Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 1
Does family experience influence political beliefs? Relation between interparental
conflict perceptions and political efficacy in late adolescence
Jan Šerek, Lenka Lacinová, & Petr Macek
Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
serek@fss.muni.cz
Published in Journal of Adolescence:
Šerek, J., Lacinová, L., & Macek, P. (2012). Does family experience influence political
beliefs? Relation between interparental conflict perceptions and political efficacy in late
adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 35(3), 577-586.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.10.001
This version is an original submission to the journal with revisions after peer review
accepted by the editor.
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 2
Abstract
The study examined the relation between adolescents’ interparental conflict perceptions
and their political efficacy regarding local issues. Longitudinal data (age 15 and 17)
from 444 adolescents were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Results
showed that young people experiencing frequent interparental conflict reported an
increase in depressive mood during late adolescence, which was associated with lower
level of political efficacy. Moreover, adolescents who felt more efficacious when
dealing with fighting parents felt more efficacious in local politics, even when
controlling for personality traits and depressive mood. One possible explanation is that
family perceptions generalize to politics because both contexts share certain similar
features. Our results underscore that also seemingly nonpolitical experiences can matter
in adolescents’ civic and political development.
Keywords: Political efficacy; Civic development; Interparental conflict; Depressive
mood.
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 3
Does Family Experience Influence Political Beliefs? The Relation between Interparental
Conflict Perceptions and Political Efficacy in Late Adolescence
Common experience, as well as the results of many studies, show that people
who feel able to influence their social environment also engage more in public issues
(Camino & Zeldin, 2002; La Due Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998). In other words, political
efficacy, understood as a persons’ belief that they can influence the social system
(Bandura, 1997), predicts various forms of civic activity (Zukin, Keeter, Andolina,
Jenkins, & Delli Carpini, 2006). Despite its importance, we know much less about how
political efficacy originates, i.e. why some young people feel efficacious while others do
not (Beaumont, 2010). If we take a closer look at political efficacy, we can see that it
consists of two interrelated beliefs: an assessment of personal capabilities and resources,
and an assessment of the openness of a social system to change (Bandura, 1997). Both
beliefs are formed through personal experience with the social system, such as
participation in civic organizations and other political actions (Bandura, 1997;
Beaumont, 2010; Zimmerman, 1990). However, young people do not have as many
opportunities as adults to engage politically. Therefore, we ask whether adolescents’
political efficacy also develops in other contexts. Beaumont (2011) suggests that
processes fostering political efficacy in youth may occur in informal setting, such as
families, but she does not focus in depth on these processes. We suppose that some
aspects of family life have features that are similar to politics, which causes that
cognitive schemata, formed in the family, generalize and affect political efficacy. Since
local politics is closer to adolescents’ everyday lives than politics on a national or global
level (Císař, 2008; McAdam, Sampson, Weffer , & MacIndoe, 2005; Youniss et al.,
2002), we focus on that particular kind of political efficacy.
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 4
Adolescents’ perceptions of their own competence and the controllability of the
environment are influenced by how they perceive interparental relations, and how they
interpret parental mutual communication and behavior (Grych & Fincham, 1993;
Rudolph, Kurlakowsky, & Conley, 2001). Special importance is attached to appraisals
of conflicts between parents. Grych and Fincham (1990) described a cognitivecontextual
framework to delineate the processes that associate marital conflict with
offsprings’ development. This theoretical perspective accentuates the meaning of
interparental conflict for young people as a key mechanism. Adolescents form cognitive
schemata that represent the typical course of interparental conflict and their personal
role in such conflicts. These schemata not only affect adolescents’ expectations
concerning future parental disagreements, but may also affect their perceptions and
behavior in broader social relationships (Grych & Cardoza-Fernandes, 2001).
Adolescents experiencing higher levels of interparental conflict in their families
might be less confident that they can influence political issues in their communities.
First, adolescents’ repeated exposure to negative stressful events, such as family
conflict, can lead to chronic and generalized self-blame and deficits in perceived control
of external events, which turn into depressive mood (Kerig, 1998; O’Donnell, Moreau,
Cardemil, & Pollastri, 2010; Richmond & Stocker, 2003). Cognitive theories of
depression imply that depressive thinking consists in the pervasive expectation that
negative events will occur from uncontrollable forces and that a person cannot do
anything to affect them (Abela & Hankin, 2008; Abramson, Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989;
Beck, 1983; Sweeney, Anderson, & Bailey, 1986). Consequently, young people with
depression feel helpless and incompetent in social situations (Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus,
& Seligman, 1992; Whitton, Larson, & Hauser, 2008), and have lower social self-
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 5
efficacy (Muris, 2002). Therefore, we expect that person’s political efficacy (i. e., belief
in influence on one particular social context) will reflect these generalized schemata.
Second, adolescents from families with high interparental conflict are more likely to
acquire avoidant coping style, which means that their general reaction to problems or
interpersonal conflicts is to avoid them (Davies & Forman, 2002; Michael, Torres, &
Seemann, 2007; Nicolotti, El-Sheikh, & Whitson, 2003). These young people tend to
avoid thinking about or doing something about community problems; thus, we can
expect them to have a low political efficacy that is closely associated with awareness of
public issues (Zimmerman, 1995). In short, young people from families with high
interparental conflict can have low political efficacy because they have developed high
depressive mood and/or avoidant coping style.
