You are on page 1of 28

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236728987

Homesickness at Summer
Camp: Associations with the
Mother-Child Relationship,
Social Self-Concept, and Peer
Relati....

Article in Merrill-Palmer Quarterly · October 2008


DOI: 10.1353/mpq.0.0010

CITATIONS READS

14 96

3 authors, including:

Kathryn Kerns Laura E Brumariu


Kent State University Adelphi University
67 PUBLICATIONS 3,176 26 PUBLICATIONS 614
CITATIONS CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kathryn Kerns on 18 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


M E R R I L L -P A L M E R Q U A R T E R LY, V O L . 54, N O . 4

Homesickness at Summer Camp


Associations with the Mother-Child Relationship, Social
Self-Concept, and Peer Relationships in Middle Childhood
Kathryn A. Kerns
Laura E. Brumariu
Michelle M. Abraham Kent State University

The goal of the present study was to investigate how the quality of the mother-
child relationship, social self-concept, and the quality of peer relationships pre-
dict girls’ feelings of homesickness at a residential summer camp. We expected
that children with secure attachments to their mothers, a more positive social self-
concept, and better relationships with peers would report less homesickness at
camp. Girls were 8 to 12 years of age. Mother-child attachment was assessed
with a questionnaire and an interview completed prior to camp. Social self-
concept was assessed with a questionnaire prior to camp, and peer relationships
were assessed with questionnaires at camp. Peer relationships and social self-
concept, but not mother-child attachment, were related to homesickness at camp.
Social self-concept prior to camp and peer social support and friendship quality
at camp predicted subsequent homesickness, whereas homesickness early in
camp did not predict later assessments of peer relationships at camp. The find-
ings suggest that social self-concept and relationships with peers may be protec-
tive factors for homesickness at summer camp.

Homesickness, defined as “distress or impairment caused by an actual or


anticipated separation from home” (Thurber & Sigman, 1998, p. 903), can

Kathryn A. Kerns, Department of Psychology; Laura E. Brumariu, Department of Psychol-


ogy; Michelle M. Abraham, Department of Psychology.
This research was supported in part by the Applied Psychology Center and by Research and
Graduate Studies at Kent State University. The authors wish to thank the Girl Scouts of the Western
Reserve, Inc., and especially Susana Barba for their support of the project. We also wish to thank
the families for participating in the extensive data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to the first author at the Depart-
ment of Psychology, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242. Phone: (330) 672–2311. E-mail:
kkerns@kent.edu.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, October 2008, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 473–498. Copyright © 2008 by Wayne
State University Press, Detroit, MI 48201.

473
474 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
interfere with children’s ability to enjoy experiences away from home and
away from family members. There is a small literature on factors related to
homesickness in children (reviewed in Thurber & Sigman, 1998). Studies
have usually included children attending boarding schools or summer resi-
dential camps. To account for individual differences in homesickness, most
prior studies have focused on child characteristics such as perceived control,
prior experience at camp, or age. For example, several studies have sug-
gested that children who have prior experiences with separation from home
may be less likely to experience homesickness (Fisher, Elder, & Peacock,
1990; Fisher, Frazer, & Murray, 1986; Thurber, 1995; Thurber & Sigman,
1998; Thurber & Weisz, 1997). The most comprehensive and well-tested
theory of homesickness (Thurber & Sigman, 1998; Thurber, Sigman, Weisz,
& Schmidt, 1999) proposes that separation experiences and child attachment
and control attitudes influence the development of a homesick disposition
(i.e., tendency to experience preseparation homesickness), which in turn is
the main factor accounting for homesickness at summer camp.
Only a few studies have considered how children’s interpersonal rela-
tionships may play a role in whether or not children experience homesick-
ness. When relationships have been examined, their presence or absence
has often been the focus. For example, Fisher et al. (1986) examined
whether the presence or absence of siblings was related to children’s adjust-
ment at boarding school. The lack of attention to the quality of children’s
relationships with others is surprising, given the extensive evidence that the
quality of children’s relationships with parents and with peers are both
strongly related to their emotional adjustment (Contreras & Kerns, 2000;
Kerns, in press; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998; Thompson, 1998). In
addition, most studies examining the correlates of homesickness have
included adolescents or adults (see review in Thurber & Sigman, 1998), and
therefore less is known about factors related to homesickness in younger
children. The goal of the present study was to investigate how parent-child
and peer relationships are related to homesickness at summer camp. We
examined this question for children in later middle childhood, as this is typ-
ically the earliest age at which children have the experience of attending
overnight camp without parents.
One aspect of parent-child relationships that has been linked to chil-
dren’s social and emotional adjustment is the quality of children’s attach-
ments to parents (Contreras & Kerns, 2000; Kerns, in press; Thompson,
1998). Children who are securely attached are able to use their attachment
figure as a secure base from which to explore and as a haven of safety in
times of stress (Bowlby, 1982). There are several reasons why the forma-
tion of a secure attachment may in turn be associated with lower levels of
Homesickness: Associations in Middle Childhood 475

