See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/41762174

Parents' Self-efficacy Beliefs and Their Children's Psychosocial Adaptation

During Adolescence

Article  in  Journal of Youth and Adolescence · March 2010

DOI: 10.1007/s10964-010-9514-9 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

29 220

4 authors:

Patrizia Steca Marta Bassi

Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca University of Milan
93 PUBLICATIONS   2,523 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   1,049 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gian Vittorio Caprara Antonella Delle Fave

University of Southern Mississippi University of Milan
187 PUBLICATIONS   11,221 CITATIONS    131 PUBLICATIONS   2,388 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MS and psycho-social issues View project

Well-being in disability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Patrizia Steca on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331
DOI 10.1007/s10964-010-9514-9
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Parents’ Self-efficacy Beliefs and Their Children’s Psychosocial
Adaptation During Adolescence
Patrizia Steca • Marta Bassi • Gian Vittorio Caprara
Antonella Delle Fave
Received: 29 October 2009 / Accepted: 12 February 2010 / Published online: 4 March 2010
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract Research has shown that parents’ perceived
parental self-efficacy (PSE) plays a pivotal role in pro-
moting their children’s successful adjustment. In this study,
we further explored this issue by comparing psychosocial
adaptation in children of parents with high and low PSE
during adolescence. One hundred and thirty Italian teen-
agers (55 males and 75 females) and one of their parents
(101 mothers and 29 fathers) participated in the research.
Data were collected at T1 (adolescents’ mean age = 13.6)
and T2 (mean age = 17.5). Parents reported their PSE at
T1. At T1 and T2, adolescents reported their perceived
academic self-efficacy, aggressive and violent conducts,
well-being, and perceived quality of their relationships
with parents. At T2, they were also administered questions
by using Experience Sampling Method to assess their
quality of experience in daily life. As hypothesized, ado-
lescents with high PSE parents reported higher compe-
tence, freedom and well-being in learning activities as well
as in family and peer interactions. They also reported fewer
problematic aspects and more daily opportunities for
P. Steca (&)
Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università degli Studi di Milano
‘‘Bicocca’’, Piazza dell’Ateneo Nuovo 1, 20126 Milan, Italy
e-mail: patrizia.steca@unimib.it
M. Bassi
A. D. Fave
Dipartimento di Scienze Precliniche ‘‘LITA Vialba’’, Università
degli Studi di Milano, Via G.B.Grassi 74, 20157 Milan, Italy
e-mail: marta.bassi@unimi.it
A. D. Fave
e-mail: antonella.dellefave@unimi.it
G. V. Caprara
Dipartimento di Psicologia, ‘‘Sapienza’’ Università di Roma,
Via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Rome, Italy
e-mail: gianvittorio.caprara@uniroma1.it
123
•
optimal experience. Findings pointed to the stability of
adolescents’ psychosocial adaptation and highlighted pos-
sible directions in future research.
Keywords Adolescence
Optimal experience