Furthermore, adolescents’ belief that they can influence political issues in their
communities can be directly linked to their perceived ability to influence negative
events within the family. One of the basic experiences that adolescents make when
facing interparental conflicts involves their ability to negotiate with fighting parents,
and their ability to influence the course of those conflicts (Grych & Fincham, 1990;
Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992). In related literature, this perception is sometimes called
‘coping efficacy,’ but we will refer to as interparental conflict efficacy, in order to avoid
any confusion with the concept of coping styles. Research indicates that efficacy beliefs
regarding particular contexts or activities can generalize to other contexts (Bandura,
1997; Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977; Brody, Hatfield, & Spalding, 1988; Shell,
Murphy, & Bruning, 1989; Weitlauf, Cervone, Smith, & Wright, 2001). Thus, people
who learn that they are efficacious in one area can start to feel efficacious in other areas,
as well. However, both contexts must demand the same or similar skills; otherwise the
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 6
generalization will not occur. We argue that efficacy related schemata formed in the
course of interparental conflict can affect adolescents’ political efficacy since family and
political environments share certain similar features. Foremost, both environments are
characterized by hierarchy, occasional conflicts and a somewhat subordinate position
for a young person. Gniewosz, Noack and Buhl (2009) found, in their research on
political trust, that family experiences generalize to politics. According to them,
rigorous authorities in close family relationships undermine the development of trust in
the institutions of society and in the representatives of the political system. According to
additional research that is not explicitly related to politics, adolescents with negative
family perceptions develop general negative feelings about contexts controlled by the
authority, which makes them less willing to spend time in authority-controlled places
and organizations (Kerr, Stattin, Biesecker, & Ferrer-Wreder, 2003; Persson, Kerr, &
Stattin, 2007). Therefore, we expect that the development of interparental conflict
efficacy will be shown to be associated with enhanced political efficacy.
In addition, interparental conflict efficacy can be undermined by extreme and
permanent hostility between parents, as adolescents learn that they cannot do anything
to positively influence parental conflicts (Buehler, Lange, & Franck, 2007). Thus, we
expect that interparental conflict efficacy can be yet another link between perceived
frequency of interparental conflicts and political efficacy.
When assessing the association between interparental conflict perceptions and
political efficacy, personality traits need to be considered. Personality traits influence
how adolescents perceive their parents; especially, higher levels of neuroticism can
cause a negative distortion of adolescents’ parental perceptions (Millikan, Wamboldt, &
Bihun, 2002). Additionally, personality traits are known to influence various political
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 7
perceptions (Mondak & Halperin 2008), whereas political efficacy is associated mainly
with high extraversion and openness (Vecchione & Caprara, 2009). Therefore, it is
possible that adolescents endowed with certain personality dispositions perceive
themselves to be efficacious both in parental conflict and in politics, although there may
be no real association between these two perceptions.
To sum up, we ask whether the way in which adolescents perceive interparental
conflicts predicts how they perceive political efficacy in their communities. Specifically,
we expect that perceived interparental conflict frequency and interparental conflict
efficacy will matter. Concerning perceived conflict frequency, we hypothesize that its
association with political efficacy is negative and indirect, due to: (1) more depressive
mood; (2) more avoidant coping style; and (3) lower interparental conflict efficacy.
Next, interparental conflict efficacy is hypothesized to have a direct positive association
with political efficacy. In our analysis, we will control for the personality traits of
neuroticism, extraversion, and openness, since they are expected to determine both
conflict perceptions and political efficacy.
Method
Participants and procedure
Our data came from the psychological branch of the broader European
Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy and Childhood (ELSPAC), examining the risks posed
to healthy and optimum development. Initial sample consisted of almost all families
(5,549) with a child born between March 1, 1991 and June 30, 1992 in medical
institutions in the Czech city Brno (400,000 inhabitants). The psychological
examinations started at the child’s age of eight with a subsample of 883 families that
were randomly drawn from the original sample (Ježek, Lacinová, Širůček, &
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 8
Michalčáková, 2008). Data used in the present analysis were drawn from the biennial
2006/07 (age 15 = T1; N = 554) and 2008/09 (age 17 = T2; N = 480) examinations.
Present analyses were conducted on 444 participants (52.5 % girls) who had valid
values for dependent variable. Adolescents who remained in the sample did not differ
from those who left in their adjustment (depressive mood and risk behavior), as
measured in previous waves. Regarding family configuration at T1, 74.3 % participants
reported that they were living with both parents, 15.4 % with one parent, and 10.3 %
with one parent and a stepparent.
Participants came to the research institute to complete self-report questionnaires.
All measures were computer-based, except for personality and interparental conflict
measures at T1 that were paper-based. Informed consent was obtained from all
adolescents and their parents; collected data were treated in accordance with the
respective national law.
Measures
Political efficacy. Adolescents’ beliefs that they can achieve any change or stop
the negative development in their communities (town districts, villages) were assessed.
We used the scale that was piloted and used among late adolescents in our previous
studies (Šerek & Macek, 2010). Participants were instructed that people may disagree, if
they are able to influence decisions taken in their municipalities (introductory example
of such an issue was added – planned construction of a highway in a neighborhood).
Then they expressed their agreement with six general statements, on a four-point
response scale that ranged from “completely disagree” to “completely agree.” Sample
item: “The effort to change something in my surroundings is usually condemned to
failure.” All items can be found in the Appendix. Alpha reliability in the present study
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 9
was .77.