homesickness at camp. As Ainsworth and colleagues have noted (1978),


attachment can be described in terms of an attachment-exploration balance.
When children’s security needs are met, they feel freer to explore away
from caregivers. Children who form secure attachments to a caregiver are
thus able to use that person as a secure base from which to explore the envi-
ronment (Bowlby, 1982). Studies of children in early childhood have sup-
ported this hypothesis, showing that more securely attached children more
readily and extensively explore their environments even when parent fig-
ures are not physically present (see Grossman, Grossman, & Zimmerman,
1999). Therefore, more securely attached children may be less homesick at
camp if they become more involved in exploring the camp environment.
More securely attached children have also been shown to have less diffi-
culty regulating their emotions (Contreras, Kerns, Weimer, Gentzler, &
Tomich, 2000). For example, more securely attached children use more
constructive strategies to cope with problems (Contreras et al., 2000; Kerns,
Abraham, Schlegelmilch, and Morgan, 2007), and their greater capacity to
regulate their emotions may also lessen their feelings of homesickness.
The hypothesis that insecure attachment predicts homesickness is fre-
quently cited in the homesickness literature (e.g., Brewin, Furnham, &
Howes, 1989; Thurber et al., 1999), yet only two studies have tested this
hypothesis. Thurber and Sigman (1998) studied 8- to 16-year-old boys who
were attending a two-week residential (overnight) summer camp. On the
first day of camp they assessed attachment with a questionnaire, and on
subsequent days they assessed homesickness. They found that boys who
reported more secure attachments were less homesick at camp. However, it
is somewhat difficult to interpret their findings regarding attachment
because in the main analyses the attachment variable was combined with
measures of control to create an index of attitudes and control. In a second
study with 8- to 16-year-old girls that used a similar design (Thurber et al.,
1999), girls who reported a more secure attachment were less homesick at
camp. One limitation to both of these studies is that attachment was
assessed during the camp stay, and it is possible that experiences at camp
may have colored children’s reports of relationships with caregivers.
Our study was designed to provide a more rigorous test of the hypothe-
sis that the formation of a secure attachment is a protective factor that
decreases the likelihood of a child subsequently experiencing homesickness
at camp. Although the frequency and intensity of attachment behavior to
parents declines in middle childhood (Kerns, Tomich, & Kim, 2006), parents
are still the preferred attachment figures for children in the later middle-
childhood years (Kerns et al., 2006). In our study we focused on mother-
child attachment, which we assessed with both a child questionnaire and an
476 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
interview, and the attachment measures were collected prior to the start of
camp. Because security may promote more extensive exploration of the
camp environment and be associated with more constructive coping, we
expected that more securely attached children would report less homesick-
ness at summer camp. The interview also allowed us to examine whether
homesickness is related to particular forms of insecure attachment. Children
with ambivalent attachments are prone to expressing distress as a way of
eliciting care from attachment figures (Cassidy, 1994). In addition, children
who manifest more ambivalent or disorganized attachments have been found
to display more negative mood or to have difficulty regulating emotions
(Cassidy, 1994; DeOliveira, Bailey, Moran, & Pederson, 2004; Kerns et al.,
2007). We therefore predicted that children with either more ambivalent or
more disorganized attachments to their mothers would be at greater risk for
experiencing homesickness at summer camp. Because avoidant attachment
is associated with a strategy of suppressing emotion to avoid the need for
contact with attachment figures (Cassidy, 1994), we did not expect avoid-
ance to be related to reports of homesickness at summer camp.
Feelings of homesickness may be influenced not only by attachments
to caregivers but also by the relationships children form with other
campers. This has been referred to as the peer social support hypothesis
(Thurber & Sigman, 1998). Summer camp is a highly social context in
which children spend extensive amounts of time with a small group of
peers. A key developmental issue for children in middle childhood is to feel
accepted by peers and to feel a sense of solidarity or closeness with peers
(Gottman & Mettetal, 1986), and therefore perceptions of low social self-
concept or perceived difficulties in peer relationships may foster or exacer-
bate feelings of homesickness. Thus, it may be that children who have
positive evaluations of their competence with peers and who develop sup-
portive peer relationships are less prone to experiencing homesickness.
Only one study of peers and homesickness has included children in middle
childhood. In a study of 8- to 16-year-old girls at summer camp, Thurber et
al. (1999) found that girls who reported more homesickness were rated by
camp counselors as less accepted by their peers. Our study was designed to
examine associations of social self-concept and peer relationships with
homesickness in a sample of preadolescent girls. Given the salience of
peers in the later middle-childhood years, we expected that girls who
reported higher perceived social self-concept in regard to peers prior to
camp and those who had more satisfactory relationships with peers at camp
would be less homesick at camp.
This study extends the literature by examining how social self-concept
and several different aspects of peer relationships are related to homesick-
Homesickness: Associations in Middle Childhood 477

ness in girls. First, prior to camp we assessed girls’ social self-concept in


regard to peers. We expected that girls with positive social self-concept
might be more confident about approaching peers and better able to adjust
to the social demands of camp and consequently would feel less homesick
at camp. Second, we expected that specific features of peer relationships at
camp would be important. More specifically, we expected that children
who perceived higher levels of social support from other campers and those
who formed a higher quality best friendship at camp would report less
homesickness. We also measured whether children attended camp with a
friend and the number of friendships children formed by the end of camp,
although we expected that the quantity of children’s friendships would be
less related to homesickness than would the quality of peer relationships.
We also examined additional child characteristics that might contribute
to homesickness, although these were not the main focus of the study. We
assessed prior experience at camp, which has been shown to predict home-
sickness (Fisher et al., 1986; Fisher et al., 1990; Thurber, 1995; Thurber &
Sigman, 1998; Thurber & Weisz, 1997). We also speculated that tempera-
ment differences might affect children’s likelihood of experiencing home-
sickness. Specifically, because difficult temperament is defined in part by a
difficulty in adapting to new situations (McClowry, Hegvik, & Teglasi,
1993) and because children with difficult temperament or those high on
negative emotionality also experience difficulties in regulating emotion
(Eisenberg & Fabes, 1999; Contreras et al., 2000), we expected that chil-
dren with a difficult temperament might experience more homesickness at
summer camp. To our knowledge, ours is the first study to examine tem-
perament as a predictor of homesickness in children.
Our study was thus designed to examine how mother-child attachment,
precamp perceptions of social self-concept, and peer relationships at camp
predict girls’ feelings of homesickness at a residential summer camp. We
studied girls because there are fewer studies of homesickness in girls
(Thurber et al., 1999). In addition, given that girls have a strong social ori-
entation (Huston & Alvarez, 1990; Sheldon, 1992), we thought that the
quality of their relationships with peers and feelings of competence with
peers might be especially important factors in accounting for girls’ well-
being at camp. We investigated our research questions using a short-term
longitudinal design. Mother-child attachment, social self-concept in regard
to peers, and other individual characteristics that might influence home-
sickness (child age, prior experience at camp, homesick disposition, and
difficult temperament) were assessed prior to the start of camp. Children
then completed measures of homesickness and peer relationships at camp
over the first five days of a six-day camp. The longitudinal design allowed
478 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
us to test whether attachment, social self-concept, and peer relationships
predicted subsequent homesickness. Because we measured homesickness
on multiple occasions, we were also able to test the alternative hypothesis
that homesickness predicts later assessments of peer relationships at camp.

Method
Sample
The target sample was girls who were enrolled in a six-day, five-night Girl
Scout residential summer camp located in northeastern Ohio. Girls who
would be entering grades 4 to 6 in the fall following camp were invited to
participate in the study. Due to privacy concerns, the research staff did not
contact families directly. Instead, information about the study was provided
to parents with the camp materials, and interested families were asked to
contact the research staff. Families were recruited across two summers.
During the first summer 90 families volunteered for the study, and 73 fami-
lies participated in the precamp data collection. The most common reasons
why families who initially volunteered did not participate in the study were
that the home visit could not be scheduled prior to camp or the families
lived too far away from the university (more than 50 miles). There were 224
spots at camp across the entire summer, but some girls were enrolled for
more than one session (the exact number was not available), and some girls
dropped out prior to or during camp. We estimated that approximately one-
third of the eligible families participated in the study. In the second year of
data collection the same recruitment method was used, with the added crite-
rion that families who had already participated in the study could not partic-
ipate again. An additional 41 families responded, and 33 of these families
participated in the precamp data collection. Of the 106 families for whom
we had precamp data, 97 of the girls attended camp. The latter subsample of
girls and their mothers constituted the sample for the present study.
The girls were between 8 and 12 years old, with a mean age of 10 years
and 3 months (SD = 10.97 months). Ninety-seven percent of the sample
was Caucasian (similar to the demographics for the camp), and most girls
were from intact families (84%). Some girls attended on scholarships, and
thus there was some variability in family income. The family’s socioeco-
nomic status (SES) score was computed using Hollingshead’s Four Factor
Index of Social Status (Gottfried, 1985), which is based on information
about the education level, current occupation, and gender of each parent as
well as marital status. The potential range of score is 8 to 66, with unskilled
laborers ranging from 8 to 19 and business professionals ranging from 55 to
Homesickness: Associations in Middle Childhood 479

66. The mean SES level of our sample was 50 (business managers, lesser
professionals), with a SD = 11 and a range of 17–66.

