ambiente familiar y adaptación psicológica en adolescentes cv

disponvel em www.scielo.br/prc

615

Family Environment and Psychological Adaptationin Adolescents

Ambiente Familiar e Adaptao Psicolgica em Adolescentes

Juliana Burges Sbicigo* & Dbora Dalbosco DellAglioUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brasil

AbstractThe association between quality of family relationships and psychological adjustment has been understud-ied in the literature. This study tested the predictive relationship between family environment (measuredby the dimensions of cohesion, hierarchy, support and conflict) and indicators of psychological adjust-ment (self-esteem, general self-efficacy and low levels of self-depreciation) in adolescents using struc-tural equation modeling. Participants were 656 students aged between 12 and 18 years old from publicschools. They answered the Family Climate Inventory, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and General Per-ceived Self-efficacy Scale. The results indicated that the family environment (cohesion, support and lowconflict) was a significant predictor of psychological adaptation. This study concluded that functionalfamily relationships are important for the expression of positive psychological characteristics during ado-lescence.Keywords: Family relations, self-esteem, self-efficacy, adolescent.

ResumoA associao entre qualidade das relaes familiares e adaptao psicolgica tem sido subinvestigada naliteratura. Esta pesquisa testou a relao preditiva entre ambiente familiar (atravs das dimenses coeso,hierarquia, apoio e conflito) e indicadores de adaptao psicolgica (autoestima, autoeficcia geral e baixosnveis de autodepreciao) em adolescentes utilizando modelagem de equaes estruturais. Participaram656 estudantes de escolas pblicas entre 12 e 18 anos, que responderam ao Inventrio do Clima Familiar, Escala de Autoestima de Rosenberg e Escala de Autoeficcia Geral Percebida. Os resultados indicaramque o ambiente familiar (coeso, apoio e baixos ndices de conflito) foi um preditor significativo de adaptaopsicolgica. Conclui-se que relaes familiares funcionais so importantes para a expresso de caractersticaspsicolgicas positivas na adolescncia.Palavras-chave: Relaes familiares, autoestima, autoeficcia, adolescente.

* Endereo para correspondncia: Instituto de Psico-logia, Departamento de Psicologia do Desenvolvi-mento e da Personalidade, Universidade Federal doRio Grande do Sul, Rua Ramiro Barcelos, 2600, sala115, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 90035-003. E-mail:[email protected] e [email protected]

The influence of family processes in the course ofhuman development is widely recognized in the psycho-logical literature (Collins & Laursen, 2004; Smetana,Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006). In recent decades,there has been accumulation of evidence suggesting theassociation between dysfunctional family relationshipsand adjustment problems in childhood and adolescence(Chedid, Romo, & Chagnard, 2009). Moreover, thegrowing expansion of the field of Positive Psychologyhas increasingly led researchers to investigate the impactof the family on psychological adjustment. Some studieshave shown that favorable characteristics of familyinteractions and parenting are associated with the presenceof positive psychological conditions, such as perception

of higher self-esteem (Bean & Northrup, 2009; Frank,Plunkett, & Otten, 2010; Musito, Jimnez, & Murgui,2007) and self-efficacy (Guo, Deng, Liang, & Yan, 2009;Hoeltje, Zubrick, Silburn, & Garton, 1996; Oliver & Paull,1995), especially in adolescence.

Among the family characteristics that are relevant tothe study of psychological dimensions, those related tothe family environment or climate are highlighted, i.e.the individuals perception of the quality of relationshipswithin the family (Teodoro, Allgayer, & Land, 2009).Assessment of family environment is usually performedbased on dimensions such as cohesion, hierarchy, support,and conflict (Bjrnberg & Nicholson, 2007; Teodoro etal., 2009). Cohesion is the emotional bond that connectsfamily members, meaning the levels of affection, friend-ship, and intimacy shared. Hierarchy refers to the structureof power and control between individuals, which mainlyreflects the greater influence of older people on familydecisions. Support is the perception of the material andemotional support received from the family in face ofchallenges and problems. As for conflict, it involves a set

Psicologia: Reflexo e Crtica, 25(3), 615-622.

616

of negative feelings among individuals, which can createstress, hostility, criticism, and aggression within thefamily. Some studies have suggested that family conflictis inversely related to cohesion and support; however,there is no consensus whether cohesion and hierarchyare independent or related aspects in the dynamics offamily interactions (Teodoro et al., 2009; Wood, 1985).