Perceived frequency of interparental conflicts. Perceived amount of
interparental conflicts was measured. We used the combination of complete subscales
“Frequency” and “Intensity” from the Czech adaptation of the Children’s Perceptions of
Interparental Conflict Scale (Grych et al., 1992; Lacinová, Michalčáková, & Ježek,
2008). Adolescents were asked 10 items with three response alternatives: “true,” “sort of
true” and “false.” Sample item: “I never see my parents arguing or disagreeing.” Alpha
reliabilities were .91 at both T1 and T2.
Perceived interparental conflict efficacy. We captured participants’ perceived
chance to interfere in the interparental conflict and affect it. All five questions from the
“Coping Efficacy” subscale of the Czech adaptation of the Children’s Perceptions of
Interparental Conflict Scale were used. A response scale was: “true,” “sort of true” and
“false.” Sample item: “When my parents argue or disagree, I can usually help make
things better.” All items can be found in the Appendix. Alphas were .75 at T1 and .74 at
T2.
Depressive mood. Adolescents’ depressive feelings were assessed by the Czech
adaptation of the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (Masopustová, Michalčáková,
Lacinová, & Ježek, 2008; Sund, Larsson, & Wichstrøm, 2001). Participants were
instructed: “Following questions ask how did you feel in the last 14 days.” They were
offered 15 items with a response scale of “true,” “sometimes true” and “false.” Sample
item: “I thought there was nothing good for me in the future.” Alpha reliabilities were
.88 at T1 and .92 at T2.
Avoidant coping style. We measured participants’ diversion from the problems,
and purposeful evasion of the problems. Five items (out of 11) with the best
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 10
psychometric properties were drawn from the “Deflection” subscale of the Coping Style
Inventory (Kohoutek, Mareš, & Ježek, 2008; Seiffge-Krenke, 1995). Participants were
instructed to assess how they usually responded to difficult situations, using a four-point
response scale that ranged from “not true” to “completely true.” Sample item: “I try to
do something that helps me to forget the problem.” Alphas were .66 at T1 and .70 at T2.
Personality traits. Three complete subscales from the Czech standardization of
the Big Five NEO-FFI (Hřebíčková & Urbánek, 2001) were used to assess adolescents’
neuroticism (12 items, alpha .85), extraversion (12 items, alpha .79), and openness (12
items, alpha .58).
Data analysis
A structural equation modeling approach (Mplus 6.1 software) was used. All
models were estimated by the full information maximum likelihood estimator in order
to make use of all available information, including cases with some missing data
(covariance coverage of the data ranged from 66 % to 100 %). Model fit was measured
by the χ2
statistic, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA). To assure that non-normality did not affect our results, we
reestimated standard errors of the coefficients also by bootstrapping (5,000 random
samples with replacement). Likewise, indirect effects were assessed by bias-corrected
bootstrapped confidence intervals (Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Shrout & Bolger, 2002).
Measured constructs were treated as fully latent or single-indicator latent
variables. First of all, we checked whether the scales were one-dimensional, whether the
items had sufficient factor loadings (> .40), and whether these factor loadings remained
stable over time (measurement invariance), using exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses. Three constructs measured by scales that are not as widely used and which
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 11
consist of lower numbers of items (political efficacy, interparental conflict efficacy, and
avoidant coping style) were treated as fully latent, with respective items as their
indicators. By contrast, five constructs measured by well-established scales with 10 or
more items (perceived frequency of interparental conflicts, depressive mood, and three
personality traits) were treated as single-indicator latent variables. The single indicators
were computed by averaging the scale items, and their error terms were set to account
for 1 minus alpha reliability of the variance (Kline, 2005). For depressive mood and
perceived frequency of interparental conflicts, we set the alphas to be .90, which was in
accordance with our results as well as with previous studies. Alphas for the Big Five
personality traits were set according to the national standardization (Hřebíčková &
Urbánek, 2001), hence .80 for neuroticism, .80 for extraversion, and .70 for openness.
To test our hypotheses, we estimated a structural model having political efficacy
as the dependent variable. The model contained four predictors: perceived frequency of
interparental conflicts, interparental conflict efficacy, avoidant coping style, and
depressive mood. All predictors were measured at two time points – T1 (age 15) and T2
(age 17) – while political efficacy was measured only at T2. In the first step, we
estimated a full model where every predictor at T1 predicted every predictor at T2,
every predictor at T2 predicted political efficacy, all predictors at T1 were allowed to
intercorrelate, and all error terms of predictors at T2 were allowed to intercorrelate.
Then we removed all irrelevant paths and compared the restricted model with the full
one by a χ2
-difference test. By scrutinizing the restricted model, we found out whether
paths representing our hypotheses were significant and relevant.
Finally, we tested whether the paths implied by our hypotheses remained
significant and relevant after we controlled for personality traits. Since Big Five
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 12
personality traits become relatively stable in late adolescence (Klimstra, Hale,
Raaijmakers, Branje, & Meeus, 2009; De Fruyt et al., 2006), we used their measurement
at T1 only. Variables representing personality traits were added to the restricted model
and were set to predict all predictors at T1 and political efficacy. Then we checked
whether adding personality traits changed investigated path coefficients.
