“Crisis” or “opportunity”: Latent patterns of family, school, community risks and assets on psychological crisis in adolescence

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01827

Abstract

Abstract:

Extensive studies have demonstrated the buffering effect of risk factors or the promotion effect of protective assets within each setting of family, school, or community on psychological crisis in adolescence. Although many adolescents expose to risks and assets in multiple contexts, the independent and interactive effects of such cross-contextual factors on multiple psychological crisis have not been studied. This study addressed this gap by examining latent patterns of risk factors or/and protective assets in multiple contexts on non-lethal crisis state (CS), non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), suicide attempt (SA) in adolescence. Further, based on the perspectives of positive youth development and psychological pain, this study explored the specific patterns considered as immune barriers to psychological crisis, and specific patterns with cumulative and clustering effects on psychological crisis.

A sample of 2249 junior middle school students were invited to participant. The adolescents completed psychological crisis (including CS, NSSI, SA), three-dimensional psychological pain (TDPPS), positive youth development (PYD), family conflict, parental control, campus stressors, community unsafety, family resilience, parental involvement, friendship quality, perceived teacher autonomy support, neighborhood friendship and community engagement scales. Based on Latent Profile Analysis (LPA), the patterns of risk factors and TDPPS, patterns of assets and PYD and patterns of risks and assets in multiple contexts were analyzed using Mplus7.4. Further, the predictive effects of distinct patterns on psychological crisis and the relative mediated effects of TDPPS and PYD were analyzed by SPSS 21.0.

The results showed that: (1) Based on the risk perspective, adolescents at high family risk usually had higher risk in school and community context (n = 4.46%). The level of CS, NSSI, SA increased with the level of risk factors (Figure 1). Notably, compared to moderate risk-high painful feeling class, adolescents in high family risk-high pain avoidance class had higher level of SA (OR = 6.38, p < 0.001) and NSSI (OR = 2.32, p < 0.001). (2) Based on the protective perspective, the more assets adolescents had, the higher level of PYD, and the lower level of CS, NSSI, SA they were (Figure 2). Compared to high combined protection-high PYD class, adolescents in moderate family protection-high PYD class have similar level of CS (p = 0.087) and SA (OR = 6.26, p = 0.096). Compared to moderate family protection-high PYD class, adolescents in moderate community protection-moderate PYD class have similar level of NSSI (OR = 1.16, p = 0.077). (3) Based on the integration perspective, the risk factors and protective assets across multiple contexts were divided into four patterns: high family risk-low assets class (class1, 8.38%), high school risk-moderate assets class (class2, 14.72%), balanced class (class3, 53.41%) and low risk-high assets class (class4, 23.49%, Figure 3). ANCOVA showed that there was significant difference on the level of CS among all patterns [F(3, 2042) = 183.34, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.21] after controlling for gender and age. Compared to class3, adolescents in class1 and class2 had higher level of NSSI (class1: OR = 2.80, p < 0.001; class2: OR = 3.79, p < 0.001), adolescents in class4 had lower level of NSSI (OR = 0.33, p < 0.001) after controlling for gender and age (Figure 4). Compared to class3, adolescents in class1 and class2 had higher level of SA (class1: OR = 5.24, p < 0.001; class2: OR = 4.27, p < 0.001), adolescents in class4 had lower level of NSSI (OR = 0.17, p = 0.003) after controlling for gender and whether one child or not (Figure 4).Taken the balanced class as reference group, the relative mediated effects of TDPPS and PYD between the other three classes and CS, NSSI, and SA were significant (Figure 5 and Table 1).

This study deepened the understanding of the effects of distinct patterns of family, school and community risks and TDPPS on psychological crisis in adolescences, emerging on cumulative and clusters effects. Psychological crisis could be buffered by distinct patterns of assets across family, school and community context and PYD. Adolescent crisis intervention should simultaneously focus on addressing risks, and establishing a supportive system across multiple contexts.

Key words: context factors, three-dimensional psychological pain, positive youth development, psychological crisis, Latent Profile Analysis

SUN Fang, LI Huanhuan, GUO Yueyan, WEI Shijie. (2023). “Crisis” or “opportunity”: Latent patterns of family, school, community risks and assets on psychological crisis in adolescence. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(11), 1827-1844.

Figures/Tables 6

Figure 1. Contrasts of CS, NSSI, and SA on the latent patterns of risk factors in contexts and psychological pain.
Notes. ^***p < 0.001, ^**p < 0.01, ^*p < 0.05; CS, non-lethal crisis state; NSSI, non-suicidal self-injury behaviors; SA, suicide attempt. Scores of CS, the average score of CS in each class of adolescents. Probabilities of NSSI or SA, the proportion of adolescents reporting non-suicidal self-injury or suicide attempts in each class. High combined risk-pain, means the class of adolescents who have elevated risk factors in family, school, and community contexts and total scores on three-dimensional psychological pain scales (5.71%); High family risk-high avoidance, means the class of adolescents who have elevated risk factors only in family context and have elevated scores of pain avoidance (8.86%); Moderate risk-high feeling, means the class of adolescents who have moderate risk factors in all family, school and community contexts and have elevated scores of painful feelings (17.34%); and Low risk-pain, means the class of adolescents who have low risk factors in family, school, and community contexts and total scores on three-dimensional psychological pain scales (68.09%).

