Impact of Adolescents' Filial Self-Efficacy on Quality of Family ...

Impact of Adolescents’ Filial Self-Efficacyon Quality of Family Functioning and

Satisfaction

Gian Vittorio Caprara and Concetta Pastorelli

University of Rome

Camillo Regalia and Eugenia Scabini

Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Albert Bandura

Stanford University

In this prospective study, we tested a structural model in which adolescents’perceived self-efficacy to manage parental relationships affected their sat-isfaction with family life both directly, and indirectly, through its impact onfamily practices. Findings based on 380 Italian adolescents showed thatperceived filial self-efficacy was linked directly and indirectly to satisfactionwith family life, and that these relations held both concurrently and longi-tudinally. In particular, the greater adolescents perceived their self-efficacy,the more they reported open communication with their parents, the moreaccepting they were of their parents’ monitoring of their own activities out-side the home and the less inclined they were to get into escalative discordover disagreements. Regardless of whether perceived filial self-efficacy wasplaced in the conceptual structure as a contributor to the quality of familyinteractions or as a partial product of family functioning, it consistentlypredicted satisfaction with family life.

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, 15(1), 71–97Copyright r 2005, Society for Research on Adolescence

Request for reprints should be sent to Gian Vittorio Caprara, Dipartimento di Psicologia,University of Rome, La Sapienza, Via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Roma, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]

Over the years, much theorizing and research has been devoted to themajor changes from childhood to adolescence and the personal and socialdeterminants governing this developmental transition (Cairns & Cairns,1994; Compas, Hinden, & Gerardt, 1995; Furstenberg, Cook, Eccles, Elder,& Sameroff, 1999; Millstein, Petersen, &Nightingale, 1993). This transitionpresents special challenges because adolescents have to manage not onlymajor biological, educational, and social role changes but also cope withthe growing strains of independence. Nonetheless, most adolescentsmanage to pass through this period without undue disturbance (Bandura,1964; Petersen, 1988; Rutter, Graham, Chadwick, & Yule, 1976). A vast lit-erature underscores the importance of familial relationships in supportingadolescents’ efforts to gain increasing independence and to manage themany challenges they face (Bandura & Walters, 1959; Fisher & Feldman,1998; Noller, 1994; Steinberg & Morris, 2001; Youniss & Smollar, 1985).

Given the impact of recent societal changes demanding prolonged ed-ucation and leading to a delayed entrance into full-time work, the ado-lescents’ transition to adulthood is longer than in the past (Arnett, 2001).Because youth often continue to live with parents and to rely on them forfinancial support during this extended period, successful youth develop-ment requires negotiating new relationships and roles while maintainingrewarding affective ties with other members of the family (Egeland, Carl-son, & Sroufe, 1993). From this perspective, it is crucial to investigatepersonal characteristics that contribute to adolescents’ transition to adult-hood and to better understand the active role adolescents may play inpromoting relationships that foster mutual well being among adolescentsand parents.

An Agentic Perspective of Adolescent Development and Adjustment

Social cognitive theory adopts an agentic perspective to self-development,adaptation, and change (Bandura, 1986, 2001; Caprara & Cervone, 2000).In this view, people are self-organizing, proactive, self-regulating, andself-reflecting. Particular attention is given to factors that enable individ-uals to select and structure their environments inways that set a successfulcourse for their lives. In the passage to adulthood, adolescents play anincreasing agentic role in their developmental course by their selectionand construction of life circumstances. Among the mechanismsgoverning this self-directedness, a strong sense of efficacy to manageone’s level of functioning and events that affect one’s life plays a para-mount role. Whatever other factors serve as guides and motivators, theyare rooted in the core belief that one has the power to produce desiredeffects by one’s actions; otherwise, one has little incentive to act or to

72 CAPRARA, PASTORELLI, REGALIA, SCABINI, BANDURA

persevere in the face of difficulties. Developmental analyses of self-efficacyhave shown that the beliefs that adolescents hold about their efficacy op-erate as an influential personal resource as they negotiate their lives throughthe life cycle (Bandura, 1995, 1997; Flammer, 1995; Schneewind, 1995).

In a multi-faceted longitudinal project, we recently have been exam-ining how perceived self-efficacy operates in concert with socioeconomic,familial, educational, and peer influences in shaping the developmentaltrajectories of children. The findings of this body of research clearly showthat different forms of efficacy beliefs—academic, social, self-regulatory,and empathic—make independent contributions to children’s social,emotional, moral, education, and career development (Bandura, Barba-ranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996a, b; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara,Pastorelli, & Regalia, 2001; Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino, &Pastorelli, 2003; Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, & Caprara, 1999; Cap-rara, Scabini, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Regalia, & Bandura, 1998; Caprara,Scabini, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, & Regalia, 1999; Caprara, Regalia, &Bandura, 2002).

The present prospective study extends this line of research to adoles-cents’ perceived self-efficacy to manage family relationships in ways thatfoster satisfaction with their family life. A vast literature has documentedthe influential role of parent–adolescent interactions on family function-ing, satisfaction, and well-being (Freeman, Csikszentmihalyi, & Larson,1986; Larson, Richards, Moneta, Holmbeck, & Duckett, 1996; Jackson,Bjistra, Oostra, & Bosma, 1998; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Olson, Sprenkle, &Russell, 1979). Yet, little attention has been given to the influence of ad-olescents’ self-efficacy, namely, the effects that an adolescent’s beliefsabout his/her capacity to relate effectively with his/her parents may exerton their feelings of satisfaction with family life. As adolescence is a phasein which one’s self-system becomes more differentiated and organized(Harter, 1999; Steinberg &Morris, 2001), it is likely that youths’ self-beliefs,connected to goals of autonomy and interdependence, are crucial in pro-moting a favorable family context (Youniss & Smollar, 1985). We expectedthat beliefs of filial efficacy lead to family satisfaction, either directly orindirectly, through better communication with parents, positive manage-ment of conflicts, and parental monitoring.

Perceived Filial Efficacy

In the present research, adolescents’ perceived capability to exercise theirexpanding agentic role in their relationships with their parents is con-ceptualized as filial self-efficacy. In particular, it encompasses adolescents’

FILIAL EFFICACY, FAMILY FUNCTIONING AND SATISFACTION 73

perceived efficacy to talk with their parents about their personal problemsevenwhen things are tense, express positive feelings andmanage negativeemotional reactions toward their parents, get their parents to understandtheir point of view on contentious issues, manage stress arising frommarital conflicts, and influence their parents’ attitudes and social practicesconstructively.

Focusing on the proactive role that young people may exert in thedomain of interpersonal and social relations, preliminary studies on filialefficacy have shown positive relations with open communication withparents and negative relations with escalation of conflicts. These out-comes, in turn, should increase adolescents’ satisfaction with their familylife. Thus, filial efficacy was expected to play a crucial role in fosteringopen communication between adolescents and their parents, in prevent-ing escalation of conflicts, in enabling effective monitoring, and, ultimate-ly, in leading to family satisfaction.

