www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1807–1818

Multi-faceted self-efficacy beliefs as predictors of lifesatisfaction in late adolescence

Giovanni Maria Vecchio a,*, Maria Gerbino b, Concetta Pastorelli c,Giannetta Del Bove c, Gian Vittorio Caprara c

a Faculty of Psychology 2 – Sapienza University of Rome, Italyb Department of Psychology – Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

c Inter-University Center for Research on the Origins of Prosocial and

Antisocial Motivations – Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

Received 2 December 2006; received in revised form 22 May 2007; accepted 31 May 2007Available online 19 July 2007

Abstract

In a longitudinal design, 650 young adolescents’ multi-faceted self-efficacy beliefs (academic, social andself-regulatory), academic achievement and peer preference in middle school were used to predict life sat-isfaction five years later.

Hierarchical regression analysis showed that for both genders, academic and social self-efficacy beliefs inearly adolescence were better predictors of life satisfaction in late adolescence than early academic achieve-ment and peer preference. Furthermore, change in academic and social self-efficacy beliefs significantly con-tributed to predict life satisfaction over the course of five years.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Self-efficacy beliefs; Academic achievement; Peer preference; Life satisfaction; Longitudinal study

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.05.018

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 06 49917665; fax: +39 06 4469115.E-mail address: giovanni.vecchio@uniroma1.it (G.M. Vecchio).

1808 G.M. Vecchio et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1807–1818

1. Introduction

Over the years, much research has been devoted to examining the personal and social determi-nants of successful development over the course of adolescence (Compas, Hinden, & Gerhardt,1995; Lerner & Steinberg, 2004). Adolescence involves the management of major biological, edu-cational, and social role transitions that tend to occur concurrently. The success with which thechallenges of these transitions are managed depends, to a large degree, on adolescents’ abilityto behave appropriately in multiple domains.

Although most research has focused on the undesirable outcomes that may preclude healthydevelopment (Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Cicchetti & Toth, 1998; Jessor, 1998), no less importantare the positive outcomes and personal factors that allow young people to navigate safely throughthe challenges of adolescence and set a successful life course. Thus, the scientific study of adoles-cence needs to explain why some youth cope effectively with taxing role demands and interper-sonal strains whereas others withdraw in the face of challenges and, ultimately, may succumbto unhappiness and depression. An adequate psychological theory should also explain why someadolescents engage in persistent risky behaviors whereas the majority of youth avoid or desist(Moffit, 1993).

A new vision of adolescence points to the individual strengths that promote positive develop-ment (Damon & Gregory, 2003). It has become clear that individuals play a proactive role in theiradaptation rather than simply undergo experiences that act on their personal liabilities (Bandura,2006). In this regard, self-efficacy beliefs are among the knowledge structures that exert a perva-sive influence on youths’ successful development. Unless young people believe they can producedesired results by their actions, they have little incentive to undertake activities or to persevere inthe face of difficulties (Bandura, 1997).

Over the years, cross-sectional and longitudinal findings have attested to the role that multi-fac-eted self-efficacy beliefs exert in sustaining positive behaviors and preventing maladaptive behav-iors over the course of adolescence. In particular, academic, social and self-regulatory efficacybeliefs have proved to contribute to the promotion of prosocial behavior (Bandura, Caprara, Bar-baranelli, Gerbino, & Pastorelli, 2003), academic aspirations and career trajectories (Bandura, Bar-baranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 2001), peer preference and academic achievement (Caprara,Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, & Cervone, 2004), as well as to prevent depression (Bandura, Pastorelli,Barbaranelli, & Caprara, 1999), shyness (Caprara, Steca, Cervone, & Artistico, 2003), internalizingand externalizing problems (Caprara et al., 2004) and engagement in transgressive behaviors (Ban-dura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, & Regalia, 2001; Caprara, Regalia, & Bandura, 2002).

