ADOLESCENTS' ASSESSMENTS OF PARENTS
AND PEERS: RELATIONSHIPS TO SELF-ESTEEM
AND SELF-EFFICACY!
PETR MACEK and STANISLAV JEZEK
Institute for Research on Children, Youth and Family,
Faculty ofSocial Studies, Masaryk University, Bma
ABSTRACT
The study investigates how perceived parent
and peer/friend relationships influence two
aspects of global self-evaluation, self-esteem
and self-efficacy, during middle adolescence.
The growing influence of friends/peers on
self-evaluation was expected, especially on
self-efficacy. We also expected a stable parent
influence on self-esteem. Also, sex and
age differences were assumed. As results
reveal, perceived relationships to parents and
perceived relationships to friends/peers are two
consistent blocks of predictors of self-esteem
and self-efficacy. Both aspects of global selfevaluation
are higher in older adolescents than
in younger ones. Regarding self-esteem, parent
INTRODUCTION
variables (warmth and trust) are more influential
predictors. Peer/friend variables and age
have stronger influence on girls' self-esteem
than on boys'. Regarding self-efficacy, the
block of friend/peer variables explains more
variance than the block of parent variables.
Especially, global comparison with peers is
strongly influential, especially in girls. Boys'
self-efficacy is also related to the perceived
warmth of father.
Key words:
self-esteem,
self-efficacy,
adolescence,
relationships with peers and parents
In terms of a metaphor used by Hartup (1989), the social world of children and adolescents is
represented by a set ofvertical and horizontal relationships. Vertical relationships form between
individuals of different abilities and status. In this respect parents have greater knowledge and
power than children and assume a controlling role to which children are expected to defer. Horizontal
relationships represent interactions with peers where all the participants have comparable
social power, roles, and competence. Parent and peer relationships serve different functions in
adolescent development but their origins and functions are closely intertwined (e.g. Hartup,
1989; Petersen, Silbereisen and Sorensen, 1992; Durkin, 1995; Meeus and Dekovi6, 1995).
Traditionally, parents are supposed to be more influential than peers, the school, and media
during early adolescence. During middle and late adolescence parents play a less central role in
the cognitive and self-concept development and identity formation. However, due to different
agents having different functions and meanings at different times and situations, it is very difficult
to quantify and compare the influence of various socialization agents. The generally accepted
opinion that the importance ofparents decreases during adolescence and the importance ofpeers
increases is now being revised. Studies of the adolescents' family and peer relationships show
that these two types of relationships are not an "either/or" phenomenon (Durkin, 1995; Macek
and Stefankova, 2006). It is the basic characteristics of relationships between parents and children
that changes during adolescence (Youniss and Smollar, 1985). Adolescents act more and
more often as equal partners in communication with their parents. Parents have more chances to
assume the symmetrical roles of friends instead ofthe role of authority. Grotevand and Cooper
(1985) suggested that a good bond between adolescents and their parents and appropriate selfassertion
could establish a positive balance and strengthen the adolescent self.
Correspondence to: Petr Macek, Institute for Research on Children, Youth and Family, Faculty
of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Jostova 10, 602 00 Bmo; e-mail: macek@fss.muni.cz
! This study was supported by research grant ofMinistry of Education, Youth and Sports, MSM
00216222406.
26
Compared to the life experience of a child, the adolescent peer context is more differentiated
too. The meaning and importance of close friendship is growing along with peer conformity
and peer pressure. If friendship is mainly defined in terms of reciprocity and mutuality, peer
relationships and peer groups are defined in terms of unilateral assessments of relative standing
and reputation (Hartup and Stevens, 1997). However, both types ofhorizontal relationships
influence each other. Both form during adolescence on the basis of interpersonal attractiveness,
physical attributes, and achievement. Being involved in various peer groups is an important basis
for the development of close friendships (Heaven, 1994). As Seltzer (1989) wrote, the question
that is still open is whether "true friendships" can exist in adolescence because the boundaries
of personal and social identity are not yet clear - relationships with peers (age-mates) are not
the same as friendships at other times of the life span. As adolescents undergo the emotional,
cognitive, and social development, the nature and quality of friendship change too. Self-development
and identity formation are the main developmental tasks of adolescence and friendship
and peer relationships should be considered in this context (Erikson, 1968; Heaven, 1994).
Meeus' and his colleagues' study of the developmental changes of the influence of parents
and peers also shows that if parental support is stronger than peer support in early adolescence
then the level of both is very similar in middle and late adolescence. They show as well that
parental support has stronger causal effects on the general well-being and school performance of
adolescents. Parental support and peer support are presented as related forms ofsupport (Meeus,
Helsen, and Volleberg, 1995; Meeus and Dekovi6, 1995).