The existence of change or stability in the perceptionof cohesion, conflict, and hierarchy in adolescence hasbeen widely discussed by theories and studies of psy-chology of human development (Goede, Branje, &Meeus, 2009; Smetana et al., 2006). On the one hand,neopsychoanalytic, sociobiological, and cognitive theo-ries claim that the youths search for autonomy leads todecreased cohesion, more conflicts, and progressive ba-lance in the relations of hierarchy with parents from earlyadolescence to intermediate adolescence (Goede et al.,2009). Empirical support for this hypothesis is found inrecent studies conducted with youths from different ethnicgroups (Goede et al., 2009; Matjasko, Grunden, & Ernest,2007). On the other hand, socio-relational theories haveargued that there is continuity in the emotional bond bet-ween youths and their families, instead of withdrawal andexacerbation of conflicts (Collins & Laursen, 2004). Thishypothesis was also empirically supported in studiesinvolving U.S. and European adolescents (Baer, 2002;Buist, Reitz, & Dekovic, 2010).

In relation to psychological adjustment, self-esteem wasdefined by Rosenberg (1965) as the personal evaluationof ones value and appropriateness, which is reflected infeelings, thoughts, and attitudes of approval or disappro-val of oneself. Although high and low self-esteem havebeen generally considered as opposite ends of the samecontinuum, some scholars consider these as separateconstructs (i.e., positive self-esteem and self-deprecation)(Boucher, Peng, Shi, & Wang, 2009; Frank et al., 2010;Greenberger, Chen, Dmitrieva, & Farruggia, 2003).Boucher et al. (2009) demonstrated that individuals canhave positive feelings of self-esteem and self-depreca-tion simultaneously. The bi-dimensional characteristicof self-esteem has been shown in several studies usingthe Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Frank et al., 2010;Greenberger et al., 2003). Therefore, the present studyconsidered the two dimensions of this construct.

Individuals with positive self-esteem may feel moreoptimistic (Rosenberg, 1965) and competent to achievegoals based on their own abilities (Zimmerman & Cleary,2005). Those with higher levels of self-depreciation canexperience feelings of worthlessness, inferiority, or ina-dequacy (Rosenberg, 1965), which can result in feelingsof incompetence or inability to achieve their goals,resulting in lower self-efficacy.

Therefore, self-esteem and self-efficacy are similarconstructs. Self-efficacy consists of a cognitive assessmentof the ability to gather cognitive, emotional, and beha-vioral resources needed to perform a particular task orachieve a goal (Bandura, 1977, 2006), while self-esteem

consists of a set of feelings about self-worth (Zimmerman& Cleary, 2005). Hence, self-esteem reflects theevaluation of personal competence and self-efficacy ex-presses the evaluation of confidence in such competence.While self-esteem includes beliefs like I am, I have,self-efficacy produces beliefs like I can (Skaalvik &Bong, 2003). There is no consensus in the literature ongender differences in the expression of these attributes(Bandura, 2006; Gentile et al., 2009; Souza & Souza,2004). However, there are more studies suggesting nodifferences between boys and girls (Gentile et al., 2009;Souza & Souza, 2004).

It is noteworthy that in the definition proposed byBandura (1977, 2006), self-efficacy or confidence in thepersonal competence depends on the specific situation,as a person may feel competent in one situation andincompetent in a different situation. In the 1990s, however,a concept of general self-efficacy (Schwarzer & Jerusa-lm, 1995) consisting of a general belief in the ability tosuccessfully perform a variety of tasks and deal withdifferent situations was suggested. Therefore, it is a beliefat the level of trait, which is opposite to the conceptsuggested by Bandura (1977, 2006), according to whichself-efficacy is dependent on the specific situation and,thus, a belief at the level of state. In recent years, boththe concept of general self-efficacy and the instrumentsused to measure it have become consolidated in theliterature, and general self-efficacy has been regarded asa valid indicator of psychological adjustment of indivi-duals. General self-efficacy has shown validity with otherconstructs, i.e., self-regulation, assessment of stress,depression, and anxiety (Luszczynska, Gutirrez-Dona,& Schwarzer, 2005).

