1. Balancing Developmental Demands: Adolescent Autonomy and Relatedness Across Relational Contexts Physical Attractiveness as a Predictor of Adolescent Autonomy Behavior Megan M Schad, Joseph P Allen, David E Szwedo, & Joanna M. Chango

2. Introduction Physical attractiveness is associated with positive social development – Infancy

3. Introduction Physical attractiveness is associated with positive social development – Infancy – Childhood

4. Introduction Physical attractiveness is associated with positive social development – Infancy – Childhood – Adolescence

5. Introduction Physical attractiveness is associated with positive social development – Infancy – Childhood – Adolescence – Adulthood

6. Information cues Physical attractiveness Implicit Personality Theory

7. Important time to study physical attractiveness Potentially influenced by attractiveness of the adolescent Adolescence

8. What does it mean to be an attractive adolescent? What does that mean for you as an adolescent beginning to make decisions with less parental influence? Overarching Question

9. Establishing Autonomy A developmental task in adolescence Developing these skills is associated with

10. Influence on Interpersonal Dynamics Others defer to physically attractive individuals How does this relate to autonomy processes in adolescence?

11. Translation of Skills Translation of interpersonal dynamics in adolescence – From parent relationships into peer and romantic relationships Possible pattern of interacting

12. Research Hypotheses This study investigates the longitudinal changes in autonomy behaviors as predicted by – Physical Attractiveness It is examined across different contexts – Maternal Relationships – Friendships

13. Research Hypotheses This study investigates the longitudinal changes in autonomy behaviors as predicted by – Physical Attractiveness It is examined across different contexts – Maternal Relationships – Friendships Physical Attractiveness will predict fewer autonomy behaviors in maternal and peer relationships over the course of adolescence.

14. Research Hypotheses This study investigates the longitudinal changes in autonomy behaviors as predicted by – Physical Attractiveness It is examined across different contexts – Maternal Relationships – Friendships Physical Attractiveness will predict fewer autonomy behaviors in maternal and peer relationships over the course of adolescence. Behaviors displayed by mothers toward teens will later be displayed by teens toward friends.

15. Method Participants consisted of: – 184 adolescents – Mothers – Close friends

16. Method Participants consisted of: – 184 adolescents – Mothers – Close friends Participants were measured five times – Time 1 = Teens, Mothers (age 13) – Time 2 = Teens, Best Friends (age 15) – Time 3 = Teens, Best Friends, Mothers (age 16) – Time 4 = Teens, Best friends (age 17) – Time 5 = Teens, Best Friends, Mothers (age 18)

17. Method Participants consisted of: – 184 adolescents – Mothers – Close friends Participants were measured five times – Time 1 = Teens, Mothers (age 13) – Time 2 = Teens, Best Friends (age 15) – Time 3 = Teens, Best Friends, Mothers (age 16) – Time 4 = Teens, Best friends (age 17) – Time 5 = Teens, Best Friends, Mothers (age 18) This was a racially & socioeconomically diverse sample

18. Measures Physical Attractiveness of adolescents – Observational – Naïve coding system – Age 15

19. Measures Physical Attractiveness of adolescents – Observational – Naïve coding system – Age 15 Autonomy Behaviors – Undermining – Assertions of own autonomy

20. Measures Physical Attractiveness of adolescents – Observational – Naïve coding system – Age 15 Autonomy Behaviors – Undermining – Assertions of own autonomy – Mother toward adolescent Ages 13, 16, 18 – Adolescent toward close friend Ages 15, 16, 17, 18

21. Results

22. Maternal Relationship Maternal Undermining Autonomy Gender Minority Status β=.21**

23. Maternal Relationship Baseline Maternal Undermining Autonomy Maternal Undermining Autonomy Gender Minority Status β=.25**

24. Maternal Relationship Baseline Maternal Undermining Autonomy Maternal Undermining Autonomy Gender Minority Status Adolescent Physical Attractiveness β=.22** β= -.21* r = -.18*

25. Maternal Relationship Baseline Maternal Undermining Autonomy Maternal Undermining Autonomy Gender Minority Status Adolescent Physical Attractiveness β=.22** β= -.21* r = -.18* Maternal Behaviors: Teens who are more attractive have mothers who exhibit fewer autonomy undermining behaviors over three years.

