EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Parents’ Self-efficacy Beliefs and Their Children’s PsychosocialAdaptation 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

� 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

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

P. Steca (&)

Dipartimento di Psicologia, Universita 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’’, Universita

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’’ Universita di Roma,

Via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Rome, Italy

e-mail: gianvittorio.caprara@uniroma1.it

123

J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331

DOI 10.1007/s10964-010-9514-9

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).

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 a 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,

J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331 321

123

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

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.

322 J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331

123

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

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

J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331 323

123

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),

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).

324 J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331

123

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

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

J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331 325

123

the teacher, taking notes, and doing oral and written tests,

studying at home, ‘other school activities’ such as doing

recess and talking with schoolmates during lessons, and

work.

For both groups, leisure included activities such as

watching television, sports and hobbies, listening to music,

reading magazines and books, thinking of various topics,

and ‘other leisure activities’ such as having a stroll in town

and whistling. For Group 1, maintenance was third in

frequency, followed by interactions with friends, family,

school mates or colleagues, and other people. For Group 2,

interactions ranked third with the following order: inter-

actions with friends, family, schoolmates or colleagues,

and other people. Answers referring to transport, chores

and activities such as waiting and observing the environ-

ment were aggregated in the category ‘miscellaneous’.

Between-group t-test comparisons performed on activity

mean percentages showed two nearly significant differ-

ences for leisure (t(62) = 1.7, p \ .09), and maintenance

(t(62) = 1.8, p \ .08), with adolescents in Group 1 more

frequently reporting both activities.

Quality of Experience in Learning

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

adolescents in Group 1 described high levels of skills,

average levels of concentration and control, and low levels

of happiness, freedom, and challenges. Adolescents in

Group 2 reported high scores of concentration, control and

skills, average levels of happiness and freedom, and low

levels of challenges. T-test comparisons highlighted sig-

nificant between-group differences: Group 1 reported lower

concentration (t(54) = -2.4, p \ .02), control (t(54) =

-2.4, p \ .03), freedom (t(54) = -2.3, p \ .03), and

skills (t(54) = -2.6, p \ .02) than Group 2.

While studying at home, adolescents in Group 1 repor-

ted high levels of concentration and skills, an average value

of control, and low levels of happiness, freedom, and

challenges. Adolescents in Group 2 described high levels

of concentration, control, happiness and freedom, and

average levels of challenges. T-test comparisons showed

that Group 1 reported significantly lower concentration

(t(43) = -2.3, p \ .03), control (t(43) = -3.5, p \ .002),

freedom (t(43) = -2.5, p \ .02), and skills (t(43) = -2.1,

p \ .04).

Quality of Experience During Interactions

Table 4 shows the quality of experience that adolescents

reported while interacting with family members and with

friends. Participants in Group 1 described high values of

concentration, control and skills. They also reported an

average score of happiness, and low levels of freedom and

challenges. Adolescents in Group 2 reported high levels of

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of adolescents’ psychosocial adjust-

ment indicators

Group 1

(N = 32)

Group 2

(N = 32)

M SD M SD

Time 1

Academic self-efficacy beliefs 3.9 0.5 4.3 0.5

Aggression 1.7 0.4 1.4 0.3

Depressive symptoms 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2

Time 2

Academic self-efficacy beliefs 3.5 0.7 4.2 0.6

Violence 1.4 0.5 1.1 0.2

Depressive symptoms 1.8 0.5 1.6 0.4

Self-esteem 3.0 0.5 3.5 0.5

Life satisfaction 4.7 1.4 5.5 1.1

Hedonic balance 1.0 0.9 2.1 0.8

Parent–child support 3.5 0.5 3.8 0.3

Open communication 3.3 0.7 4.0 0.6

Monitoring 3.7 0.8 4.4 0.6

Table 2 Mean percentage distribution of adolescents’ daily activities

Activities Group 1 Group 2

N Mean % SD N Mean % SD

Productive 30 31.4 11.5 30 35.2 13.9

Classwork 27 19.5 8.6 29 21.9 8.8

Studying 20 10.6 7.3 25 12.2 7.7

Other school 20 6.3 3.2 22 5.1 4.0

Work 6 12.7 10.7 1 2.2 –

Leisure 32 29.5 11.7 32 24.4 11.9

TV 32 12.7 7.4 31 12.4 6.7

Sports & hobbies 25 7.6 6.3 18 7.8 5.2

Music 25 6.1 4.0 9 4.9 3.4

Reading 10 4.5 2.8 16 3.6 1.6

Thinking 9 3.6 1.4 14 4.6 5.0

Other leisure 22 5.2 4.5 19 4.9 2.7

Interactions 30 15.8 7.8 31 17.1 10.6

With friends 27 9.1 7.1 27 10.1 6.7

With family 19 6.0 5.9 20 7.8 6.7

With school/work 17 5.3 3.5 17 4.8 2.0

With others 5 3.5 1.7 6 2.9 1.2

Maintenance 32 19.2 8.2 32 15.5 8.3

Miscellaneous 28 8.3 5.6 32 10.6 8.3

326 J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331

123

concentration, control, happiness, freedom and skills, and a

low score of challenges. Significantly lower scores of

happiness (t(37) = -3.1, p \ .003) and freedom (t(37) =

-4.3, p \ .001) were detected in Group 1.

Group 1 associated interactions with friends with high

levels of concentration, control, happiness and skills, an

average score of freedom, and low levels of challenges. Group

2 reported high values of concentration, control, happiness,

freedom and skills, and low challenges. T-test comparisons

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-

ing lower scores for all these variables.

Optimal Experience and Optimal Activities

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.

As shown in Table 5, both groups had optimal experi-

ences in productive activities, leisure, interactions, main-

tenance, and miscellaneous. No significant difference was

detected in the activity distribution of the two groups.

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.

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

Table 5 Activities associated with optimal experience

Activities Group 1 Group 2

N Mean % SD N Mean % SD

Productive 20 49.2 20.1 24 48.1 23.8

Leisure 23 38.5 25.1 19 29.3 16.1

Interactions 16 36.4 24.7 18 31.9 17.1

Maintenance 13 30.0 24.2 10 24.0 16.0

Miscellaneous 4 15.0 3.3 10 20.3 8.6

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

123

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

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,

328 J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331

123

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.

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

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.

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

J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331 329

123

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 parentalefficacy. 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 andSocial 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 & theFamily, 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 offourteen 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.), Internationalperspective 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 ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 1201–1208.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Activity, experience and personal

growth. In J. Curtis & S. Russell (Eds.), Physical activity inhuman experience: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 59–88).

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (Eds.). (1988). Optimalexperience—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 andAdolescence, 6, 281–294.

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 acrosscultures: Developmental opportunities and risks. New directionsin 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.), Positivepsychology 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). Experiencesampling 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. ClinicalPsychology 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 mentaldisorders in their natural settings (pp. 58–78). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

330 J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:320–331

123

Larson, R. W., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Divergent realities: Theemotional 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. AppliedDevelopmental 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 supportscale. 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 andPractice, 2, 127–150.

Simmons, R., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: Theimpact of pubertal change and school context. New York:

Aldine de Gruyter.

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 PhysicalEducation, 22, 410–425.

Author Biographies

Patrizia Steca, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor at Universita degli Studi

di Milano ‘‘Bicocca’’. She received her doctorate in Social Psychol-

ogy and Personality from Universita 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 Universita degli Studi di

Milano. She received her doctorate in Research Methodology in

Psychology from Universita 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’’ Universita 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 Universita 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.

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

123