Open Communication

Relationships grounded in open communication enable adolescents toweather transitional stressors and to negotiate their growing independ-ence and individuation (Marta, 1997; Scabini, 1995; Scabini, Lanz, &Marta, 1999). Families with better parent–adolescent communication tendto be closer, more loving, flexible in resolving family problems, and, ul-timately, more satisfied with their family than families where parent–adolescent communication is less effective (Barnes & Olson, 1985). Thestudy of Jackson et al. (1998) further supports the hypothesis that ado-lescents’ perception of good communication between family membersencourages positive feelings about the family. Several studies have shownthat positive interactions with parents, based on closeness and open com-munication, better equip adolescents with personal resources that facil-itate social–emotional adjustment, effective coping with life’s problems,and enhance the quality of their adult life (Ben-Zur, 2003; Best, Hauser, &Allen, 1997; Lasko, Field, Gonzalez, Harding, Yando, & Bendell, 1996;Fluori & Buchanam, 2002; Sim, 2000; Shumow & Lomax, 2002). On thecontrary, problematic communication with parents is positively associat-ed with aggressive style and escalation of conflict (Jackson et al., 1998).

Conflict Management

Conflict is inevitable in close relationships, including those between fam-ily members. In some families, discord even over petty matters may swell


into escalative conflicts (Patterson, 1976, 1986; Reid & Patterson, 1989),negatively affecting the quality of interactions between adolescents andtheir parents (Kim, Conger, Lorenz, & Elder, 2001; Rubenstein & Feldman,1993). Escalative conflicts may enhance reciprocal negative evaluationspredisposing family members to hostility and rejection and ultimatelyleading to a negative family atmosphere (Holahan, Valentiner, & Moss,1994; Shek, Ma, & Cheung, 2000; Fondacaro, Dunkle, & Pathak, 1998). Inthe end, these processes may jeopardize adolescents’ satisfaction withtheir family.

Parental Monitoring

As children move increasingly into the larger social world outside thehome, parents cannot be present to guide their behavior. Instead, theymust rely on children’s personal standards and self-regulatory sanctionsto serve as guides and deterrents in nonfamilial contexts. To provide fur-ther guidance and support to adolescents, parents need to know whatactivities they are engaging in and their choice of acquaintances or friendsoutside the home. Parental monitoring, which allows parents to knowtheir child’s whereabouts and activities, provides social safeguardsagainst heavy involvement in detrimental and risky activities (Dishion& McMahon, 1998; Donenberg, Wilson, Emerson, & Bryant, 2002; Patter-son, Reid, & Dishion, 1992; Robins & Rutter, 1990; Rolf, Masten, Cicchetti,Nuechterlein, & Weintraub, 1990; Webb, Bray, Getz, & Adams, 2002) and,thus, contributes to psychosocial adjustment (Brown, Mounts, Lanborn, &Steinberg, 1993; Crouter, MacDermid, McHale, & Perry-Jenkins, 1990;Jacobson & Crockett, 2000). Parents have to depend largely on the ado-lescents themselves to learn what they are doing when they are on theirown away from home (Stattin &Kerr, 2000). In reality, parental monitoringdepends on parents’ capacity to stay informed about their children’s lifeoutside the family and the adolescents’ willingness to report on their owndaily activities to their parents. When this reciprocal process takes placewithin an engaging communicative family climate, beneficial modes ofcoping with difficult situations can be fostered, and detrimental copingforestalled before adolescents become more troublesome (Kerns, Aspen-lmeier, Gentzler, & Grabill, 2001).

Thus, we expected that parental monitoring—as a critical expression ofparental attention, care, and concern—also contributes to adolescents’family satisfaction. In particular, if parental monitoring is not intrusive butsupportive, adolescents are willing to inform their parents about theiractivities outside their home and this, in turn, fosters communication andsatisfaction.


Family Satisfaction

Studies on family satisfaction have pointed to the family as a context ofsecure belonging, where adolescents can return at the time of uncertaintyand doubts concerning the social world they are facing. When familyboundaries are well regulated according to an adolescent’s need of self-development and adjustment, his or her parents’ responsible guidanceoffers flexible protection and promotes full acquisition of adult respon-sibility (Scabini, 2000). As adolescents live longer in their families andfamily plays a filter role in the relations between adolescents and theirsocietal world (Scabini & Cigoli, 1997), it is important to take into accountthe level of satisfaction for their family life. High family satisfaction, andthe resulting good family climate, can make the adolescents’ processes ofindividuation and differentiation more comfortable (Scabini et al., 1999).

In this view, family satisfaction represents a global variable of familyfunctioning, namely, a sort of blue print of the ways in which familymembers are satisfied of the level of support received, of the ways ofsolving family problems, of the quality of time spent together, and of thegrade of independence within the family. Adolescents’ family satisfactionin particular appears intimately connected to the quality of parent–childinteractions and to their appraisals of family cohesion and flexibility (Bel-sky, Jaffee, Hsieh, & Silva, 2001). Empirical findings show that adolescentswho are satisfied with their family life are more prosocial and have ahigher sense of self-worth (Gilman, 2001; Gilman&Huebner, 2000; Harter,1999). Conversely, dissatisfactionwith family life is accompanied by socialand emotional difficulties, such as negative peer relations, anxiety, anddepression (Cumsille & Epstein, 1994; Huebner & Alderman, 1993; Valois,Zullig, Huebner & Drane, 2001).

Hypothesis and Conceptual Model

In the structural model under study, adolescents’ filial self-efficacy wasposited to exert its influence on their own satisfaction within the familydirectly, and through its impact on open communication, parental mon-itoring of extra-familial activities, and escalative conflicts over contentiousissues. Efficacious adolescents actively structure their family environmentto maximize their satisfaction. They are likely to feel more free to voicetheir opinions and to diffuse disagreements before they escalate into se-rious discord. Furthermore, adolescents who feel secure about managingtheir relationships with their parents are more likely not only to confide intheir parents but also to view their parents’monitoring asmore supportive


than do those adolescents who feel relatively less secure aboutmanaging their relationships with their parents. Thus, by being moreable to interact constructively with their parents, self-efficacious adoles-cents may succeed in avoiding dysfunctional patterns of interactionwhile contributing to a satisfactory level of relationships among familymembers.

These processes and structural relations between filial self-efficacy,family functioning, and practices and satisfaction with family life areschematically illustrated in Figure 1. As the figure shows, perceived filialself-efficacy was hypothesized to exert an effect on open communication,parental monitoring, escalative conflict with parents, and satisfaction withfamily life. Furthermore, we hypothesized that the effects of filial self-efficacy on satisfaction were both direct and indirect, operating throughthe mediating role of the other family processes and practices. Satisfactionwith family life was measured at two time points to assess the uniquecontribution of the variables of theoretical interest after controlling sta-tistically for the stability of family satisfaction.

OpenCommunication

FamilySatisfaction 1


EscalativeConflict

Perceived Filial

Self-Efficacy

ParentalMonitoring

father mother

father mother

FIGURE1 Posited structural relations between filial self-efficacy, family functioningpractices, and satisfaction with family life.


Since the literature on children and adolescent development and familysocialization processes indicates gender as a possible moderator of thefamily relations and practices with respect to different outcomes (Banduraet al., 1999; Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Bumpus, Crouter, & McHale, 2001;Jacobson & Crockett, 2000; Leaper, Anderson, & Sanders, 1998; Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994; Smetana, Yau, & Hanson, 1991), the role ofgender differences was taken into account. Furthermore, considering thatthere is some evidence that adolescents’ perception of family relationshipsmay vary according to family role (Youniss & Smollar, 1985; Noller &Callan, 1991), we assessed adolescents’ relationships with mother andfather separately.