Results
Preliminary analysis
Factor analysis confirmed that all measures except for openness had good
properties (see Tab. 1). Six items measuring political efficacy formed a one-dimensional
scale. Only one factor with an eigenvalue higher than one was extracted by exploratory
factor analysis. Moreover, a confirmatory model assuming one latent factor and
uncorrelated residuals reached good fit and estimated high factor loadings. The scales
measuring interparental conflict efficacy and avoidant coping style proved to be onedimensional
(having uncorrelated residuals), and they retained full measurement
invariance over time. The perceived frequency of conflicts scale also appeared to be
one-dimensional (some residuals at both times had to be allowed to correlate), and
having full measurement invariance. Regarding depressive mood, the scale was onedimensional
(some residuals had to be allowed to correlate) with almost full
measurement invariance because intercepts of three items (out of 15) could not be
constrained to be the same over time. The neuroticism scale was one-dimensional,
having some residuals correlated, and the same was true for extraversion. The latter
scale had one item with relatively low factor loading. Openness appeared to be the most
problematic scale, having only five items with factor loading above .40, which was
reflected in its poor reliability (see the Measures section). Although we used the
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 13
nationally standardized measure, all results concerning this scale must be taken very
cautiously.
Descriptive statistics
Correlation analysis of summary scales showed that political efficacy was
weakly but significantly associated with interparental conflict efficacy, while its
association with the perceived frequency of conflicts was even weaker and barely
significant. Depressive mood was significantly associated with both interparental
conflict perceptions and political efficacy, suggesting that depressive mood is a possible
mediator of their relation. This was not true for avoidant coping style, since it correlated
with political efficacy but not with interparental conflict frequency or efficacy (see Tab.
2).
Interparental conflict efficacy and political efficacy
The relations between interparental conflict perceptions and political efficacy
were tested as a structural model. The full model, containing paths from every T1
predictor to every T2 predictor, and from all T2 predictors to political efficacy, reached
an acceptable fit (χ2
387 = 626.915; CFI = .91; RMSEA = .04). However, several paths
appeared to be weak and non-significant; removal of these paths did not significantly
worsen model fit (Δχ2
14 = 10.22; p = .75). Fig. 1 presents this final restricted model
(χ2
401 = 637.131; CFI = .91; RMSEA = .04). Bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples
brought very similar results. With one exception (see Fig. 1), all paths remained
significant at the .05 level when bootstraped standard errors were employed.
Results suggested that there was significant direct association between
interparental conflict efficacy and political efficacy (β = .14, p = .03), controlling for
conflict frequency, avoidant coping style, and depressive mood. Moreover, this path
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 14
could not be fixed to zero without a significant drop in model fit (Δχ2
1 = 4.91; p = .03).
Political efficacy was also significantly predicted by depressive mood and avoidant
coping style, but not by perceived frequency of interparental conflicts.
Indirect effects of perceived conflict frequency on political efficacy
Perceived conflict frequency at T1 predicted an increase in depressive mood at
T2 (β = .12; p = .02), which was significantly associated with political efficacy (β = .19;
p < .01). In other words, people perceiving more interparental conflicts at the age of
15 came to feel more depressive two years later, which was associated with a less
efficacious view on community issues. However, the indirect effect was tiny and on the
edge of significance. Using bootstrap estimates of 95% bias-corrected standardized
confidence intervals, the indirect effect ranged from slightly above .00 to .05.
We found no association between avoidant coping style and perceived frequency
of interparental conflict since all paths between them could be removed. In other words,
people reporting more interparental conflict did not tend to respond to problems by
avoiding them. Therefore, no indirect effect of perceived conflict frequency on political
efficacy via avoidant coping style was possible.
Finally, the change in interparental conflict efficacy between T1 and T2 was not
predicted by conflict frequency. It means that perceived higher level of interparental
conflicts did not cause a drop in interparental conflict efficacy. Thus, there could be no
indirect effect between conflict frequency and political efficacy via interparental
conflict efficacy.
Personality traits
Finally, we tested whether or not the association between interparental conflict
perceptions and political efficacy is spurious, given various personality traits. We
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 15
extended the model in Fig. 1 by adding exogenous variables representing three
personality traits (measured at T1). In order to retain a reasonable ratio between free
parameters and sample size, (1) we removed avoidant coping style, which had no
relation to interparental conflict, from the model, and (2) we added personality traits to
the model separately; hence we estimated three structural models.
All associations remained unchanged when were controlled for the personality
traits. The path from interparental conflict efficacy to political efficacy, and the paths
from perceived conflict frequency to depressive mood and from depressive mood to
political efficacy, remained significant even when we controlled for personality traits.
Neuroticism and extraversion were significantly associated with predictors, but not with
political efficacy. On the other hand, openness was significantly associated with
political efficacy but not with its predictors (see Tab. 3). These results allow stronger
interpretation of discovered predictions of political efficacy.
Discussion
Our study identifies two pathways linking interparental conflict perceptions with
political efficacy. First, perceived interparental conflict efficacy is positively associated
with political efficacy. Young people who perceive themselves as able to achieve
something positive with arguing parents perceive that they have more influence in their
communities, as well. One possible explanation is that perceptions of efficacy within the
family generalize to perceptions of efficacy in politics, because of similarities between
these two contexts arising from the common presence of hierarchy, conflict, and
subordinate position of adolescents/citizens. When adolescents think about politics and
their roles in that context, their family schemata are activated (similar to the findings on
political trust by Gniewosz et al., 2009). However, more in-depth analysis is needed to
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 16
uncover the mechanisms and conditions of that possible generalization. Specific
perceptions associated with political efficacy should be identified. For example, do
adolescents' perceptions that they are not taken seriously by parents/authorities matter?