The present study aims to extend previous findings by examining the predictive power of self-efficacy beliefs related to relevant domains of functioning like: academic achievement, socialrelationships and resistance to transgressive peer pressures with respect to later adolescents’ lifesatisfaction. Recent reviews (Gilman & Huebner, 2003; Huebner, 2004) have highlighted theimportance of life satisfaction on adolescents’ positive adjustment. In particular, life satisfactionhas been found to be positively related to key indicators of adaptive functioning including, self-esteem (Dew & Huebner, 1994), positive parent–child and interpersonal relations (Huebner,2004), and academic ability and adjustment (Leung & Leung, 1992). In contrast, negative corre-lations have been found with depression and anxiety (Gullone & Cummins, 1999), externalizingand internalizing problems (McKnight, Huebner, & Suldo, 2002) and substance abuse (Zullig,

G.M. Vecchio et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1807–1818 1809

Valois, Huebner, Oeltmann, & Drane, 2001). Academic, social and self-regulatory self-efficacy be-liefs seem to be particularly relevant for adolescents’ life satisfaction, due to the influence that aca-demic success, social competence and avoidance of risky behavior may exert in fostering desirableand satisfactory courses of life (Roeser, Eccles, & Freedman-Doan, 1999; Rubin, Bukowski, &Parker, 2006).

As adolescents are exposed to major social and educational demands that may challenge theirdegree of confidence in their academic capacities (Caprara et al., submitted; Pajares, 2006), theextent to which changes in self-efficacy beliefs are associated to later life satisfaction were exam-ined in the study. As previous studies have supported the differential impact of self-efficacy beliefsin males and females on diverse outcomes, like depression (Bandura et al., 1999, 2003) and anti-social behavior (Caprara et al., 2002; Bandura et al., 2001), the moderating role of gender waskept under control.

In addition to the predictive power of self-efficacy beliefs, the predictive power of academicachievement and peer acceptance was examined. Indeed, both academic success and peer prefer-ence have been shown to be determinants of youth’s satisfaction (Cheng & Furnham, 2002; Kirk-caldy, Furnham, & Siefen, 2004). While academic success is related to a more satisfying academicand professional career (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 2006) and negatively associated with problembehaviour and internalizing problems (Roeser et al., 1999), adolescents’ level of acceptance in peergroups is relevant for their adjustment (Rubin et al., 2006). Youths who are more accepted bytheir peers usually demonstrate higher social skills, are more able to regulate negative emotions,report higher self-esteem (Berndt, 1996) and are at lower risk for externalizing (Dodge et al., 2003)and internalizing problems (Burks, Dodge, & Price, 1995; Prinstein & La Greca, 2002).

Ultimately, we aimed to examine the extent to which self-efficacy beliefs may serve as predictorsof life satisfaction beyond academic achievement and peer preference.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Six hundred and fifty adolescents (i.e., 317 boys and 333 girls) participated in the study andwere interviewed twice, five years apart. The average age of the adolescent sample was 13.5and 18.5 years at time 1 and time 2, respectively. The participants were drawn from Genzano,a residential community located near Rome, Italy. This community represents a microcosm ofthe larger society and varied in socioeconomic background as participants came from familiesof skilled workers, farmers, professional and local merchants and their service staffs. The presentstudy is part of a larger longitudinal project that started in 1992 with the primary goal of inves-tigating the personal and social determinants of children and adolescents’ adjustment. From ele-mentary school to 9th grade annual assessments were conducted; from 10th grade onwardsassessments were conducted every other year.

At time 1, participants were enrolled in 7th or 8th grade in two middle schools. At time 2, fiveyears later, 86.5% of adolescents were enrolled in high school, while the remaining participantswere employed in the community. Seventy-five percent of all subjects at time 1 completed theassessment at time 2. Attrition was mainly due to family relocation from the area or absence from

1810 G.M. Vecchio et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1807–1818

school at the time of follow-up. Preliminary analyses indicated that missing subjects at time 2 didnot significantly differ from their counterparts on the variables of interest at time 1.

2.2. Measures and design

Measures of perceived academic, social and regulatory self-efficacy beliefs, academic achieve-ment and social preference were taken at time 1, when participants were in middle school bytwo female experimenters. Measures of self-efficacy beliefs and peer preference were administeredin the classroom over a period of several days.

At time 2, the measures of self-efficacy beliefs were taken again and Life satisfaction was as-sessed. Change in self-efficacy beliefs was operationalized by subtracting the mean scores of eachself-efficacy measure at time 1 from the mean levels at time 2 (Rogosa, 1995).

2.2.1. Perceived self-efficacyChildren’s beliefs in their efficacy were measured by 37 items tapping three basic efficacy do-

mains of functioning (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Pastorelli et al.,2001). For each item, participants rated their perceived capability to execute the designated activ-ity on a 5-point scale.

