachment using the well-known

and well-validated attachment scale that classifies attach-

ment by differentiating secure from insecure styles (Kerns

et al. 1996). To further elucidate adolescents patterns of

attachment, future research may do well to examine, too, the

possible unique contribution of two insecure attachment

subclassificationsinsecure avoidant style and insecure

anxious styleand also may explore the possible unique role

of other attachment instruments that evaluate attachment

(e.g., state of mind with respect to attachment, Main et al.

2003). Other such instruments may include the Adult

Attachment Interview (AAI; George et al. 1985), Experi-

ences in Close Relationships Scale (Brennan et al. 1998),

Attachment Interview for Childhood and Adolescence

(Ammaniti et al. 2000), or Attachment AQ (Hazan and

Shaver 1987). Additionally, because adolescents tend to

transfer dependencies from parental to peer relationships,

further study also may explore the possible role of adoles-

cents close relationships with friends for their well-adjusted

functioning.

Lastly, the current study focused on adolescents

appraisal of their relationships with homeroom teachers

and did not examine teachers perspectives. Further study

should investigate not only the associations between these

two perspectives but also the longevity of adolescents

perceptions of teachers as a secure base over time, as well

as adolescents appraisals of other school figures (e.g.,

educational counselors, special education teachers). To be

noted, because attachment is only one component of tea-

cher-adolescent relationships, additional aspects of these

relationships also should be investigated. In this context,

future studies also may focus on teachers individual

characteristics such as years of experience, teaching style,

and their own attachment patterns.

Conclusions

In general, the current findings indicating significant group

differences between adolescents with and without LD on

most of the socioemotional measures suggested that, sim-

ilarly to younger children with LD, adolescents with LD

demonstrate not only academic dysfunction but also pre-

valent co-occurring socioemotional difficulties such as

high levels of negative affect, peer-network and peer-

dyadic loneliness, and externalizing and internalizing

behavior problems. Importantly, these findings pinpointed

the possible protective role of adolescents close relation-

ships with significant adults (i.e., mothers, fathers, and

teachers) in explaining adjustment in adolescents with and

without LD. Thus, the modified SEM models for the two

groups showed a similar contribution of adolescent-mother

attachment to adolescents adjustment measures. However,

group differences did emerge regarding the contribution of

adolescents close relationships with fathers and with

teachers, where the group of adolescents with LD showed

fewer significant paths between their close relationships

with fathers/teachers and their socioemotional measures.

The results also indicated that, in both groups, a greater

number of significant paths emerged for adolescent-mother

attachment relationships than for adolescent-father and

adolescent-teacher attachment relationships vis-a`-vis ado-

lescents socioemotional measures. This pattern of findings

highlights the need to further scrutinize the role of close

relationships with fathers and with teachers in the adoles-

cent developmental period, especially among the group of

adolescents with LD. Overall, these findings may have

several implications, especially when validated by further

research, for designing effective prevention and interven-

tion concerning socioemotional and behavioral difficulties

in adolescence with and without LD.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist:418 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont,Department of Psychiatry.


123

Achenbach, T. M., & Dumenci, L. (2001). Advances in empirically

based assessment: Revised cross-informant syndromes and new

DSM-oriented scale for CBCL, YSR, and TRF: Comment ofLengua, Sadowski, Friedrich, and Fisher (2001). Journal ofCounseling and Clinical Psychology, 69, 699702.

Ainsworth, M. D., & Wittig, B. A. (1969). Attachment and

exploratory behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. In

B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behavior (Vol. 4,pp. 113136). London: Methuen.

Allen, J. P. (2008). The attachment system in adolescence. In J.

Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,research, and clinical applications (pp. 419435). New York:Guilford Press.

Allen, J. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J.

Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,research, and clinical applications (pp. 223319). New York:Guilford Press.

Al-Yagon, M. (2007). Socioemotional and behavioral adjustment

among school-age children with learning disabilities: The

moderating role of maternal personal resources. Journal ofSpecial Education, 40, 205217.