The association between these indicators of psycho-logical adjustment and aspects of family environment hasbeen demonstrated in some studies conducted in the1990s. A U.S. study found positive relations betweenquality of family relationships and evaluation of self-worth and ability to perform a variety of tasks or dealwith different situations (Oliver & Paull, 1995). In addi-tion, an epidemiological study conducted in Australiaindicated that the perception of greater general self-effi-cacy was demonstrated by youths whose families wereseen as being warm, loving, caring, and having goodcommunication (Hoeltje et al., 1996). More recently, highlevels of cohesion and low levels of family conflict wereassociated with high self-esteem in Hispanic youths(Dennis, Basaez, & Farahmand, 2010). A study basedon a growth curve model found that belonging to emo-tionally connected families was related to increased self-esteem in U.S. adolescents over time (Baldwin &Hoffmann, 2002).

In Brazil, two studies (Baptista, Alves, & Santos, 2008;Weber, Stasiak, & Brandenburg, 2003) identified theassociation between family variables and indicators ofadjustment. In the study by Weber et al. (2003), emotionalexpressiveness among family members was associated

617

Sbicigo, J. B. & DellAglio, D. D. (2012). Family Environment and Psychological Adaptation in Adolescents.

with perception of self-worth (Weber et al., 2003). In thestudy by Baptista et al. (2008), the dimensions affection(closeness and bonding among individuals, equivalent tocohesion), adjustment (no criticism and aggressiveness,equivalent to low conflict), and family autonomy (freedomand privacy among the family members) were related togeneral self-efficacy.

It is noteworthy that most of the studies mentionedabove used methods less robust correlation analysis. Re-cently, advances in the studies on this theme have beenpossible with use statistical techniques such as structuralequation modeling. A theoretical model in which parentalvariables (psychological control, psychological autonomy,and acceptance) were predictive of self-esteem has beenproposed (Bean & Northrup, 2009). Additionally, a modelin which parenting support (affection and nutrition),psychological control and monitoring were associatedwith self-esteem and general self-efficacy (Frank et al.,2010) was confirmed. Conversely, studies testing familyenvironment variables (cohesion, hierarchy, support, andconflict) in predicting psychological adjustment are stillscarce.

Based on these considerations, there is evidence thatthe functional family relationship fosters psychologicaladjustment; however, further studies assessing the direc-tion of this association based on family environmentvariables are needed. In this sense, the main objective ofthe present study was to test a theoretical model in whichfamily environment predicts psychological adjustment inadolescence using structural equation modeling. Oursecondary objectives involved the analysis of aspects thatare still controversial in the literature and consisted of:(a) establishing whether family cohesion and hierarchyare related dimensions, (b) identifying whether there aredifferences in adolescents scores in terms of cohesion,support, hierarchy, and family conflict, and (c) assessingwhether there are differences by sex and age in thevariables studied.

Method

ParticipantsParticipants were 656 adolescents (61.1% girls) aged

between 12 and 18 years (M=15.12, SD=1.52). They wereenrolled between the 7th grade of elementary school andthe 2nd year of high school at public schools of the city ofPorto Alegre, capital city of the state of Rio Grande doSul, Brazil.

InstrumentsThe participants completed the Brazilian Youth Ques-

tionnaire (Questionrio da Juventude Brasileira [QJB],DellAglio, Koller, Cerqueira-Santos, & Colao, 2011),which consists of 77 questions aimed at investigating riskand protective factors in adolescence. In the present study,we used only the question 74, comprising the items ofthe Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965),

based on the adaptation by Hutz and Zanon (2011), andthe question 75, comprising the items of the GeneralizedSelf-efficacy Scale, created by Schwarzer and Jerusalm(1995) and adapted by Sbicigo, Teixeira, Dias abdDellAglio (2012).

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ([RSES], Rosenberg,1965, based on the adaptation by Hutz & Zanon, 2011)evaluates self-esteem using ten closed questions thatassess positive aspects (e.g.: I think I have many goodqualities) and negative aspects (e.g.: All thingsconsidered, I feel a failure) of self-worth. The questionsare arranged in a five-point Likert format, ranging fromNever to Always. We tested the structure of the RSESin this study because its factor structure is controversialregarding the one- or two-dimensional characteristic ofself-esteem. The model showing the best statisticaladjustment was the two-factor model (CFI=.94, TLI=.92,RMSEA=.08). Cronbachs alpha was .83 for positive self-esteem and .78 for self-depreciation.

The Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale ([GSES],Schwar-zer & Jerusalm, 1995, adapted by Sbicigo etal., 2012) investigates the perception of personal compe-tence based on ten items such as: If I have a problem, Iusually find a way out and I find it easy to persist inmy intentions and achieve my goals, with responseoptions in the four-point Likert format ranging from Nottrue about me to Totally true about me. Cronbachsalpha value was .88.

The Family Climate Inventory (Inventrio do ClimaFamiliar [ICF]), developed and validated by Teodoro etal. (2009), was used to assess the quality of familyrelationships. The ICF is made up of the subscalescohesion (5 items), hierarchy (6 items), support (5 items),and conflict (6 items), which are distributed in 22 itemsarranged in a five-point Likert format, ranging from Ido not agree at all to I fully agree. Examples of ques-tions are: People feel close to each other, We try tohelp family members when we realize they have pro-blems and People criticize each other often. Cronbachsalpha values were: cohesion ( =.82), support ( =.68),hierarchy ( =.67), and conflict ( =.87).

Procedures and Ethical ConsiderationsThe research project was approved by the Research

Ethics Committee of the university (Protocol No.2009060). Cluster sampling was used to choose the par-ticipating schools. Thus, a list of all public schools in thecity of Porto Alegre was prepared (350 schools). Thirteenschools were randomly selected from this list, and onerefused to participate, totaling 12 schools. Data collectionwas completed with 12 schools because the requirednumber of participants was reached. The number ofparticipants was determined based on sample calculation(Barbetta, 2001), with a margin of error of 4% [n0=1/(.04)2=625], considering the total number (N=194.124)of students enrolled in primary and secondary educationin the public schools of the city. The calculation formula


618

was n= N. n0 / N + n0. A mean of 50 adolescents from eachschool participated in the study.

The management team of each school selected wascontacted and the objectives of the study were presen-ted. Students were invited to participate in the study andwere informed that their participation was voluntary, theycould drop out from the study at any time, and confiden-tiality of personal data was ensured. Students receivedan Informed Consent (IC) form to be returned after beingsigned by parents or guardians, and the adolescentssigned an informed assent. Only students who returnedthe signed IC participated in the study. The administra-tion of instruments was always performed in the presenceof a masters degree student in psychology and at leasttwo research assistants. The instruments were collectivelyadministered in the classroom and the administrationlasted for 75 minutes.

Data AnalysisData analysis consisted of descriptive calculations,

Pearson bivariate correlations, and Students t test.Structural equation modeling (SEM) with MaximumLikelihood estimation method was used to test thehypothesis that family climate predicts psychologicaladjustment in adolescence. In SEM, we used reversedscores of hierarchy and conflict so that the latent cons-truct family climate represented a positive climate. Simi-larly, self-deprecation items were reversed so that thisconstruct was also an indicator of psychological adjust-ment. An equivalent model, but with opposite direction(psychological adjustment predicting family climate), wasalso tested for comparison.

The analysis of the models was based on the magni-tude of the prediction of one construct in relation to theother and on the main indices of goodness-of-fit: chi-square (2), chi-square/degrees of freedom (2/df), RootMean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Com-parative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), andAkaike Information Criterion (AIC). 2, 2/df and RMSEAare considered indicators of absolute fit, i.e., they indicatewhether the theoretical model reproduces the observeddata. The value of 2 should have a non-significant p;

however this measure is sensitive to sample size with atendency to reject any model in large samples or accept abad model fit in small samples. For this reason, 2 shouldnot be interpreted alone. Instead, it should be analyzedtogether with other indicators of fit. The ratio chi-square/degrees of freedom (2/df) should be lower than 3 andthe value of RMSEA should be between .03 and .08, with95% confidence interval. Values lower than .05 are con-sidered excellent fit. RMSEA has advantages because ittries to correct the statistical tendency of 2 to accept orreject models based on the sample size. CFI and TLI areincremental adjustment indicators that compare theestimated model with a null model, considering valuescloser to one model as indicators of adequacy of fit. Thus,TLI and CFI values starting at .90 are considered satis-factory. Finally, the AIC index is used to compare theadequacy of one model over another model, and the modelwith the lowest value is considered the best model (Hair,Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2009).

