Exploring Gender Differences in the Connectedness of South African Adolescents

The literature on adolescent development refers to the adolescent’s need to be connected to others in a meaningful way. However, research on adolescent connectedness in the South African context is limited, particularly with regard to gender influences. This exploratory, descriptive research project therefore aimed at investigating gender differences in the connectedness of Grade 8 and Grade 11 adolescents of the respective racial groups. Data was collected using the Hemmingway: Measure of Adolescent Connectedness questionnaire. Four hypotheses related to differences between the genders of the sample and the genders of the racial and age groups were tested. The results revealed that the girls in the sample were significantly more connected with regard to most of the variables tested than the boys. The Mixed descent boys and girls differed substantially with regard to connectedness to teachers; the Caucasian boys and girls differed in five domains, while the African boys and girls differed in eight domains. The younger adolescents were also more connected overall than the older ones, particularly the African girls and Caucasian boys. Follow-up research is needed to explain these differences. Address for correspondence: Prof. Salomé Schulze Department of Psychology of Education, University of South Africa, PO Box 392, Pretoria 0003, South Africa Telephone: +27 12 804 6113, Fax: 086 6421 640, E-mail: [email protected] INTRODUCTION The literature on adolescent development refers to the adolescent’s need to belong and to be connected to others in a meaningful way (Allen and Bowles 2012). Connectedness, belonging and attachment, among others, are concepts that are used interchangeably since they all refer to individuals as an integral part of a system in which they are valued and cared for. Hagerty et al. (1993: 293) define connectedness as occurring “when a person is actively involved with another person, object, group, or environment and that involvement promotes a sense of comfort, well-being, and anxiety reduction”. Accordingly, Lee and Robbins (2000: 484) define social connectedness as “an enduring and ubiquitous experience of the self in relation with the world, as compared with social support, adult attachment, and peer affiliations, which represent more discrete, current relationships”. Feelings of connectedness are very important. Such feelings lead to psychological wellbeing (Stuart and Jose 2014), which includes a positive self-esteem, self-efficacy, life satisfaction and aspirations (Haslam et al. 2009; Jose et al. 2012), happiness (Sharma and Malhotra 2010), and physical wellbeing (Easton 2009). Moreover, school and teacher connectedness is associated with important academic and developmental outcomes (Chhuon and Wallace 2014), and transition to middle school (Day et al. 2014). Future connectedness facilitates positive adolescent development (Calina et al. 2014). In contrast, a lack of connectedness is related to loneliness and adjustment difficulties (Duru 2008); selfalienation, a lack of meaning and purpose in life, delinquent behaviour (Rees et al. 2014) and poor health (Townsend and McWhirter 2005). It has also been linked to adolescent suicide (Whitlock et al. 2014). An electronic search with ProQuest Psychology and ProQuest Education identified only two South African studies that focussed directly on adolescent connectedness (Easton 2009; Rawatlal and Petersen 2012). Another South African paper investigated the views of the future of Grade 11 adolescents (Steyn et al. 2010). This paper found evidence of general adolescent connectedness, although the authors did not use this concept. For example, the adolescents reflected positive self-images, a strong identification with religion and a future optimism. In contrast, the Rawatlal and Petersen (2012) paper with 194 SALOMÉ SCHULZE AND NARAINSAMY NAIDU a group of Grade 10 adolescents identified factors that impeded connectedness, which included a lack of future orientation linked to limited post-school opportunities, a lack of warmth at home and undesirable peer influences. Neither of the two last mentioned studies distinguished between the genders, and the Easton (2009) paper was limited to the connectedness of adolescent boys to their families. In light of the above, the aim of this research was to investigate possible differences in adolescent connectedness of boys and girls with regard to several domains. The research in particular sought to determine if there were significant differences between the two genders of the sample; the genders of the different racial groups; and the younger and older boys and girls. To this end the Bronfenbrenner’s theory was used as conceptual framework. Theoretical Framework One of the most influential theories on child development is Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model (1999). Bronfenbrenner indicated that human development takes place through processes of progressively more complex reciprocal interaction between individuals and the people and objects in their environments. He labelled such interactions proximal processes. Examples of proximal processes include the relationships between adolescents and their parents or friends. To be significant, the contact should occur continuously over extended time periods. The ecological environment of the model is a set of nested systems on a microsystemic, mesosystemic and exosystemic level (Bronfenbrenner 1979). A basic premise of the ecological systems theory is that “development is a function of forces emanating from multiple settings and from the relations between these settings” (Bronfenbrenner 1999: 17). In an adolescent’s life, the microsystem (inner circle) is where the adolescent has direct face-to-face interaction with significant others such as parents and siblings at home, teachers and friends at school and people at church. When the various microsystems in an adolescent’s life adopt the same beliefs and expectations, adolescent development is enhanced (Leonard 2011). The mesosystem is where two or more microsystems interact, for example, the interaction of the adolescents’ parents with their teachers. The outer circle or exosystem encompasses people who are indirectly involved in the adolescent’s development such as the Department of Education and the school governing body. In addition to the aforementioned, Bronfenbrenner (1979) described a macrosystem which includes the prevailing cultural and economic conditions of the relevant community, and a chronosystem which explains how settings and their significance change over time. Adolescence refers to the period between 10 and 19 years when adolescents are in search of an identity and autonomy (Heaven 2001; Blend 2007; Gouws et al. 2008). The quest for autonomy, also called disembedding, is in contrast to being “immersed in a context-family, society, culture, with permeable boundaries and relatively confluent, introjecting boundary processes” (McConville 2001: 39). This view can be compared to the self-determination theory that identifies autonomy and connectedness (together with competence) as basic human needs. According to the theory, the satisfaction of all these needs is required for healthy psychological functioning (Ryan and Deci 2000; Chirkov et al. 2003). Bekker and Croon (2010: 909) therefore define autonomyconnectedness as “the need and capacity for selfreliance and independence and for intimacy and satisfactory functioning in intimate relationships”. Ryan and Deci (2000) maintain that by failing to provide support for autonomy and relatedness of adolescents, socialising agents contribute to their psychological problems. Parents’ differential socialisation of the two genders may facilitate greater psychological autonomy in boys than in girls (Noom et al. 2001; Yu 2011). For example, parents tend to grant their adolescent sons more freedom outside the home, thus enhancing their independence and community connectedness. In contrast, they encourage interdependence in the girls. However, results are inconclusive. Bumpus et al. (2001), as well as Pinquart and Silbereisen (2002) reported greater autonomy in adolescent females than in males. Other authors pointed out that the link between autonomy or connectedness and gender was not simple. For example, Yu (2011) found that autonomy and connectedness in adolescence could be influenced more by extra-familial factors in the adolescent’s microsystem, such as peer group values, than by gender. Gender and Connectedness For the purposes of this research, no distinction is made between ‘gender’ and ‘sex’. When ‘gender’ is used, it refers to the ‘sex’ of EXPLORING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE CONNECTEDNESS 195 participants (male or female). However, ‘gender’ is used consistently in accordance with other publications on adolescent connectedness (for example, Akos and Galassi 2004; Brutsaert and