METHOD

Participants

Three hundred and eighty high-school adolescents (i.e., 185 boysand 195 girls) participated in the present study and were interviewedon two occasions 2 years apart. The average age of the participatingadolescent sample was 15 and 17 years old, at time 1 and time 2,respectively.

The participating adolescents were drawn from two high schools inGenzano, a residential community located near Rome. The communityrepresents a socioeconomic microcosm of the larger society, composed offamilies of skilled workers, farmers, professionals, local merchants, andtheir service staff. In particular, 16% were in professional or managerialranks, 42% were merchants or employees in various types of businesses,12% were skilled workers, 22% were unskilled workers, 3% were retired,2% were temporary unemployed but with a salary, and 3% were unem-ployed. This occupational socioeconomic distribution matched the na-tional profile (ISTAT, 2002). The composition of the family also matchednational data with regard to type of families and number of children. Mostadolescents were from intact families (94.1%) and only 5.9% were fromsingle-parent homes (i.e., separated or divorced). On average, the samplewas composed of one-child families.

The present study is part of a larger longitudinal project that started in1992 with the primary goal of investigating the personal and social de-terminants of children and adolescents’ adjustment. During the project’sfirst year, all the 4th and 5th graders from one of two large elementaryschools in Genzano were recruited for participation, and additionalcohorts of 4th graders were added from the same school over the courseof following years. Overall, the project adopted a staggered, multiple-


cohort design, with four different cohorts recruited in four consecutiveschool years, and annual assessments were conducted until 1998.The research was initially approved by a school council composed ofparent and teacher representatives at the junior and high-school level. Inaddition, parents gave consent, and children were free to decline totake part.

Since then, the project has been focusing on the transition from ado-lescence to emerging adulthood with assessments 2 years apart. Thepresent study is based on data collected during this latest phase of thelarger project from adolescents belonging to the four original cohorts(n5 445). All families consented to have their adolescents participate inthe study. The adolescents were then contacted by phone and invited toparticipate in the study for which they received a small payment. At thattime (i.e., time 1 assessment), most of the students were attending 8th, 9th,10th, or 11th grade. Adolescents were contacted again for a second as-sessment 2 years later, and 85% of the recruited adolescent sample(n5 380) participated and completed both assessments. Attrition was duemainly to family relocation from the area or absence from school at thetime of the assessments. In preliminary analyses, the attrited groupdid notdiffer significantly from their counterparts on data from previous assess-ments in either across or within-group analyses.

Procedures and Measures

In order to carry out the two assessments, adolescents were asked to bepart of assessment groups that were scheduled during the initial phonecontacts. During these sessions (held in a school), a series of paper-and-pencil instruments were administered to groups of about 30 students bythree trained female researchers.

With the exception of perceived filial self-efficacy, the set of instrumentsmeasuring the variables of theoretical interest was originally developedwith English-speaking samples. They, therefore, were first translated intoItalian and then back-translated into English to verify the validity of theItalian version. The Italian versions of the instruments concerning opencommunication, escalative conflict, and family satisfaction had alreadybeen used in other programs of research (Lanz, 1997; Scabini et al., 1999;Zani & Cicognani, 1999).

Perceived filial self-efficacy. Participants’ perceived filial self-efficacywas measured by 16 items assessing adolescents’ beliefs in theircapabilities to discuss personal problems with their parents even underdifficult circumstances, express positive feelings and manage negative


emotional reactions toward them, get parents to see their side oncontentious issues, manage stress arising from marital conflicts, andinfluence parental attitudes and social practices constructively. For eachitem, participants rated their beliefs on a seven-point scale ranging from 1(not at all well) to 7 (very well). Examples of self-efficacy items are: ‘‘Howwell can you get your parents understand your point of view on matterswhen it differs from theirs’’ and ‘‘How well can you get your parents topay attention to your needs even when they are preoccupied with theirown problems’’. Items were averaged. The a reliability coefficient was .93for boys and .92 for girls, respectively.A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of this set of items was conducted

to verify the single factor structure of the scale. In line with a previousstudy (Caprara, Regalia, Scabini, Barbaranelli, & Bandura, 2004), resultssupported the mono-factorial structure of the filial efficacy scale. In par-ticular, CFA tests yielded a significant w2 (103, 380)5 319.139, po.001, acomparative fit index (CFI) of .91, a nonnormed fit index (NNFI) of .92,and RMSEA of .07 (CI: .065, .085).

Open communication with parents. Communication with parentswas measured by a 10-item subscale selected from the parent–adolescentcommunication scale (PACS), an instrument developed by Barnes andOlson (1982) to assess adolescents’ open and problem communicationwith both parents. The adolescents rated, on a five-point scale rangingfrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), the extent to which they feltfree to discuss problems with their parents and whether the parentresponded in an understanding, supportive way. For each item,adolescents gave two separate responses: one referring to their motherand the other to their father. Examples of items measuring openness tocommunication are: ‘‘It is easy for me to express all my true feelings to mymother/father’’, and ‘‘When I ask questions I get honest answers frommymother/father’’. A factor analysis yielded twomain factors correspondingto open communication and problem communication. The presentstudy used only the open communication subscale. The a reliabilityfor this 10-item subscale was .83 for communication with both motherand father.

Adolescents’ report of parental monitoring. The extent to whichadolescents informed their parents about their activities and relationshipsoutside the home was assessed by a seven-item scale developed on thebasis of the operational definition of monitoring provided in Capaldi andPatterson (1989). For each item, adolescents rated, on a five-point scaleranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always), how often they kept their parents


informed about their activities outside the home and how often theirparents kept track of their activities outside the home. Examples of itemsare: ‘‘Do you inform your parents about activities you are doing or intendto do?’’ and ‘‘Do your parents ask you what you have done during theday?’’. The a reliability for the scale was .84.

Escalative conflict with parents. The degree to which disagreementswith parents turn into escalating conflicts was measured by 13 itemsselected from ‘‘the parent–adolescent disagreement’’ scale, an instrumentoriginally developed by Honess, Charman, Zani, Cicognani, Xerri,Jackson, and Bosma (1997). For each item, participants rated, on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always), how often negativedisagreements with their parents escalated and left bad feelings. The item‘‘we start out disagreeing about one thing and end up arguing about a lotof things’’ measured escalating dispute, whereas the item ‘‘I end up feelingannoyed or angry’’ assessed the negative emotional aftermath ofdisagreements. The participants rated how well the statements ofescalative conflict described their transactions with their parents overcontentious matters. As in the case of open communication, participantsresponded to these 13 items by giving two separate responses to each item,one referring to their mother and the other to their father. Items wereaveraged. a reliability coefficients were .86 for escalation of conflict withthe father and .87 for escalation of conflict with the mother, respectively.