Results

Preliminary AnalysesInitially, we investigated the adolescents family arran-

gement and whether this factor could produce differencesbetween the students means on the instruments. About52% (n=340) of participants came from nuclear families,13.5% (n=88) had a reconstituted family, 30.3% (n=198)came from a single-parent family, and 4.6% (n=30) livedwith other relatives and/or with a partner. There was nosignificant difference in the variables studied in terms offamily composition.

Table 1 shows the descriptive analysis of the ICF(subscales), RSES, and GSES. In order to compare theadolescents scores on the ICF subscales, we calculatedthe arithmetic mean of cohesion, support, hierarchy, andconflict, considering the number of matched items. Wefound that the means of cohesion (M=3.89; SD=.94),support (M=3.66; SD=.85), and hierarchy (M=2.89;SD=.83) were significantly higher than the mean of familyconflict (M=2.00; SD=.71), with p

619


The Pearson correlations between all pairs of variables(Table 2) varied from moderate to weak. Positive self-esteem showed slightly higher correlations with family

climate than with self-efficacy. Also noteworthy is thatcohesion and hierarchy appeared as independentdimensions.

Table 2Intercorrelations Among the Variables Investigated (N=656)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 ICF - Cohesion 1.00 -.02 .68 ** -.38 ** .42 ** -.27 ** .26 **2 ICF - Hierarchy 1.00 .03 .48 ** -.02 .20 ** -.303 ICF - Support 1.00 -.21 ** .39 ** -.24 ** .28 **4 ICF - Conflict 1.00 -.19 ** .27 ** -.16 **5 RSES - Positive self-esteem 1.00 -.44 ** .46 **6 RSES - Self-depreciation 1.00 -.22 **7 GSES - Self-efficacy 1.00

**p Adaptation (model 1) 1850.60 Adaptation (model 2) 1320.82 Environment (model 3) 1394.50


620

To demonstrate the relevance of the proposed model,an equivalent model (model 3) in which psychologicaladjustment predicts family climate was tested. In this case,the magnitude of prediction was small (R2=.29) andadjustment indicators were very similar to the model 2.The AIC index used for comparison showed that the model2 shows slightly more parsimonious. Given that themodels 2 and 3 did not differ substantially as to fit to theempirical data, we maintain the relevance of the modelproposed in this study (model 2), since there is other evi-dence in the literature that family variables are predictorsof psychological adaptation (e.g. Bean & Northrup, 2009;Frank et al., 2010).

Discussion

The main objective of the present study was to test atheoretical model in which family environment predictspsychological adjustment in adolescents. The results re-vealed that cohesion, support, and lower rates of familyconflict were significant predictors of psychologicaladjustment (self-esteem and general self-efficacy) in thesample studied. An equivalent model in which the direc-tion of the association was reversed had less predictivecapacity and no advantage as to the adequacy of the fitcompared to the proposed structural model.

The association between the constructs (family envi-ronment and psychological adjustment) can be explainedbased on the Symbolic Interactionism Theory ([SIT],(Charon, 1989). According to the SIT, the individualsself-assessment is based on the feedback received fromsignificant people (e.g.: parents). Social interactions arecentral to the development of the self, which is a socialconstruct built through interaction with others. Significantpeople would be like a social mirror to which the indi-vidual would look in order to identify opinions abouthimself, which are internalized, contributing to the for-mation of his self-esteem. In this sense, it is likely thatadolescents from cohesive and supportive families feelapproved, accepted, and loved by family members,creating a feeling of self-worth and confidence in perso-nal capabilities. Additionally, supportive families canbe sources of feedback that foster the development ofcognitive, emotional, and behavioral repertoires so thatadolescents can deal with different situations in an effec-tive manner (Hoeltje et al., 1996). Petersen (2005) notedthat children who internalize affirmative and upliftingmessages from their parents acquire a strong basis fromwhich they feel capable of setting and achieving goals.In addition, lower levels of conflict, i.e., less criticismand aggressive behavior among family members shouldcontribute to strengthening the self-concept.

