Parenting and adolescent well-being in two European countries.

Ciairano, Silvia ; Kliewer, Wendy ; Bonino, Silvia 等

Parents may facilitate adolescents' general adjustment through a combination of demandingness and responsiveness (Baumrind, 1971; 1989; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Scabini, 1995; Steinberg, 2001). Demandingness refers to the extent to which parents show control, demand maturity, and supervise their children; responsiveness refers to the extent to which parents are warm, accepting, and involved. Parents who are at least moderately demanding--usually through establishing and enforcing boundaries for behavior--and are moderate to high on responsiveness generally have adolescents who are well-adjusted (Aunola, Stattin, & Nurmi, 2000; Steinberg, 2001). This association has been observed among families in the United States as well as in other countries (Meeus, Helsen, & Vollebergh, 1996; Steinberg, 2001).

Despite the vast amount of research on parenting behavior and adolescent adjustment, several questions remain. From an ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) marcrosystem influences such as the role of national context in affecting the impact of parenting behavior on adolescent adjustment are not well understood. Most research on parenting has been conducted within a North America context. It is unclear to what extent North American culture might account for observed associations between parenting behavior and adjustment. Thus, the central purpose of the present study was to examine associations of parenting behavior--specifically behavioral control and support, which are aspects of demandingness and responsiveness--on adolescent adjustment in two European countries.

Culture and Parenting

As Harness and Super (2002) note in their chapter on Culture and Parenting, parenting is culturally constructed. Historical features of cultures influence the ways in which parents care for children in a society, which in turn have lasting psychological and physiological effects on members of that society (Whiting & Edwards, 1988). There is strong empirical evidence that parental goals shape how parents and children interact. Studies comparing families in North America and Europe have found that across these continents parents tend to emphasize different values or characteristics in their children (Harkness, Super, & van Tijen, 2000) and thus interpret child behavior differently. In the United States, authoritarian parenting, which is characterized by high levels of control and emphasis on parental power, predominates in adolescence. In contrast, in some European countries (e.g., Denmark and Germany), authoritiative parenting, which is characterized by shared decision making, is more common during this period of development (Kandel & Lesser, 1969). Despite the fact that authoritative parenting is not the most common parenting style in the United States, there are clear benefits to this parenting style for youth. In studies conducted in the United States, adolescents with parents who were firm, warm, and involved enjoyed the best adjustment relative to adolescents exposed to other parenting styles (Steinberg, 2001). These adolescents had higher levels of achievement, less depression and anxiety, greater self-regulation and self-esteem, and lower levels of antisocial behavior. Importantly, data from multiple studies show that the benefits of firm, warm, and involved (i.e., authoritative) parenting transcend ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and household composition (Steinberg, 2001).

The present study investigated parenting behavior in two samples of adolescents living in northern Italy and in The Netherlands. Parenting norms are quite different in these two countries, as well as different from North America, making these countries ideal settings in which to investigate the extent to which associations of parenting behavior and adolescent adjustment are similar to or different from associations observed in the United States. Italy is characterized by close, often intense, familial relationships (Claes, 1998). Currently the modal number of children in Italian families is one. Children typically live with their families until early adulthood, due in part to the delayed age of marriage, low rates ofpre-martial cohabitation, and difficulties finding employment, and thus the transition to adulthood is delayed (Bonino, Cattelino, & Ciairano, 2005). In the Netherlands, children typically leave the family well before marriage, often to attend the University. Cohabitation with peers of the same or opposite sex is quite common. Parent-child relationships tend not to be as intense as those of Italian families, and the family in general is less central to daily life. With respect to control of behavior during adolescence, Italians are more liberal with respect to drinking alcohol and smoking, but less liberal on issues of sexual expression relative to The Netherlands. A portion of these differences is reflective of the religious and political cultures of these nations. Italy is a Catholic country, and relatively conservative. Divorce and abortion have been legal only since the 1980s, and traditional sex roles are still quite common, although this is changing. The Netherlands is a relatively liberal country with respect to health, sexual behavior, and morality. Central to the Dutch constitution are the principles of non-discrimination and the right to privacy. A core belief is that people are responsible for both their own and others' health and that moralizing is not of any help. The Netherlands have a much more pragmatic approach than Italy to social problems, and also uses consensus to arrive at public policy (Ciairano, 2004; Sandfort, 1998). However, the Netherlands is traditional in the sense that in families with young children, the husband tends to work and the wife cares for the children at home.