Or do their assessments of their own capabilities, such as negotiating and voicing one’s
own opinion, play a role? The former perception would be associated with the external
aspect of political efficacy, while the latter perception would be associated with the
internal aspect. Next, interparental conflict efficacy can be a part of a broader set of
adolescents' family perceptions that affect political efficacy as a whole. For instance,
further studies should consider so-called ‘filial efficacy’, understood as adolescents’
perceived capacity to communicate and manage difficult situations in parent-child
relationships, overreaching the area of interparental conflict (Caprara, Regalia, Scabini,
Barbaranelli, & Bandura, 2004). Moreover, the described effect might be transient and
specific for a given age. As adolescents acquire an increasing volume of political
information and personal political experience on their way to adulthood, their political
efficacy may start to mirror those explicitly political lessons, and become less reliant on
nonpolitical schemata.
Another possible explanation for the association between interparental conflict
efficacy and political efficacy is that both beliefs are related to some more general
personality trait that is already formed at the age of 15 and that makes young people feel
effective in managing their environments. We controlled for Big Five personality traits,
but other characteristics should be considered (note also that our measure of openness
had poor quality). For example, some studies have found that generalized belief in
control over person's life, that may be responsible for high conflict efficacy, correlates
also with a belief in control over community events (Israel, Checkoway, Schulz, &
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 17
Zimmerman, 1994; Zimmerman, 1990; 1995). Similarly, life optimism is expected to
boost both coping with interparental conflict (Robinson, 2009) and political efficacy
(Beaumont, 2010). Finally, attachment theory suggests that internal working models,
representing young people’s general expectations about social relationships, are formed
in childhood (Bowlby, 1973; Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). These models are
relatively stable (Hamilton, 2000), and might drive adolescent’s efficacy perceptions in
both contexts. The examples suggest that greater number of personality variables must
be controlled in future studies in order to bring conclusive evidence about the relation
between interparental conflict efficacy and political efficacy.
A second pathway concerns the finding that adolescents who perceived frequent
conflicts between their parents became more depressed during late adolescence, which
in turn was associated with a lower level of political efficacy. The association between
depression and low political efficacy makes intuitive sense because depressive mood is
characterized by persons’ pervasive feelings that negative events are uncontrollable
(Abela & Hankin, 2008). Recent studies have found that people with depression are
somewhat alienated from the political system: they have lower voter turnout in local
election (Lofors & Sundquist, 2007) and trust less in political institutions (Lindstrom &
Mohseni, 2009; authors refer to “mental health” that is measured by questions similar to
our measurement of depressive mood). Our study helps to explain these findings by
revealing that low political efficacy, known to predict low political participation
(Zimmerman, 1990; Zukin et al., 2006), may play a role here. Moreover, the results
suggest that the developmental origins of increased depressive mood, which affects
political efficacy, may be partially found in the negative family events. Specifically,
frequent interparental conflicts seem to matter, which is consistent with previous
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 18
findings that depressogenic schemata about deficiency of the self and uncontrollability
of the world are established in adolescents during such conflicts (Rudolph,
Kurlakowksy, & Conley, 2001). It should be noted that the indirect effect from conflict
frequency to political efficacy via depressive mood was rather inconclusive in our data.
One probable reason is that considerable part of the effect of conflict frequency on
depressive mood happens before the age of 15 (O’Donnell et al., 2010). Also, more
nuanced measures of depression, focusing solely on its cognitive control-related aspect,
could bring more convincing results.
Some of our expectations have not been confirmed. Adolescents who tend to
solve problems by avoiding them feel less efficacious in their communities, but their
avoidant coping style has not been show to have a relation to their interparental conflict
perceptions. The finding that adolescents from families with frequent interparental
conflicts do not acquire an avoidant coping style contradicts some previous studies (e.
g., Michael et al., 2007). However, it can be explained by the fact that avoidant coping
is not directly influenced by perceived conflict frequency, but depends instead on the
adolescent’s perception of threat, which does not have to be the same as perceived
frequency (Shelton & Harold, 2008). Another unsupported expectation is that
adolescents who perceive a high number of interparental conflicts come to feel less
efficacious in this area. Although young people who perceive frequent conflicts feel
considerably less efficacious, their interparental conflict efficacy is already stable and
does not change because of conflict frequency in late adolescence. It is possible that the
interparental conflict efficacy is established earlier in adolescence, similarly to some
other interparental conflict perceptions, such as perceived self-blame (Richmond &
Stocker, 2007).
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 19
One remark should be made concerning the political efficacy scale that we
employed. As mentioned above, political efficacy is usually understood to be composed
of two interrelated beliefs (Bandura, 1997). Although our scale contains items assessing
perceptions both of individuals and of the political system, it does not ask explicitly
about perceived personal capabilities and resources. Therefore, political efficacy
captured by this scale differs from what studies refer to as ‘political self-efficacy’
(Caprara, Vecchione, Capanna, & Mebane, 2009) or ‘internal political efficacy’
(Beaumont, 2010). Rather, it captures so-called ‘external political efficacy’ (Beaumont,
2010), because it assesses the belief that a person can influence the social system in
terms of system responsiveness and opportunities. A more fine-tuned analysis, using
various political efficacy scales, is needed.
Our study had several limitations, beyond those already mentioned. First, tested
models were not fully longitudinal, as they did not meet all criteria suggested by Cole
and Maxwell (2003). Specifically, we did not control for the initial level of political
efficacy since it was not measured at T1. Methodologically speaking, presented
predictions of political efficacy should be understood in terms of association, rather than
causality. Instead of concluding that specific interparental conflict perceptions cause
changes in political efficacy, we should conclude that those perceptions are associated
with a certain level of political efficacy. Second, our data came from a longitudinal
study with considerable dropout (see the Method section); therefore, it is possible that
children from families with serious problems systematically dropped the study and thus
were not included in the sample (Magnusson, Bergman, Rudinger, & Torestad, 1994).