Family satisfaction. The adolescents’ satisfaction with their familylife was measured by a scale developed by Olson and Wilson (1982). This14-item instrument assessed the two major dimension of Olson’sCircumplex Model of family functioning, that is, adaptability andcohesion. For each item, participants rated, on a five-point scale rangingfrom 1 (dissatisfied) to 5 (extremely satisfied), how satisfied they were withdifferent aspects of family life, including the amount of time they spenttogether, the ways the family makes decisions and handles familyproblems, how it carries out mutual responsibilities, and the sense offairness in family relations. Examples of items are: ‘‘How satisfied are youwith how close you feel to the rest of the family?’’ and ‘‘How satisfied areyou with the way you talk together to solve family problems?’’ FollowingOlson and Wilson’s recommendations, the total score was used as anindex of satisfaction with family functioning. A principal componentanalysis with Oblimin rotation yielded a single factor with an eigenvalueof 6.87 that accounted for 40% of the variance. Items were averaged. areliability for the scale was .87 in the first phase of assessment and .85 forthe second assessment conducted 2 years later.


RESULTS

The Distinction Among the Family Constructs

The conceptual distinctiveness among the constructs of open commu-nication, escalative conflicts, parental monitoring, and family satisfac-tion was tested by a series of confirmatory factor analyses. In particular,three models were tested: (a) a unique factor model: in this model, load-ings and error variances for the four hypothesized factors were esti-mated with correlations among the factors fixed to 1. The model thushypothesized that the family scales were the expression of a single latentfactor; (b) an orthogonal model: in this model, the loadings and errorvariances for the four factors were estimated with the correlationsamong the factors fixed to 0. This model thus hypothesized that thefamily scales were independent of each other and (c) an oblique model: inthis model, the loadings and error variances for the four factors wereestimated along with the latent correlations among the factors. Themodel thus specifies that the family scales were interrelated and not anexpression of a single latent factor. Table 1 presents the results of theseconfirmatory factor analyses. As shown, all CFA models obtained astatistically significant w2 and not completely adequate CFI, NNFI, andRMSEA indices. These results are likely to be because of the large sam-ple and the order of the covariance matrices analyzed. However, theAikakes (1974) values (i.e., Akaike’s information index (AIC)), whichcompare the adequacy of models fitted to the same correlationalmatrix, showed that the oblique model fit the data better than theother two models. These results show that open communication,escalative conflict, parental monitoring, and family satisfaction areinterrelated and distinct constructs rather than the expression of a singlelatent factor.

TABLE1

Fit Indices of Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Models w2 Df RMSEA NNFI CFI AIC

A. Unique factor model 2308.72 819 .15 .77 .78 670.72

B. Orthogonal model 1797.09 819 .10 .85 .86 159.08

C. Oblique model 1476.83 813 .08 .90 .90 � 149.17

Note. n5 380; RMSEA, root means square error of approximation; NNFI, nonnormed fit

index; CFI, comparative fit index; AIC, Akaike’s information criterion.


The Hypothesized Structural Model

Table 2 presents, separately for boys and girls, the means and the standarddeviations for all of the variables of interest as well as the matrix of cor-relations among them. One-way ANOVAs revealed no statistically sig-nificant gender effects, except for open communication with mothers andadolescents’ report of parental monitoring. Compared with boys, girlsreported better communication with their mothers, F (1, 379)5 7.05,po.01, and keeping parents more informed of their activities, F(1, 379)5 28.89, po.001.

The correlations among filial efficacy, open communication, parentalmonitoring, escalative conflict, and satisfaction were all statistically sig-nificant and in the expected direction in both gender groups. Perceivedfilial efficacy and family satisfaction were highly and positively correlatedat both time points, and for both boys and girls. Furthermore, adolescents’perceived filial efficacy was also positively and moderately correlated toparental monitoring and open communication with mothers and fathers.Conversely, perceived filial self-efficacy was negatively correlated to es-calation of conflict with mothers and fathers. Finally, mother and fathermeasures of open communication and escalative conflict were highly andpositively intercorrelated, and family satisfaction showed moderate sta-bility over time.

The posited pattern of latent structural relations among the variableswas examined by evaluating the covariance matrix via structural equationmodeling using the EQS program (Bentler, 1995). In modeling these re-lations, scale scores were used as the observed indicators and the meas-urement errors estimated on the basis of scale reliability. Although therewere only a few gender differences regarding the different family vari-ables, the structural model was tested using the multiple-group modelapproach in order to determine whether the causal structure would bereplicated across gender groups. The multiple-group model approach es-timated simultaneously the same pattern of relations in the two samples ofboys and girls. In this approach, equivalence among different sampleswasevaluated by constraining the estimates for both the measurement andstructural parameters of the model to be equal in the two gender groups(Byrne, 1994; Scott-Lennox & Scott-Lennox, 1995). In EQS, the plausibilityof these equality constraints is examined by the Lagrangemultipliers (LM)test (Bentler, 1995). In particular, for each of the constraints, the LM testprovides evidence that the constraint applies to the populations involved.

Based on the LM test, the results of this first series of analyses suggestedthat there were four coefficients for which estimates were significantlydifferent across boys and girls, namely, the path coefficient between per-


TABLE2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Matrix for Perceived Filial Self-Efficacy, Familial Communication, Monitoring, Management of

Conflict, and Family Satisfaction Assessed Concurrently (1) and Longitudinally (2)

Variables

Males

(n5 185)

Females

(n5 195)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8M SD M SD

1. Perceived filial self-efficacy 4.57 1.05 4.75 1.10 – .48nn .49nn .52nn � .51nn � .50nn .70nn .53nn

2. Open communication with mother 3.63 .70 3.82 .71 .54nn – .72nn .39nn � .44nn � .41nn .52nn .40nn

3. Open communication with father 3.56 .71 3.55 .84 .51nn .81nn – .41nn � .37nn � .45nn .52nn .40nn

4. Parental monitoring 3.71 .78 4.12 .71 .43nn .42nn .42nn – � .39nn � .37nn .49nn .49nn

5. Escalating conflict with mother 2.46 .66 2.45 .77 � .33nn � .29nn � .31nn � .25nn – .82nn � .46nn � .38nn

6. Escalating conflict with father 2.50 .73 2.39 .72 � .33nn � .31nn � .30nn � .19n .87nn – � .50nn � .38nn

7. Family satisfaction 1 3.78 .77 3.82 .73 .67nn .50nn .47nn .36nn � .32nn � .35nn – .57nn

8. Family satisfaction 2 3.68 .60 3.67 .67 .54nn .38nn .38nn .34nn � .18n � .24n .60nn –

Note. Correlation coefficients for males are below the diagonal and those for females are above the diagonal.npo.05; nnpo.01.

84

CAPRARA,PASTORELLI,REGALIA

,SCABIN

I,BANDURA

ceived filial self-efficacy and escalative conflict with parents, the twomeasurement residuals of, respectively, escalation of conflict and opencommunication with mothers, and, finally, the residual term of escalativeconflict with parents. Following the procedure recommended by Bentler(1995) and Byrne (1994), we then released the equality constraints for thesefour coefficients. Figure 2 presents the results of this revised model.

For boys and girls alike, perceived filial self-efficacy was accompaniedby adolescents’ satisfaction with their family life, both concurrently andover time. In particular, filial self-efficacy were positively and stronglycorrelated with concurrent family satisfaction, both directly and throughopen communication and low conflict escalation with parents. This lasteffect was significantly higher for females than for males.