Al-Yagon, M. (2010). Maternal emotional resources and socio-

emotional well-being of children with and without learning

disabilities. Family Relations, 59, 152169.Al-Yagon, M. (2011). Adolescents subtypes of attachment security

with fathers and mothers and self-perceptions of socioemotional

adjustment. Psychology, 2, 291299.Al-Yagon, M., & Margalit, M. (in press). Social cognition of children

and adolescents with LD: Intrapersonal and interpersonal

perspectives. In H. L. Swanson, K. Harris, S. Graham (Eds.),

Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed). New York: GuilfordPress.

Al-Yagon, M., & Mikulincer, M. (2004a). Patterns of close relation-

ships and socio-emotional and academic adjustment among

school-age children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabil-ities Research and Practice, 19, 1219.

Al-Yagon, M., & Mikulincer, M. (2004b). Socioemotional and

academic adjustment among children with learning disorders:

The mediational role of attachment-based factors. Journal ofSpecial Education, 38, 111123.

Al-Yagon, M., & Mikulincer, M. (2006). Childrens appraisal of

teacher as a secure base and their socio-emotional and academic

adjustment in middle childhood. Research in Education, 75, 118.American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical

manual of mental disorders (text revision). Washington, DC:Author.

Ammaniti, M., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Speranza, A. M., & Tambelli,

R. (2000). Internal working models of attachment during late

childhood and early adolescence: An exploration of stability and

change. Attachment and Human Development, 2, 328346.Asher, S. R., Parkhurst, J. T., Hymel, S., & Williams, G. A. (1990).

Peer rejection and loneliness in childhood. In S. R. Asher & J.

D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 253273).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bauminger, N., & Kimhi-Kind, I. (2008). Social information

processing, security of attachment, and emotional regulation in

children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabil-ities, 41, 315332.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Anxiety, anger, andseparation. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1982/1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment. NewYork: Basic Books.

Brennan, T. (1982). Loneliness at adolescence. In L. A. Peplau & D.

Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory,research and therapy (pp. 269290). New York: Wiley.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report

measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J.

A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and closerelationships (pp. 4676). New York: Guilford Press.

Brenning, K., Soenens, B., Braet, C., & Bal, S. (2011). The role of

parenting and mother-adolescent attachment in the intergenera-

tional similarity of internalizing symptoms. Journal of Youth andAdolescence. Advance online publication.

Bretherton, I. (2010). Fathers in attachment theory and research: A

review. Early Child Development and Care, 180, 923.Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Handbook of attachment: Theory,research, and clinical applications (2nd ed.). New York:Guilford Press.

Christie-Mizell, C. A., Keil, J. M., Laske, M. T., & Stewart, J. (2011).

Bullying behavior, parents work hours and early adolescents

perceptions of time spent with parents. Youth and Society, 43,15701595.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1988). Mood and the mundane: Relations

between daily life events and self-report mood. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 54, 296308.

Dahl, R. E. (2004). Adolescents brain development: A period of

vulnerabilities and opportunities. Annals New York Academy ofSciences, 1021, 122.

Diamond, G., Siqueland, L., & Diamond, G. M. (2003). Attachment-

based family therapy for depressed adolescents: Programmatic

treatment development. Clinical Child and Family PsychologyReview, 6, 107127.

Dyson, L. L. (2003). Children with learning disabilities within the

family context: A comparison with sibling in global self-concept,

academic self-perception, and social competence. LearningDisabilities Research and Practice, 18, 19.

Engels, R. C., Finkenauer, C., Meeus, W., & Dekovic0, M. (2001).Parental attachment and adolescents emotional adjustment: The

association with social skills and relational competence. Journalof Counseling Psychology, 48, 428439.

Estell, D. B., Jones, M. H., Pearl, R., Van Acker, R., Farmer, T. W., &

Rodkin, P. C. (2008). Peer group, popularity, and social

preference trajectories of social functioning among students

with and without learning disabilities. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 41, 514.

Feurer, D. P., & Andrews, J. J. W. (2009). School-related stress and

depression on adolescents with and without learning disabilities:

An exploratory study. The Alberta Journal of EducationalResearch, 55, 92108.

Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and

promise. Annual Review in Psychology, 55, 745774.Forbes, E. E., & Dahl, R. E. (2012). Research review: Altered reward

function in adolescent depression: What, when and how?

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 315.Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger

upward spiral toward emotional well-being. PsychologicalScience, 13, 172175.

George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). The adult attachmentinterview. Unpublished protocol, Department of Psychology,University of California, Berkeley.

Goossens, L. (2006). Affect, emotion, and loneliness in adolescence.

In S. Jackson & L. Goossens (Eds.), Handbook of adolescentdevelopment (pp. 5170). New York: Psychology Press.

Granot, D., & Maysless, O. (2001). Attachment security and

adjustment to school in middle childhood. International Journalof Behavioral Development, 25, 530541.

Gresham, D., & Gullone, E. (2012). Emotion regulation strategy use

in children and adolescents: The explanatory roles of personality


123

and attachment. Personality and Individual Differences, 52,616621.

Grossmann, K. E., Grossmann, K., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, H.,

Scheurer-Englisch, H., & Zimmerman, P. (2002). The unique-

ness of the child-father attachment relationships: Fathers

sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year

longitudinal study. Social Development, 11, 207331.Grossmann, K. E., Grossmann, K., & Waters, E. (2006). Attachment

from infancy to adulthood. New York: Guilford Press.Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child

Development, 53, 8797.Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as

an attachment process. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 52, 511524.

Hoza, B., Bukowski, W. M., & Beery, S. (2000). Assessing peer

network and dyadic loneliness. Journal of Clinical ChildPsychology, 29, 119128.

Irons, C., & Gilbert, P. (2005). Evolved mechanisms in adolescent

anxiety and depression symptoms: The role of the attachment

and social rank systems. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 325341.Jackson, S., & Goossens, L. (2006). Handbook of adolescent

development. New York: Psychology Press.Kerns, K. A., Aspelmeier, J. E., Gentzler, A. L., & Grabill, C. M.

(2001). Parent-child attachment and monitoring in middle

childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(1), 6981.Kerns, K. A., Klepac, L., & Cole, A. (1996). Peer relationships and

preadolescents perceptions of security in the child-mother

relationship. Developmental Psychology, 32, 457466.Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation

modeling. New York: Guilford Press.Lackaye, T., & Margalit, M. (2006). Comparisons of achievement,

effort and self-perceptions among students with learning dis-

abilities and their peers from different achievement groups.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 432446.Lamb, M. E. (2002). Infant-father attachments and their impact on

child development. In C. TamisLeMonda, & N. Cabrera (Eds.),

Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives(pp. 93117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lamb, M. E., & Billings, A. G. (1997). Fathers of children with

special needs. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father inchild development (3rd ed., pp. 179190). New York: JohnWiley.

Larson, R. (2000). Towards psychology of positive youth develop-

ment. American Psychologist, 55, 170183.Lee, A., & Hankin, B. L. (2009). Insecure attachment, dysfunctional

attitudes, and low self-esteem predicting prospective symptoms

of depression and anxiety during adolescence. Journal ofClinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38, 219231.

Levy, D. (1970). The concept of maternal overprotection. In E.

J. Anthony & T. Benedek (Eds.), Parenthood (pp. 387409).Boston: Little, Brown.

Lieberman, M., Doyle, A., & Markiewicz, D. (1999). Developmental

patterns in security of attachment to mother and father in late

childhood and early adolescence: Associations with peer

relations. Child Development, 7, 202213.Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Childrens relationships with adult

and peers: An examination of elementary and junior high school

students. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 8199.Maag, J. W., & Reid, R. (2006). Depression among students with

learning disabilities: Assessing the risk. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 39, 310.

Main, M., Goldwyn, R. & Hesse, E. (2003). Adult attachment scoringand classification system. Unpublished manuscript, University ofCalifornia at Berkeley.

Margalit, M. (2006). Loneliness, the salutog

adolescents with learning disabilities: socioemotional and behavioral functioning and attachment...

Documents

adolescents n

role of adolescents

significant adults mother

attachment figure athome

learningdisabilities

protective factorsduring

significant group

learning disabilities