Our cross-sectional research (including seven age cohorts from 11 to 17 years) that focused
on the changes in the role of parents and peers during adolescence brings similar results. Parents'
influence is slowly decreasing and peers' influence is increasing during early and middle
adolescence. Although the influence of friends is strongly growing in domains of school
problems and future occupation, parents remain more important as advisers than peers (Macek,
Osecka, 1999).
Research results also suggest that the quality ofpal::ent relationspips influences peer relationships
and support, especially in early adolescence (Sirucek and Siruckova, 2006). If children
trust their parents they do not prefer extreme forms ofpeer orientation. Ifthey perceive too few
opportunities from their parents to be involved in decision-making, as well as no increase in
these opportunities, they are higher in extreme peer orientation and peer advice seeking (Fuligni
and Eccles, 1993). Family life characterized by conflict and lack of support for early adolescent
development is related to the increased involvement with peer groups and more conformity to
peer pressure (Shulman et aI., 1995). During middle and late adolescence, parental and peer
(friend) support seem to be relatively independent support systems. If there are some relationships,
they are rather positive than the opposite: high parental support is connected with positive
friend support and low parental support is connected with negative effect of friend support
(Helsen, Vollebergh and Meeus, 2000).
Both types of adolescent relationships are closely related to self and identity development.
There is much evidence about the roles of parents, peers, and friends as important "significant
others" in the process of adolescent self-definition and self-evaluation (Dusek and Flaherty,
1981; Markus and Nurius, 1986; Damon and Hart, 1988; Nurmi and Pulliainen, 1991; Oosterwegel,
1992; Harter, 1993). According to Meeus (1992), there is no aspect of identity development
during middle and late adolescence that is not primarily influenced by peers. On the other
hand, parents very often have additional influence and the "final word" in many domains of
adolescent everyday life.
Also our former research on self and identity development confirmed the meaning ofparents
as "significant others" in the process of adolescent self-definition and self-evaluation. Despite
the fact that the importance of the self according to parents (self-presentation: "How I think
my mother/father sees me") decreased with age and that the importance of the self according
to peers increased with age, the general importance of the self according to parents remained
highest of all the other possible self-representations (Macek and Osecka, 1996; Macek, 1997).
It is evident that the adolescent self-evaluation and perceptions and evaluations of peers and
parents are mutually dependent. However, we can consider some further specifications of this
relationship. Ifparental warmth and support forms a base for adolescent global self-esteem, then
the peer arena and friend relationships represent a space for testing and confirming social and
personal competency (Seltzer, 1989) and self-efficacy (Land, 1998). General self-efficacy and
global self-esteem are conceptualized as two aspects of general self-evaluations (Judge et aI.,
1997). As many authors have mentioned, an important difference between global self-esteem
and general self-efficacy is that self-efficacy captures more of a motivational belief (or a judg-
27
ment) regarding task capabilities, whereas self-esteem captures more of an affective evaluation
of (or feeling regarding) the self (Betz and Klein, 1996; Brockner, 1988; Chen et aI., 2001;
Gardner and Pierce, 1998).
The aim ofthis study is to investigate how the perceived parent and peer/friend relationships
bear on global self-esteem and generalized self-efficacy(GSE) during middle adolescence. The
following gender differences are expected: deeper anchoring of girls' self-esteem and self-efficacy
in close relationships with parents and friends, stronger influence of peer comparison
and acceptance on boys' self-esteem and self-efficacy (Macek, 1997; Macek and Osecka, 1999;
Macek et aI, 1999). With respect to the different roles of parents and peers during adolescence
we also hypothesize that self-esteem is more based on parental wannth and support from family
(especially for younger adolescents), while generalized self-efficacy, representing a feeling
ofpersonal competency, is closely related to perceived peer support and evaluation (especially
for older adolescents).
METHOD
Participants
The sample (N = 710) used in this study consists ofthe participants from the Moravia Longitudinal
Youth Study (Macek et aI., 2002). However, the results presented in this paper are based
on cross-sectional data. The sample includes two cohorts. The younger one includes adolescents
born from 1986 to 1987 (age 12.5 to 14 at the time of data collection), the older one includes
adolescents born from 1983 to 1984 (age 16.5 to 18). The sample includes more girls (n=424) than
boys (n=286) but this is not an issue because the genders are treated separately in the analyses
and the proportion of younger to older children is the same within both gender subgroups.
All participants come from the South Moravia region ofthe Czech Republic. They were randomly
selected according to the type ofattended school. About one fourth ofthe younger cohort
attends high-track grammar schools (Gymnasium), the rest attends various basic schools. The
composition ofthe older cohort reflects the three types ofsecondary education in Czech Republic
- one third ofthis sample attends vocational schools, one third attends specialized schools leading
to secondary school certificate and the last third attends grammar schools (Gymnasium).