Perceived filial self-efficacy was also linked to family satisfaction on thelonger term, both directly and through parental monitoring and priorfamily satisfaction. In this regard, it must be noted that themediated effectwas stronger than the direct effect. Except for three paths, all of the posited

OpenCommunication



EscalativeConflict

Perceived Filial

Self-Efficacy

ParentalMonitoring

father mother

father mother

.60 (.60)

.87 (.87) .92 (.86)*

−.23 (−.28)

..29 (.29)

.54 (.56)

.54 (.54)

−.35 (−.58)*

−.14 (−.17)

.17 (.17)

.20 (.21)

−.10 (−.10)

.48 (.46)

.17 (.17)

.96 (.93) .93 (.88)*

.07 (.07)

.03 (.03)

.02 (.02)

FIGURE2 Structural analysis of the links of perceived filial self-efficacy and family func-tioning/management to satisfaction with family life. The first path coefficient of each of thestructural links is for males; the second coefficient in brackets is for females. All of the pathcoefficients are significant beyond the po.05 level. The coefficients with an asterisk on thepaths differ significantly across gender.


structural links were verified. In particular, neither open communicationnor escalative conflict were linked prospectively to family satisfaction,although they were linked to concurrent family satisfaction. Furthermore,parental monitoring did not contribute to concurrent family satisfaction,but did so in the long run. The structural paths were fully replicated acrossgender.

The model provided a very good fit to the empirical data, as shown bydifferent goodness-of-fit indexes. These tests yielded a nonsignificant w2

(40, 380)5 43.23, p5 .26, a CFI of 1.00, a NNFI of 1.00, and RMSEA of .02(CI: .000, .041). For the CFI and NNFI indices, the closer the value is to 1,the better the model fit. For the RMSEA index, the closer the value is to 0,the better the fit of the model to the empirical data. For girls, the modelaccounted for 67% of the variance in concurrent family satisfaction and51% of the variance in family satisfaction longitudinally. The correspond-ing levels of explained variance were 59% and 52% for male adolescents’family satisfaction at the two time points, respectively. Thus, even thoughthe results showed similar patterns of relations for both genders, the per-centage of variance explained by the model for current family satisfactionwas greater in girls than it was in boys.

Finally, to examine the possibility of reverse causal paths, we tested analternative multiple-group model in which we hypothesized that adoles-cents’ filial self-efficacy represented, both concurrently and prospectively,the intervening factor linking family functioning and practices to adoles-cents’ satisfaction with family life. Figure 3 shows this alternative model.For both adolescent boys and girls, open communication with their par-ents and low proneness to escalating conflict were related concurrent tofamily satisfaction, both directly and through their impact on perceivedfilial self-efficacy. Furthermore, the relation of parental monitoring toconcurrent family satisfaction was entirely mediated by perceived filialself-efficacy. Parental monitoring was also directly related to family sat-isfaction. Perceived filial self-efficacy directly affected both concurrentand prospective family satisfaction.

This alternative model also provided a satisfactory fit to the empiricaldata, yielding a nonsignificant w2 (40, 380)5 47.59, p5 .19, a CFI of .99, aNNFI of .99, and RMSEA of .023 (CI: .00, .04). For girls, the model ac-counted for 59% of the variance in concurrent family satisfaction and 50%of the variance in family satisfaction 2 years later. For adolescent boys, thecorresponding levels of explained variance in family satisfactionwere 60%and 50% at the two assessment points, respectively.

In order to compare the two models reported, respectively, in Figures 2and 3, we adopted the AIC, which is particularly well suited for compar-ing the adequacy of nonnested models fitted to the same correlational


matrix (Burnham & Anderson, 2000). The lower the AIC index, the betterthe goodness of fit. In this comparison, the AIC indices suggested aslightly better fit for the model hypothesizing that the filial self-efficacyeffects on adolescents’ family life satisfaction operate through interveningfamily functioning and practices (i.e., � 34.8 versus � 32.2 for the modelassigning primacy to the family variables).

DISCUSSION

The findings of this longitudinal study support the hypothesis that ad-olescents’ beliefs in their efficacy tomanage parental relationships have animpact on the quality of family functioning, on parental monitoring, andon adolescents’ satisfaction with family life. In particular, the findingsindicated that, relative to adolescents with low self-efficacy, adolescentswho held stronger self-efficacy beliefs experienced better family commu-nication, accepted their parents’ monitoring of their own activities outside

OpenCommunication



EscalativeConflict

Perceived Filial

Self-Efficacy

ParentalMonitoring

father mother

father mother

.87 (.86) .92 (.85)*

−.37 (−41)

..35 (.33)

.52 (.52)

.52 (.55)

−.20 (−.18)

.20 (.20)

.21 (.20)

−.11 (−.10)

.43 (.42)

.18 (.18)

.94 (.93) .94 (.88)*

..31 (.31)

−.42 (−.50)

.02 (.02)

.02 (.02)

.07 (.07)

FIGURE3 Structural analysis of the links of family functioning/management and per-ceived filial self-efficacy to satisfactionwith family life. The first path coefficient on each of thestructural links is for males; the second coefficient in brackets is for females. All of the pathcoefficients are significant beyond the po.05 level.


the home, and were less inclined to get into escalative discord over dis-agreements. Furthermore, perceived filial self-efficacy also contributed tosatisfaction with family life both concurrently and 2 years later. Thisstructure was replicated across gender. The only gender difference thatwas found concerned the relation between perceived filial self-efficacyand escalative conflict, which was slightly stronger in girls than in boys.Perceived filial self-efficacy, acting in concert with parent–child interac-tion patterns, accounted for substantial variance in adolescents’ level ofsatisfaction with their family life. Adolescents’ satisfaction with theirfamily life is not only important in its own right, but also because of itsimpact on other important aspects of life.

Although the predictive relations were studied prospectively, thisstudy presents some limitations. The first limitation pertains to reliance onadolescent self-report data. In the case of parental monitoring and familyfunctioning variables, other family members, such as mothers, fathers,and siblings, may certainly serve as sources of information, and othermethods may be used (Capaldi & Patterson, 1989). To support the validityof adolescents’ report, however, one should note that there exist moderateand convergent relations between children and their parents on all familyvariables examined in the present study (Caprara, Pastorelli, & Regalia,2002).

Regarding self-efficacy, self-beliefs are subjective phenomena that arenecessarily measured through self-report. Satisfaction with one’s familylife is also a subjective matter accessible through the reports of the personexperiencing the affective state. Children act on how they perceive familialpractices rather than in terms of any ‘‘objective’’ that is external to theirconstrual of it (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). It would be of interest, in futurestudies, to evaluate whether adolescents’ satisfaction with their family lifeis better explained by their construal of familial environment than by asocially rated measure of it.

Given the importance that sibling relationships may have in the de-velopment of adolescents’ self-knowledge and adjustment (Bandura,1997), another limitation is the lack of measurement of adolescents’ self-efficacy beliefs in the context of their relationships with siblings. Familiesmay differ in number of siblings, age differences among siblings, andsiblings’ gender. This poses serious problems in disentangling variouseffects because of age, gender, and family size. However, one must notethat Italy registers one of the lowest birth rate (1.29 average number ofchildren in the family), attesting to a high percentage of single-child fam-ilies. When families have more than one child, older siblings may be sev-eral years ahead in their development compared with their youngersiblings.