Perceived self-efficacy for academic achievement included 19 items measuring perceived abilityto self-regulate one’s own studying and learning (e.g., ‘‘How well can you study when there areother interesting things to do?’’), to master academic subjects (e.g., ‘‘How well do you do in math-ematics?’’), and to fulfill personal, parental and teachers’ academic expectations (e.g., ‘‘How wellcan you live up to what your parents expect of you?’’).

Perceived social self-efficacy included 13 items regarding perceived ability with peer relationships(e.g., ‘‘How well can you make friends?’’), self-assertiveness (e.g., ‘‘How well can you express youropinions when other classmates disagree with you?’’) and leisure-time social activities (e.g., ‘‘Howwell can you learn the skills needed for team sports (for example, basketball, volleyball, swim-ming, football, soccer?)’’).

Perceived self-regulatory self-efficacy included five items assessing perceived ability to resist peerpressure with respect to engaging in high-risk activities (e.g., ‘‘How well can you resist peer pres-sure to drink beer, wine or liquor?’’).

While the factor structure of perceived self-efficacy scales has been replicated cross-nationally,predictive validity has been verified in prior studies both cross-sectionally and prospectively (Ban-dura et al., 2001; Caprara et al., 2002; Pastorelli et al., 2001). Finally, the estimated reliabilitieswere 0.89 for academic self-efficacy, 0.82 for social self-efficacy, and 0.70 for self-regulatoryself-efficacy.

2.2.2. Academic achievement and social preferenceAcademic achievement was taken from school records. According to the Italian National Edu-

cation format, children’s achievement was assessed by teachers at the end of each academic year.Different learning topics were evaluated, and students were rated on a five-level gradation of aca-demic attainment. Final grades were standardized for each classroom.

Social preference was assessed by sociometric peer nominations. The children made their nom-inations from the roster of classmates. First respondents selected the three classmates with whom

G.M. Vecchio et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1807–1818 1811

they would like to play and the three classmates with whom they would like to study (preference).Then they selected three classmates with whom they would not want to play and the threeclassmates with whom they would not want to study (rejection). The number of preference andrejections were summed separately, divided by the number of children in the class, and thenstandardized within the sample. Following the common scoring procedure (Coie, Dodge, &Coppotelli, 1982; Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993), the measure of social preference wasobtained by subtracting the standardized rejection score from the standardized preferencescore.

This measure has been used in many other studies (e.g.: Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli,Bandura, & Zimbardo, 2000; Caprara et al., 2004).

2.2.3. Life satisfactionLife satisfaction in late adolescence was assessed by using the 5-item set of the ‘‘Life Satisfaction

Scale’’ (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). For each item, participants rated the extent towhich they felt generally satisfied with life on a 7-point rating scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to7 = strongly agree). Sample of life satisfaction items is: ‘‘In most ways, my life is close to myideal’’. The reliability coefficient for this scale was 0.88. This measure, originally developed withEnglish-speaking samples, was first translated into Italian and then back-translated into Englishto verify the validity of the Italian version. It has been used in previous studies (e.g. Caprara &Steca, 2005; Caprara, Steca, Gerbino, Paciello, & Vecchio, 2006).

3. Results

3.1. Gender differences in academic achievement, social preference and life satisfaction

Gender differences in academic achievement, social preference at time 1 and life satisfaction attime 2 were examined via three separate one-way ANOVAs. Using the Bonferroni correction,only differences with an associated probability level equal to or less than 0.002 were consideredstatistically significant. A significant gender difference was found academic achievement (F (1,648) = 15.70; p < 0.001; g2 = 0.03). Girls demonstrated a significantly higher level of academicachievement than boys.

3.2. Change and gender differences in self-efficacy beliefs

Repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted on academic,social and self-regulatory self-efficacy beliefs, with time (T1, T2) as within-subjects factors andgender (males and females) as a between-subjects variable. Results of MANOVAs on academicand regulatory self-efficacy beliefs revealed two main effects for time (respectively F(1,638) = 11.34; p < 0.0001; g2 = 0.02; F(1, 639) = 28.79; p < 0.0001; g2 = 0.04) and gender (respec-tively F(1, 638) = 68.57; p < 0.0001; g2 = 0.10; F(1, 639) = 30.75; p < 0.0001; g2 = 0.05). No sig-nificant effects were found for social self-efficacy beliefs. Overall, academic and self-regulatoryself-efficacy beliefs decreased significantly over time with girls showing higher academic and reg-ulatory self-efficacy beliefs than boys.