Parental perceived self-efficacy
Psychosocial adaptation
Introduction
Over the years, much theorizing and research has been
devoted to the personal and social factors governing the
transition from childhood to adolescence, as well as to
the determinants of adolescents’ successful psychosocial
adaptation. Among several other social factors, parents
play a pivotal role as their children’s development mostly
relies on their capacity to provide an adaptive, engaging,
and nurturing environment, as well as positive growth
experiences (Rathunde 2001). Particularly relevant in
supporting children’s development is parents’ perceived
parental self-efficacy (PSE). According to Bandura’s self-
efficacy theory (1997), PSE incorporates both the level of
specific knowledge pertaining to behaviors involved in
child rearing and the degree of confidence in one’s ability
to carry out the designed role behavior. In more general
terms, Ardelt and Eccles (2001) referred to PSE as the
beliefs that parents hold in their capacity to influence their
children’s behavior and the environment in ways that
would foster children’s successful development. Building
on Bandura’s theory, the two authors proposed a model in
which parents who feel efficacious are more likely to be
engaged in adequate parenting strategies, which in turn
increases the likelihood for their children’s success in
interpersonal, social, and academic domains. Parents who
believe that they can exercise an influence over their
J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331
children’s development more easily acquire and exercise
effective parenting skills, while parents with low PSE may
find it hard to parent effectively in the face of challenging
and difficult situations.
A large number of cross-sectional studies has confirmed
the potential role of PSE on adolescents’ psychosocial
adaptation. That role has been shown to influence children’s
behavior directly as well as indirectly, via parenting or
acting as a mediator of other important determinants such as
socioeconomic status, quality of marital relationship, and
children’s characteristics. These effects have been recur-
rently found in young and middle childhood as well as in
adolescence (see Jones and Prinz 2005, for a revision).
PSE has been linked to children’s success at school.
Children of parents with higher PSE reported higher school
grades (Bogenschneider et al. 1997) and were more moti-
vated and persistent in physical activity (Xiang et al. 2003).
Using a composite measure of academic success that
included child self-report, parent report, and interview
assessment, Ardelt and Eccles (2001) found both direct and
indirect effects of maternal PSE on adolescent academic
success. Maternal PSE has also been linked to children’s
reading self-perceptions, influencing their effective per-
formance (Lynch 2002). Other studies supported an indi-
rect link between PSE and academic performance, via
parental involvement and monitoring (Hoover-Dempsey
et al. 2001; Shumow and Lomax 2002), and through
parental aspirations and children’s own self-efficacy beliefs
(Bandura et al. 1996).
Children of high PSE parents also report lower sub-
stance abuse and fewer delinquent behaviors (Bog-
enschneider et al. 1997; Hill and Bush 2001). Parents’
confidence in their capacity to manage their parental role
promotes their children’s self-regulation, thus reducing the
need for aversive and severe discipline techniques and the
risk of involvement in deviant activities (Hill and Bush
2001; Murry and Brody 1999). In addition, recent studies
have shown the importance of PSE in protecting from
developing internalizing problems and in promoting well-
being. Children of low PSE parents reported higher anxiety
and depression (Cote et al. 2009) and a lower socio-emo-
tional adjustment (Izzo et al. 2000). Other findings sug-
gested an indirect effect of PSE on anxiety through
parenting practices (Hill and Bush 2001), and on children’s
social-emotional adjustment through parental monitoring
(Shumow and Lomax 2002).
PSE has also been linked to important aspects of the
relationships between parents and their adolescent children.
In particular, PSE has been found to be associated with
reported parental responsiveness (Gondoli and Silverberg
1997), open communication (Bogenschneider et al. 1997),
and parental involvement and monitoring (King and Elder
1998; Shumow and Lomax 2002).
321
Parents promote their children’s psychosocial adaptation
also by providing a supportive and challenging environ-
ment. At home, children can find comfort and relaxation
from daily school requirements (Bassi and Delle Fave
2006; Larson and Richards 1994; Simmons and Blyth
1987). At the same time, family interactions and activities
can provide opportunities for skill building and growth
experiences vis à vis long-term developmental goals
(Hektner 2001): Parents providing their children with the
right balance between support and challenge keep them in
the zone of proximal development, wherein the growth of
mastery and self-efficacy are more likely to take place
(Rathunde 2001).
In particular, parents who provide the right balance of
supportive and challenging environments can promote their
children’s ‘‘optimal experiences’’, characterized by high
environmental challenges matched with adequate personal
skills, high concentration, involvement, control of the sit-
uation, clear goals and feedback, and intrinsic reward
(Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi 1988; Massimini
and Delle Fave 2000). As shown in several studies, the
positive features of this experience promote the preferential
selection and replication of the associated activities (opti-
mal activities) over time. This process, deemed ‘‘psycho-
logical selection’’ (Csikszentmihalyi and Massimini 1985),
plays a crucial role in individual growth, as it directs a
person’s developmental trajectory and selective goal pur-
suits and achievements (Delle Fave and Massimini 2004,
2005; Delle Fave and Bassi 2009).
Parents’ role in orienting their children’s investment of
skills and resources in optimal activities persists during
adolescence (Hektner 2001). On the one hand, adolescents
claim more autonomy, and spend less time with parents
(Larson et al. 1996). On the other hand, the influence of
parents’ support and challenge on children’s moods and
goals during pre-adolescence persists during adolescence
(Rathunde 2001). In addition, positive interactions with
parents may set a standard by which adolescents judge their
attempts to forge important peer relationships (Brown et al.
1993; Rathunde 1997). The gradual disengagement from
the family is coupled with a transformation in the rela-
tionship between the adolescent and the family that ulti-
mately maintains their connectedness (Bassi and Delle
Fave 2006; Rathunde 1997).
The Current Study
Most studies of parents’ PSE role on children’s develop-
ment have adopted a cross-sectional design. Moreover,
little research has been conducted on the psychosocial
adaptation of adolescents with parents having extreme
levels of PSE, that is very high or very low. In addition,
123
322
previous studies primarily focused on specific areas such as
the academic domain, engagement in deviant activities, or
parent–child relationship. Starting from present knowledge,
the aim of the current study was to provide a descriptive
analysis of the psychosocial adaptation of children with
high PSE parents and those with low PSE parents from a
longitudinal perspective during adolescence.
In an attempt to provide a broader view of adolescents’
psychosocial adjustment, we considered a wide range of
indicators relative to the different areas explored in
previous studies. At time 1 (T1), when adolescents were
around 13 years old, we measured their academic self-
efficacy beliefs. As widely acknowledged by literature (e.g.
Pajares and Schunk 2001), these beliefs represent a crucial
indicator of the successful capacity of managing school
activities. We also assessed physical and verbal aggression
as an indicator of deviant conduct, and depressive symp-
toms as indicators of internalizing problems and lack of
well-being. At time 2 (T2), when adolescents were around
17 years old, a larger set of indicators was considered. In
particular, we measured academic self-efficacy beliefs and
depressive symptoms as we did at T1. We substituted
physical and verbal aggression with violence, which is a
stronger and more proper indicator of delinquent conduct
in middle and late adolescence. We added measures of self-
esteem, satisfaction with life, and hedonic balance, to
provide a wide view of adolescents’ well-being, going
beyond the traditional conceptualization of well-being as
lack of ill-being (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000).
Finally, we measured three indicators of the perceived
quality of the relationships with parents: reciprocal support,
open communication, and monitoring. This area has been
specifically addressed by the literature on PSE revised
above. It is particularly worth studying in adolescence,
when family relations become more complex, as a conse-
quence of the adolescents’ tendency to envision and
explore ‘‘new worlds’’ (Caprara et al. 2003).
In line with existing literature, we hypothesized that
children with high PSE parents would show better psy-
chosocial adaptation than children with low PSE parents, at
both times in adolescence. In particular, we expected that
teenagers with high PSE parents would report higher aca-
demic self-efficacy beliefs, higher well-being, in terms of
higher self-esteem, life satisfaction, and hedonic balance,
and fewer depressive symptoms, and a better perception of
the relationship with their parents. We also expected they