Procedure
Given the age of our participants, we sought pennission from the participating schools, the
relevant school district authority, and the parents. Data were collected using self-report questionnaires
administered to adolescents in classroom-size groups (about 20 to 30 respondents)
during two class periods. Respondents completed the questionnaires without the presence of
their teachers.
The questionnaires consisted of a number of self-assessment scales and items from various
domains: family relationships, peer and friend relationships, attitudes to school environment,
risk-taking behavior.
Measures
In the present investigation we are interested in the measures of adolescents' perceptions and
evaluations of their parents, friends, peers, and self.
Self-esteem was measured by using 8 items taken from several sources (Rosenberg, 1979;
Kracke and Held, 1994; Schwarzer, 1986). Four positive and four negative statements (e.g. "I do
not think 1am any worse than anybody else", "I often feel useless", "I think 1am all right") were
assessed on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree). The Cronbach
alpha reliability estimate for this scale was .82.
Self-efficacy was measured by 3 items ("Whatever happens, 1 can manage it", "Even when
bigger problems arise unexpectedly 1do not have trouble finding a solution", "When 1find myselfin
a difficult situation 1usually know what to do") (Kracke and Held, 1994; Jerusalem and
Schwarzer, 1986). The participants marked their agreement with individual items on a 4-point
scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree). The Cronbach alpha reliability estimate for
this scale was .73.
Wannth ofMother and Wannth ofFather are two 11-item scales adapted from a similar inventory
ofparental wannth and acceptance (Greenberger and Chen, 1996). The participants marked
their agreement with the statements (e.g. "My mother (father) really understands me") on a 4-
28
point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree). The Cronbach alpha reliability
estimate for the Warmth of Mother scale was .83 and for the Warmth of Father scale was .87.
The Parental Monitoring Scale is based on an instrument by Greenberger and Chen (Chen
et aI., 1998). Nine items represent questions on parental knowledge of various aspects of adolescents'
lives such as "Do your parents know who you spend your time out with?" The scale
values ranged from 1 (never) to 4 (always). The Cronbach alpha reliability estimate for this
scale was .82.
Trust in Parents and Friends are translated versions oftwo scales used in a German project on
adolescent development during the time of social change (Kracke and Held, 1994; Noack and
Kracke, 1997). Trust in parents and Trust in friendswere measured separately. The participants
marked their agreement with six items like "I can be myselfwhen 1am with my parents (friends)"
on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree). The Cronbach alpha
reliability for the Trust in Parents scale was.70 and for the Trust in Friends scale it was .68.
Global Comparison with Peers was measured by a 6-item scale specially constructed for the
present study. The participants were asked to compare themselves with their peers on various
aspects which are important in adolescent social life (e.g. "Regarding my popularity (level of
knowledge, abilities, appearance etc.), am 1 better or worse than most of my peers?"). The responses
on a five-point scale ranged from much worse (1) to much better (5). The Cronbach
alpha reliability for this scale was .61.
On the basis of principal component analysis of the set of items related to personal importance
of friends, two summation scales were constructed. The Esteem from Friends (7 items)
expresses the participant's personal experience of how much friends respect him/her (e.g. "I
think my friends can see my good character traits"). The Cronbach alpha reliability estimate for
this scale was .74. The second scale is called Friend involvement in dealing with problems (4
items). It is based on an assessment ofthe amount of involvement of friends in the participant's
problems in private life, at school, or in family (e.g. "When 1have personal problems 1ask my
friends for help"). The Cronbach alpha reliability for this scale was .82. Items of both scales
were ranging on a 4-point scale from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (4).
For an aggregate analysis we constructed two additional variables: Relationship with Parents
and Relationship with Peers/Friends. The variables were computed separately for boys and
girls. The former one is a variable formed by summing the four parental scales (in standardized
scores). The Cronbach alpha reliability estimate for the Relationship with Parents scale was .84
for boys and .84 for girls. The latter one is a variable formed by summing the four peer/friend
scales (in standardized scores). The Cronbach alpha reliability estimate for the Relationship
with Peers/Friends scale was .60 for boys and .62 for girls.
RESULTS
First, we present the descriptive characteristics for all variables used in this paper, including
gender differences. Second, we show the correlations between the variables, followed by the
results of the regression analyses. All analyses are presented separately for boys and girls.
Descriptives, effects of sex and cohort
Means and standard deviations of all variables broken down by sex and are reported in Table 1.
No significant sex differences were found in the level of self-esteem, warmth of father, trust
in parents, and global comparison of adolescents with peers.
Boys show significantly higher level of self-efficacy than girls do. Although there is no significant
difference between boys and girls in the Warmth of father mean score, the variance
of girls' scores is significantly larger than the variance of boys' scores (p < .01). Girls report
higher warmth of mother and higher levels of monitoring from their parents. Also the remaining
friend-related assessments are significantly higher for girls than for boys: trust in friends,
esteem from friends, and friend involvement in dealing with problems.