1812 G.M. Vecchio et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1807–1818

Manovas revealed two further gender · time interaction effects (respectively F(1, 638) = 11.34;p < 0.0001; g2 = 0.02; F(1, 639) = 4.11; p < 0.05; g2 = 0.01). Thus main effects analyses and pair-wise contrasts were performed. Boys showed a higher decrease of academic and self-regulatoryself-efficacy beliefs (respectively g2 = 0.09 for academic self-efficacy beliefs g2 = 0.04 for self reg-ulatory self-efficacy beliefs) than girls (respectively g2 = 0.02 and g2 = 0.01).

3.3. Covariations among self-efficacy beliefs, academic achievement, social preference andlater life satisfaction

In light of the above gender differences, subsequent correlational analyses were performed sep-arately for males and females.

While for both boys and girls, academic achievement and social preference showed significantcorrelations with both perceived academic and social self-efficacy beliefs, they were not associatedwith self regulatory efficacy beliefs nor with life satisfaction five years later. Academic self-efficacybeliefs were significantly and positively associated with later life satisfaction in boys and girls.While self-regulatory self-efficacy beliefs were associated to later life satisfaction in boys, socialself-efficacy beliefs were associated to later life satisfaction in girls. For both genders, the lessself-efficacy beliefs decreased over time the more youths were satisfied with their life five yearslater. (see Tables 1 and 2).

3.4. Prediction of life satisfaction

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to determine the unique predictive value ofself-efficacy beliefs and their change beyond the effects due to gender and earlier academic achieve-ment and social preference. The moderating role of gender was further examined.

Table 1Means, standard deviations for academic achievement, social preference, self-efficacy variables (T1 and T2) and lifesatisfaction

Boysa Girlsb Range

M SD M SD

Academic achievement – time 1c 0.01 0.94 0.31 0.97 –Social preference – time 1c 0.03 0.21 0.06 0.20 –Academic self-efficacy – time 1c 3.85 0.58 4.04 0.56 1–5Academic self-efficacy – time 2d 3.57 0.66 3.92 0.59 1–5Social self-efficacy – time 1c 4.25 0.50 4.29 0.49 1–5Social self-efficacy – time 2d 4.24 0.48 4.26 0.52 1–5Self regulatory self-efficacy – time 1c 4.09 0.79 4.30 0.80 1–5Self regulatory self-efficacy – time 2d 3.82 0.83 4.18 0.73 1–5Life satisfaction – time 2d 5.10 1.19 5.09 1.30 1–7

Note: Social preference and academic achievement are standardized variables.a n = 317.b n = 333.c Age = 13–14.d Age = 18–19.

Table 2Correlation coefficients between academic achievement, social preference, self-efficacy variables (T1 and change) andlife satisfaction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Academicachievement

– 0.47*** 0.51*** 0.13* 0.23*** 0.17** �0.04 0.12* 0.04

2 Social preference 0.43*** – 0.26*** 0.17** 0.14* 0.13* 0.10 0.03 0.023 Academic

self-efficacy – time 10.48*** 0.18** – 0.60*** 0.40*** �0.02* 0.10 0.13* 0.24***

4 Social self-efficacy –time 1

0.16** 0.14* 0.54*** – 0.34*** 0.04 0.15** 0.08 0.30***

5 Self regulatoryself-efficacy – time 1

0.21*** 0.01 0.54*** 0.44*** – 0.02 �0.04 �0.08 0.04

6 Academic self-efficacy – change

0.10 0.07 �0.06 �0.07 �0.05 – 0.28*** 0.30*** 0.29***

7 Social self-efficacy –change

�0.05 0.02 �0.03 �0.16** �0.02 0.33*** – 0.23*** 0.39***

8 Self regulatoryself-efficacy – change

0.08 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.40*** 0.14* – 0.16**

9 Life satisfaction �0.00 0.02 0.11* 0.07 0.12* 0.32*** 0.43*** 0.18** –

Note: Correlation coefficients for boys (Listwise, n = 308) are below the principal diagonal, those for girls (Listwise,n = 327) are above the principal diagonal.

* p < 0.05.** p < 0.01.*** p < 0.001.