would report less aggressive and delinquent conducts.
Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, no studies
have analyzed the quality of daily experience of teenagers
with high and those with low PSE parents inside and
outside the family. We investigated adolescents’ daily
activities and associated quality of experience through
the Experience Sampling Method (ESM; Csikszentmihalyi
123
J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331
et al. 1977; Hektner et al. 2007), a procedure providing
online information on participants’ lives as events unfold in
real time.
We assumed that differences would be detected between
adolescents with high and those with low PSE parents. In
particular, we selected interpersonal relations and school
activities as crucial areas of psychosocial adjustment and
personal development. We expected that teenagers with
high PSE parents would report higher cognitive engage-
ment and involvement in learning and interpersonal rela-
tions than teenagers with low PSE parents. In addition,
the former would retrieve more opportunities for optimal
experience than the latter.
Method
Participants
This study involved 260 Caucasian participants coming from
a middle-sized town (24,000 inhabitants) in the metropolitan
area of Rome in Central Italy. It comprised 130 children (55
males and 75 females) and one of their parents (101 mothers
and 29 fathers). Data were collected in two waves, T1
(adolescents’ mean age = 13.6, SD = .7) and T2 (mean
age = 17.5, SD = 1.2), as part of an ongoing longitudinal
research that adopted a staggered, multiple cohorts design to
identify the major psychosocial factors influencing the
transitions from childhood to adolescence and to adulthood.
At T1, all adolescents attended middle school (2
schools) whereas at T2 the majority (95.4%) attended high
school (11 schools), and 6 had a job. Parents participated in
the study only at T1; their mean age was 43.1 (SD = 5.2).
The majority was married (93.1%). Concerning their edu-
cational level, 45.3% had a high school diploma, 34%
completed middle school, 13.7% elementary school and
7% university. Families varied widely in socioeconomic
background, thus adding to the generalizability of the
findings. Fifty-five percent of the mothers were house-
wives, the others were mostly teachers and skilled or
unskilled workers. Fathers were prevailingly merchants
and skilled or unskilled workers.
Instruments at T1
Perceived Parental Self-Efficacy
Parents filled out 25 items from the Perceived Parental
Self-Efficacy scale (Bandura 1990) measuring their per-
ceived capability to help and support their children in
managing school activities, firmly handle violations of
rules and duties, prevent their children involvement in risky
activities, and take time for enjoyable activities with them.
J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331
Parents rated the strength of their beliefs on a 5-point
response format ranging from 1 (perceived incapability) to
5 (complete self-assurance in one’s capability). ‘‘How well
can you get your children to stay out of trouble in school?’’
is a sample item. Cronbach a was .80.
Perceived Academic Self-Efficacy
Adolescents rated their perceived academic self-efficacy on
a 19-item scale (Bandura et al. 1996) referring to the per-
ceived capability to successfully master different curricular
areas and to self-regulate learning activities, in terms of
planning and organizing studying times and activities, using
cognitive devices to enhance understanding and memory,
and getting teachers and peers to help them with academic
problems when needed. ‘‘How well can you get teachers to
help you when you get stuck on schoolwork?’’ is a sample
item. For each self-efficacy item, children rated the strength
of their beliefs on a 5-point response scale (from perceived
incapability to complete capability). Cronbach a was .83.
Physical and Verbal Aggression
Adolescents’ aggression was measured by a 15-item scale
(Caprara and Pastorelli 1993) referring to the tendency to
act aggressively toward peers, hurting them physically or
verbally. ‘‘I get into fights’’ and ‘‘I insult other kids or call
them names’’ are sample items. Answer format ranged
from 1 (never) to 3 (often), and Cronbach a was .85.
Depressive Symptoms
Adolescents also reported the severity of a list of depres-
sive symptoms through the 27 items of the scale developed
by Kovacs (1985). The items measure features such as
despondency, hopelessness, loss of appetite and interest in
pleasurable activities, self-deprecation, and suicidal idea-
tion. Adolescents rated the degree to which they experi-
enced these depressive features using a 3-point response
format (from ‘‘never, almost never’’ to ‘‘always, almost
always’’). Cronbach a was .85.
Instruments at T2
Academic Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Adolescents’ academic self-efficacy beliefs were measured
by the scale used at T1. Cronbach a at T2 was .85.
Violence
Adolescents’ violence was assessed by an 11-item (Caprara
et al. 1988) scale referring to their tendency to act violently
323
against other people and objects, and to participate in
violent actions of groups. The answer format ranged from 1
(Never/almost never) to 5 (Almost always/always). ‘‘Have
you been involved in acts of vandalism?’’ is a sample item.
Cronbach a was .85.
Depressive Symptoms
Adolescents’ depressive symptoms were assessed using the
20-item scale developed by Radloff (1977) that measured
features such as despondency, hopelessness, loss of appe-
tite, initiative, and interest in pleasure activities. Partici-
pants rated how often, over the past week, they experienced
these features using a 5-point response format (from
‘‘rarely or none of the time’’ to ‘‘most or all of the time’’).
‘‘I felt that everything I did was an effort’’ is a sample item.
Cronbach a was .84.
Self-Esteem
Adolescents rated their self-esteem on a 10-item scale
(Rosenberg 1965) assessing the extent to which they felt to
possess good qualities, to accept their own characteristics,
and to positively value themselves. For each item, ratings
were provided on a 4-point scale (from 1 = strongly dis-
agree to 4 = strongly agree). ‘‘I feel that I have a number
of good qualities’’ is a sample item. Cronbach a was .82.
Life Satisfaction
Adolescents’ life satisfaction was assessed by the 5-item
set of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al. 1985).
For each item, participants rated the extent to which they
felt generally satisfied with life on a 7-point rating scale
(from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). A
sample item is: ‘‘In most ways, my life is close to my
ideal’’. Cronbach a was .86.
Positive and Negative Affect
Adolescents filled out the 20 items of the PANAS (Watson
et al. 1988) to measure two higher-order dimensions of
self-rated positive and negative affect. The ‘‘Positive
Affect’’ section includes terms such as ‘‘active’’, ‘‘atten-
tive’’, ‘‘enthusiastic’’, and ‘‘excited’’ (Cronbach a = .82),
whereas the ‘‘Negative Affect’’ section includes terms such
as ‘‘afraid’’, ‘‘hostile’’, and ‘‘irritable’’ (Cronbach a = .85).
Adolescents reported the extent to which they generally
experienced each term on a 5-point scale, from 1 (very
slightly or not at all) to 5 (very much). Adolescents’ ratings
were used to create a ‘‘hedonic balance’’ difference score
by subtracting the negative affect score from the positive
123
324
affect score. Higher scores thus indicated a relatively
greater tendency to experience positive affect.
Parent–Child Support
Parent–child support was assessed by adolescents on
a13-item scale (Scabini and Cigoli 1992) measuring the
degree of reciprocal understanding and respect for choices
and opinions, and the tendency to help each other when
needed. ‘‘I can count on my mother (my father) when I need
something’’ is a sample item. The response scale ranged
from 1 (never) to 5 (always) and Cronbach a was .77.
Open Communication
Open communication between adolescents and their par-
ents was measured using a 10-item subscale from the
Parent-Adolescent-Communication Scale (PACS) by
Barnes and Olson (1982). Adolescents rated, on a 5-point
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree), the extent to which they felt free to discuss prob-
lems with their parents and whether their parents respond
in an understanding, supportive way when they do. ‘‘It is
easy for me to express all my true feelings to my mother
(father)’’ is a sample item. Cronbach a was .75.
Monitoring
Monitoring was assessed by a 7-item scale developed by
Capaldi and Patterson (1989) evaluating the extent to
which adolescents informed their parents about their
activities and relationships outside the home. ‘‘Do you
inform your parents about activities you are doing or intend
to do?’’ is a sample item. The response scale ranged from 1
(never) to 5 (always) and Cronbach a was .87.
Daily Time Budget and Quality of Experience
Adolescents were administered the Experience Sampling
Method (ESM; Hektner et al. 2007) to assess their daily
time budget and associated quality of experience. For
1 week, each participant was given a digital diary and a
booklet of experience sampling forms. Diaries were pro-
grammed to send random acoustic signals 8 times a day
from 8.00 am to 10.00 pm. When beeped, participants were
asked to fill out a form, containing a standard set of open-
ended questions and Likert-type 0–12 scales. The open-
ended questions investigated thoughts, activities, locations,
and social context at the signal reception: for example,
when beeped, ‘‘what were you doing?’’. Likert-type scales
ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘to the maximum’ measured the
affective (ex. happiness), cognitive (ex. concentration), and
motivational components of experience (ex. freedom),