Because the cohort (age) variable is not included in the regression analyses we wanted to be
reasonably sure that any effects that we might find are not caused by cohort membership. To
eliminate possible direct cohort effects the proportion of cohorts should be the same in both
gender subgroups. This condition can be considered met as in the boys group 57% were from
the younger cohort and in the girls group it was 55% (X2
=.44, df=l, p>.05). Also there should
not be any age*cohort interaction effects on the variables under study. The last column in Table
1 reports the significances of age*cohort interaction effects. Only for self-efficacy there is a
29
Table 1 Means and One-Way Analyses ofVariance for Effects of Gender on Variables Used in
the Study
Variable
boys girls
mean difference age*cohort
M SD M SD interaction
Self-esteem 3.07 .46 3.07 .47
Self-efficacy 2.84 .49 2.68 .54 * *
Warmth of Mother 3.13 .44 3.30 .46 **
Warmth of Father 3.12 .47 3.04 .63
Parent Monitoring 2.72 .56 2.85 .58 **
Trust in parents 2.80 .53 2.87 .57 *
Esteem from Friends 3.09 .44 3.24 .41 **
Friend involvement 2.68 .70 3.11 .62 **
Trust in Peers 2.54 .46 2.81 .48 **
Comparison with Peers 3.25 .48 3.19 .43
*p < .05, **p < .01
significant interaction effect but it is very slight (partial eta2
=.009; boys have the same self-efficacy
in both cohorts while girls' self-efficacy is slightly lower in the younger cohort). Thus,
we consider it safe to disregard the cohort variable in the following regression analyses.
Correlations between predictor variables
Table 2 presents correlations between the four parent-related variables and the four friend-andpeer-related
variables. A very consistent pattern of significant interrelations is evident among
parent characteristics. As expected, perceived intensities ofmother and father warmth are mutually
positively dependent and they are also strongly positively related to the adolescent's trust in
parents. No strong sex differences are evident in this pattern of correlations. The high internal
consistency estimates for the Relationship with Parents aggregate scale reflect the high level of
intercorrelation among the parent-related variables.
The variables describing adolescents' perception and evaluation of their friends and peers
constitute a relatively clear cluster, too. All correlations are positive and most of them are significant.
However, compared to the similar pattern of parent variables, this group of variables
is not as tightly related.
Global comparison with peers does not reveal any significant correlations with variables representing
specific roles and meaning ofadolescents' friends. Specifically, a feeling derived from
comparison ,,1 am better/worse than most ofothers" is relatively independent on the adolescent's
trust in friends, the esteem perceived from friends, as well as receiving help from friends.
Table 2 Intercorrelations Between Predictors Used in Regression Analyses (boys above, girls
under diagonal)
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
1. Warmth of Mother .57** .54** .51 ** .16* .07 .04 .08
2. Warmth of Father .50** .53** .50** .13 .12 -.01 .10
3. Parent Monitoring .58** .50** .69** .12 .07 -.05 .02
4. Trust in Parents .60** .55** .70** .11 .09 -.03 .03
5. Esteem from Friends .16** .25** .07 ..00 .44** .10 .37**
6. Friend Involvement .04 .20** .03 -.05 .60** .32** .33**
7. Trust in Peers -.11 * -.03 -.10* -.13** .22** .30** .07
8. Comparison with Peers .11 * .15** .00 .02 .38** .18** .09
*p < .05, **p < .01
30
Mutual relationships among the three friend-related variables are stronger for girls than for
boys. Specifically, when adolescents feel high trust in friends they often report receiving help
from friends and they also feel the high esteem from them. All correlations are significant with
one exception: boys do not show significant connection between esteem from friends and trust
in friends.
When we look at the relationships between the parent and peer characteristics, sex differences
are evident. Concerning boys, only one significant correlation (at the 5% level) is revealed:
perceived warmth ofmother is positively related to esteem from friends. Concerning girls, one
halfof all the correlations are significant. However, we do not see any clear pattern. While trust
in friends correlates negatively with most ofthe parent-related characteristics (trust in parents,
warmth of mother, and parent monitoring), esteem from friends and global comparison with
peers are related positively with the warmth of both parents.
Parent- and peer-relationship variables as predictors of self-esteem and
self-efficacy
To examine how the adolescents' parent-related and peer-related assessments associate with
the level of their global self-evaluations, multiple regression analyses using the hierarchical
method were performed. The constructs of self-esteem and self-efficacy were used separately
as the dependent variables. Predictor variables were entered in two steps: parent variables as
indicators of the long-term influencing factors on adolescent self-development in Step 1 and
friend and peer variables representing the important current factors influencing everyday adolescent
self-perceptions and self-evaluations in Step 2. Regressions were conducted separately
for boys and girls.