Procedure
Prior to attending camp, girls and their mothers completed one session with
trained interviewers. The sessions were conducted either at the participant’s
home or at our lab, depending on the family’s preference. At the beginning
of the session mothers signed consent forms indicating their willingness to
participate and to have their daughters participate, and daughters signed
written assent forms. The consent and assent forms stated that the purpose
of the study was to understand how family factors and child characteristics
are related to girls’ adjustment at summer camp. During this visit girls also
completed an attachment security scale, a homesickness scale, and a social
self-concept scale. Furthermore, girls were administered a doll story inter-
view task to assess attachment patterns. Reporting about their daughters,
mothers completed a social self-concept scale and a temperament scale. In
addition, mothers provided information about girls’ previous experience at
camp and demographic data.
Girls attended the camp without parents. While the girls were at camp,
interviewers made three short visits on the first, third, and fifth days of their
six-day stay. The girls completed a homesickness scale on the first, third,
and fifth days of camp. In addition, girls were administered a social support
scale on the third day and a friendship quality scale on the last day of camp.
Number of friendships was assessed on the first and fifth days of camp.
Means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum values for the
main study measures are included in Table 1.

Precamp Measures
Mother-child attachment. This study included two attachment-based
measures of the mother-child relationship: a questionnaire completed by the
girls and a semiprojective interview administered individually to the girls.
Children completed the Security Scale, a 15-item questionnaire
(Kerns, Aspelmeier, Gentzler, & Grabill, 2001) designed to assess chil-
dren’s perceptions of a particular attachment relationship during middle
childhood. The items were administered using Harter’s “Some kids . . .
other kids . . .” format in which children are presented information about
two types of kids, asked to decide which one is most like them, and then
asked to indicate whether their answers are really true or sort of true. A
sample item from the Security Scale presents is “some kids go to their mom
480 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations

Variable M SD Min. Max.


Homesickness variables
Day 1 2.46 2.77 0 10
Day 5 3.63 3.43 0 10
Mother-Child Relationship Variables
Security Scale (child questionnaire; precamp) 3.30 .48 1.67 4
Attachment interview (precamp)
Security 2.60 1.19 1 5
Avoidance 2.05 1.20 1 5
Ambivalence 1.95 1.03 1 5
Disorganization 2.16 1.33 1 5
Social self-concept/peer relationship variables
Social self-concept with peers (precamp) 2.94 .60 1.25 4
Social support from peers (Day 3 of camp) 4.42 1.11 1.42 6
Friendship at camp: Positive qualities 4.13 .66 2.30 5
(Day 5 of camp)
Friendship at camp: Conflict (Day 5 of camp) 1.91 .80 1 4.20
Friends at the beginning of camp .48 .50 0 1
Friends gained at camp (Day 5 of camp) 7.29 4.91 0 17
Control variables
Age in months 123.42 10.97 101 150
Difficult temperament 2.94 .81 1.55 5.20
Previous family campouts .59 .49 0 1
Previous overnight camping trips with a group .89 .32 0 1
Previous residential week-long camp .46 .50 0 1
Previous attendance at the specific camp .42 .50 0 1
Homesickness (precamp) 1.76 2.41 0 10

when they are upset, but other kids do not go to their mom when they are
upset.” Each item was scored from 1 to 4, with a score of 1 indicating lower
security and a score of 4 indicating higher security. The mean of the
answers to all 15 items was computed. Previous research has demonstrated
very good psychometric properties of this measure (Kerns, Klepac, & Cole,
1996; Kerns, Schlegelmilch, Morgan, & Abraham, 2005; Kerns, Tomich,
Aspelmeier, & Contreras, 2000). Alpha for the present study was .81.
Homesickness: Associations in Middle Childhood 481

In addition, all girls completed a doll story interview task (Granot &
Mayseless, 2001). The Doll Play Interview is a story stem task in which an
experimenter begins a story with an attachment theme, using dolls to act out
events (e.g., reunion after a separation from parent), and the child com-
pletes the story. Using the dolls, the child tells what she thinks happens in
the story. The target child, the mother, and siblings are represented in the
stories. The interview includes one warm-up story (birthday party) and five
stories with a parent-child theme: child spills juice at dinner, child gets hurt
after falling off a rock, child sees something in her room after going to bed,
child is left with the sitter after mother departs for three days, and reunion
of mother and child after a three-day separation.
Trained raters later scored the videotaped interview using the manual
for coding the Attachment Doll Story Completion Task (Granot & Mayse-
less, 1999). First, each story was rated secure or insecure based on four cri-
teria. The first criterion is the expression of emotion. In a more secure
relationship, the child is able to express both positive and negative emo-
tions. The second criterion refers to the nature of the mother-child relation-
ship (e.g., is the mother available and responsive to the child’s needs). The
third criterion was whether the events depicted in the stories are resolved in
a positive way. The final criterion is the coherence of the narrative. In a
more secure relationship the narrative is logical and integrated. In insecure
relationships the stories are superficial and pedestrian, contain irrelevant
details, or lack consistency and continuity. After rating each individual
story as secure or insecure, the child was assigned a 5-point rating for four
attachment patterns (security, avoidance, ambivalence, and disorganiza-
tion). A more secure attachment was indicated by at least three stories rated
as secure, including the reunion story. A more avoidant attachment was
assigned if a minimizing strategy, in which a child distances herself, was
used in most of the stories. Children who rated higher on ambivalence dis-
played a heightening strategy involving high levels of distress by the child
and inconsistency in the response of the mother. Children who rated higher
on disorganization presented a chaotic strategy, with either no particular
strategy identifiable or story themes in which catastrophic events occurred
that threatened the availability of the mother. (See the manual for additional
coding details.)
Three raters coded the videotapes. Of the 106 interviews coded, 34
were rated by two observers to check the observer agreement with interrater
agreement (rs = .75—.87). These values are close to those reported by Gra-
not and Mayseless (2001). Previous studies have demonstrated good valid-
ity and test-retest reliability of the measure (Granot & Mayseless, 2001;
Kerns et al., 2005).
482 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
Social self-concept (in relation to peers). Mothers and their daughters
separately completed Harter’s (1982, 1985) scales of perceived compe-
tence, which assess self-concept in several different domains. The 36-item
measure consists of six scales that measure self-concept (i.e., perceived
competence) in the areas of academics, peers, athletics, physical appear-
ance, behavior, and global self-esteem. Only the 6-item peer scale is rele-
vant for this essay. Items on this scale ask about peer skills (e.g., find it easy
to make friends), the availability of friends (e.g., have a lot of friends), and
peer acceptance (e.g., others their age like them). A high score reflects that
a child has positive perceptions of his or her interactions with peers. The
scale is based on the “Some kids . . . other kids . . .” format. The girls com-
pleted the items with the standard instructions, that is, they were asked to
report their self-perceptions. For each item, after picking which kids they
were like, girls indicated whether the statement was really true or sort of
true for them. Thus, each item was rated on a 4-point scale. The mothers
separately completed the questionnaire. Mother questionnaires were scored
using the same 4-point scale. Mothers were instructed to answer how they
thought their daughters would answer about themselves, even if that was
not how the mothers perceived their daughters. These instructions were
used because in the context of the larger study, this instrument was also
scored for other variables. The alphas for the current study were .77 for the
perceived peer acceptance scale completed by girls and .88 for the same
scale completed by mothers (with mothers reporting how the child per-
ceives herself). Child and mother reports of perceived peer acceptance were
correlated (r = .56, p < .01) and were aggregated to create a single score.
Precamp homesickness. During the precamp session, the girls com-
pleted Thurber and Sigman’s (1998) Rate Your Day measure, which includes
a 3-item homesickness scale. Following the procedures and instructions of
Thurber and Sigman (1998), to obtain a measure of precamp homesickness
we instructed girls to rate their feelings for the prior two weeks. When used
prior to a separation experience, the measure is thought to tap anticipated
homesickness as well as reactions to everyday separations (e.g., during the
school day). Each item was scored from 0 to 10, with a higher score indicat-
ing greater homesickness. Previous research has shown that the measure has
adequate internal consistency and predicts homesickness at camp (Thurber
& Sigman, 1998). The alpha for the current study was .60.
Difficult temperament. We measured difficult temperament prior to
camp so that we could control for general tendencies to experience distress-
ing emotions in our analyses predicting homesickness at camp. Difficult
temperament was measured using McClowry et al.’s (1993) 11-item scale.
The items were based on the Chess and Thomas conceptualization of diffi-
Homesickness: Associations in Middle Childhood 483