Other limitations pertain to the generalizability of findings from Italianadolescents to other cultural contexts. In previous studies (Bandura, 1990;Pastorelli, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Rola, Rozsa, & Bandura, 2001), in whichwe used self-efficacy scales originally developed in US to examine aca-demic, social, and regulatory efficacy, we found that the same self-efficacyscales were valid across Italian and different Eastern European cultures(i.e., Hungary, Czech Republic, and Poland). Since the perceived filialefficacy scale used in the present study has been validated only withItalian adolescents, it is recommended that future studies provide cross-cultural validation data. In particular, although adolescents in Westernsocieties may face common challenges concerning global communication,education and work opportunities, and—consequently—share commonproblems or patterns of adaptation within and outside the family, onecannot underestimate the possibility that there exist distinctive patterns ofrelations between adolescents and their families within Western countriesand, even more so, across Western and Non-Western cultures (Arnett,2001; Bornstein, Hayness, Azuma, Galperin, Maital, Ogino, Painter, Pas-cual, Pecheaux, Rahn, Toda, Venuti, Vyt, &Wright, 2000; Caprara, Scabini,& Sgritta, 2003).

Illustratively, compared with Americans, adolescents from SouthernEuropean countries such as Spain, Greece, and Italy tend to either stay intheir families longer (i.e., median age they leave home ranges from 25 to 27years) or to return more frequently to their own families. The prolongedtransition to adulthood appears to be the product of complex intergene-rational transactions, namely, a ‘‘joint enterprise’’ of both children andparents. In particular, adolescents and young adults construct their iden-tity not as much outside the family as within the family, taking advantageof a great deal of both personal freedom and emotional support (Capraraet al., 2003; Cherlin, Scabini, & Rossi, 1997; Scabini, 2000). Specific featuresof the Italian case recommend further caution in generalizing our findingson the role of filial efficacy in the quality of family life to other culturalmilieus. It should be noted, however, that in cross-cultural studies, thedeterminants of efficacy beliefs, their psychosocial effects, and the mech-anisms through which they operate have been replicated across individ-ualistically and collectivistically oriented societies (Bandura, 2002), thusadding support to the generalizability of the functional role of this beliefsystem in different cultural contexts.

Although the posited structural model provided a good fit to the em-pirical data, the alternative model hypothesizing that good family man-agement of problem situations affects family satisfaction by fostering filialself-efficacy also provided an acceptable fit. These findings would suggesta process of reciprocal causation (Rueter & Conger, 1998), and future con-


tributions should empirically test the pathways of bi-directional influ-ences. It must also be noted, however, that several findings of ours andrelated research indicate that, during the transition to young adulthood,adolescents’ confidence in their capability to manage their relationshipswith their parents plays an influential role in satisfaction with their familylife. In line with this, the causal link between efficacy beliefs and concur-rent family satisfaction in the first model was higher than the direct causallinks between family variables and satisfaction in the second model. Fur-thermore, the structural model in which perceived filial self-efficacy hasprimacy provided a somewhat better empirical fit than themodel inwhichthe quality of family interpersonal functioning is the driving force.

Regardless of whether perceived filial self-efficacywas hypothesized asa contributor to quality of family functioning or as a partial product offamily functioning, it consistently predicted satisfaction with family lifeboth concurrently and longitudinally for males and females alike. It con-tributed independently to family satisfaction after controlling for the in-fluence of quality of family functioning and prior level of familysatisfaction. By contrast, with the exception of monitoring, quality offamily functioning contributed to family satisfaction concurrently but notlongitudinally.

The primacy of adolescents’ sense of personal efficacy has also beendemonstrated in other research concerning other forms of perceived self-efficacy and different developmental outcomes (Caprara et al., 2002). Inparticular, this latter research clearly showed that adolescents’ strongsense of efficacy to resist peer pressure for transgressive activities coun-teracted engagement in violent conduct directly, and mediationallythrough its effects on enhanced communication with parents. As in thecausal structure for family satisfaction, lack of open parental communi-cation predicted adolescent involvement in violent activities concurrentlybut not longitudinally.

Although quality of family functioning had no direct longitudinal re-lation to family satisfaction, it was linked to adolescents’ longer-termfamily satisfaction through its intervening influence on family satisfactionin the earlier period. In particular, the more their family social manage-ment practices raised adolescents’ family satisfaction, the more satisfiedthey were with their later family life.

Patterson and his colleagues have documented the influential role ofparental monitoring on adolescents’ delinquent conduct (Capaldi, Cham-berlain, & Patterson, 1997). Failure to keep track of what adolescents aredoing outside the home is among the factors that contribute to delinquentconduct, both directly and through their gravitation to an antisocial peergroup. The present research sheds further light on the developmental


impact of supportive parental monitoring, showing that it contributes tothe long-term affective quality of family life.

Interestingly, parental monitoring predicted adolescents’ satisfactionwith their family life longitudinally but not concurrently. There may beseveral explanations for the lack of a significant concurrent link. One ex-planation is that age moderates this link, depending on the outcomes thatare considered (Jacobson & Crockett, 2000). One might speculate that thebeneficial effect of parental monitoring over adolescents’ conduct is moreapparent over time than concurrently, when their limiting and inhibitingeffects are more salient. That is, these positive effects of early parental mon-itoring on family satisfaction are, in someway, delayed and become evidentlater, when children find themselves coping with matters that are moreconsequential. As children progress from early to late adolescence, they facequite different realities. They have to seriously consider what they want todo with their lives. The preparatory choices they make concerning whatlifework to pursuewill then shape the pathways they follow into adulthood.

Late adolescence is also a time of involvement in heterosexual rela-tionships, formation of emotionally charged partnerships, and accompa-nying emotional ups and downs. Learning how to manage emotionallyinvested relationships becomes a matter of considerable importance. Tothe extent that parental monitoring is enabling and supportive it can con-tribute to a satisfaction with parental relationships during this more chal-lenging period of development (Dishion & McMahon, 1998).

Social cognitive theory conceptualizes human development within anagentic conceptual framework (Bandura, 1997, 2001). In this view, ado-lescents are proactive agents of their self-development rather than justreactors to parental social management practices. They are producers aswell as products of their social environment. This perspective is consistentwith Elder’s (1994, 1995) agentic analysis of life trajectories in the socialand historical context. The present study focused on adolescents’ per-ceived agentic capabilities to manage relationships with their parents. Thefamily operates as a social system with multiple interlocking relation-ships, rather than simply as a collection of members. Accordingly, futurestudies should further examine the beneficial effects of filial efficacy onother domains of adolescents’ life as well as on other family members’satisfaction and well-being.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was partially supported by grants from the Spencer Founda-tion and W. T. Grant Foundation to Albert Bandura, and from the


Ministero dell’Istruzione dell’Univesita e della Ricerca (MIUR) to GianVittorio Caprara (COFIN 1998, 2000) and to Eugenia Scabini (COFIN 2000–2002). We are grateful to Dr Lisa Crockett and to our colleague Dr ArnaldoZelli for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

REFERENCES

Aikakes, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. Transaction on AutomaticControl, 19(6), 716–723.