First, we present the prediction of self-esteem. Table 3 displays the standardized regression
coefficients (Beta), explained variance (R2), increases of R2 in each step and the total adjusted
R2
ˇ
With the entry of parent-related variables in Step 1, there are substantial and significant increments
in the amount of variance explained for both sexes. This shows that adolescents with
higher reported feelings of warmth of both parents tend to also report higher self-esteem.
Patterns of significant predictors are similar for both sexes. However, parent-related variables
increase the amount of explained variance in self-esteem more in boys than in girls (increases
in R2 are .171 and .118 respectively). Especially the variables ofparent warmth differ with sex:
warmth of father is the strongest predictor in boys, warmth of mother similarly in girls.
When friend-and-peer-related variables were entered in Step 2, predicted variance in self-esteem
increased significantly for both sexes (by 9 percent points in boys and lOin girls). Relevant final
patterns of significant predictors further enhanced the differences between the sexes. For boys,
Table 3 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Self-esteem
boys (N=286) girls (N=424)
Variable
~ ~
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Warmth of Mother .157 .133 .215** .163*
Warmth of Father .241 ** .213** .110 .035
Parent Monitoring .140 .142 -.070 -.044
Trust in parents -.062 -.072 .134 .189*
Esteem from Friends .196** .186**
Friend involvement .132 -.104
Trust in Peers .007 .078
Comparison with Peers .060 .227**
Increase in R2 .171** .094** .118** .101 **
Total R2 .171 .266 .118 .219
Adjusted R2 .154 .235 .106 .197
*p < .05, **p < .01
31
Table 4 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Self-efficacy
boys (N=286) girls (N=424)
Variable
~ ~
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Warmth of Mother -.055 -.094 .092 .049
Warmth of Father .236** .214* .048 -.015
Parent Monitoring .029 .062 -.107 -.067
Trust in parents .037 .035 .136 .176*
Esteem from Friends .069 .061
Friend involvement .005 -.091
Trust in Peers .180* .135*
Comparison with Peers .205** .327**
Increase in R2 .060* .097** .031 .134**
Total R2 .060 .157 .031 .165
Adjusted R2 .041 .121 .018 .142
*p < .05, **p < .01
only two predictors significantly contribute to the 27% of the total explained variance in selfesteem.
Warmth ofFather keeps its importance from Step I and in Step 2 it is joined by Esteem
from Friends. It may be concluded that the boys' self-esteem grows with perceived warmth of
father and with the growing esteem or respect that the adolescent perceives from his friends.
For girls, all the included predictors explain 22% of variance. Four predictors turned up significant:
Warmth of Mother, Trust in Parents, Esteem from Friends, Global Comparison with
Peers. The influence of trust in parents rose in the final model to the level of statistical significance.
Esteem from friends and Global comparison showed as new significant predictors. All
these predictors have a positive relationship with self-esteem.
The results of hierarchical regression for the self-efficacy are presented in Table 4.
In Step 1, parent-related variables explained significant portion ofvariance only for boys. For
both sexes, the amount of variance in self-efficacy explained by parent-related variables was
quite small - 6 percent for boys and 3 percent for girls.
Step 2, in which the friend and peer variables were entered, brought a significant increase
in explained variance of self-efficacy in both sexes. The final patterns of significant predictors
reveal some sex differences. The influence of parents is very specific. While the perceived
warmth offather is positively related to boys' self-efficacy, the standardized beta coefficient for
warmth ofmother is not significant. Concerning the block of friend and peer variables, general
comparison with peers and trust to friends are significant predictors.
Girls' level of self-efficacy grows with the trust in their parents and with positive feelings
received from their peers - whether in the form of the feeling of acceptance or in the form of
comparisons with peers.
Our aim is to compare the predictive power of parent-related and friend/peer-related variables.
A problem can be seen in the fact that the correlations among parent-related variables in
our sample are higher than the correlations among friend/peer-related variables. A lower level
of multicollinearity among friend/peer-related variables gives them a chance to explain more
variance in the dependent variable. One way to deal with this problem, though not perfect, is
to aggregate the four variables for each source of influence (parents vs. friends/peers) into one
composite variable. Thus, we will have one score representing each adolescent's relationship
with his or her parents (Relationship with Parents) and one score representing his or her relationship
with friends/peers (Relationship with Friends/Peers).
Tables 5 and 6 present the regressions done in the same manner as those presented above
with the difference that only two predictor variables were used: Relationship with Parents and
Relationship with Friends/Peers. Table 5 presents the results of the 2-step regression of these
two variables on self-esteem and Table 6 presents their regression on self-effiacacy.