123
J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331
along with challenges and skills (Massimini et al. 1987;
Delle Fave and Massimini 2005).
Procedure
At T1 and T2, teenagers and their parents were contacted
by phone and invited to participate in the study. The
investigation was described as a project designed to gain a
better understanding of development during adolescence.
Once informed consent was obtained, teenagers filled out
the questionnaires—randomized inside a unique protocol—
in groups during scheduled sessions in local schools. Par-
ents were administered the measures at their home by a
member of the research staff. The administration of the
questionnaires took around half an hour for adolescents and
15 min for parents. At T2, adolescents were additionally
given ESM diaries and booklets, and briefed about their
use. After 1 week, they handed in the materials and were
debriefed. The administration of the questionnaires at T2
took around 1 h.
Data Analysis
As a preliminary step, we computed correlations (Pearson
r) among the various indicators of adolescents’ psychoso-
cial adjustment, respectively at T1 and T2. The few
missing data were previously replaced using an EM
(expectation–maximization) algorithm provided by SPSS.
At T1, adolescents’ academic self-efficacy beliefs were
significantly and negatively correlated with reported
physical and verbal aggression (r = -.4, p \ .001) and
depressive symptoms (r = -.5, p \ .001). A significant
positive association was also detected between aggression
and depressive symptoms (r = .5, p \ .001). Correlations
among indicators at T2 are shown in the Appendix. Sig-
nificant and positive associations were detected among the
indicators of psychosocial adjustment, especially perceived
academic self-efficacy, self-esteem, life satisfaction, and
hedonic balance. Positive correlations were also found
among these indicators and those relative to the perceived
quality of parent–child relationships, namely support,
communication and monitoring. Depressive symptoms
were negatively and significantly correlated to all the
positive indicators, whereas violence was unrelated or
negatively related.
In order to identify parents with higher and those with
lower PSE beliefs, we adopted a procedure that was used in
previous studies (Bassi et al. 2007), based on the empirical
distribution of obtained PSE values. We first calculated a
total score of parents’ self-efficacy beliefs which corre-
sponded to the mean value of parents’ PSE scores on the
25 items of the scale. Mean scores ranged between 2.4
and 5; the overall scale mean value was 3.9 (SD = .56).
J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331
Subsequently, we analyzed the percentile distribution of
the self-efficacy beliefs scores and selected parents falling
below the 25th percentile of the distribution and parents
falling above the 75th percentile, namely the two extreme
poles of the distribution. Compared to the average point of
the empirical distribution, 32 participants, 5 fathers and 27
mothers, were considered low PSE parents, with a mean
value of 3.2 (SD = .36); 32 participants, 6 fathers and 26
mothers, were considered high PSE parents, with a mean
value of 4.6 (SD = .22). The difference between the scores
of the two groups was highly significant (t(62) = -19.34,
p \ .001). Children of low PSE parents (Group 1) were 17
girls and 15 boys; children with high PSE parents (Group
2) were 22 girls and 10 boys. The two groups were very
similar in terms of parents’ education and job. The dif-
ferences between the two groups in the various indicators
of children’s psychosocial adaptation were performed
through t tests.
Concerning data collected by means of ESM, forms that
were completed more than 20 min after signal receipt were
discarded from analysis in order to avoid distortions due to
retrospective recall (Larson and Delespaul 1992). The final
data set included 2,463 valid self-reports: 1,279 for ado-
lescents in Group 1 and 1,184 for adolescents in Group 2.
In line with ESM literature (Csikszentmihalyi 1997;
Delle Fave and Bassi 2000, 2003), two researchers assigned
a numeric code to answers to open-ended questions, and
grouped them into larger functional categories based on
extant manuals. Interrater reliability amounted to 96%. In
this study, we focused on adolescents’ daily activities,
which were broadly aggregated into productive activities,
leisure, interactions, and maintenance. Productive activities
included classwork (such as attending lessons, doing
exams), other school (doing recess), studying at home, and
work; leisure comprised sports and hobbies, reading, other
leisure (whiling time away), media (listening to music),
watching TV, and thinking. For interactions, we specified
with whom adolescents were interacting (family, friends,
school mates/colleagues, other people). For each group,
activity frequencies were calculated as mean percentages of
each participant’s distribution, and t tests were performed to
compare scores between groups.
As regards scaled variables, a mean score was calculated
for adolescents with low PSE parents (Group 1) and for
adolescents with high PSE parents (Group 2), averaging
individuals’ mean scores for each item (subject-level
analysis; Hektner et al. 2007). In the analysis of the quality
of experience, we focused on the following cognitive,
motivational and affective variables: concentration, con-
trol, happiness, freedom, challenges and skills. To test our
hypotheses, we analyzed the quality of experience associ-
ated with crucial adolescents’ activities: classwork, study-
ing at home, interactions with parents and interactions with
325
friends. T tests were performed to compare mean scores
between groups.
We also analyzed the occurrence of optimal experience
in adolescents’ daily life. Previous studies have shown that
optimal experience is associated with above average rat-
ings of challenges matched by above average ratings
of skills (Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi 1988;
Massimini et al. 1987). We thus calculated the frequency of
ESM sheets in which the participants reported above
average levels of challenges and skills. Frequencies were
calculated as mean percentages of each participants’ dis-
tribution, and t-tests were carried out in order to highlight
significant differences between Groups 1 and 2. Finally, we
investigated the activities that the two groups associated
with optimal experience.
Results
Adolescents’ Psychosocial Adjustment
T tests were performed to compare the mean scores of self-
efficacy beliefs and problematic aspects reported by chil-
dren with low PSE parents (Group 1) and by children with
high PSE parents (Group 2), respectively at T1 and T2. As
shown in Table 1, Group 1 reported lower academic self-
efficacy beliefs than Group 2 at both times (t(62) = -2.8,
p \ .01 and (t(60) = -4.4, p \ .001, respectively). Group
1 also reported higher aggression (t(62) = 2.7, p \ .05)
and more frequent depressive symptoms (t(62) = 2.5,
p \ .05) at T1, and higher violence (t(62) = 2.9, p \ .01)
and more frequent depressive symptoms (t(62) = 2.25,
p \ .05) at T2.
Significant between-group differences were also detec-
ted for participants’ perceived relations with parents and
their well-being. Adolescents in Group 1 were less satisfied
with their life (t(62) = -2.6, p \ .05) and reported lower
self-esteem (t(62) = -3.8, p \ .001) and hedonic balance,
corresponding to the difference between positive and
negative affect (t(60) = -4.7, p \ .01). These adolescents
reported lower reciprocal support with their parents
(t(62) = -3.0, p \ .01) and less open communication with
them (t(62) = -4.4, p \ .001). In addition, they less fre-
quently informed their parents about activities and rela-
tionships outside the home (t(62) = -3.5, p \ .05).
Adolescents’ Daily Activities
The mean percentage distribution of adolescents’ activities
is illustrated in Table 2. Mean percentages were calculated
on the basis of each participant’s activity distribution. For
both groups, productive activities were predominant, and
comprised classwork such as attending lessons, listening to
123
326 J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of adolescents’ psychosocial adjust- For both groups, leisure included activities such as
ment indicators watching television, sports and hobbies, listening to music,
Group 1 Group 2 reading magazines and books, thinking of various topics,
(N = 32) (N = 32) and ‘other leisure activities’ such as having a stroll in town
M SD M SD and whistling. For Group 1, maintenance was third in
frequency, followed by interactions with friends, family,
Time 1 school mates or colleagues, and other people. For Group 2,
Academic self-efficacy beliefs 3.9 0.5 4.3 0.5 interactions ranked third with the following order: inter-
Aggression 1.7 0.4 1.4 0.3 actions with friends, family, schoolmates or colleagues,
Depressive symptoms 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 and other people. Answers referring to transport, chores
Time 2 and activities such as waiting and observing the environ-
Academic self-efficacy beliefs 3.5 0.7 4.2 0.6 ment were aggregated in the category ‘miscellaneous’.
Violence 1.4 0.5 1.1 0.2 Between-group t-test comparisons performed on activity
Depressive symptoms 1.8 0.5 1.6 0.4 mean percentages showed two nearly significant differ-
Self-esteem 3.0 0.5 3.5 0.5 ences for leisure (t(62) = 1.7, p \ .09), and maintenance
Life satisfaction 4.7 1.4 5.5 1.1 (t(62) = 1.8, p \ .08), with adolescents in Group 1 more
Hedonic balance 1.0 0.9 2.1 0.8 frequently reporting both activities.
Parent–child support 3.5 0.5 3.8 0.3
Open communication 3.3 0.7 4.0 0.6
Quality of Experience in Learning
Monitoring 3.7 0.8 4.4 0.6