cult temperament (mood, intensity, and adaptability) and were developed


for children ages 8 to 12. Mothers rated their daughters’ temperament on a
scale from 1 to 6, with a score of 6 indicating a more difficult temperament.
Some items were reverse-scored where appropriate, and a mean score was
computed. The alpha for the current study was .78.
Camping experience. The mothers answered four questions regarding
their daughters’ previous camping experience, providing information on
whether children had participated in family campouts, overnight camping
trips with a group, attendance at residential week-long camps, and prior atten-
dance at the specific camp. The items were coded 0 or 1 (0 = no, 1 = yes).

Camp Measures
Peer relationships. During the camp visits, four variables were meas-
ured: attending camp with friends, peer social support, quality of best
friendship at camp, and number of friends gained at camp. On the first day
of camp children were given a list of all campers in their group (approxi-
mately 20 girls) and were asked to indicate which other campers they con-
sidered to be a friend. Data were highly skewed in that 52% of girls did not
attend camp with a friend, 28% attended with 1 friend, and 20% attended
with 2 or more friends. This variable was coded as 0 or 1 (1 = attended camp
with at least one friend).
On the third day of camp girls rated social support from their peers
using Malecki, Demaray, and Elliot’s (2002) social support scales. The
scale consists of 12 items that assess four types of social support (emo-
tional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental). Each item is scored
from 1 to 3, with a score of 3 indicating greater perceived social support
from peers. Sample items are “treat me nicely,” “give good advice,” “nicely
tell me when I have made mistakes,” and “ask me to join activities.” The
mean score of all the items was included in the analysis (α = .92). There
was more missing data from Day 3 than Day 1 or Day 5 due to some unan-
ticipated disruptions on that day of camp (during one summer session there
was a severe storm and the camp lost electricity, and during another session
the researcher did not visit due to an illness outbreak at camp that day).
On the fifth day of camp, girls rated the quality of their best friendship at
camp (Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1994). Two items were removed from the
scale, one from the companionship subscale and one from the helpfulness
subscale, as these items related to events that would not occur while at camp
(i.e., spending time together after school and offering to lend lunch money).
There were 5 subscales: companionship, α = .59, 3 items; helpfulness, α =
.79, 4 items; security, α = .64, 5 items; closeness, α = .62, 5 items; conflict
484 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
subscale, α = .71, 4 items. The girls rated on a scale from 1 (not true) to 5
(really true) statements such as “My friend would help me if I need it” and
“My friend and I can argue a lot.” Because companionship, helpfulness, secu-
rity, and closeness subscales were highly correlated (rs = .49 – .70), they were
aggregated to obtain a positive friendship qualities score (α = .85).
Finally, on the fifth day of camp children again nominated their friends.
Children were given a list of all campers in their group and marked which
other campers they considered to be a friend. The number of friends gained
at camp was calculated by subtracting the Day 1 total from the Day 5 total.
Homesickness at camp. Girls again completed the Rate Your Day scale,
which included a 3-item homesickness scale (Thurber & Sigman, 1998),
reporting their feelings on Days 1, 3, and 5 of camp. Because of missing
data for homesickness on Day 3 and the high correlation with homesick-
ness measured at Day 3 and Day 5 at camp, we used only Day 1 and Day 5
measures of homesickness in our analyses (αs = .82 and .93, respectively).
T-test analyses indicated that there were differences in the levels of home-
sickness between Day 1 and Day 5. Specifically, homesickness increased
from the first day of camp to the fifth day of camp (t[82] = –3.42, p = .001;
see Table 1 for means).

Results
Preliminary Analyses
The first analysis examined associations among the different attachment-
based measures of the mother-child relationship. Security scores from the
questionnaire measure of attachment were not correlated with the ratings of
attachment patterns from the interview. Ratings from the interview were all
correlated significantly, with the absolute values of correlations ranging
from .21 to .36 except for a higher correlation between security and disor-
ganization (r = –.59). In other research with children, adolescents, or adults,
questionnaire and interview measures have not correlated consistently
(Crowell, Fraley, & Shaver, 1999; Kerns et al., 2007), suggesting that the
two approaches tap different conceptualizations of attachment (i.e., con-
sciously available perceptions vs. unconscious or less readily accessible
beliefs). The security score from the questionnaire and the interview pattern
ratings were analyzed separately in subsequent analyses.
The social self-concept measure and the different measures of peer
relationships also were not highly related to one another (6 of 15 correla-
tions were significant; significant rs ranged from .25 to .35). Girls who
reported a more positive social self-concept in regard to peers prior to camp
Homesickness: Associations in Middle Childhood 485