The expected pattern ofregression weights and explained variance did not show up in terms
of statistical significance. Both aggregate variables are significant predictors of both self-es-
32
Table 5 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Aggregated Variables Predicting
Self-esteem
boys (N=286) girls (N=424)
Variable
~ ~
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Relationship with parents .38** .35** .32** .30**
Relationship with peers/friends .28** .23**
Increase in R2 .14** .08** .10** .05**
Total R2 .14 .22 .10 .15
Adjusted R2 .14 .21 .10 .15
*p < .05, **p < .01
Table 6 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Aggregated Variables Predicting
Self-efficacy
boys (N=286) girls (N=424)
Variable
~ ~
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Relationship with parents .19** .16* .14* .13*
Relationship with peers/friends .29** .26**
Increase in R2 .04** .08** .02* .06**
Total R2 .04 .12 .02 .08
Adjusted R2 .04 .12 .02 .07
*p < .05, **p < .01
teem and self-efficacy. Boys and girls do not differ in this pattern. However when we inspect
the magnitudes of regression weights we can see that Relationship with Parents might explain
self-esteem slightly better and Relationship with Friends/Peers might seem a better predictor
of self-efficacy.
DISCUSSION
According to the aims of this study, relationships to parents and to friends/peers were conceptualized
as two relatively independent domains of adolescents' perceptions and evaluations.
In general, the empirical results indicate high consistency within the block of parent variables
(for both sexes) and also relatively good consistency in the block of friend variables (especially
among girls). Interrelations between the two blocks are less clear. Boys' assessments ofparents
are not related to their assessments of friends. Regarding girls, the assessments of parents and
the assessments of friends and peers are more mutually dependent. The comparison ofyounger
and older adolescents confirms the typical trend: the intensity of relationships to parents is
rather decreasing while the intensity of friend relationships is growing. Consistently with other
findings (Meeus and Dekovi6, 1995; Macek and Osecka, 1999) it must be noted that although
the intensity of parent relationships is decreasing their meaning remains positive.
The adolescents' global self-evaluation was represented by two components - self-esteem
a self-efficacy. Both these characteristics were found higher in older adolescents, without sex
differences. In absolute numbers adolescents report more self-esteem then self-efficacy while
self-efficacy grows more with age.
Self-esteem expresses an evaluative component of self-system; a self-reflective attitude that
is a product of viewing the self as an object of evaluation (Campbell, Lavalle, 1993). During
middle adolescence, this aspect ofself-evaluation is closely related to an experience ofemotional
autonomy and authenticity. To find "one's own true self' means high self-esteem, and parental
33
and peer support improves these feelings. For that reason it was assumed that especially the
perceived parent acceptation (warmth, trust) will predict these feelings; more than perceived
support from friends and peers comparison.
This assumption seems to be supported by the explained variance increments - for boys parent
variables explain three times more self-esteem variance than peer variables, for girls it is twice
as much - peers seem to have slightly more influence on girls' self-esteem.
The relation of self-esteem to the assessment of the warmth of the parent of the same sex
showed to be surprisingly strong. We expected this to happen for girls as previous studies suggested
that the importance of father decreases with age while the importance ofmother remains
stable (Macek, 1997). For boys, father is always the key determinant but mother also stays important.
The trust in parents is also an important predictor. The influence of peers and friends
is stronger on girls. It is based on the trust in peers (while trust in parents is not so important
anymore) and for girls also on the interpersonal comparisons with female peers. This shows a
stronger tie to interpersonal evaluation. For boys this is more about feelings.
Perceived global self-efficacy represents competency as an important aspect of adolescent
global self-evaluation (Harter, 1985). It is related to control beliefs (Flammer, 1995) and social
skills ofadolescents (Schwarzer, 1993). Adolescents with greater self-efficacy show higher quality
of close friendship, and their friendships tend to increase in quality during middle and late
adolescence (Land, 1998). We assumed that the perceived peer and friend relationships would
be the stronger predictors here. As the results show, the strongest predictor of self-efficacy is
the comparison with peers, the perception ofparents is much weaker. Here, too, substantial sex
differences can be seen.
When boys report high level of self-efficacy they usually feel the warmth from their father,
have trust in their friends, and see themselves rather better in comparison to their peers. On the
other side, low self-efficacy is connected with opposite characteristics (negative self-evaluations
as a product of interpersonal comparison, low perceived warmth from father, and low
experienced trust in friends).
With regard to girls, the pattern of predictors is different. The by far strongest predictor of
level of self-efficacy is social comparison with peers. Mother and father do not seem to have
any influence, only general trust to parents and age are still significant predictors.
REFERENCE
Bandura, A. (1977): Self-efficacy: Toward a
unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215.
Betz, N. E., Klein, K. L. (1996): Relationships
among measures ofcareer self-efficacy,
generalized self-efficacy, and global
self-esteem. Journal of Career Assessment,
4,285-298.
Brockner, J. (1988): Self-esteem at work:
Research, theory, and practice. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Campbell, 1., Lavalle, L. F. (1993): Who
am I? The role of self-concept confusion in
understanding the behavior of people with
low self-esteem. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.),
Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard
(pp. 3-20): New York: Plenum Press.