In our analyses we chose to use the full range of values for parenting support and control so that significant percentages of parents would not be excluded. Thus, we did not construct a parenting "style" variable. In previous studies that have employed parenting typologies (e.g., Baumrind, 1991; Slicker, 1998), up to 40% of families who fall in the middle range have been excluded. We examined both the main effects of parental support and control and their interactions on adolescent adjustment.

Parenting in Different Developmental Periods

A second issue related to parenting is that relatively less research has been conducted with middle and late adolescents, relative to early adolescents, although with the interest in emerging adulthood this is changing. The parent-child relationship changes across the period of adolescence, with conflict increasing from early to middle adolescence, then stabilizing (Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998). Changes in cognitive, social and emotional development across adolescence suggest that each phase of adolescence requires a different mix of parental control and encouragement of emancipation. Younger adolescents, though they are striving for autonomy, are still cognitively and socially immature, and thus in greater need of parental limit setting. Higher levels of parental control in later adolescence, by contrast, may reflect the inability of parents to allow their offspring to individuate from the family, and thus may be less healthy and more likely to be perceived by the adolescent as negative. The best research suggests that healthy individuation is fostered by close family relationships (Steinberg & Silk, 2002). Connectedness between parents and adolescents enhance adolescent life satisfaction and pyschological well-being and prepares adolescents for adult relationships outside the family. A second purpose of this paper was to investigate associations of parenting behavior and adjustment among middle and late adolescents.

Gender Differences in Response to Parenting

In addition to age, males and females may respond differently to parental control, though gender differences might be more evident in cultures such as Italy where traditional sex roles are common. Across most cultures, males are socialized to be more independent and to individuate from the family more quickly than females (Leaper, 2002). Thus, parental control may have different meanings for males and females, particularly toward the later part of adolescence. A third aim of this study was to investigate these gender differences in response to parenting behavior.

Parenting Behavior and Differential Aspects of Adjustment in Adolescence

In addition to cultural, developmental, and gender influences on the relation between parenting behavior and adjustment in adolescence, we would expect that the associations might differ across the type of outcome studied. Aunola et al. (2000) suggested that studies of parental influence on adolescents include a broader range of outcomes, with specific attention to positive as well as negative adjustment. In the present study we included both positive and negative indicators of adjustment: (1) psychological discomfort, which reflects feelings of depression and alienation, (2) positive self-perception, which reflects a sense of personal efficacy and satisfaction, and (3) expectations of future success. In general we expected that high levels of parental support and control would be associated with more adaptive outcomes.

In summary, middle and late adolescents from Italy and The Netherlands were studied to assess the influence of culture, age, and gender on the associations between parental support and parental control on adjustment. We also anticipated developmental differences, with parental control having a more negative impact on older, versus younger, adolescents, and gender differences, with parental control being more strongly associated with negative outcomes for males versus females, given the societal push for males to be independent.

METHOD

Participants

The Italian sample consisted of 391 youths (59.1% male)ranging in age from 15-19 (M = 16.98 yrs SD = 1.35) living in northwest Italy who had complete data on all measures in the current study. Nearly all (89.6%) of the parents of Italian students lived together. Half (50%) of the mothers and 86% of the fathers worked full-time. Italian youth were recruited from diverse types of secondary schools including those which focused on high educational tracts (25.3%) and those which focused on technical training (74.7%). These adolescents lived in large (60%) and medium (40%) sized towns.

The sample from The Netherlands consisted of 373 youths (45.3% male) ranging in age from 15-19 (M = 17.37 yrs, SD = 0.91) who had complete data on all measures in the current study. As with the Italian sample, nearly all (92.1%) of the students were from two-parent homes. Fifteen percent of the mothers and 84% of the fathers worked fulltime; an additional 40% of the mothers worked part-time. Dutch youth attended a range of secondary schools including those which focused on high educational tracts (40.8%) and those which focused on technical training (59.2%). The Dutch youth lived in medium-sized towns (16%) and small towns (84%).

Procedure

Data was collected at the schools in both countries. Per Italian law and the ethical code of the Association of Italian Psychologists, parents of students who were minors and students who were over 18 gave permission for participation. Teachers were not present during the data collection; members of the research staff administered the questionnaire, which were completed individually and anonymously. Students were given the opportunity to ask questions, and were informed that they did not have to respond to questions if they chose not to. Participants demonstrated interest in the study, willingness to participate, and seriousness. Consequently, all youth sampled completed the questionnaires.