Thus, we should take into account the risk that our study was conducted mostly on
adolescents from families with a rather low frequency of interparental conflict, which
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 20
would have an impact on the generalizability of the results. Studied effects might be
underestimated because of low variance in interparental conflict perceptions. Third, all
the effects we found were small; hence they should be taken cautiously until they are
confirmed by other studies. Finally, our results cannot be simply related to political
behavior since other factors such as perceived norms or behavioral skills come to play
along with political efficacy (Glasford, 2008).
The main contribution of the present study is that it offers a broader view of the
relation between family and political efficacy. Existing research on the role of parents in
political socialization usually focuses on parental political beliefs, values, and political
behavior (Jennings, 2004; Zukin et al., 2006). We have broadened this perspective by
focusing on adolescents’ family experiences that have no explicit political content but
can be linked to politics indirectly. If certain family perceptions served as a model for
political efficacy, it would give a new meaning to the well-known feminist saying that
“the personal is political.” The political development of adolescents would not be
separate from their family experiences, and private interactions between adolescents and
their parents would have more far-reaching consequences than might previously have
been expected. Such findings would put more pressure on parents who want to bring up
responsible citizens, since not only political discussions, joint civic activities, or
political persuasion (Beaumont, 2011), but also seemingly nonpolitical experiences may
help to form adolescents’ views on politics. It must be noted that our study is only a
starting point, and that further in-depth research needs to be conducted. However, it
shows a previously unexplored way to better understand adolescents’ political
development.
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 21
References
Abela, R. Z., & Hankin, B. L. (2008). Cognitive vulnerability to depression in children
and adolescents: A developmental psychopathology perspective. In R. Z. Abela
& B. L. Hankin (Eds.), Handbook of depression in children and adolescents (35-
78). New York: Guilford Press.
Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, F. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: A
theory based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358-372.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating
behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 125-139.
Beaumont, E. (2010). Working toward political agency and empowerment: Identifying
pathways to political efficacy in young adults. In L. Sherrod, C. Flanagan, & J.
Torney-Purta (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy on youth civic
engagement (pp. 525-558). Hoboken: Wiley.
Beaumont, E. (2011). Promoting political agency, addressing political inequality: A
multilevel model of internal political efficacy. The Journal of Politics, 73, 216-
231.
Beck, A. T. (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: New perspectives. In P. J. Clayton
& J. E. Barrett (Eds.), Treatment of depression: Old controversies and new
approaches (pp. 256-284). New York: Raven Press.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment
relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89-
111). New York: Guilford Press.
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 22
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loos: Vol.2. Separation: Anxiety and Anger. New
York: Basics Books.
Brody, E. B., Hatfield, B. D., & Spalding, T. W. (1988). Generalization of self-efficacy
to a continuum of stressors upon mastery of a high-risk sport skill. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 32-44.
Buehler, C., Lange, G., & Franck, K. L. (2007). Adolescents' cognitive and emotional
Rresponses to marital hostility. Child Development, 78, 775-789.
Camino, L., & Zeldin, S. (2002). From periphery to center: Pathways for youth civic
engagement in the day-to-day life of communities. Applied Developmental
Science, 6, 213-220.
Caprara, G. V., Regalia, C., Scabini, E., Barbaranelli, C., & Bandura, A. (2004).
Assessment of filial, parental, marital, and collective family efficacy beliefs.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20, 247-261.
Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Capanna, C., & Mebane, M. (2009). Perceived political
self-efficacy: Theory, assessment, and applications. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 39, 1002-1020.
Císař, O. (2008). Politický aktivismus v České republice: Sociální hnutí a občanská
společnost v období transformace a evropeizace [Political activism in the Czech
Republic: Social movements and civil society in the eras of transformation and
europeanization]. Brno: Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury.
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal
data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558-577.
Davies, P. T., & Forman, E. M. (2002). Children's patterns of preserving emotional
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 23
security in the interparental subsystem. Child Development, 73, 1880-1903.
De Fruyt, F., Bartels, M., Van Leeuwen, K. G., De Clercq, B., Decuyper, M., &
Mervielde, I., (2006). Five types of personality continuity in childhood and
adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 538-552.
Glasford, D. E. (2008). Predicting voting behavior of young adults: The importance of
information, motivation, and behavioral Skills. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 38, 2648-2672.
Gniewosz, B., Noack, P., & Buhl, M. (2009). Political alienation in adolescence:
Associations with parental role models, parenting styles, and classroom climate.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33, 337-346.
Grych, J. H., & Cardoza-Fernandes, S. (2001). Understanding the impact of
interparental conflict on children: The role of social cognitive processes. In J. H.
Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development (pp.
157-187). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children's adjustment: A
cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290.
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1993). Children’s appraisals of marital conflict: Intial
investigations of the congnitive-contextual framework. Child Development, 64,
215-230.
Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the
child's perspective: The Children's Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale.
Child Development, 63, 558-572.
Hamilton, C.E. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from infancy
through adolescence. Child Development, 71, 690-694.
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 24
Hřebíčková, M., & Urbánek, T. (2001). NEO pětifaktorový osobnostní inventář [NEO
Five-factor personality inventory]. Praha: Testcentrum.
Israel, B. A., Checkoway, B., Schulz, A., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1994). Health
education and community empowerment: Conceptualizing and measuring
perceptions of individual, organizational, and community control. Health
Education Quarterly, 21, 149-170.