Campbell, 1. (1990): Self-esteem and clarity
of self-concept. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59, 538-549.
Chen G., Gully, S. M., Eden, D. (2004):
General self-efficacy and self-esteem: toward
theoretical and empirical distinction
between correlated self-evaluations. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 25, 375-395.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Eden, D.
34
(2001): Validation of a new general selfefficacy
scale. Organizational Research
Methods, 4, 62-83.
Chen, C., Greenberger, E., Lester, 1.,
Dong, Q., Guo, M-S. (1998): A crosscultural
study of family and peer correlates
of adolescent misconduct. Developmental
Psychology, 34,770-781.
Damon, W., Hart, D. (1988): Self-understanding
in childhood and adolescence. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Dekovi6, M., Meeus, W. (1997): Peer
relations in adolescence: Effects of parenting
and adolescents' self-concept. Journal
ofAdolescence, 20, 163-176.
Durkin, K. (1995): Developmental social
psychology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Ltd.
Dusek, 1. B., Flaherty, 1. F. (1981): The
development ofthe self-concept during adolescent
years. Monographs ofthe Society for
Research in Child Development, 46, 1-67.
Erikson, E. H. (1968): Identity: Youth and
crisis. New York: Norton and comp.
Feiring, C. Taska, L. S. (1996): Family
self-concept: Ideas on its meaning. In B. A.
Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept
(pp. 317-373): New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc.
F1ammer, A. (1995): Developmental analysis
of control beliefs. In A. Bandura (Ed.),
Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 69-
113): Cambridge: University Press.
Fuligni, A. 1. Eccles, 1. S. (1993): Perceived
parent-child relationships and early
adolescents orientation toward peers. Developmental
Psychology, 29, 622-632.
Gardner, D. G., Pierce, 1. L. (1998):
Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational
context. Group and Organization
Management, 23, 48-70.
Greenberger, E., Chen, C. (1996): Perceived
family relationships and depressed
mood in early and late adolescence: A comparison
of European and Asian Americans.
Developmental Psychology, 32, 707-716.
Grotevand, H. D., Cooper, C. R. (1985):
Patterns of interaction in family relationships
and the development ofidentity exploration
in adolescence. Child Development,
56,415-428.
Harter, S. (1985): Competence as dimension
ofself-evaluation: Toward a comprehensive
model of self-worth. In R.L. Leahy (Ed.),
The Development ofThe Self(pp. 55-122):
New York: Academic Press.
Harter, S. (1990): Causes, correlates and
the functional role of global self-worth: A
life-span perspective. In J. Kolligian and R.
Sternberg (Eds.), Perceptions ofcompetence
and incompetence across the life-span. (pp.
67-98): New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Harter, S. (1993): Causes and consequences
of low self-esteem in children and adolescents.
In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem:
The puzzle of low self-regard (pp.
87-116): New York: Plenum Press.
Harter, S. (1996): Historical roots of contemporary
issues involving self-concept.
In: B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of se1f-concept
(pp. 1-37): New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
Harter, S. (1997): The personal selfin social
context. In: R. D. Ashmore and L. Jussim
(Eds.), Self and Identity (pp. 81-105), New
York: Oxford University Press.
Hartup, W. W., Stevens, N. (1997): Friendship
and adaptation in the life course.
Psychological Bulletin, 121, 355-370.
Hartup, W. W. (1989): Social relationships
and their developmental significance. American
Psychologist, 44, 120-126.
Heaven, P. C. L. (1994): Contemporary
adolescence; a social psychological approach.
Melbourne: MacMillan Education
Australia PTY Ltd.
Helsen, M., Vollebergh, W., Meeus,
W. (2000): Social support from parents and
friends and emotional problems in adolescence.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
29,319-335.
Jerusalem, M., Schwarzer, R. (1986):
Selbstwirksamkeit [Self-efficacy]. In R.
Schwarzer (Ed.), Skalen zur Befindlichkeit
und Personlichkeit (pp. 15-28): Berlin: Freie
UniversiHit.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham,
C. C. (1997): The dispositional causes of
job satisfaction: a core evaluations approach.
Research in Organizational Behavior,
19, 151-188.
Kracke, B., Held, M. (1994): Dokumentation
der Erhebungsinstrumente des Projektes
"Individuation und sozialer Wander' [A documentation
of research instruments of the
project "Individuation and social change"]
Forschungsberichte. Mannheim: UniversWit
Mannheim.
Land, D. (1998): The relation ofadolescents,
self-efficacy to the quality oftheir close friendships.
Poster presented at the biennial
meeting of the Society for Research on
Adolescence, San Diego, CA.