reported receiving more support from peers at camp (r = .27, p < .05),
reported more positive qualities in their best friendship at camp (r = .25, p <
.05), and made more new friends at camp (r = .35, p < .01). Girls who
reported more positive friendship quality at camp also perceived more sup-
port from peers (r = .35, p < .01), reported less conflict in the friendship (r =
–.27, p < .05), and gained more friends at camp (r = .29, p < .01). Going to
camp with a friend was not related to any of the other measures of peer rela-
tionships. The modest overlap for the peer relationship measures suggests
that they capture somewhat different facets of peer relationships, and we
did not aggregate the measures so that we could examine relations between
homesickness and specific aspects of peer relationships.
Child age, prior experience at camp, difficult temperament, and pre-
camp homesickness were assessed at the precamp home visit. These vari-
ables were included in the study because they might plausibly predict
distress at camp. These child characteristics were not related to one another
except that children with a greater homesick disposition were less likely to
have previously attended a one-week residential camp (r = –.24, p < .05),
and older girls had more prior experience at camp and more often had been
to a one-week residential camp (r = .22, p < .05) or had attended the target
camp (r = .24, p < .05). Prior camp experience and precamp homesickness
were both related to homesickness at camp. Specifically, children who had
attended a one-week residential summer camp before reported less home-
sickness on Day 5 of camp (r = –.21, p < .05). Finally, precamp homesick-
ness was significantly correlated with homesickness on Day 1 and Day 5 of
camp (rs = .40 and .34, respectively, ps < .01).
We also examined associations between the control child characteristics
and our measures of mother-child attachment and peer relationships. There
were four significant correlations for attachment. Older girls were rated as
more secure (r = .37, p < .001) and less disorganized (r = –.38, p < .001) on
the attachment interview. Children rated as more secure or less ambivalent on
the interview were also more likely to have attended the target camp before
(rs = .25 and –.20, respectively, ps < .05). The child characteristics were not
related to peer relationships except that children with more difficult tempera-
ments were lower on perceived peer competence (r = –.24, p < .05).
In the following section we present associations between the mother-
child and peer measures and homesickness at camp. In addition to present-
ing correlations for individual measures, we used regression analyses so
that we could control for some child characteristics when examining these
associations. The regressions also allowed us to examine the total variance
accounted for by the mother-child relationship variables and the peer self-
esteem and peer relationship variables.
486 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
Mother-Child Relationship, Social Self-Concept, and Peer
Relationships: Correlations with Homesickness at Camp
As a first step to testing our hypotheses, we calculated correlations of the
mother-child and peer relationship measures and social self-concept with
homesickness. Table 2 displays the zero-order correlations between the
main variables and children’s homesickness ratings on the first and fifth
days of camp. Homesickness on Day 1 and Day 5 were not significantly
related to either questionnaire or interview assessments of mother-child
attachment. Because some of the attachment pattern ratings were correlated
with age we also calculated partial correlations between attachment and
homesickness, controlling for age, but the findings did not change.
By contrast, social self-concept and measures of peer relationships
were related to homesickness. Social self-concept in relation to peers (rated
by girls and their mothers), assessed prior to the start of camp, was related
to homesickness on Day 1 and Day 5. Homesickness on Day 1 did not cor-
relate with assessments of peer relationships taken on Day 3 (social sup-
port) or Day 5 (friendship) of camp. However, some of the camp peer
relationship measures were correlated with homesickness on Day 5. More
specifically, children were less likely to experience homesickness on Day 5
if they reported receiving more social support from peers at camp on Day 3
and if they reported a higher quality best friendship at camp on Day 5. Thus,
measures of social self-concept and peer relationships predicted subsequent
feelings of homesickness, but homesickness did not predict subsequent
peer relationships at camp. Although homesickness was related to the qual-
ity of girls’ peer relationships, it was not related to the presence of a home
friend at camp or to the number of friendships gained at camp.1

Mother-Child Relationship, Social Self-Concept, and Peer


Relationships: Multivariate Associations with Homesickness
at Camp
To provide a more stringent test of the predictive power of mother-child
attachment and peer relationships/social self-concept, we used multiple
regression analyses and included the following control variables on Step 1:
child age, child difficult temperament, prior experience at camp, and the
precamp homesickness ratings. We then entered, as a block on Step 2, either

1 Due to missing data the Ns for the correlations in Table 2 were not the same for Day 1 and

Day 5, nor were they the same for the different peer variables (see Table 2 for pairwise Ns). We
checked to see whether this affected the results by recalculating the peer relationship correlations in
Table 2 including only those girls for whom we had complete peer data as well as homesickness
data for both Day 1 and Day 5 (N = 65). The results did not change.
Homesickness: Associations in Middle Childhood 487
Table 2. Correlations of Mother-Child Attachment, Social Self-Concept, and Peer
Relationships with Homesickness on Day 1 and 5 of Camp

Variable Day 1 N Day 5 N


Mother-Child Attachment
Security scale (child questionnaire; precamp) –.12 86 –.16 95
Attachment interview (precamp) 88 97
Security –.05 –.06
Avoidance –.08 –.04
Ambivalence .14 .14
Disorganization .19 .10
Social self-concept/peer relationships
Social self-concept with peers (precamp) –.28** 88 –.37*** 97
Social support from peers (Day 3 of camp) –.12 69 –.28* 78
Friendship at camp: Positive qualities –.01 83 –.22* 97
(Day 5 of camp)
Friendship at camp: Conflict .01 83 .17 97
(Day 5 of camp)
Friends at the beginning of camp .19 87 .14 95
Friends gained at camp (Day 5 of camp) –.08 83 –.01 95
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

the attachment measures or the peer relationship and social self-concept


measures.
When entered as a block on Step 1, the control variables produced a
significant change in R2 when used to predict homesickness ratings on Day
1 of camp (F[4, 81] = 4.28, p < .01), explaining 17% of the variance
(adjusted R2 = .13). The same control variables also predicted homesick-
ness ratings from Day 5 of camp (F[4, 90] = 3.15, p < .05), explaining 12%
of the variance (adjusted R2 = .08). The mother-child attachment variables
were entered on Step 2. As might be expected from the results in Table 2,
after including the controls at Step 1 the tests for change in R2 at Step 2
were not significant when predicting homesickness on Day 1 of camp (F[5,
76] = 1.19) or Day 5 of camp (F[5,85] = 1.06).
A similar set of regression analyses were calculated, entering the social
self-concept and peer relationship measures on Step 2 (Table 3). Because of
missing data at camp, there were fewer cases in these regression analyses. As
can be seen from Table 3, Step 1 was again significant for Day 1 homesick-
ness ratings, with the control variables accounting for 19% of the variance.
The effect was primarily accounted for by the precamp homesickness ratings
488 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
Table 3. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Peer Variables
Predicting Homesickness on Day 1 (N = 65)

Variable R2Change B SE(B) β


Step 1 .19
Age in months 0 .03 –.01
Difficult temperament .46 .41 .13
Previous residential week-long camp .15 .68 .03
Homesickness precamp .52 .15 .44**
Step 2 .10
Age in months .01 .03 .07
Difficult temperament –.01 .45 –.01
Previous residential week-long camp .52 .70 .09
Homesickness precamp .55 .15 .46**
Social self-concept with peers (precamp) –1.35 .65 –.29*
Social support from peers (Day 3) –.33 .33 –.14
Friendship at camp: Positive qualities (Day 5) .12 .61 .03
Friendship at camp: Conflict (Day 5) –.03 .45 –.01
Friends at the beginning of camp .49 .68 .09
Friends gained at camp (Day 5) .03 .08 .04
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01.

obtained prior to camp. When the peer variables were entered as a block at
Step 2, the test for R2 change was not significant (F[6, 54] = 1.20, p = .32),
although as shown in Table 3 social self-concept did uniquely predict Day 1
homesickness after accounting for the control variables. Social self-concept
and peer relationship measures were more strongly related to homesickness
at Day 5 (Table 4), with the test for R2 change on Step 2 significant (F[6, 66] =
4.93, p < .001). The social self-concept and peer relationship measures
accounted for an additional 26% of the variance in homesickness ratings after
controlling for age, temperament, prior experience at camp, and dispositional
ratings of homesickness (adjusted R2 = .22). As shown in Table 4, the peer
measures collectively accounted for more of the variance in Day 5 homesick-
ness than did the control child characteristics.2