Arnett, J. J. (2001). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: a cultural approach. NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bandura, A. (1964). The stormy decade: Fact or fiction? Psychology in the Schools, 1, 224–231.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood

Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.Bandura, A. (1990).Multidimensional scales of perceived academic efficacy. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University.Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. In Annual Review of

Psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 1–26). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Journal of Applied Psychology:

An International Review, 51, 269–290.Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996a). Multifaceted impact of

self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222.Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996b). Mechanisms of moral

disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,71, 364–374.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Pastorelli, C., & Regalia, C. (2001). Sociocog-nitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behavior. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 80, 125–135.

Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Impact ofaffective self-regulatory efficacy on diverse sphere of functioning. Child Development, 74,1–14.

Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways tochild depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 258–269.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1959). Adolescent aggression. New York: Ronald Press.Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1985). Parent–adolescent communication and the Circumplex

model. Child Development, 56, 438–447.Barnes, H., & Olson, D. H. (1982). Parent–adolescent communication. In D. H. Olson, H. I.

McCubbin, H. Barnes, A. Larsen, M. Muxen, & M. Wilson (Eds.), Family inventories (pp.55–70). Minnesota: University of Minnesota.

Belsky, J., Jaffee, S., Hsieh, K., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Child rearing antecedents of intergene-rational relations in young adulthood: A prospective study. Developmental Psychology, 37,801–813.

Bentler, P. (1995). EQS. Structural equations program Manual. Encino, CA.: Multivariate Soft-ware.

Ben-Zur, H. (2003). Happy adolescents: The link between subjective well-being, internalresources, and parental factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 67–79.


Best, K. M., Hauser, S. T., & Allen, J. P. (1997). Predicting young adult competencies:Adolescent era parent and individual influences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12,90–112.

Bornstein, M. H., Hayness, O. M., Azuma, H., Galperin, C., Maital, S., Ogino, M., Painter, K.,Pascual, L., Pecheaux, M. G., Rahn, C., Toda, S., Venuti, P., Vyt, A., & Wright, B. (2000). Across-national study of self-evaluations and attributions in parenting Argentina,Belgium, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, and the United States. Developmental Psychology, 34,662–676.

Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lanborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peergroup affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64, 467–482.

Bumpus, M. F., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2001). Parental autonomy-granting duringadolescence: Exploring gender differences in context. Developmental Psychology, 37, 163–173.

Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2000). Model selection and inference. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and dif-ferentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676–713.

Byrne, B. (1994). Testing the factorial validity, replication, and invariance of a measuringinstrument: A paradigmatic application based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Mul-tivariate Behavioral Research, 29, 289–311.

Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Capaldi, D. M., Chamberlain, P., & Patterson, G. R. (1997). Ineffective discipline and conductproblems in males: Association, late adolescent outcomes, and prevention. Aggression andViolent Behavior, 2, 343–353.

Capaldi, D., & Patterson, G. (1989). Psychometric properties of fourteen latent constructs from theOregon Youth Study. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Caprara, G. V., & Cervone, D. (2000). Personality, determinants, dynamics, and potentials. Cam-bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Caprara, G. V., Pastorelli, C., & Regalia, C. (2002). Validita’ convergente delle scale di funzio-namento familiare [Convengert validity of family functioning measures]. Technical ReportNo. 1, University of Rome, ‘La Sapienza’, Interuniversity Center for the Study of Prosocialand Antisocial Conduct, Italy.

Caprara, G. V., Regalia, C., & Bandura, A. (2002). Longitudinal impact of perceived self-regulatory efficacy on violent conduct. European Psychologist, 7, 63–69.

Caprara, G. V., Regalia, C., Scabini, E., Barbaranelli, C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Assessment offilial, parental, marital, and collective family efficacy beliefs. European Journal of Psycho-logical Assessment, 20, 247–261.

Caprara, G. V., Scabini, E., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Regalia, C., & Bandura, A. (1998).Impact of adolescents’ perceived self-regulatory efficacy on familial communication andantisocial conduct. European Psychologist, 3, 125–132.

Caprara, G. V., Scabini, E., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Regalia, C. (1999). Autoefficaciapercepita emotiva e interpersonale e buon funzionamento sociale (Emotional and inter-personal perceived self-efficacy and social well-being). Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 26,769–789.

Caprara, G. V., Scabini, E., & Sgritta, G. (2003). The long transition to adulthood. In F. Pajares,& T. Urdan (Eds.), International perspective on adolescence (pp. 71–99). Greenwich, CT: In-formation Age Publishing.

Cherlin, A. J., Scabini, E., & Rossi, G. (1997). Delayed home leaving in Europe and in UnitedStates. Journal of Family Issues, 18, 572–575.


Compas, B., Hinden, B., & Gerhardt, C. (1995). Adolescent development: Pathways andprocesses of risk and resilience. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 265–293.

Crouter, A. C., MacDermid, S. M., McHale, S. M., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (1990). Parental mon-itoring and perception of children school performance and conduct in dual and singleearner family. Developmental Psychology, 26, 649–657.

Cumsille, P. E., & Epstein, N. (1994). Family cohesion, family adaptability, social support, andadolescent depressive symptoms in outpatient clinic families. Journal of Family Psychology,8, 202–214.

Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child andadolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child andFamily Psychology Review, 1, 61–75.

Donenberg, G. R., Wilson, H. W., Emerson, E., & Bryant, F. B. (2002). Holding the linewith a watchful eye: The impact of perceived parental monitoring on risky sexualbehavior among adolescents in psychiatric care. AIDS Education and Prevention, 14,138–157.

Egeland, R., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process. Development and Psy-chopathology, 5, 517–528.

Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course.Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 4–15.

Elder, G. H. (1995). Life trajectories in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy inchanging societies (pp. 46–68). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fisher, L., & Feldman, S. (1998). Familial antecedents of young adult health risk behavior: Alongitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 66–80.

Flammer, A. (1995). Developmental analysis of control beliefs. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fluori, E., & Buchanam, A. (2002). What predicts good relationships with parents in ado-lescence and partners in adult life: Findings from the 1958 British Birth Cohort. Journal ofFamily Psychology, 16, 186–198.

Fondacaro,M. R., Dunkle,M. E., & Pathak,M. K. (1998). Procedural justice in resolving familydispute: A psychosocial analysis of individual and family functioning in late adolescence.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 101–119.

Freeman, M., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1986). Adolescence and its recollection:Toward an interpretative model of development. Merril-Palmer Quartely, 32, 167–185.

Furstenberg, F. F., Cook, T. D., Eccles, J. S., Elder, G. H., & Sameroff, A. (1999). Managing tomake it: Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gilman, R. (2001). The relationship between life satisfaction, social interest, and frequency ofextracurricular activities among adolescent students. Journal of Youth and Adolescent, 30,749–767.

Gilman, R., & Huebner, E. S. (2000). Review of life satisfaction measures for adolescents.Behavior Change, 17, 178–195.

Harter, S. (1999). The construction of self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford.Holahan, C.J, Valentiner, P. D., & Moss, R. H. (1994). Parental support and psychological

adjustment during the transition to young adulthood in a college sample. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 8, 215–223.