The perception of lower family hierarchy was not arelevant variable in the structural model proposed. In thebivariate analysis, however, there was correlation betweenhierarchy and self-depreciation. It is noteworthy that thehierarchy items of the ICF refer to relationships in which

older people have greater authority or in which familymembers act with authoritarianism and the children havelittle power of decision. Families with these characteristicstend not to encourage dialogue with their children, whichcan lead to a perception that parents do not value theiropinions or do not believe in their competences. In the1990s, Weiss and Schwarz (1996) mentioned that autho-ritarian family behaviors are associated with low self-esteem in children.

This study provides evidence that positive perceptionsof family relationships may contribute to psychologicaladjustment. However, it is important to note that the familyenvironment is a shared environment, since individualsshare genes, experiences, beliefs and they are exposedto how parents express affection, establish relations ofhierarchy, among others. Plomin (2011) points out, onempirical evidence base, that individual differences inpsychological characteristics are best explained by envi-ronmental factors unshared, or unique experiences livedin the family as a differential relation with parents and/or with siblings, as well as extrafamilial experiences withfriends, for example. The unique experiences lived withfamily members would be explained by shared genes thatinteract in the relations between them. Thus, it is impor-tant to be cautious in claiming that a positive familyenvironment predicts psychological adjustment, becausethe perception that the individual has that environmentis constituted mainly by non-shared family experiences(Plomin, 2011). Thus, young people of the same familymay have different perceptions about the relationshipwith the family and therefore express different levels ofpsychological adaptation.

As for the secondary objectives of the present study,cohesion and hierarchy proved to be independent cons-tructs. This finding suggests that the perception of rulesand differentiation of power among family members doesnot necessarily imply a stronger or weaker emotional bondin the family. Furthermore, we found that the means offamily conflict were lower than those found in the othersubscales. Classical psychological theories (neopsycho-analytic, sociobiological, and cognitive) emphasize thatthere is less perceived emotional closeness and a higherrate of conflict with parents during adolescence, whichwas observed in some international studies with U.S. andEuropean youths (Goede et al., 2009; Matjasko et al.,2007). Conversely, this study found a different result,because cohesion and family support had the highestmeans. This difference between the studies may be explai-ned, in part, by cultural reasons, since the familism, aconstruct that is similar to that of family cohesion is acentral characteristic in Latin American cultures, differingfrom cultures that are considered less collectivist such asthe U.S. culture (Cauce & Domenech-Rodrguez, 2002).

Finally, there were no differences by gender and ageon the variables. Studies with adolescents in Rio Grandedo Sul (Teodoro et al., 2009; Teodoro, Cardoso, & Freitas,2010) found the same result in relation to family environ-

621


ment, which is opposite to that seen in adolescents in theU.S. (Goede et al., 2009; Matjasko et al., 2007; Veleskaet al., 2009). With respect to psychological adjustment,self-esteem and general self-efficacy did not differ by sexand age as well as other studies (Baptista et al., 2008;Gentile et al., 2009; Souza & Souza, 2004), suggestingthat these psychological characteristics are relativelystable in adolescence for boys and girls.

Final Considerations

The present study provides advances because it inves-tigates family environment, self-esteem, and general self-efficacy involving a representative sample of adolescentsfrom public schools of Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul.This is because the available knowledge on the subjectcomes mainly from U.S. studies. In the international lite-rature, efforts have been made to address the perceptionof family environment in adolescence, but there are fewstudies on this issue in Brazil. We suggest that longitudi-nal studies with random samples from different regionsof Brazil are conducted.

However, our conclusions should be interpreted withcaution because this is a cross-sectional study, and cause/effect relationships cannot be inferred although a struc-tural modeling was used. From the methodological pointof view, it is important to emphasize that we only usedquantitative self-report instruments. The use of multi-methodological techniques to maximize the ecologicalvalidity of the results is recommended. Additionally, ourfindings are only related to data of adolescents from pu-blic schools. Therefore, potential differences or simila-rities between the adolescents included in our sample andthose from private schools are unknown. It is also worthmentioning that the present study was conducted only withadolescents who returned an IC form signed by theirparents, therefore we do not have information on thecharacteristics of those adolescents who did not returnthe form. However, even though there are limitations, thepresent study contributes to the literature by suggestingthat the positive perception of family environment is apredictor of psychological adjustment in adolescents.