2 Some children were missing homesickness ratings from Day 1 because they arrived at camp

late the first day. As suggested by a reviewer, we checked to see if the different results for the Day 1
and Day 5 regressions were due to different cases in the two analyses. The Day 5 results did not
change when we eliminated the girls who had not contributed data on Day 1, thus eliminating this
explanation for the different results.
Homesickness: Associations in Middle Childhood 489

Table 4. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Peer Variables


Predicting Homesickness on Day 5 (N = 77)

Variable R2Change B SE(B) β


Step 1 .16
Age in months .01 .04 .04
Difficult temperament .19 .49 .04
Previous residential week-long camp –.37 .81 –.05
Homesickness precamp .53 .16 .38*
Step 2 .26
Age in months .04 .03 .11
Difficult temperament –.33 .46 –.07
Previous residential week-long camp .33 .72 .05
Homesickness precamp .62 .15 .45**
Social self-concept with peers (precamp) –2.38 .69 –.39*
Social support from peers (Day 3) –.63 .34 –.20
Friendship at camp: Positive qualities –1.00 .60 –.19
(Day 5)
Friendship at camp: Conflict (Day 5) .01 .43 .01
Friends at the beginning of camp .61 .68 .09
Friends gained at camp (Day 5) .12 .08 .17
Note. * p < .01, ** p < .001.

Discussion
Contrary to our hypotheses, we did not find an association between mother-
child attachment and homesickness at summer camp. Our findings are not
consistent with Thurber and Sigman (1998) and Thurber et al. (1999), who
reported a small but significant association between self-reports of attach-
ment and homesickness. Negative results are difficult to interpret, and it is
important to consider how our study design and methods may have affected
the results. The measures of attachment used in this study, chosen specifi-
cally because they were developed for children in middle childhood, were
different from those used in earlier mixed-age samples. The questionnaire
measure of attachment we used, the Security Scale, has been extensively
validated. For example, in prior research security scores have been found to
be related to other measures of attachment, parenting, and children’s social
and emotional adjustment (for reviews, see Dwyer, 2005; Kerns et al.,
2005). As reported elsewhere, in the present study attachment was related
to other measures of children’s social and emotional adjustment at camp
490 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
(Abraham & Kerns, 2005; Kerns & Abraham, 2005), further suggesting
that the findings for homesickness are not due solely to measurement prob-
lems. The Doll Play Interview has only been used in two published studies
(Granot & Maysless, 2001; Kerns et al., 2007). Those studies provide some
evidence for the measure’s validity, although findings were much stronger
in an Israeli sample (Granot & Mayseless, 2001) than in a U.S. sample
(Kerns et al., 2007). One important difference in design between the present
study and earlier studies that found an association between self-reports of
attachment and homesickness is that attachment was assessed prior to camp
in our study. It is possible that in studies in which attachment was assessed
at camp (Thurber & Sigman, 1998; Thurber et al., 1999), children’s initial
affective reactions to camp may have influenced their ratings of attachment.
In addition to these methodological considerations, it may be important
as well to consider whether other variables (e.g., peer relationships) have a
more salient influence than does attachment on children’s homesickness at
camp. That is, just as attachment may not predict all aspects of peer rela-
tionships (Ainsworth, 1990), there may also be limits on the contexts in
which attachment predicts emotional adjustment (i.e., the theory does not
exclude the possibility that other factors may be more influential on chil-
dren’s sense of well-being in some contexts). It is also possible that there is
a small true association between attachment and homesickness, but a mod-
est sample size in the present study limited the power to detect this effect.
Our findings do suggest that the importance of attachment for homesick-
ness (e.g., Brewin et al., 1989; Thurber et al., 1999) may have been overem-
phasized in the literature.
The findings were more consistent with the peer social support hypoth-
esis. Homesickness at camp was related to perceptions of social self-
concept obtained prior to camp as well as to the supportiveness of peer
relationships at camp. By contrast, the presence of a friend at the start of
camp and the number of friendships formed at camp were not related to
homesickness. In regression analyses, the social self-concept and peer
relationship measures predicted a substantial amount of the variance in
homesickness at the end of camp, even after controlling for several child
characteristics including children’s tendencies to experience homesickness.
Finally, to assist interpreting the direction of effects, we examined associa-
tion between peer relationships measures and subsequent homesickness as
well as whether homesickness predicted subsequent peer relationships. We
found that peer relationships and social self-concept predicted subsequent
homesickness, whereas homesickness did not predict later assessments of
peer relationships. Although the study design does not allow for strong con-
clusions regarding causal direction of influence, the pattern of results is
Homesickness: Associations in Middle Childhood 491