Figure 2. Contrasts of CS, NSSI, and SA on the latent patterns of protective assets in contexts and PYD.
Notes. ^***p < 0.001, ^**p < 0.01, ^*p < 0.05, ⁺p < 0.1; PYD, positive youth development; CS, non-lethal crisis state; NSSI, non-suicidal self-injury behaviors; SA, suicide attempt. Scores of CS, the average score of CS in each class of adolescents. Probabilities of NSSI or SA, the proportion of adolescents reporting non-suicidal self-injury or suicide attempts in each class. Class1, means the class of adolescents who have lowest assets in family, school, and community contexts and lowest level of positive youth development (6.97%); Class2, means the class of adolescents who have lower assets in all three contexts and lower level of positive youth development compare to moderate level (35.74%); Class3, means the class of adolescents who have moderate level of assets in community context and have moderate level of positive youth development (29.93%); Class4, means the class of adolescents who have moderate level of assets in family context and have high level of positive youth development (12.59%); and Class5, means the class of adolescents who have highest level of assets in all three contexts and have high level of positive youth development (14.77%).

Figure 3. Latent profile plot for risk factors and protective assets in all contexts.
Notes. Z scores, means the standardized scores of each item. FC, family conflict; PNC, parental negative control; AS, academic stress; ISC, interpersonal stress in campus; CU, community unsafety; FR, family resilience; PEI, parental education involvement, FQ, friendship quality; TAS, perceived teacher autonomy support; NF, neighborhood friendship; CE, community engagement. Among of all items, the first five factors are risk factors in family, school, and community contexts, while the last six factors are protective assets in all three contexts. High family risk-low assets class (8.38%), means the class of adolescents who have elevated level of family conflict and parental negative control, while low level of academic and interpersonal stress in campus, and have lowest level of protective assets in family, school, and community contexts. High school risk-moderate assets class (14.72%), means the class of adolescents who have elevated level of academic and interpersonal stress in campus, and have moderate level of protective assets in all three contexts. Balanced class (53.41%), indicates a class of adolescents who have average level of risk factors and protective assets in all three contexts among samples participated in survey. Low risk-high assets class (23.49%), means the class of adolescents who have lower level of risk factors and higher level of protective assets in all three contexts.

Figure 4. Contrasts of CS, NSSI, and SA on the latent patterns of risk factors and protective assets in all contexts.
Notes. ^***p < 0.001, ^**p < 0.01; CS, non-lethal crisis state; NSSI, non-suicidal self-injury behaviors; SA, suicide attempt. Scores of CS, the average score of CS in each class of adolescents. Probabilities of NSSI or SA, the proportion of adolescents reporting non-suicidal self-injury or suicide attempts in each class.

Figure 5. Parallel mediation of TDPPS and PYD between distinct patterns and CS.
Notes. ^***p < 0.001, ^**p < 0.01. TDPPS, scores of three-dimensional psychological pain scales; PYD, positive youth development; CS, non-lethal crisis state. Relative mediation effects were built which the balanced group was taken as reference group, after controlling for gender and age.

Table 1 Parallel mediation of TDPPS and PYD between distinct patterns and NSSI or SA (The first half path)

Class	NSSI^a					SA^b
Class	β	SE	Z	LLCI	ULCI	β	SE	Z	LLCI	ULCI
Balanced class as reference group
High family risk-low assets class → TDPPS	11	1.15	9.55	0.43	0.67	11.07	1.15	9.59	0.36	0.77
High school risk-moderate assets class → TDPPS	13.03	0.92	14.17	0.54	0.77	13.01	0.93	14	0.43	0.88
Low risk-high assets class → TDPPS	-3.95	0.77	-5.13	-0.27	-0.13	-4.50	0.77	-5.84	-0.33	-0.13
High family risk-low assets class → PYD	-68.47	4.95	-13.84	0.55	0.83	-68.48	4.95	-13.83	0.45	0.93
High school risk-moderate assets class → PYD	-24.63	3.95	-6.24	0.17	0.33	-24.60	3.98	-6.17	0.15	0.36
Low risk-high assets class → PYD	69.42	3.31	20.97	-0.82	-0.57	70.66	3.3	21.4	-0.95	-0.47
High family risk-low assets class as reference group
High school risk-moderate assets class → TDPPS	2.03	1.34	1.51	-0.01	0.21	1.94	1.25	1.44	-0.01	0.21
High school risk-moderate assets class → PYD	43.85	5.76	7.61	-0.36	-0.18	43.88	5.79	7.58	-0.47	-0.16

[1]	ZHOU Mingjie, LI Fugui, MU Weiqi, FAN Weiqiao, ZHANG Jianxin, ZHANG Miaoqing. Round outside and square inside: The latent profile structure and adaptability of Chinese interpersonal relatedness [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2023, 55(3): 390-405.
[2]	HAO Ziyu, LI Huanhuan, LIN Yixuan. Pain avoidance and effective connectivity between dlPFC and insula in suicide attempters with major depressive disorder [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2023, 55(12): 1966-1978.
[3]	SUN Fang, SONG Wei, WEN Xiaotong, LI Huanhuan, OUYANG Lisheng, WEI Shijie. Efficacy of suicide ideation classification based on pain avoidance and the EEG characteristics under self-referential punishment [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2022, 54(9): 1031-1047.
[4]	HOU Qingqing, GUO Mingyu, WANG Lingxiao, LV Hui, CHANG Shumin. The relationship between school assets and early adolescents’ psychosocial adaptation: A latent transition analysis [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2022, 54(8): 917-930.
[5]	WANG Meng-Cheng, DENG Qiaowen, BI Xiangyang, YE Haosheng, YANG Wendeng. Performance of the entropy as an index of classification accuracy in latent profile analysis: A Monte Carlo simulation study [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(11): 1473-1482.