Protective Effects of Social Support Against Stressors: Do Different Types of Social Support Matter?

• In Event: Children in Adversity: Social Support for School Bullying, Cumulative Risks and the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Children from low-income families tend to face more stressors in their lives, such as exposure to multiple poverty-related risk factors (i.e. cumulative risk) and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). These stressors have been consistently associated with poorer child behavioral outcomes. Past research has highlighted that social support can protect children from the impact of cumulative risk and ACEs (Fritz et al., 2018; Lucier-Greer et al., 2015; Patwardhan et al., 2017). However, social support is a broad factor, and little is known about the effectiveness of specific types of social support as protective factors. This study examines the role of specific types of social support in moderating the negative impact of cumulative risk and ACEs on child behavioral problems.

Participants were 270 children and their caregivers from low-income families in Singapore, who participated in a study on risk and resilience between 2017 and 2019. Children were between 10 and 15 years old (M = 12.3, SD = 1.7). Most caregivers were mothers (77.4%). A cumulative risk index was formed, comprising 14 cumulative risk factors with caregivers as the informants (e.g., large family, poor caregiver health). Children completed a questionnaire on their experiences with18 types of ACEs (Center for Youth Wellness, 2015), and listed the persons who provided eight different types of support (see Table 1 for specific items). The number of persons listed as sources of each type of support were computed and analysed as indicators of the amount of support received. Caregivers rated their child’s externalizing, internalizing, and attention problems on the Brief Problem Monitor (Achenbach et al., 2017).

Controlling for child’s age and gender, four types of support moderated the association between the stressors and child behavioral problems (see Table 2). First, reliable alliance moderated the impact of cumulative risk on externalizing and attention problems, where the positive associations between risk and problems were evident only at low and mean levels of support. Emotional support also weakened the link between cumulative risk and externalizing problems; and that of ACEs and internalizing problems. Guidance support reduced the association between cumulative risk and both externalizing and internalizing problems. Unexpectedly, high levels of social integration support coupled with more ACEs were associated with more, not fewer, attention problems.

These findings suggest that not all types of social support may act as protective factors. Instead of providing general social support for children through interventions, stakeholders such as social service agencies, schools, and community members should focus on building and connecting children to three specific types of support – reliable alliance, emotional support, and guidance support – as these are the most critical forms factors in mitigating the links between cumulative risk, ACEs and children’s adjustment. This study shows that research on the protective effects of specific types of social support is crucial in understanding how social support may promote resilience and mitigate the negative consequences of growing up in challenging circumstances. This also ensures that only the most effective evidence-based interventions are delivered in social service agencies and schools where time and resources are often limited.

Authors

• Sze Min Toh, Singapore Children’s Society
  Presenting Author

• Charlene S. L. Fu, Singapore Children’s Society
  Non-Presenting Author

• Jasmine Wong, Singapore
  Non-Presenting Author

• Denise Liu
  Non-Presenting Author

• Saw Han Quah, T.A.P: The Affinity People
  Non-Presenting Author