Jennings, M. K. (2004). American political participation viewed through the lens of the
political socialization project. In M. G. Hermann (Ed.), Advances in political
psychology (pp. 1-18). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Ježek, S., Lacinová, L., Širůček, J., & Michalčáková, R. (2008). The psychological
branch of the ELSPAC Study: A Survey of 15-Year-Old Respondents. In L.
Lacinová & S. Ježek (Eds.), Fifteen-year-olds in Brno: A slice of longitudinal
self-reports (pp. 7-11). Brno: Masaryk University. Retrieved from
http://is.muni.cz/repo/806682/chapter01Intro.pdf/publication/806682
Kerig, P. K. (1998). Moderators and mediators of the effects of interparental conflict on
children's adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 199-212.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., Biesecker, G., & Ferrer-Wreder, L. (2003). Relationships with
parents and peers in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, M. A. Easterbrooks, & J.
Mistry (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol 6. Developmental psychology (pp.
395-419). Hoboken: Wiley.
Klimstra, T. A., Hale, W. W. III, Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H.
J. (2009). Maturation of personality in adolescence. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96, 898-912.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 25
Guilford Press.
Kohoutek, T., Mareš, J., & Ježek, S. (2008). Coping in adolescence. In L. Lacinová & S.
Ježek (Eds.), Fifteen-year-olds in Brno: A slice of longitudinal self-reports (pp.
55-64). Brno: Masaryk University. Retrieved from
http://is.muni.cz/repo/806692/chapter07Coping.pdf/publication/806692
La Due Lake, R., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Social capital, social networks, and political
participation. Political Psychology, 19, 567-584.
Lacinová, L., Michalčáková, R., & Ježek, S. (2008). Interparental conflict as perceived
by adolescents. In L. Lacinová & S. Ježek (Eds.), Fifteen-year-olds in Brno: A
slice of longitudinal self-reports (pp. 131-138). Brno: Masaryk University.
Retrieved from
http://is.muni.cz/repo/806681/chapter17CPIC.pdf/publication/806681
Lindstrom, M., & Mohseni, M. (2009). Social capital, political trust and self-reported
psychological health: A population-based study. Social Science & Medicine, 68,
436-443.
Lofors, J., & Sundquist, K. (2007). Low-linking social capital as a predictor of mental
disorders: A cohort study of 4.5 million Swedes. Social Science & Medicine, 64,
21-34.
Magnusson, D., Bergman, L. R., Rudinger, G., & Torestad, B. (1994). Problems and
methods in longitudinal research: Stability and change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Masopustová, Z., Michalčáková, R., Lacinová, L., & Ježek, S. (2008). Depressive
symptoms in adolescence. In L. Lacinová & S. Ježek (Eds.), Fifteen-year-olds in
Brno: A slice of longitudinal self-reports (pp. 71-76). Brno: Masaryk University.
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 26
Retrieved from
http://is.muni.cz/repo/806683/chapter09Depression.pdf/publication/806683
McAdam, D., Sampson, R. J., Weffer, S., & MacIndoe, H. (2005). “There will be
fighting in the streets”: The distorting lens of social movement theory.
Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 10, 1-18.
Michael, K. C., Torres, A., & Seemann, E. A. (2007). Adolescents' health habits, coping
styles and self-concept are predicted by exposure to interparental conflict.
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 48, 155.
Millikan, E., Wamboldt, M. Z., & Bihun, J. T. (2002). Perceptions of the family,
personality characteristics, and adolescent internalizing symptoms. Journal of
the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 1486-1494.
Muris, P. (2002). Relationships between self-efficacy and symptoms of anxiety
disorders and depression in a normal adolescent sample. Personality and
Individual Differences, 32, 337-348.
Mondak, J. J., & Halperin, K. D. (2008). A Framework for the study of personality and
political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 335-362.
Nicolotti, L., El-Sheikh, M., & Whitson, S. M. (2003). Children's coping with marital
conflict and their adjustment and physical health: Vulnerability and protective
functions. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 315-326.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1992). Predictors and
consequences of childhood depressive symptoms: A 5-year longitudinal study.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 405-422.
O’Donnell, E. H., Moreau, M., Cardemil, E. V., & Pollastri, A. (2010). Interparental
conflict, parenting, and childhood depression in a diverse urban population: The
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 27
role of general cognitive style. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 12-22.
Persson, A., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2007). Staying in or moving away from structured
activities: Explanations involving parents and peers. Developmental Psychology,
43, 197-207.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
Richmond, M. K., & Stocker, C. M. (2003). Siblings' differential experiences of marital
conflict and differences in psychological adjustment. Journal of Family
Psychology, 17, 339-350.
Richmond, M. K., & Stocker, C. M. (2007). Changes in children’s appraisals of marital
discord from childhood through adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 21,
416–425.
Robinson, J. H. (2009). Interparental conflict and child adjustment: the role of child
optimism [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. University of Iowa. Retrieved from
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/424
Rudolph, K. D., Kurlakowsky, K. D., & Conley, C. S. (2001). Developmental and
social-contextual origins of depressive control-related beliefs and behavior.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 447-475.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1995). Stress, coping, and relationships in adolescence. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Šerek, J., & Macek, P. (2010). Proč se politicky (ne)angažovat: Obsah a struktura
přesvědčení u adolescentů [Why (not) to become politically engaged: Content
and structure of beliefs in adolescents]. Československá psychologie, 54, 160-
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 28
174.
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 91-100.