Measures

All measures were derived from the Italian (Bonino, 1998) and the Dutch versions (Bonino, Ciairano, Jackson, & Bijstra, 1998) of the questionnaire "Me and My Health" which was translated into Italian and Dutch from The Health Behavior Questionnaire (Jessor, Donovan, & Costa, 1991) and adapted to those cultural contexts. The questionnaire contains approximately 600 questions focused on health and psychosocial risk behaviors as well as dimensions of adolescents' psychological functioning (Bonino et al., 2005). The scales used in the study were derived from the theoretical framework of Problem Behavior Theory (Jessor) et al., 1991), recently revised (Jessor et al., 2003). In the revision of Jessor et al.'s theory, parental support and control are considered to be different aspects of protection.

Parental support was assessed with 2 items indexing the ease of talking to parents. These were: (1) Is it easy for you to talk with your parents about personal problems, thoughts, and feelings? And (2) Is it easy for you to talk with your parents about problems with school? Each item was rated on a scale from (1) not at all (4) very. Items were correlated .64 and .70 in the Italian and Dutch samples, respectively.

Parental control was assessed with 8 items reflecting strictness of family rules regarding behavior inside and outside the home. Questions covered rules about television watching, getting homework done, bedtime, getting chores done, letting the family know where they were going when they went out, curfew, attending parties, and dating. The response scale ranged from (1) not at all strict to (4) very strict. Cronbach alphas on this measure were .72 and .73 for the Italian and Dutch samples, respectively.

Psychological discomfort was measured with 9 items assessing alienation and depressive symptoms. Response options ranged from (1) no/ a little to (4) a lot/very. Higher scores reflect more discomfort. Cronbach alphas in both the Italian and Dutch samples were .83.

Positive self-perception was measured with 7 items assessing self-efficacy and satisfaction. Response options ranged from (1) not at all to (4) very. Cronbach alphas were .63 in the Italian sample and .67 in the Dutch sample.

Expectations for future success was indexed by 9 items reflecting the perception of succeeding in different life domains. Response options ranged from (1) very low to (5) very high. Cronbach alphas were .72 and .73, respectively, for the Italian and Dutch samples. Validity of the outcome variables were established in Ciairano (2004), which contains extensive psychometric, descriptive, and predictive data on these measures.

RESULTS

Analytic Strategy

The central aim of this study was to evaluate the contributions of parental support and control to adolescent psychological discomfort, perceptions of self, and expectations for future success in two European countries. A series of regression analyses were run to address this aim. Age was included as a moderator to evaluate the ways in which associations of parenting behavior and adjustment might differ across middle and late adolescence. Gender was included as a moderator to determine if parenting behavior might have different associations with adjustment for males and females during middle and late adolescence. All analyses were conducted separately by country because the focus of the study was not to compare Italian and Dutch families, but rather to examine patterns of association within country.

In each analysis, age and gender were entered on step 1, followed by parental support and control on step 2, two-way interactions on step 3, three-way interactions on step 4, and the 4-way interaction term on step 5. Following the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991), all predictor variables (including age) were centered (i.e., the mean was subtracted) and interaction terms were formed from the centered variables. When significant, interactions were plotted using the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991) in order to interpret the findings. Multivariate outliers were evaluated using Cook's D Distance measure (Cook & Weisberg, 1982.)

Results Predicting Psychological Discomfort

Table 1 presents results of the analyses predicting psychological discomfort. As seen in the table, there were main effects of age, sex, parental support, and parental control on psychological discomfort for Italian youth, as well as Control x Sex and Age x Sex interactions. Older youth and girls reported more psychological discomfort. Parental support was associated with less discomfort; parental control was associated with more discomfort, but this association was true for girls only. With age, girls' discomfort, but not boys' discomfort, increased.

For Dutch youth, there were main effects of sex and parental support, as well as Support x Sex, Support x Control x Age, and Support x Control x Age x Sex interactions. A plot of the 4-way interaction (see Figure 1) revealed the following: for younger girls, support was associated with better adjustment, and level of control did not affect this association. For older girls, support was associated with better adjustment only when control was high. For younger boys, support was associated with better adjustment, but this association was stronger for boys whose parents exerted higher levels of control. For older boys, support was associated with better adjustment only when control was low.