We next investigated the quality of experience adolescents

reported on 0–12 scales during learning activities in school
and at home. As shown in Table 3, during classwork
Table 2 Mean percentage distribution of adolescents’ daily activities
adolescents in Group 1 described high levels of skills,
Activities Group 1 Group 2 average levels of concentration and control, and low levels
N Mean % SD N Mean % SD of happiness, freedom, and challenges. Adolescents in
Group 2 reported high scores of concentration, control and
Productive 30 31.4 11.5 30 35.2 13.9 skills, average levels of happiness and freedom, and low
Classwork 27 19.5 8.6 29 21.9 8.8 levels of challenges. T-test comparisons highlighted sig-
Studying 20 10.6 7.3 25 12.2 7.7 nificant between-group differences: Group 1 reported lower
Other school 20 6.3 3.2 22 5.1 4.0 concentration (t(54) = -2.4, p \ .02), control (t(54) =
Work 6 12.7 10.7 1 2.2 – -2.4, p \ .03), freedom (t(54) = -2.3, p \ .03), and
Leisure 32 29.5 11.7 32 24.4 11.9 skills (t(54) = -2.6, p \ .02) than Group 2.
TV 32 12.7 7.4 31 12.4 6.7 While studying at home, adolescents in Group 1 repor-
Sports & hobbies 25 7.6 6.3 18 7.8 5.2 ted high levels of concentration and skills, an average value
Music 25 6.1 4.0 9 4.9 3.4 of control, and low levels of happiness, freedom, and
Reading 10 4.5 2.8 16 3.6 1.6 challenges. Adolescents in Group 2 described high levels
Thinking 9 3.6 1.4 14 4.6 5.0 of concentration, control, happiness and freedom, and
Other leisure 22 5.2 4.5 19 4.9 2.7 average levels of challenges. T-test comparisons showed
Interactions 30 15.8 7.8 31 17.1 10.6 that Group 1 reported significantly lower concentration
With friends 27 9.1 7.1 27 10.1 6.7 (t(43) = -2.3, p \ .03), control (t(43) = -3.5, p \ .002),
With family 19 6.0 5.9 20 7.8 6.7 freedom (t(43) = -2.5, p \ .02), and skills (t(43) = -2.1,
With school/work 17 5.3 3.5 17 4.8 2.0 p \ .04).
With others 5 3.5 1.7 6 2.9 1.2
Maintenance 32 19.2 8.2 32 15.5 8.3
Quality of Experience During Interactions
Miscellaneous 28 8.3 5.6 32 10.6 8.3
Table 4 shows the quality of experience that adolescents
reported while interacting with family members and with
the teacher, taking notes, and doing oral and written tests, friends. Participants in Group 1 described high values of
studying at home, ‘other school activities’ such as doing concentration, control and skills. They also reported an
recess and talking with schoolmates during lessons, and average score of happiness, and low levels of freedom and
work. challenges. Adolescents in Group 2 reported high levels of

123
J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331 327

Table 3 Mean quality of experience in learning activities among adolescents

Classwork Studying
Group 1 (N = 26) Group 2 (N = 29) Group 1 (N = 20) Group 2 (N = 29)
M SD M SD M SD M SD

Concentration 6.2 1.9 7.6 2.3 7.0 2.1 8.6 2.4

Control 6.1 2.0 7.4 2.0 6.2 1.8 8.6 2.6
Happiness 5.2 2.2 6.2 2.4 5.2 2.0 6.6 2.6
Freedom 4.5 2.0 6.1 3.1 4.7 2.0 6.7 3.4
Challenges 4.3 2.3 4.9 2.8 4.4 3.0 5.8 3.6
Skills 6.6 1.8 8.0 2.1 7.1 1.9 8.5 2.4

Table 4 Mean quality of experience during adolescents’ interactions

Interactions with family Interactions with friends
Group 1 (N = 19) Group 2 (N = 20) Group 1 (N = 27) Group 2 (N = 27)
M SD M SD M SD M SD