G.M. Vecchio et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1807–1818 1813

We performed two distinct regression models: in both models life satisfaction scores was adependent variable, gender was entered in the initial step, followed by social preference and aca-demic achievement in the second step. In the first model the main effects of self-efficacy beliefs attime 1 were entered in the third step, followed by five interaction terms in the fourth step to exam-ine gender as a possible moderator of each variable measured at time 1. In the second model thechange in self-efficacy beliefs were entered in the third step and three interactions (gender by self-efficacy change) were entered in the fourth step.

Tables 3a and 3b present the beta weights, R-squared and multiple correlation coefficients fortwo models, respectively.

In the first model, significant main effects suggested that higher levels of academic and socialself-efficacy beliefs in early adolescence were longitudinally associated with higher levels of life sat-isfaction in late adolescence. In addition, significant interactions between social and self-regula-tory efficacy and gender attested to the moderating role of gender. The more girls wereconfident in their capacity to handle social relations and the more boys were confident in theircapacity to resist peer pressures towards transgressions at time 1, the more they were satisfied withtheir life five years later.

In the second model, the change over time in academic and social self-efficacy beliefs added sig-nificantly to the prediction of life satisfaction five years later. In particular, lower declines in theperceived ability to regulate one’s own learning activities and to manage peer relationships andsocial activities independently contributed to adolescents’ life satisfaction. In these multiple

Table 3aMultiple regression analyses of life satisfaction on gender, academic achievement and social preference, self-efficacybeliefs T1, interaction variables T1 by gender, self-efficacy beliefs change and interaction self-efficacy beliefs change bygender

Life satisfaction

At entry b Incremental R2

Step 1

Gender 0.00 0.00Step 2

Academic achievement – time 1 0.01 0.00Social preference – time 1 0.01

Step 3

Academic self-efficacy – time 1 0.15** 0.05***

Social self-efficacy – time 1 0.13*

Self regulatory self-efficacy – time 1 �0.03Step 4

Gender · academic achievement – time 1 0.10 0.02*

Gender · social preference – time 1 �0.13Gender · academic self-efficacy – time 1 0.28Gender · social self-efficacy – time 1 1.21**

Gender · self regulatory self-efficacy – time 1 �0.53*

Multiple R 0.23

R2 0.07

Adjusted R2 0.05

Note: All multiple R and R2 are significant (p < 0.001).* p < 0.05.

** p < 0.01.*** p < 0.001.

1814 G.M. Vecchio et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1807–1818

hierarchical regression analyses, the association among predictors and dependent variables wasmoderately high, with multiple correlation coefficients of 0.23 and 0.28. Overall, the proposedmodels accounted for 7% and 8% of the variance in life satisfaction five years later.

4. Discussion

The primary aim of the present study was to determine whether earlier self-efficacy beliefs pre-dict later life satisfaction over a five-year period of adolescent development. Findings attested toself-efficacy beliefs as long-term predictors of life satisfaction. Youths who initially judged them-selves as more capable of regulating academic activities and managing interpersonal relationshipsexperienced a higher level of life satisfaction five years later. However, perceived academic andsocial self-efficacy beliefs showed significant changes over time. As previous research has showed(Schunk & Pajares, 2002), academic self-efficacy beliefs tended to decrease in accordance with themajor demands and pressures on youths’ academic performance as they progress towards morechallenging school tasks. However, it is likely that over the years, adolescents develop more accu-racy in judging their own capacities, rather than experience only a decrease in their abilities. Sim-ilar reasoning applies to perceived social efficacy, as social relationships become more demanding

Table 3bMultiple regression analyses of life satisfaction on gender, academic achievement and social preference, self-efficacybeliefs change and interaction self-efficacy beliefs change by gender

Life satisfaction

At entry b Incremental R2

Step 1

Gender 0.00 0.00Step 2

Academic achievement – time 1 0.01 0.00Social preference – time 1 .01

Step 3

Change academic self-efficacy – (T1–T2) 0.13** 0.07***

Change social self-efficacy – (T1–T2) 0.20***

Change self regulatory self-efficacy – (T1–T2) 0.01Step 4

Gender · change academic self-efficacy – (T1–T2) 0.04 0.00Gender · change social self-efficacy – (T1–T2) �0.10Gender · change self regulatory self-efficacy – (T1–T2) 0.12Multiple R 0.28

R2 0.08

Adjusted R2 0.06

Note: All multiple R and R2 are significant (p < 0.001).** p < 0.01.*** p < 0.001.