nevertheless consistent with the hypothesis that prior social self-concept


and difficulties in establishing relationships with peers at camp may con-
tribute to subsequent feelings of homesickness.
Gottman and Mettetal (1986) have suggested that a key goal in peer rela-
tionships in middle childhood is feeling accepted by and having a sense of
solidarity with one’s peers. We therefore obtained children’s perceptions of
social self-concept to capture their thoughts and feelings about the quality
of their interactions with peers. Some of our measures assessed specific peer
relationships (e.g., best friendship at camp), whereas others asked girls to
report about their experiences with multiple peers (e.g., social support from
other campers). Our study suggests that girls’ perceptions of their social self-
concept and their peer relationships are predictive of whether they are likely
to experience homesickness at summer camp. We limited our assessments of
peer relationships to friendship nominations, social support, and friendship
quality. This study could be extended by examining other aspects of peer rela-
tionships such as children’s behavioral profiles with peers (e.g., aggression,
social withdrawal, time spent interacting with peers), acceptance by peers
(e.g., liking ratings from peers), social networks, or loneliness at camp.
In the literature on homesickness some theories have emphasized child
characteristics such as a homesick disposition (Thurber & Sigman, 1998). In
our study, precamp homesickness did correlate with homesickness at camp.
Another child characteristic that we examined, difficult temperament, was
not related to homesickness. As Fisher et al. (1986) suggest, to explain home-
sickness it may also be important to consider the role of experiences in the
new environment. Fisher et al. (1986) proposed that high levels of homesick-
ness may occur when a child experiences problems in a new environment.
Our findings suggest that problems with peers (e.g., low levels of social sup-
port) may be one of the aspects of camp ecology that influence children’s
feelings of homesickness. A recently developed homesickness prevention
program (Thurber, 2005) focuses on providing information about camp to
families, supportive efforts of staffers, and training in adaptive coping skills
to children who are planning to attend an overnight summer camp for the first
time. The prevention program decreased levels of homesickness compared to
the prior year when the program was unavailable. Because social self-concept
and peer relationships predicted subsequent homesickness (but not vice
versa), perhaps the program could be enhanced further by including compo-
nents that target peer self-concept and peer relationships. For example, it may
be helpful to target peer relationship skills (e.g., cooperation, listening to oth-
ers, conflict resolution) as well as coping skills. In addition, camp staff may
want to focus on team building or other get-acquainted exercises at the begin-
ning of camp to facilitate the development of relationships among campers.
492 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
Research on homesickness could be extended further with the develop-
ment of more comprehensive models of homesickness. Thurber and Sigman
(1998) proposed a model of factors related to homesickness, although the focus
in that model is on child characteristics (e.g., perceived control, prior experi-
ence) rather than qualities of relationships. Studies of attachment and peer rela-
tionships have shown that more securely attached children have higher quality
friendships and are more competent with peers (Schneider, Atkinson, & Tardif,
2001). Given the link between peer relationships and homesickness in this
study, it is possible that attachment may indirectly influence homesickness
through its impact on children’s social self-concept and peer relationships. An
integrative model of homesickness might include the quality of children’s rela-
tionships with peers and parents and social self-concept as well as other child
characteristics and might further consider whether some of these factors (e.g.,
child characteristics) might mediate or explain links between relationship expe-
riences and children’s homesickness at camp.
One demographic factor we examined was the child’s age. Although we
did not find an association between child’s age and homesickness, some stud-
ies have shown that older children are less prone than younger children to
homesickness. For example, age was significantly correlated with levels of
homesickness in studies of 8- to 16-year-old boys (Thurber, 1995; Thurber &
Sigman, 1998; Thurber & Weisz, 1997). However, when narrower age ranges
are studies, age is generally not related to homesickness; age and homesick-
ness were not associated in studies of 8- to 12-year-olds (Zimmerman &
Bijur, 1995) or in studies of 11- to 16-year-olds (Fisher et al., 1986; Fisher et
al., 1990). Thus, although adolescents may be less prone to homesickness
than children in middle childhood, age effects are not strong within a devel-
opmental period. In smaller age ranges, factors other than developmental
level may be more important in explaining individual differences in home-
sickness. Another factor examined in the literature is children’s separation
experiences, and typically children with more experience attending camp are
less homesick (Fisher et al., 1986; Fisher et al., 1990; Thurber, 1995; Thurber
& Sigman, 1998; Thurber & Weisz, 1997). We found that one measure of
camp experience—whether children had attended a one-week residential
camp before—predicted homesickness ratings on Day 5 but not Day 1 of
camp. Thus, in our study an association emerged only toward the end of camp
when ratings of homesickness are higher.
Several studies of homesickness, including the present study, have
included only one gender. In some earlier studies, only boys were included
(Thurber & Sigman, 1998; Thurber, 1995; Thurber, 2005). In other studies
with samples of boys and girls, the correlates of homesickness have some-
times been different for boys and girls (e.g., Fisher et al., 1986; Thurber &
Homesickness: Associations in Middle Childhood 493

Weisz, 1997). It is therefore important to consider whether some of the fac-


tors related to homesickness might vary with gender. In an earlier study
with girls, Thurber et al. (1999) reported that homesickness was related to
girls’ acceptance by other girls at camp. Together with the present study, the
two studies suggest that peer relationships may be an important factor in
homesickness for girls. Girls have a stronger interpersonal orientation than
do boys (Huston & Alvarez, 1990; Sheldon, 1992), and it is possible that the
quality of peer relationships at camp may play a bigger role in accounting
for homesickness in girls than in boys. Large studies, with both girls and
boys included, are needed to provide a more definite test of whether the fac-
tors related to homesickness differ for boys and for girls. Especially needed
are studies that would test whether high-quality peer relationships are a pro-
tective factor for homesickness in boys.
An important feature of the present study was the use of a longitudinal
design that allowed us to examine whether attachment, social self-concept,
and peer relationships predicted subsequent homesickness. We also exam-
ined homesickness at two different time points in camp and found that
the correlates of homesickness differed somewhat depending on whether
homesickness was measured at the beginning or the end of camp. While
precamp homesickness intensity assessed prior to camp was related to
homesickness at both the beginning and end of camp, it appears that peer
relationships were more predictive of homesickness after several days at
camp. In some studies, even when homesickness has been assessed on mul-
tiple occasions at camp, ratings from different days have sometimes been
combined; for example, Thurber and Sigman (1998) averaged homesick-
ness ratings for Days 4 to 9 of a two-week camp. While homesickness rat-
ings across different days are correlated and aggregating correlated ratings
can produce more reliable composites, aggregation may also mask patterns
in the findings. In this study, homesickness increased across the first few
days of camp. In future studies, it may be important to take into considera-
tion how different factors are related to the time course of homesickness,
particularly given that over time homesickness tends to rise the most for
those children who are experiencing the highest levels of homesickness
(Thurber & Sigman, 1998; Thurber et al., 1999).
The nature of the sample is a limitation of the study. As already noted,
the inclusion of only girls in the study places some limits on the generaliz-
ability of the results and did not allow us to examine directly whether the
correlates of homesickness differ for boys and girls. While there was some
variability on family socioeconomic status, the sample was predominantly
middle class (based on education and occupation information) and mostly
Caucasian. The typical parent-child separation experiences for this group
494 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
may differ from those of families from other economic or racial back-
grounds, which might affect responses to separation at camp. Interview
procedures to assess attachment in middle childhood, including the one
used in this study, have been developed only recently and need to be vali-
dated more thoroughly (Kerns, in press). Ratings of security and disorgani-
zation were correlated in this sample with age. This might reflect the fact
that story stem measures of attachment (in part) tap script knowledge
regarding attachment (Waters, Rodgrigues, & Ridgeway, 1998), and chil-
dren’s secure base scripts are likely to become more elaborate, complex,
and hierarchical with age (Fivush, 2006). It may be beneficial in future
studies with story stem measures of attachment to restrict the age range.
Although we did include a child interview and obtained some information
from mothers, a limitation to the study is that many of the variables were
measured only with self-reports obtained from the child. This raises the
concern that shared method variance may have contributed to some of the
results. Finally, sample size was modest in part due to the use of an inten-
sive attachment assessment. Nevertheless, it will be important to replicate
the findings in a larger sample given our suggestion that the effect size for
the association between attachment and homesickness may be small.
In conclusion, our study is one of the first to investigate simultaneously
how the quality of children’s relationships with mothers and peers and their
social self-concept are related to homesickness at camp in middle child-
hood. We found that homesickness at camp was more strongly related to
girls’ social self-concept in relation to peers and to the supportiveness of
their peer relationships than to the quality of the mother-child relationship.
The findings are noteworthy in identifying social self-concept as an impor-
tant predictor of subsequent feelings of homesickness. The findings support
the peer social support hypothesis and more generally point to the need to
consider proximal factors in a new environment that may affect homesick-
ness. A practical implication of the findings is that efforts to ameliorate
homesickness may be most effective if they foster girls’ relationships with
other campers. Theoretically, the present findings suggest that models of
homesickness (e.g., Thurber & Sigman, 1998), which have tended to focus
on the role of individual child characteristics, would be enhanced if they
incorporated relationship influences on homesickness.