Concentration 6.8 2.8 8.3 2.9 7.0 1.8 7.7 2.9

Control 7.3 2.2 8.7 2.4 7.2 2.3 8.8 2.5
Happiness 6.4 1.9 8.5 2.1 7.0 2.2 8.5 2.5
Freedom 5.6 2.6 9.1 2.5 6.0 2.5 8.7 2.3
Challenges 5.2 2.4 5.5 2.8 4.2 3.1 4.8 3.8
Skills 7.4 3.0 8.8 2.5 7.4 2.8 8.6 3.0

concentration, control, happiness, freedom and skills, and a Table 5 Activities associated with optimal experience
low score of challenges. Significantly lower scores of Activities Group 1 Group 2
happiness (t(37) = -3.1, p \ .003) and freedom (t(37) =
N Mean % SD N Mean % SD
-4.3, p \ .001) were detected in Group 1.
Group 1 associated interactions with friends with high Productive 20 49.2 20.1 24 48.1 23.8
levels of concentration, control, happiness and skills, an Leisure 23 38.5 25.1 19 29.3 16.1
average score of freedom, and low levels of challenges. Group Interactions 16 36.4 24.7 18 31.9 17.1
2 reported high values of concentration, control, happiness, Maintenance 13 30.0 24.2 10 24.0 16.0
freedom and skills, and low challenges. T-test comparisons Miscellaneous 4 15.0 3.3 10 20.3 8.6
highlighted significant between-group differences for control
(t(52) = -2.6, p \ .02), happiness (t(52) = -2.4, p \ .02),
and freedom (t(52) = -4.1, p \ .001), with Group 1 report- As shown in Table 5, both groups had optimal experi-
ing lower scores for all these variables. ences in productive activities, leisure, interactions, main-
tenance, and miscellaneous. No significant difference was
Optimal Experience and Optimal Activities detected in the activity distribution of the two groups.

We finally compared the frequencies of occurrence of

optimal experience in the two groups, and analyzed the
kinds of activities that were associated with the perception
of above average challenges and skills in the ESM sheets.
Again we expressed frequencies as mean percentages.
The mean percentage of optimal experience amounted
to 15.2% for Group 1 (N = 29; SD = 12.3), and to 22.7%
for Group 2 (N = 27, SD = 13.1). These values were
significantly different (t(54) = -2.0, p \ .05), with par-
ticipants in Group 1 reporting a lower mean percentage.
Discussion
This article provided a descriptive analysis of the psycho-
social adjustment of a group of Italian adolescents with
high and with low PSE parents. It represents an original
contribution in that it adopted a longitudinal perspective, it
took into consideration a wide range of adaptation indica-
tors, and it investigated participants’ quality of daily
experience in the school and social contexts.

123
328
In line with our expectations and with findings from the
literature, adolescents with high PSE parents consistently
showed a better psychosocial adaptation in terms of higher
efficacy beliefs in managing learning activities, of fewer
depressive symptoms and fewer behavioral problems. They
also reported to communicate more openly with their par-
ents, to inform them about the time spent outside the home,
and to give and receive stronger support in case of difficulties
or important decisions. The opposite trend was observed in
children of low PSE parents, who described lower levels of
well-being as well as more behavioral problems. These
teenagers reported higher involvement in violent events, and
more prominent depressive symptoms. Even though these
participants cannot be defined as seriously deviant, that is
presenting the multi-problematic profile that was detected in
our previous research on deviant adolescents (CIRMPA
2006), findings showed that the psychosocial profile of
children of low PSE parents was clearly worse than the
profile presented by children of high PSE parents.
The larger number of girls in the high PSE group could
give a partial explanation for these findings. Some studies
showed that girls are more competent in managing school
activities and interpersonal relationships, as well as less
involved in deviant activities and events (i.e. Bandura et al.
1996; Bandura et al. 2001); however, girls usually report
lower self-esteem, lower positive affect, and more
depression than males (e.g., Culbertson 1997; Kling et al.
1999). Thus, higher well-being and lower internalizing
problems characterizing the adolescents with high PSE
parents cannot be exclusively attributed to a gender effect.
To not reduce the statistical power of the analyses, this
issue was not investigated in the present study, but it cer-
tainly requires further investigation.
Concerning the online ESM analysis of adolescents’
daily time budget, both groups performed similar daily
activities, typical of most teenagers in western countries.
The participants were mostly engaged in learning tasks,
spent their free time watching TV, practicing sports and
hobbies, and interacting with peers and family. Mainte-
nance activities made up for one-fifth of the self-reports.
Even though differences were only nearly significant,
adolescents with high PSE parents spent a lower percent-
age of time in maintenance and leisure activities (primarily
watching TV). These are unproductive activities that are
usually associated with experiences of relaxation and
apathy (Delle Fave and Bassi 2000, 2003). The lower
amount of these activities may represent an indication of a
better ability of adolescents with high PSE parents to
structure their time and to shun away from low challenging
and boring experiences, which could lead them to seek
more thrilling and potentially deviant activities.
The analysis of the daily experience associated with
learning activities and interactions was consistent with the
123
J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331
findings obtained through single-administration question-
naires. As expected, adolescents with high PSE parents
were more deeply engaged and motivated in academic
activities than adolescents with low PSE parents, during
both classwork and studying at home. They were more
concentrated, perceived higher competence and control,
and felt freer in performing generally compulsory tasks.
While interacting with family, these participants reported
higher levels of happiness and freedom than adolescents
with low PSE parents. Thus, in spite of their growing
autonomy needs and prolonged cohabitation with the
family, these adolescents enjoyed interactions with parents
more. While interacting with peers, participants with high
PSE parents reported higher levels of happiness, freedom,
and control. Children usually internalize basic expectations
and attitudes concerning social behavior through interac-
tions with caregivers (Sroufe and Fleeson 1986), and later
on experiment on and apply these relational patterns to
different social contexts. Our results suggest that adoles-
cents with high PSE parents have lived in a supportive
and challenging environment rich in growth experiences
(Rathunde 2001), sustaining their cognitive investment in
learning activities, and happiness in social relations.
In addition, across the examined life domains, adolescents
with high PSE parents reported higher levels of freedom.
They perceived more autonomy in both compulsory activi-
ties and interpersonal relations. Concerning learning, Rath-
unde maintains that ‘‘as parents exert less of an immediate
impact on an adolescent’s life, the possibility of lifelong
learning becomes increasingly dependent on the adoles-
cent’s capacity for sustaining his or her interests through self-
regulation’’ (2001, p. 169). The high values of freedom
reported by children of high PSE parents hint that they
internalized the importance of learning activities and thus
attended classes and did their homework more autonomously
than participants with low PSE parents. For these adoles-
cents, more independence from parents entailed higher
freedom in daily interactions with peers, as well as with
family members. As adolescents are less and less frequently
with their parents, time together becomes substantially
quality time during which they can exchange ideas, receive
suggestions, and also play an active role in family matters.
Finally, we analyzed the frequency of optimal experi-
ence in the participants’ lives. As hypothesized, adolescents
with high PSE parents reported a significantly higher per-
centage of optimal experiences than adolescents with low
PSE parents. Considering the role of optimal experience in
the process of psychological selection and competence
development (Massimini and Delle Fave 2000), the first
group of participants reported more challenging activities in
daily life in which to invest personal skills and attention.
This can contribute to participants’ short-term well-being in
terms of commitment in and enjoyment of daily activities,
J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331 329