G.M. Vecchio et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1807–1818 1815

from early adolescence to early adulthood and youths are engaged in social comparisons that mayimprove the accuracy of their self-assessments (Schunk & Pajares, 2002). In reality, expectedcovariation between perceived self-efficacy and life satisfaction was corroborated despite thedecline of self-efficacy beliefs. Adolescents who showed a lower decline in academic and/or socialself-efficacy were more satisfied with their life five years later. Findings attested to significant gen-der differences in youths’ perceived academic and self-regulatory efficacy beliefs and their change,whereas there were no gender differences in social self-efficacy beliefs and life satisfaction. Femaleadolescents reported a higher sense of efficacy in regulating their own learning and in resistingpeer pressures toward transgression than did boys, while reporting higher level of academicachievement. While both girls’ and boys’ self-efficacy beliefs decreased over time, girls’ self-effi-cacy beliefs changed less than boys’.

Relevant gender differences were also found in patterns of covariation between self-efficacybeliefs and life satisfaction. While in boys, life satisfaction was more strongly associated with ear-lier higher self-regulatory self-efficacy beliefs, in girls life satisfaction was more strongly associatedwith earlier higher social self-efficacy beliefs. These findings support the differential protective roleof self-efficacy beliefs highlighted by previous studies that showed a differential vulnerability ofgirls and boys with regard to depression (Bandura et al., 1999, 2003) and antisocial behavior(Caprara et al., 2002; Bandura et al., 2001). While self-efficacy beliefs related to the abilities tomanage social relationships may contribute to inhibit depression in girls, self-efficacy beliefs toresist alcohol and drug use and transgressive conduct may contribute to prevent antisocial behav-ior in boys.

1816 G.M. Vecchio et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1807–1818

Whereas previous studies examined the role of self efficacy beliefs in emotion regulation, familyrelationships and in promoting positive thinking from middle adolescence to late adolescence(Caprara et al., 2006; Caprara & Steca, 2005), the present findings attest to the positive role ofearlier self-efficacy beliefs in a longer time-span and in different domains of functioning (academicperformance and in resisting to transgressive behavior and peer pressure) with respect to life sat-isfaction. Surprisingly, neither academic achievement nor social preference accounted for any per-centage of variance of youths’ later life satisfaction. Thus, self-efficacy beliefs accounted for lifesatisfaction more than academic performance and popularity as reported by peers (Gilman &Huebner, 2003).

We acknowledge some limitations of the study, in particular, the use of only self-report mea-sures. Although in examining self-efficacy beliefs and life satisfaction one should rely upon sub-jective experience, other objective measures can be taken to prove and extend the reliability ofself-efficacy beliefs that may be inflated by self-presentation or self-serving biases. As the initiallevel of life satisfaction was not controlled over time, future studies should control for the patternof association between self-efficacy beliefs and life satisfaction at time 1.

Whatever the stability of their covariation, one should not underestimate the role self-efficacybeliefs may play in sustaining and promoting life satisfaction. Indeed, self-efficacy beliefs are mal-leable as they can change and be enhanced through mastery experiences and other enabling expe-riences (Bandura, 1997). Promoting the development of self-efficacy beliefs should receive greaterattention in psychological efforts to promote youth adjustment from a positive youth developmen-tal perspective that emphasizes the real potentialities rather than the hypothetical weaknesses ofyouth (Damon, 2004).

Acknowledgements

This study was partially supported by grants from the Ministry of Education, University andResearch (PRIN, 2002/2004), University of Rome La Sapienza, Ateneo Research, 2002, 2003,2004 to Gian Vittorio Caprara.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy

beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 1–43). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on

academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222.Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s

aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72, 187–206.Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective self-regulatory in

diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 74, 769–782.Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Regalia, C. (2001). Sociocognitive self-regulatory

mechanisms governing transgressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 125–133.Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways to child depression.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 258–269.

G.M. Vecchio et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1807–1818 1817

Berndt, T. J. (1996). Exploring the effects of friendship quality on social development. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F.Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 346–365).Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Burks, V. S., Dodge, K. A., & Price, J. M. (1995). Models of internalizing outcomes of early rejection. Development and

Psychopathology, 7, 683–695.Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. New York: Cambridge

University Press.Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. (2000). Prosocial foundations of

children’s academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11, 302–306.Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Cervone, D. (2004). The contribution of self-referent beliefs to

personality development. Perceived self-efficacy and Big Five constructs as predictors of psychosocial outcomes.Personality and Individual differences, 37, 751–763.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Del Bove, G., Fida, R., Vecchio, G. M., & Vecchione, M., (submitted for publication).Personal determinants of academic achievement over the course of adolescence: Assessing the contribution ofperceived self-efficacy for self-regulated learning.