Shelton, K. H., & Harold, G. T. (2008). Pathways between interparental conflict and
adolescent psychological adjustment: Bridging links through children's cognitive
appraisals and coping strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 28, 555-582.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental
studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-
445.
Sund, A. M., Larsson, B., & Wichstrøm, L. (2001). Depressive symptoms among young
Norwegian adolescents as measured by The Mood and Feelings Questionnaire
(MFQ). European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 10, 222-229.
Sweeney, P. D., Anderson, K., & Bailey, S. (1986). Attributional style in depression: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 974-
991.
Vecchione, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2009). Personality determinants of political
participation: The contribution of traits and self-efficacy beliefs. Personality and
Individual Differences, 46, 487-492.
Weitlauf, J., Cervone, D., Smith, R., & Wright, P. (2001). Assessing generalization in
perceived self-efficacy: Multidomain and global assessments of the effects of
self-defense training for women. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
1683-1691.
Whitton, S. W., Larson, J. J., & Hauser, S. T. (2008). Depressive symptoms and bias in
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 29
perceived social competence among young adults. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 64, 791-805.
Youniss, J., Bales, S., Christmas-Best, V., Diversi, M., McLaughlin, M., & Silbereisen,
R. (2002). Youth civic engagement in the twenty-first century. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 12, 121.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1990). Toward a theory of learned hopefulness: A structural model
analysis of participation and empowerment. Journal of Research in Personality,
24, 71-86.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 581-599.
Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2006). A new
engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American
citizen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 30
Table 1
Confirmatory factor analysis of the measures.
Fit indices Std. factor loadings
Measure N of items χ2
(df) CFI RMSEA Min Med Max
Political efficacy 6 26.80 (9) .97 .07 .54 .61 .65
Frequency of conflicts* 10 + 10 405.15 (172) .95 .06 .61 .70 .81
Interpar. con. Efficacy* 5 + 5 83.83 (39) .95 .05 .51 .60 .75
Depressive mood* 15 + 15 832.19 (406) .91 .05 .52 .63 .80
Avoidant coping style* 5 + 5 55.38 (39) .97 .03 .44 .57 .63
Neuroticism 12 97.08 (49) .95 .06 .43 .53 .71
Extraversion 12 92.79 (49) .95 .05 .23 .49 .74
Openness 12 98.73 (50) .85 .06 .05 .31 .62
Note. Min = the lowest standardized factor loading; Med = median standardized factor loading; Max = the highest standardized factor loading.
* Confirmatory models with two correlated latent factors (T1 and T2), and constraining every item to have the same factor loading and intercept
at both times were estimated for these measures. Residuals of the same items at different times were allowed to correlate.
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 31
Table 2
Summary of intercorrelations, means, and standard deviations for summary scores of political efficacy, perceived interparental conflict
frequency, interparental conflict efficacy, depressive mood, and avoidant coping style.
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Political efficacy (T2)
2. Frequency of conflicts (T1) -.10
3. Frequency of conflicts (T2) -.12* .72**
4. Interpar. con. Efficacy (T1) .20** -.29** -.29**
5. Interpar. con. Efficacy (T2) .16** -.20** -.33** .53**
6. Depressive mood (T1) -.17** .26** .17** -.23** -.19**
7. Depressive mood (T2) -.22** .26** .23** -.16** -.22** .56**
8. Avoidant coping style (T1) -.14* .03 -.02 -.08 -.10 .18** .00
9. Avoidant coping style (T2) -.15** .08 .04 -.08 -.12* .26** .24** .55**
10. Neuroticism (T1) -.14* .25** .20** -.24** -.27** .65** .48** .21** .26**
11. Extraversion (T1) .08 -.04 -.06 .22** .21** -.26** -.26** -.15* -.15** -.44**
12. Openness (T1) .21** -.02 .02 .08 .04 .03 .04 -.19** -.13* .08 .05
M 2.63 1.67 1.70 1.94 2.05 1.44 1.58 2.30 2.30 1.67 2.73 2.21
SD .50 .51 .53 .50 .48 .37 .45 .61 .63 .68 .59 .47
Note. For all scales, higher scores mean more extreme answers in the direction of the construct.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 32
Table 3
Selected path coefficients and fit statistics of three structural models predicting political efficacy and controlling for neuroticism, extraversion, or
openness.
Personality trait added to the model
Neuroticism Extraversion Openness
Path β β β
PT (T1)  Dep (T1) .77** -.32** .03
PT (T1)  Frq (T1) .30** -.06 -.02
PT (T1)  ICE (T1) -.38** .34** .12
PT (T1)  PE (T2) .06 .01 .28**
ICE T2  PE (T2) .14* .15* .13*
Frq (T1)  Dep (T2) .13** .13** .14**
Dep (T2)  PE (T2) -.20** -.23** -.25**
χ2
(df) 339.09 (183) 345.48 (183) 348.50 (183)
CFI .93 .92 .92
RMSEA .04 .05 .05
Note. Completely standardized full information maximum likelihood parameter estimates are reported. PT = Personality trait added to the model;
Dep = Depressive mood; Frq = Perceived frequency of interparental conflicts; ICE = Interparental conflict efficacy; PE = Political efficacy.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Running head: INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY 33
Figure 1. Structural model predicting political efficacy at T2 from three predictors measured
at two time points. Completely standardized full information maximum likelihood parameter
estimates are reported. For the sake of clarity, only latent variables and their relations are
shown.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
† Path became significant only at the .06 level when bootstrapped standard errors were used.