and to the construction of long-term goals and a life tra-
jectory (Delle Fave and Massimini 2005). However, no
significant difference was found in the activities associated
with optimal experiences between adolescents with high
PSE parents and adolescents with low PSE parents. During
this phase of life, most teenagers have not yet selected a
particular area of skill and resources investment; rather they
are engaged in exploring available opportunities for action.
involvement of fathers in child rearing. Moreover, by
adopting a more systemic view on PSE, future studies
could shed light on the mutual influences between parents’
PSE, their children’s personality, socioeconomic condi-
tions and wider social networks (relatives, neighborhood,
community). This would provide useful information to
practitioners working on interventions aimed at enhancing
parental competence and the whole family functioning.

Limitations
This article presents a series of limitations primarily per-
taining to the sample size and composition. In order to
identify parents with extreme PSE values, only around half
of the original participants was included in the final data set.
This reduced the power of statistical analyses and the
opportunity to run more in-depth analyses, such as assessing
gender differences among adolescents with high PSE parents
and those with low PSE parents. Additionally, our sample
presented an imbalance in parents’ gender composition. This
was mainly due to the parental role distinction present in
Italy, where women are more active in their parental role,
including taking part in research studies pertaining to their
offspring. Due to the small sample size, moreover, the
present study also overlooked children’s personality char-
acteristics and contextual variables, which could contribute
to sustaining or undermining parents’ beliefs in their ability
to successfully promote their children’s psychosocial
adjustment. Finally, the small sample size also prevented us
to test any explicit model on the complex pattern of influ-
ences that longitudinally occur among parents’ beliefs and
practices, and their children’s development.
Considering these limitations, future studies on larger
samples could provide additional information on some
crucial aspects of parents’ PSE and on the factors con-
tributing to PSE over time. Information could be gathered
on the differential impact of fathers and mothers on their
children’s psychosocial adaptation, reflecting the growing
Conclusions
Even though the aims of the present study were primarily
descriptive, relevant information was gathered for research
on adolescence. In a phase of life of great individual and
contextual changes, data point to the stability of teenagers’
psychosocial adaptation, and suggest the crucial role of
parents’ efficacy beliefs in promoting their children’s suc-
cessful development. Parents with high PSE contribute to the
construction of crucial skills—in the academic and in the
social spheres—that adolescents need to adjust to the chal-
lenges of becoming adults. In particular, they seem to pro-
vide the right balance between support and autonomy that
youths require to experiment with environmental challenges,
by backing children’s self-esteem, restraining negative
feelings and depressive symptoms, promoting optimal
experiences, and containing deviant and violent behaviors.
Considering the enduring contribution of high and low PSE
parents to children’s psychosocial adaptation during ado-
lescence, data suggest the importance of early intervention in
sustaining parents’ efficacy beliefs in their parenting role
well before adolescence, thus promoting long-lasting well-
being and positive growth among children and parents alike.
Appendix
See Table 6.

Table 6 Correlations among indicators of psychosocial adjustment at T2

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Academic self-efficacy beliefs (1) –

Violence (2) -.3*** –
Depressive symptoms (3) -.2* .1 –
Self-esteem (4) .3** .03 -.5*** –
Life satisfaction (5) .2** -.2** -.5*** .5*** –
Hedonic balance (6) .4*** -.2 -.5*** .6*** .5*** –
Parent–child support (7) .4*** -.3** -.3*** .2** .5*** .4*** –
Open communication (8) .4*** -.3** -.4*** .4*** .5*** .3*** .7*** –
Monitoring (9) .4*** -.4*** -.2* .2* .3*** .2** .3** .5*** –
*** p \ .001, ** p \ .01, * p \ .05