26. Maternal Relationship Maternal Forceful Autonomy Gender Minority Status

27. Maternal Relationship Baseline Maternal Forceful Autonomy Maternal Forceful Autonomy Gender Minority Status β=.44***

28. Maternal Relationship Baseline Maternal Forceful Autonomy Maternal Forceful Autonomy Gender Minority Status Adolescent Physical Attractiveness β=.47*** β= -.25** r =.06

29. Maternal Relationship Baseline Maternal Forceful Autonomy Maternal Forceful Autonomy Gender Minority Status Adolescent Physical Attractiveness β=.47*** β= -.25** r =.06 Maternal Behaviors: Teens who are more attractive have mothers who exhibit fewer forceful assertions of autonomy over three years.

30. Friendship

31. Friendships Adolescent Undermining Autonomy Gender Minority Status

32. Friendships Baseline Adolescent Undermining Autonomy Adolescent Undermining Autonomy Gender Minority Status β=.26***

33. Friendships Baseline Adolescent Undermining Autonomy Adolescent Undermining Autonomy Gender Minority Status Adolescent Physical Attractiveness β=.24** β= -.23** r = -.11

34. Friendships Baseline Adolescent Undermining Autonomy Adolescent Undermining Autonomy Gender Minority Status Adolescent Physical Attractiveness β=.24** β= -.23** r = -.11 Teen Behaviors: Teens who are more attractive exhibit fewer autonomy undermining behaviors over two years with their friends.

35. Friendships Adolescent Forceful Autonomy Gender Minority Status β= -.25***

36. Friendships Baseline Adolescent Forceful Autonomy Adolescent Forceful Autonomy Gender Minority Status β=.34*** β= -.25***

37. Friendships Baseline Adolescent Forceful Autonomy Adolescent Forceful Autonomy Gender Minority Status Adolescent Physical Attractiveness β=.35*** β= -.17* r =.07 β= -.26***

38. Friendships Baseline Adolescent Forceful Autonomy Adolescent Forceful Autonomy Gender Minority Status Adolescent Physical Attractiveness β=.35*** β= -.17* r =.07 Teen Behaviors: Teens who are more attractive exhibit fewer forceful assertions of autonomy over two years with their friends. β= -.26***

39. Results Maternal Behaviors: Teens who are more attractive have mothers who exhibit fewer autonomy undermining behaviors and forceful assertions of autonomy over three years. Teen Behaviors: Teens who are more attractive exhibit fewer autonomy undermining behaviors and forceful assertions of autonomy over two years with their friends.

40. Discussion What does this mean? – Adolescents may become more agreeable – Are teens learning to be more agreeable from their mothers?

41. Limitations Data not causal – 5 years longitudinally

42. Conclusions Importance of parent relationships in early adolescence Social acceptability of physical attractiveness Preferential treatment may create a dual trajectory

43. Thanks Thank you to my co-authors – Joseph P. Allen – David E. Szwedo – Joanna M. Chango Collaborators – the KLIFF/VIDA lab: Erin Miga, Emily Marston, Amanda Hare, Elie Hessel, Emily Loeb, Chris Hafen, Barbara Oudekerk, Caroline White, Ann Spilker, Research Assistants NIMH for funding awarded to Joseph P. Allen, Principal Investigator, (R01-MH58066) for the conduct of this study NICHD for funding awarded to Joseph P. Allen, Principal Investigator, (9R01HD058305-11A1) for the write-up of this study

44. References Ahola, Helltrom, & Christianson, 2010; Allen, Weissberg, Hawkins, 1989; Ashmore, & DelBoca, 1979; Buhrmester & Furman, 1987; Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991 Furman, Simon, Shaffer, & Bouchey, 2002 Hudosa, Stone-Romero & Coats, 2003; Jacobson, 1981; Jawahar & Mattsson, 2005; Kahn, Hottes, & Davis, 1971 Langlois, Kalakanis, Rubenstein, Larson, Hallam, & Smoot, 2000; Langlois, Ritter, Casey, Sawin, 1995; Larson & Richards, 1991; Lerner et al, 1991; Parks & Kennedy, 2007; Patzer, 1985; Sullivan, 1953 Vanatta, Garstein, Zeller, & Noll, 2009