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

Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005). Affective and social self-regulatory efficacy beliefs as determinants of positivethinking and happiness. European Psychologist, 4, 275–286.

Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Cervone, D., & Artistico, D. (2003). The contribution of self-efficacy beliefs to dispositionalshyness: On social-cognitive systems and the development of personality dispositions. Journal of Personality, 71,943–970.

Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Gerbino, M., Paciello, M., & Vecchio, G. M. (2006). Looking for adolescents’ well-being:Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of positive thinking and happiness. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale, 15,29–41.

Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2002). Personality, peer relations, and self-confidence as predictors of happiness andloneliness. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 327–339.

Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (1998). The development of depression in children and adolescents. American Psychologist,

53, 221–241.Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status. Child Development, 59,

815–829.Compas, B. E., Hinden, B. R., & Gerhardt, C. A. (1995). Adolescent development: Pathways and processes of risk and

resilience. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 265–293.Damon, W. (2004). What is positive youth development? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science, 591, 13–24.Damon, W., & Gregory, A. (2003). Bringing in a new era in the field of youth development. In R. M. Lerner & P. L.

Benson (Eds.), Developmental assets and asset-building communities: Implications for research, policy, and practice

(pp. 47–64). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.Dew, T., & Huebner, E. S. (1994). Adolescents’ perceived quality of life: An exploratory investigation. Journal of School

Psychology, 33, 185–199.Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 49, 71–75.Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Fontaine, R., et al. (2003). Peer rejection and

social information-processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior problems in children. Child

Development, 74, 374–393.Gilman, R., & Huebner, E. S. (2003). A review of life satisfaction research with children and adolescents. School

Psychology Quarterly, 18, 192–205.Gullone, E., & Cummins, R. A. (1999). The Comprehensive quality of life scale: A psychometric evaluation with an

adolescent sample. Behaviour Change, 16, 127–139.Huebner, E. S. (2004). Research on assessment of life satisfaction of children and adolescents. Social Indicators

Research, 66, 3–33.

1818 G.M. Vecchio et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1807–1818

Jessor, R. (Ed.). (1998). New perspectives on adolescent risk behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.Kirkcaldy, B., Furnham, A., & Siefen, G. (2004). The relationship between health efficacy, educational attainment, and

well-being among 30 nations. European Psychologist, 9, 107–119.Lerner, R. M., & Steinberg, L. (2004). The scientific study of adolescent development. Past, present, and future. In R.

M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Leung, J. P., & Leung, K. (1992). Life satisfaction, self-concept, and relationship with parents in adolescence. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 21, 653–665.McKnight, C. G., Huebner, E. S., & Suldo, S. M. (2002). Relationships among stressful life events, temperament,

problem behavior, and global life satisfaction in adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 677–687.Moffit, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy.

Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytical review of popular,

rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99–128.Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for teachers and parents. In F. Pajares

& T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 339–367). IAP – Information AgePublishing Inc.Pastorelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Rola, J., Rozsa, S., & Bandura, A. (2001). The structure of children’s

perceived self-efficacy: A cross-national study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 87–97.Prinstein, M., & La Greca, A. M. (2002). Peer crowd affiliation and internalizing distress in childhood and adolescence:

A longitudinal follow-back study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12(3), 325–351.Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Freedman-Doan, C. (1999). Academic functioning and mental health in adolescence:

Patterns, progressions, and routes from childhood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 135–174.Rogosa, D. (1995). Myths and methods: ‘‘Myths about longitudinal research’’ plus supplemental questions. In J. M.

Gottman (Ed.), The analysis of change (pp. 3–66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),

Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Social, emotional, and personality development, pp. 894–941). New York:Wiley.

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.),Development of achievement motivation (pp. 16–31). San Diego: Academic Press.

Zullig, K. J., Valois, R. F., Huebner, E. S., Oeltmann, J. E., & Drane, W. J. (2001). Relationship between perceived lifesatisfaction and adolescent substance abuse. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29, 279–288.