References
Abraham, M. M., & Kerns, K. A. (2005). Attachment: Links to the expression and
regulation of emotion in preadolescence. Paper presented at the Society for
Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA.
Homesickness: Associations in Middle Childhood 495

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1990). Epilogue: Some considerations regarding theory and


assessment relevant to attachments beyond infancy. In T. Greenberg, D.
Cichetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years (pp.
463–488). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attach-
ment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York:
Basic Books.
Brewin, C. R., Furnham, A., & Howes, M. (1989). Demographic and psychological
determinants of homesickness and confiding among students. British Journal
of Psychology, 80, 467–477.
Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendship quality
during pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric proper-
ties of the Friendship Qualities Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 11, 471–484.
Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 228–249.
Contreras, J. M., & Kerns, K. A. (2000). Emotion regulation processes: Explaining
links between parent-child attachment and peer relationships. In K. A. Kerns,
J. M. Contreras, and A. M. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Family and peers: Linking two
social worlds (pp. 1–25). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Contreras, J. M., Kerns, K. A., Weimer, B. L., Gentzler, A. L., & Tomich, P. L.
(2000). Emotion regulation as a mediator of associations between mother-
child attachment and peer relationships in middle childhood. Journal of Fam-
ily Psychology, 14, 111–124.
Crowell, J. A., Fraley, R. C., Shaver, P. R. (1999). Measurement of individual differ-
ences in adolescent and adult attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp.
434–468). New York: Guilford.
DeOliviera, C. A., Bailey, H. N., Moran, G., & Pederson, D. R. (2004). Emotion
socialization as a framework for understanding the development of disorgan-
ized attachment. Social Development, 13, 437–467.
Dwyer, K. M. (2005). The meaning and measurement of attachment in middle and
late childhood. Human Development, 48, 155–182.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1999). Emotion, emotion related regulation, and
quality of socioemotional functioning. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda
(Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 318–335).
Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Fisher, S., Elder, L., & Peacock, G. (1990). Homesickness in a school in the Aus-
tralian Bush. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 7, 15–22.
496 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
Fisher, S., Frazer, N., & Murray, K. (1986). Homesickness and health in boarding
school children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, 35–47.
Fivush, R. (2006). Scripting attachment: Generalized event representation and
internal working models. Attachment and Human Development, 8, 283–289.
Gottfried, A. W. (1985). Measures of socioeconomic status in child development
research: Data and recommendations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31, 85–92.
Gottman, J. M., & Mettetal, G. (1986). Speculations about social and affective
development: Friendship and acquaintanceship through adolescence. In J. M.
Gottman & J. G. Parker (Eds.), Conversations of friends (pp. 192–237). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Granot, D., & Mayseless, O. (1999). Manual for coding of the adapted version of
the Attachment Doll Story Completion Task: Adaptation to 10–12 year-olds.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Haifa.
Granot, D., & Mayseless, O. (2001). Attachment security and adjustment to school
in middle childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25,
530–541.
Grossmann, K. E., Grossmann, K., & Zimmerman, P. (1999). A wider view of
attachment and exploration: Stability and change during the years of immatu-
rity. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory,
Research, and Clinical Applications (pp. 760–786). New York: Guilford.
Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Develop-
ment, 53, 87–97.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children (Revision of
the Perceived Competence Scale for Children). Unpublished manuscript, Uni-
versity of Denver.
Huston, A. C., & Alvarez, M. M. (1990). The socialization context of gender role
development in early adolescence. R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gul-
lota (Eds.), From childhood to adolescence: A transitional period? (pp. 156–
179). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kerns, K. A. (in press). Attachment in middle childhood. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Kerns, K. A., & Abraham, M. M. (2005). Mother-child attachment as a predictor of
girls’ peer relationships at summer camp. Paper presented at the Society for
Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA.
Kerns, K. A., Abraham, M. M., Schlegelmilch, A., & Morgan, T. A. (2007). Mother-
child attachment in later middle childhood: Assessment approaches and asso-
ciations with mood and emotion regulation. Attachment and Human
Development, 9, 33–53.
Kerns, K. A., Aspelmeier, J. E., Gentzler, A. L., & Grabill, C. M. (2001). Parent-
child attachment and monitoring in middle childhood. Journal of Family Psy-
chology, 15, 69–81.
Homesickness: Associations in Middle Childhood 497

Kerns, K. A., Klepac, L., & Cole, A. (1996). Peer relationships and preadolescents’s
perceptions of security in the child-mother relationship. Developmental Psy-
chology, 32, 457–466.
Kerns, K. A., Schlegelmilch, A., Morgan, T. A., & Abraham, M. M. (2005). Assess-
ing attachment in middle childhood. In K. A. Kerns & R. A. Richardson (Eds.),
Attachment in Middle Childhood (pp. 46–70). New York: Guilford.
Kerns, K. A., Tomich, P. L., Aspelmeier, J. E., & Contreras, J. M.. (2000). Attach-
ment based assessments of parent-child relationships in middle childhood.
Developmental Psychology, 36, 614–626.
Kerns, K. A., Tomich, P. L., & Kim, P. (2006). Normative trends in children’s per-
ceptions of availability and utilization of attachment figures in middle child-
hood. Social Development, 15, 1–22.
Malecki, C. K., Demaray, M. K., & Elliot, S. N. (2002). A working manual of the
development of the Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale. Dekalb: North-
ern Illinois University.
McClowry, S. G., Hegvik, R. L., & Teglasi, H. (1993). An examination of the con-
struct validity of the Middle Childhood Temperament Questionnaire. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 39, 279–293.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relation-
ships, and groups. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (5th
ed.), pp. 619–700. New York: Wiley.
Schneider, B. H., Atkinson, L., & Tardif, C. (2001). Child-parent attachment and
children’s peer relations: A quantitative review. Developmental Psychology,
37, 86–100.
Sheldon, A. (1992). Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic challenges to self-assertion and
how young girls meet them. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 95–117.
Thompson, R. A. (1998). Early sociopersonality development. In W. Damon (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology (pp. 25–104). New York: Wiley.
Thurber, C. A. (1995). The experience and expression of homesickness in preado-
lescent and adolescent boys. Child Development, 66, 1162–1178.
Thurber, C. A. (2005). Multimodal homesickness prevention in boys spending 2
weeks at a residential summer camp. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 73, 555–560.
Thurber, C. A., & Sigman, M. D. (1998). Preliminary models of risk and protective
factors for childhood homesickness: Review and empirical synthesis. Child
Development, 69, 903–934.
Thurber, C. A., Sigman, M. D., Weisz, J. R., & Schmidt, C. K. (1999). Homesick-
ness in preadolescent and adolescent girls: Risk factors, behavioral correlates,
and sequelae. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 185–196.
498 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
Thurber, C. A., & Weisz, J. R. (1997). “You can try or you can just give up”: The
impact of perceived control and coping style on childhood homesickness.
Developmental Psychology, 33, 508–517.
Waters, H. S., Rodgrigues, L. M., & Ridgeway, D. (1998). Cognitive underpinnings
of narrative attachment assessment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychol-
ogy, 71, 211–234.
Zimmerman, D. R., & Bijur, P. E. (1995). Homesickness and the use of a camp
infirmary: A preliminary report. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics,
16, 187–191.

View publication stats

You might also like