Honess, T., Charman, E., Zani, B., Cicognani, E., Xerri, M., Jackson, A., & Bosma, H. (1997).Conflict between parents and adolescents: Variation by family constitution. British Journalof Developmental Psychology, 15, 367–385.

Huebner, E., & Alderman, G. (1993). Convergent and discriminant validation of a children’slife satisfaction scale: Its relationship to self-and teacher-reported psychological problemsand school functioning. Social Indicators Research, 30, 71–82.


Istituto Italiano di Statistica (2002). Annuario statistico italiano 2002 [Italian yearbook of statistics2002]. Rome: ISTAT.

Jackson, S., Bjistra, J., Oostra, L., & Bosma, H. (1998). Adolescents’ perception of commu-nication with parents to specific aspect of relationships with parents and personal de-velopment. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 305–322.

Jacobson, K.C, & Crockett, L. J. (2000). Parental monitoring and adolescent adjustment: Anecological perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 65–97.

Kerns, K. A., Aspelmeier, J. E., Gentzler, A. L., & Grabill, C. M. (2001). Parent–child attach-ment and monitoring in middle childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 69–81.

Kerr, M. M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know; how they know; and several forms ofadolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmen-tal Psychology, 36, 366–380.

Kim, K. J., Conger, R. D., Lorenz, F. O., & Elder, G. H. Jr. (2001). Parent–adolescent reciprocityin negative affect and its relation to early adult social development. Developmental Psy-chology, 37, 775–790.

Lanz, M. (1997). Parent–offspring communication scale: Applicazione ad un campione ital-iano (Parent–offspring communication scale: Application on an Italian sample). Bollettinodi Psicologia Applicata, 224, 33–38.

Larson, R., Richards, M., Moneta, G., Holmbeck, G., & Duckett, E. (1996). Changes in ad-olescents’ daily interactions with their families from ages 10 to 18: Disengagement andtransformation. Developmental Psychology, 32, 744–754.

Lasko, D. S., Field, T. M., Gonzalez, K. P., Harding, J., Yando, R., & Bendell, D. (1996). Ad-olescent depressed mood and parental unhappiness. Adolescence, 31, 49–57.

Leaper, C., Anderson, K. J., & Sanders, P. (1998). Moderators of gender effects on parents talkto their children: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, 3–27.

Marta, E. (1997). Parent–adolescent interactions and psychosocial risk in adolescents: Ananalysis of communication, support and gender. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 473–487.

Millstein, S., Petersen, A., & Nightingale, E. (Eds.). (1993). Promoting the health of adolescents:New directions for the twenty-first century. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1994). The emergence of gender differences in depres-sion during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 424–443.

Noller, P. (1994). Personal relationships during adolescence. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams,& T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Advances in adolescent development: An annual book series (pp. 37–77).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Noller, P., & Callan, V. (1991). The adolescent in the family. London: Routledge.Olson, D., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family

system I: Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types and clinical applications.Family Process, 18, 3–28.

Olson, D., & Wilson, R. (1982). Family satisfaction scale. In D. H. Olson, H. I. McCubbin, H.Barnes, A. Larsen, M. Muxen, & M. Wilson (Eds.), Family inventories (pp. 89–103). Min-nesota: University of Minnesota.

Pastorelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Rola, J., Rozsa, S., & Bandura, A. (2001). Thestructure of children’s perceived self efficacy: A cross-national study. European Journal ofPsychological Assessment, 17, 87–97.

Patterson, G. R. (1976). The aggressive child: Victim and architect of a coercive system. In E. J.Mash, L. A. Hamerlynck, & L. C. Handy (Eds.), Behavior modification and families. I.Theory and research. II. Applications and developments (pp. 265–316). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41,432–444.


Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.Petersen, A. C. (1988). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 39,

583–607.Reid, J. B., & Patterson, G. R. (1989). The development of antisocial behaviour patterns in

childhood and adolescence. European Journal of Personality, 3, 107–119.Robins, L. N., & Rutter, M. (Eds.). (1990). Straight and devious pathways from childhood to

adulthood. New York: Cambridge University Press.Rolf, J. E., Masten, A. S., Cicchetti, D., Nuechterlein, K. H., &Weintraub, S. (Eds.). (1990). Risk

and protective factors in the development of psychopathology. NewYork: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Rubenstein, J. L., & Feldman, S. S. (1993). Conflict-resolution behavior in adolescent boys:Antecedents and adaptational correlates. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 41–66.

Rueter, M., & Conger, R. (1998). Reciprocal influences between parenting and adolescentproblem-solving. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1470–1482.

Rutter,M., Graham, P., Chadwick, O. F., & Yule,W. (1976). Adolescent turmoil: Fact or fiction?Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 35–56.

Scabini, E. (1995). Psicologia sociale della famiglia (The social psychology of the family). Torino,Italy: Bollati-Boringhieri.

Scabini, E. (2000). New aspects of family relations. In C. Violato, E. Oddone-Paolucci, & M.Genuis (Eds.), The changing family and child development. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub-lishing Company.

Scabini, E., & Cigoli, V. (1997). Young adult families. Journal of Family Issues, 18,608–626.

Scabini, E., Lanz,M., &Marta, E. (1999). Psycho-social adjustment and family relationships: Atypology of Italian families with a late adolescent. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 633–644.

Schneewind, K. A. (1995). Impact of family processes on control beliefs. In A. Bandura (Ed.),Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 114–148). Cambridge, UK: University of CambridgePress.

Scott-Lennox, J., & Scott-Lennox, R. (1995). Sex–race differences in social support and de-pression in older low-income adults. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Con-cepts, issues, and applications (pp. 199–216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shek, D. T. L., Ma, H. K., & Cheung, P. C. (2000). A longitudinal study of adolescent socialrelations and antisocial and prosocial behavior in a Chinese context. Psychologia: An In-ternational Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 43, 229–242.

Shumow, L., & Lomax, R. (2002). Parental efficacy: Predictor of parenting behavior andadolescent outcomes. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 127–150.

Sim, T. N. (2000). Adolescent psychosocial competence: The importance and role of regard forparents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 49–64.

Smetana, J. G., Yau, J., & Hanson, S. (1991). Conflict resolution in families with adolescents.Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 189–206.

Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71,1072–1085.

Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. (2001). Adolescent Development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,83–140.

Valois, R. F., Zullig, K., Huebner, E. S., & Drane, J. W. (2001). Relationship between lifesatisfaction and violent behaviors among adolescents. American Journal of Health Behavior,25, 353–366.

Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.


Webb, J. A., Bray, J. H., Getz, J. G., &Adams, G. (2002). Gender, perceived parentalmonitoringand behavioral adjustment: Influences on adolescent alcohol use. American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry, 72, 392–400.

Zani, B., & Cicognani, E. (1999). La gestione del conflitto nelle famiglie con adolescenti: Leprospettive di genitori e figli (Conflict management in families with adolescents: Theperspectives of parents and children). Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 26, 791–815.


Impact of Adolescents' Filial Self-Efficacy on Quality of Family ...

Documents

Transcript of Impact of Adolescents' Filial Self-Efficacy on Quality of Family ...