Macek, P. (1997): Adolescents' perception
ofparents and family life: relations to their
self-system. Paper presented at the VIIth
Conference on Developmental Psychology,
Rennes, France.
Macek, P., Mares, 1., Jezek, S., Valiskova,
M. (2002): Soucasny vyzkum
adolescentU: vychodiska, soubor, metody.
[Current Research of Adolescents: Theoretical
Framework, Sample, Instruments].
In V. Smekal, P. Macek (Eds.), Utvcifeni a
vYvoj osobnosti. Psychologicke, socicilni a
pedagogicke aspekty (pp.129-146): Brno:
Barrister and Principal
Macek, P., Osecka, L. (2000): Adolescents'
assessments of parents and peers:
gender differences, emotional problems,
relationships to their self-system. Paper
presented at the 7th Biennial Conference of
the European Association for Research on
Adolescence, Jena, Germany. v
Macek, P. , Osecka, L., Jezek, S., Stepankova,
M., Machcitova, M. (1999):
Psychologicke charakteristiky dospivajicich
v casne a stfedni adolescenci: vysledky vyzkumu
Long 2 v r. 1999. [Psychological Characteristics
ofEarly and Middle Adolescents:
Results ofthe Long2 Study in 1999]. Brno:
FSS MU.
Macek, P., Stefankova, Z. (2006): Vztahy
s rodici ajejich souvislosti s citovou vazbou
[Adolescents' Relationships to their Parents:
Connectedness to Attachment]. In P. Macek,
35
L. Lacinova, (Eds,), Vztahy v dospivani (pp.
25-40):. Brno: Barrister and Principal
Markus, H., Nurius, P. (1986): Possible
selves. American Psychologist,41,
954-969.
McGuire, W. 1., McGuire, C. V. (1982):
Significant others in self-space: Sex differences
and developmental trends in the self.
In J. Suls (Ed.), Social psychological perspectives
on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 71-96):
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meeus, W., Dekovic, M. (1995): Identity
development, parental and peer support in
adolescence - result of a national Dutch
survey. Adolescence, 30, 931-944
Meeus, W., Helsen, M., Volleberg, W.
(1995): Parents and Peers in Adolescence:
from Conflict to Connectedness.. Paper presented
at the International Conference on
Conflict and Development in Adolescence,
Ghent, Belgium.
Meeus, W. (1992): Toward a psychosocial
analysis ofadolescent identity; an evaluation
of the epigenetic theory (Erikson) and the
identity status model (Marcia): In: W.Meeus,
M.de Goede, M. Kox, and K. Hurrellman,
(Eds.), Adolescence, careers, and cultures
(pp. 55-76) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Noack, P., Kracke, B. (1997): Social
Change and Adolescent Well-Being: Healthy
Country, Healthy Teens. In J. Schulenberg,
J.L. Maggs, K. Hurrelman (Eds.), Health
Risks and Developmental Transitions During
Adolescence (pp. 54-84): Cambridge:
University Press
Nurmi, J-E., Pulliainen, H. (1991): The
changing parent-child relationship, self-esteem,
and intelligence as determinants of
orientation to the future during early adolescence.
Journal ofAdolescence, 14, 35-51.
36
Oosterwegel, A. (1992): The organization
of the self-system. Developmental changes
in childhood and adolescence. Amsterdam:
Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Oosterwegel, A., Oppenheimer, L.
(1993): The self-system: Developmental
changes between and within self-concepts.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Petersen, A., Silbereisen, R., Sorensen,
S. (1992): Adolescent development:
A global perspective. In. W. Meeus, M. de
Goede, W. Kox, K. Hurrellman (Eds), Adolescence,
careers, and cultures. (pp. 1-34).
Berlin: WaIter de Gruyter.
Rosenberg, M. (1979): Conceiving the Self.
New York: Basic Books
Schwarzer, R. (1993): Measurement of
perceived self-efficacy. Berlin: Freie Uni-
versWit
Schwarzer, R. (Ed): (1986): Skalen zur Befindlichkeit
und Personlichkeit [Scales of
well-being and personality]. Berlin: Freie
UniversiHit
Seltzer, V. C. (1989): The psychosocial
worlds of the adolescent: public and private.
John Wiley and Sons: New York.
Shulman, S., Seiffge-Krenke, I., Levyshiff,
R., Fabian, B., Rotenberg, S.
(1995): Peer group and family relationships
in early adolescence. International Journal
y of Psychology, 30, 573-590.
Sirucek, J., Siruckova, M. (2006):VYvoj
a zkoumani vrstevnickYch vztahu [Development
and Research of Peer Relationships].
In P. Macek, L. Lacinova, (Eds,), Vztahy v
dospivani (pp. 41-53):. Brno: Barrister and
Principal
Youniss, I., Smollar, I. (1985): Adolescent
Relations worth Motter, Fathers and
Fiends. Chicago: University Chicago Press.