Finally, we should emphasize that research on self-esteem and self-efficacy in adolescence is warranted byits relationship with a variety of indicators of adjustment.Low self-esteem and self-efficacy have been related toanxiety, depression, and stress (Luszczynska et al., 2005).It is probable that perceptions of self-worth and personalcompetence are associated with other behaviors or cli-nical diagnoses that have not been addressed so far.According to this perspective, it is important to conductfurther studies on aspects related to emotional well-beingfor the promotion of conditions that contribute to the deve-lopment of positive self-assessment among youths. Asnoted in the present study, there is evidence that familyrelationships have the potential to contribute to psycholo-gical adjustment in this period of human development.

References

Baer, J. (2002). Is family cohesion a risk or protective factorduring adolescent development? Journal of Marriage andFamily, 64, 668-675.

Baldwin, S. A., & Hoffmann, J. P. (2002). The dynamics ofself-esteem: A growth-curve analysis. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 31(2), 101-113.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory ofbehavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agenticperspective. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacybeliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 1-43). Greenwich, CT:Information Age.

Baptista, M. N., Alves, G. A. S., & Santos, T. M. M. (2008).Suporte familiar, auto-eficcia e lcus de controle: Evidn-cias de validade entre os construtos. Psicologia: Cincia eProfisso, 28(2), 260-271.

Barbetta, P. A. (2001). Estatstica aplicada s cincias sociais.Florianpolis, SC: Editora da Universidade Federal de SantaCatarina.

Bean, R. A., & Northrup, J. C. (2009). Parental psychologicalcontrol, psychological autonomy, and acceptance as predic-tors of self-esteem in Latino adolescents. Journal of FamilyIssues, 30(11), 1486-1504.

Bjrnberg, ., & Nicholson, N. (2007). The Family ClimateScales: Development of a new measure for use in familybusiness research. Family Business Review, 20(3), 229-246.

Boucher, H. C., Peng, K., Shi, J., & Wang, L. (2009). Cultureand implicit self-esteem: Chinese are good and bad atthe same time. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40,24-45.

Buist, K. L., Reitz, E., & Dekovic, M. (2010). Attachmentstability and change during adolescence: A longitudinalapplication of the Social Relations Model. Journal of Socialand Personal Relationships, 27(1), 351-366.

Cauce, A. M., & Domenech-Rodriguez, M. (2002). Latinofamilies: Myths and realities. In J. M. Contreras, K. A. Kerns,& A. M. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Latino children and families inthe United States (pp. 5-25).Westport, CT: Praeger Press.

Charon, J. M. (1989). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction,an interpretation, an integration. New York: Prentice Hall.

Chedid, M., Romo, L., & Chagnard, E. (2009). Adolescentsand marijuana: Links between the consumption level andfamily structure, cohesion and power. Annales Mdico-Psy-chologiques, 167(7), 541-543.

Collins,W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Parentadolescentrelationships and inuences. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg(Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology (pp. 331-361).Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

DellAglio, D. D., Koller, S. H., Cerqueira-Santos, E., & Colao,V. F. R. (2011). Revisando o Questionrio da Juventude Bra-sileira: Uma nova proposta. In D. D. DellAglio & S. H. Koller(Eds.), Adolescncia e juventude brasileira: Vulnerabilidadee contextos de proteo (pp. 255-266). So Paulo, SP: Casado Psiclogo.

Dennis, J., Basaez, T., & Farahmand, A. (2010). Intergene-rational conflicts among Latinos in early adulthood: Separa-ting values conflicts with parents from acculturation conflicts.Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32(1), 118-135.

Frank, G., Plunkett, S. W., & Otten, M. P. (2010). Perceivedparenting, self-esteem, and general self-efficacy of IranianAmerican adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies,19, 738-746.


622

Gentile, B., Grabe, S., Dolan-Pascoe, B., Twenge, J. M., Wells,B. E., & Maitino, A. (2009). Gender differences in domain-specific self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Review of GeneralPsychology, 13, 34-45.

Goede, I. H. A. de, Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2009).Developmental changes in adolescentsperceptions ofrelationships with their parents. Journal Youth Adolescence,38, 75-88.

Greenberger, E., Chen, C., Dmitrieva, J., & Farruggia, S. P.(2003). Item-wording and the dimensionality of theRosenberg selfesteem scale: Do they matter? Personality andIndividual Differences, 35, 1241-1254.