123
330
References
Ardelt, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2001). Effects of mothers’ parental
efficacy beliefs and promotive parenting strategies on inner-city
youth. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 944–972.
Bandura, A. (1990). Multidimensional scale of perceived parental
efficacy. Stanford: Stanford University.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman:
New York.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996).
Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic func-
tioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., &
Regalia, C. (2001). Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms
governing trasgressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80, 125–135.
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.
Bassi, M., & Delle Fave, A. (2006). The daily experience of Italian
adolescents’ in family interactions. Gender and developmental
issues. In A. Delle Fave (Ed.), Dimensions of well-being.
Research and Intervention (pp. 172–190). Milano: F. Angeli.
Bassi, M., Steca, P., Delle Fave, A., & Caprara, G. V. (2007).
Academic self-efficacy beliefs and quality of experience in
learning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 301–312.
Bogenschneider, K., Small, S. A., & Tsay, J. C. (1997). Child, parent,
and contextual influences on perceived parenting competence
among parents of adolescents. Journal of Marriage & the
Family, 59, 345–362.
Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993).
Parenting practices and peer group affiliation. Child Develop-
ment, 64, 467–482.
Capaldi, D., & Patterson, G. (1989). Psychometric properties of
fourteen latent constructs from the Oregon Youth Study. New
York: Springer.
Caprara, G. V., Mazzotti, E., & Prezza, M. (1988). La percezione
della violenza [The perception of violence]. In L. A. B. OS (Ed.),
Giovani e Violenza (pp. 37–49). Roma: TER.
Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1993). Early emotional instability,
prosocial behavior and aggression: some methodological
aspects. European Journal of Personality, 7, 19–36.
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: Infor-
mation Age Publishing.
CIRMPA [Interuniversitary Centre for the Research on the Genesis
and Development of Prosocial and Antisocial Motivation]
(2006). Investigating deviant conduct from childhood to adoles-
cence. Internal Report, University of Rome ‘‘La Sapienza’’.
Cote, S. M., Boivin, M., Liu, X., Nagin, D. S., Zoccolillo, M., &
Tremblay, R. E. (2009). Depression and anxiety symptoms:
Onset, developmental course and risk factors during. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 1201–1208.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Activity, experience and personal
growth. In J. Curtis & S. Russell (Eds.), Physical activity in
human experience: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 59–88).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (Eds.). (1988). Optimal
experience—Psychological studies of flow in consciousness.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R., & Prescott, S. (1977). The ecology
of adolescent activity and experience. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 6, 281–294.
123
J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Massimini, F. (1985). On the psychological
selection of bio-cultural information. New Ideas in Psychology,
3, 115–138.
Culbertson, F. M. (1997). Depression and gender. American Psychol-
ogist, 52, 25–31.
Delle Fave, A., & Bassi, M. (2000). The quality of experience
in adolescents’ daily life: Developmental perspectives.
Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126,
347–367.
Delle Fave, A., & Bassi, M. (2003). Italian adolescents and leisure:
The role of engagement and optimal experience. In S. Verma &
R. Larson (Eds.), Examining adolescent leisure time across
cultures: Developmental opportunities and risks. New directions
in child and adolescent development (pp. 79–93). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Delle Fave, A., & Bassi, M. (2009). Sharing optimal experiences and
promoting good community life in a multicultural society.
Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 280–289.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2004). Bringing subjectivity into
focus: optimal experiences, life themes and person-centred
rehabilitation. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive
psychology in practice (pp. 581–597). London: Wiley.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2005). The investigation of optimal
experience and apathy: Developmental and psychosocial impli-
cations. European Psychologist, 10, 264–274.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment,
49, 71–75.
Gondoli, D. M., & Silverberg, S. B. (1997). Maternal emotional
distress and diminished responsiveness: The mediating role of
parenting efficacy and parental perspective taking. Developmen-
tal Psychology, 33, 861–868.
Hektner, J. (2001). Family, school, and community predictors of
adolescent growth-conducive experiences: Global and specific
approaches. Applied Developmental Science, 5, 172–183.
Hektner, J., Schmidt, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience
sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hill, N. E., & Bush, K. R. (2001). Relationships between parenting
environment and children’s mental health among African
American and European American mothers and children.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 954–966.
Hoover-Dempsey, K., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P.,
DeJong, J. M., & Jones, K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in
homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 195–209.
Izzo, C., Weiss, L., Shanahan, T., & Rodriguez-Brown, F. (2000).
Parental self-efficacy and social support as predictors of
parenting practices and children’s socio-emotional adjustment
in Mexican immigrant families. Journal of Prevention &
Intervention in the Community, 20, 197–213.
Jones, T. L., & Prinz, R. J. (2005). Potential roles of parental self-
efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical
Psychology Review, 25, 341–363.
King, V., & Elder, G. H. (1998). Perceived self-efficacy and grand
parenting. Journal of Gerontology, 53B, S249–S257.
Kling, K. C., Hide, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999).
Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 12, 470–500.
Kovacs, M. (1985). The children’s depression inventory (CDI).
Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 21, 995–1124.
Larson, R., & Delespaul, P. A. E. G. (1992). Analysing experience
sampling data: A guidebook for the perplexed. In M. deVries
(Ed.), The experience of psychopathology—Investigating mental
disorders in their natural settings (pp. 58–78). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331
Larson, R. W., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Divergent realities: The
emotional lives of mothers, fathers, and adolescents. New York:
Basic Books.
Larson, R. W., Richards, M. H., Moneta, G. B., Holmbeck, G., &
Ducket, E. (1996). Changes in adolescents’ daily interactions
with their families from ages 10 to 18: Disengagement and
transformation. Developmental Psychology, 32, 744–754.
Lynch, J. (2002). Parents’ self-efficacy beliefs, parents’ gender,
children’s reader self-perceptions, reading achievement and
gender. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 54–67.
Massimini, F., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Carli, M. (1987). The
monitoring of optimal experience. A tool for psychiatric
rehabilitation. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175,
545–549.
Massimini, F., & Delle Fave, A. (2000). Individual development in a
bio-cultural perspective. American Psychologist, 55, 24–33.
Murry, V. M., & Brody, G. H. (1999). Self-regulation and self-worth
of black children reared in economically stressed, rural, single
mother-headed families. Journal of Family Issues, 4, 458–484.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success:
Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. In R. Riding
& S. Rayner (Eds.), Perception (pp. 239–266). London: Ablex
Publishing.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression
scale for research in the general population. Applied Psycholog-
ical Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Rathunde, K. (1997). Parent-adolescent interaction and optimal
experience. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 669–689.
Rathunde, K. (2001). Family context and the development of
undivided interest: A longitudinal study of family support and
challenge and adolescents’ quality of experience. Applied
Developmental Science, 5, 158–171.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Scabini, E., & Cigoli, V. (1992). PASS: Parent-adolescent support
scale. Unpublished manuscript.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive
psychology. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Shumow, L., & Lomax, R. (2002). Parental self-efficacy: Predictor of
parenting behavior adolescent outcomes. Parenting, Science and
Practice, 2, 127–150.
Simmons, R., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: The
impact of pubertal change and school context. New York:
Aldine de Gruyter.
View publication stats
331
Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction
of relationships. In W. W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relation-
ships and development (pp. 51–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and
validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The
PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 1063–1070.
Xiang, P., McBride, R., & Bruene, A. (2003). Relations of parents’
beliefs to children’s motivation in an elementary physical
education running program. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 22, 410–425.
Author Biographies
Patrizia Steca, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor at Università degli Studi
di Milano ‘‘Bicocca’’. She received her doctorate in Social Psychol-
ogy and Personality from Università degli Studi di Padova. Her main
interests focus on the study of subjective and psychological well-
being across the life span, as well as on methodological aspects of
longitudinal research.
Marta Bassi, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor at Università degli Studi di
Milano. She received her doctorate in Research Methodology in
Psychology from Università degli Studi di Milano. She has conducted
research in human development, focusing on adolescents’ quality of
experience and identity building, as well as on methodological aspects
of experience sampling procedures.
Gian Vittorio Caprara is Full Professor at ‘‘Sapienza’’ Università di
Roma. His research interests include personality development and
personality assessment across the life span. He is a supervisor in
longitudinal projects on the psychosocial adjustment from childhood
to young adulthood.
Antonella Delle Fave, MD is Full Professor at Università degli Studi
di Milano. Her main research interests focus on the cross-cultural
investigation of the quality of daily experiences and their long-term
developmental impact. She is a supervisor in intervention projects on
migration, disability and social maladjustment.
123