Guo, R., Deng, S., Liang, J., & Yan, Y. (2009). Influence offamily factors on self-efficacy of the middle school studentsin Baise City. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu, 38(3), 320-322.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham,R. L. (2009). Anlise multivariada dos dados (6. ed.). PortoAlegre, RS: Bookman.

Hoeltje, C. O., Zubrick, S. R., Silburn, S. R., & Garton, A. F.(1996). Generalized self-efficacy: Family and adjustmentscorrelates. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25(4), 446-453.

Hutz, C. S., & Zanon, C. (2011). Reviso da adaptao, valida-o e normatizao da Escala de Autoestima de Rosenberg.Avaliao Psicolgica, 10(1), 41-49.

Luszczynska, A., Gutirrez-Dona, B., & Schwarzer, R. (2005).General self-efficacy in various domains of humanfunctioning: Evidence from five countries. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 40, 80-89.

Matjasko, J. L., Grunden, L. N., & Ernst, J. L. (2007). Structuraland dynamic process family risk factors: Consequences forholistic adolescent functioning. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 69, 654-674.

Musito, G., Jimnez, T., & Murgui, S. (2007). Funcionamientofamiliar, autoestima y consumo de sustancias en adolescen-tes: un modelo de mediacin. Salud Pblica Mxico, 49(1),3-10.

Oliver, J., & Paull, J. (1995). Self-esteem and self-efficacy:Perceived parenting and family climate and depression inuniversity students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(4),467-481.

Petersen, G. W. (2005). Family influences on adolescentdevelopment. In T. P. Gullotta & G. R. Adams (Eds.), Hand-book of adolescent behavioral problems: Evidence-basedapproaches to prevention and treatment (pp. 27-55). NewYork: Springer.

Plomin, R. (2011). Commentary: Why are children in the samefamily so different? Non-shared environment three decadeslater. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40(3), 582-592.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sbicigo, J. B., Teixeira, M. A. P., Dias, A. C. G., & DellAglio,D. D. (2012). Propriedades psicomtricas da Escala deAutoeficcia Geral Percebida. Psico, 43(2), 139-146.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston(Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A users portfolio.Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: Nfer-Nelson.

Skaalvik, E. M., & Bong, M. (2003). Academic self-conceptand self-efficacy: How different are they really? EducationalPsychology Review, 15, 1-40.

Smetana, J., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006).Adolescent development in interpersonal and societalcontexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255-284.

Souza, I., & Souza, M. A. (2004). Validao da Escala de Auto-eficcia Geral Percebida. Revista Universidade Rural: SrieCincias Humanas, 26(1-2), 12-17.

Teodoro, M. L. T., Allgayer, M., & Land, B. R. (2009). Desen-volvimento e validade fatorial do Inventrio do Clima Fami-liar (ICF) para adolescentes. Psicologia: Teoria e Prtica,11(3), 27-39.

Teodoro, M. L. T., Cardoso, B. M., & Freitas, A. C. H. (2010).Afetividade e conflito familiar e sua relao com a depres-so em crianas e adolescentes. Psicologia: Reflexo e Cr-tica, 23(2), 324-333.

Veleska, Z., Geckova, A., Gajdosova, B., Orosova, O., VanDijk,J., & Reijneveld, S. (2009). Self-esteem and resilience: Theconnection with risky behavior among adolescents. AddictiveBehaviors, 34, 287-291.

Weber, L. N. D., Stasiak, G. R., & Brandenburg, O. J. (2003).Percepo da interao familiar e auto-estima de adolescen-tes. Aletheia, 17-18, 95-105.

Weiss, L. H., & Schwarz, C. (1996). The relationship betweenParenting types and older adolescents personality, acade-mic achievement, adjustment, and substance use. ChildDevelopment, 67(5), 2101-2114.

Wood, B. (1985). Proximity and hierarchy: Orthogonal dimen-sions of family interconnectedness. Family Process, 24, 497-507.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2005). Adolescentsdevelopment of personal agency: The role of self-efficacybeliefs and selfregulatory skill. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 45-69).Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Recebido: 24/05/20111 reviso: 03/11/20112 reviso: 10/02/2012

Aceite final: 09/03/2012

ambiente familiar y adaptación psicológica en adolescentes cv

Documents