Results Predicting Positive Self-Perceptions

The second set of regression analyses predicted positive views of the self. Results of these analyses are summarized on Table 2. As seen in the table, there were fewer significant predictors of positive views of the self relative to psychological discomfort. For both Italian and Dutch youth, there were significant associations of sex and parental support with Positive self-perceptions, with boys and youth with high parental support reporting the most positive self-perceptions. Additionally, there was a significant Support x Control x Age interaction for the Dutch youth. As seen in Figure 2, support was associated with more positive self-perceptions among older youth regardless of level of parental control, and for younger youth with low levels of parental control. However, for younger youth with high levels of parental control, there was no association between support and positive self-perceptions.

Results Predicting Expectations of Future Success

The final set of analyses predicted expectations of future success; these results may be found in Table 3. For the model with Italian youth, there were main effects of age and parental support, with younger youth and youth with higher levels of parental support reporting higher expectations for future success. There also were significant Control x Age and Control x Age x Sex interactions. Plots of the three-way interaction (see Figure 3) revealed that for males, control was not associated with expectations for future success. For females the pattern differed by age. For older females there was a positive association of control and expectations for success, while for younger females the association was negative. For the model with Dutch youth, there were significant main effects of sex and support, with boys and youth with higher levels of parental support reporting higher expectation for future success. There also were significant Support x Sex, Support x Control, and Support x Control x Sex interactions, which were qualified by a significant Support x Control x Age x Sex interaction. As seen in Figure 4 the interactions of parental support and control differed markedly across gender and age groups. For older and younger Dutch females, support was associated only with higher expectations for success in life when parental control was low. For younger Dutch males, the opposite pattern was true: support was associated with high expectations for success when parental control was high. For older Dutch males, a combination of high parental support and control was associated with lower expectations af success in life.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

DISCUSSION

The central purpose of the present study was to examine associations of parenting behavior--specifically behavioral control and support--on adolescent adjustment in two European countries. Most work on parenting has been conducted within a North American context. The intent of the current study was to determine the extent to which the benefits of having firm, warm, and involved parents would be evident in cultural contexts that differ in many ways from those in the United States. Further, associations of parental control and support with positive and negative adjustment in middle and late adolescence were investigated, as there is less research on parenting in these periods of adolescence.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

In general, our hypothesis that the benefits of parental support transcend culture, and the effects of control would be culture specific, were supported. Some of the positive effects of parental support were qualified by interactions with parental control, age, and sex, all within the Dutch sample. Support was associated with less positive adjustment, at least for some outcomes, for (1) older girls with low parental control, (2) younger girls with high parental control, (3) older boys with high parental control, and (4) younger boys with low parental control.

For the outcome psychological discomfort, findings on the interaction of support and control mirror findings in North America for older Dutch girls and younger Dutch boys, but are not consistent for older Dutch boys. For older Dutch boys, high control coupled with support was associated with worse, not better, adjustment. This finding may be due to the fact that Dutch adolescents are socialized to be very independent, and that high levels of parental control, particularly during late adolescence, produce a reactive response. For Italian youth, control did not interact with support predicting adjustment, and this finding also is inconsistent with data for North America. For Italian youth, control may be qualitatively different than in North American contexts, or may be interpreted differently. Smetana and colleagues (Smetana, 2000; Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Daddis, 2004; Yau & Smetana, 2003) have shown that adolescents and their parents have quite different views regarding decision-making autonomy, and that cultural contexts affect the ways in which parent-adolescent conflict is expressed. Thus it is quite possible that parental control over adolescents could be quite different in Italian and North American contexts. Additional research is needed to understand how control may be interpreted differently cross-culturally.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

For the outcome positive self-perceptions, the interactions of support and control in the Dutch sample were not consistent with data from North America: high support and high control were not associated with more positive self-perceptions of either younger or older youth. For expectations of future success, data from Dutch females and older Dutch males were not consistent with data from North America; data from younger Dutch males were consistent with North American data. Again, cross-cultural differences in socialization practices may account for these discrepancies. Girls in the Netherlands, for example, may be socialized to be independent much earlier than girls in North America.

What is clear from these findings is that associations between parental support, parental control, and adolescent age are complex and variable across cultural contexts. Part of the inconsistency between these findings and data from North America is that some of the constructs used in the current project have not been widely investigated in studies of the impact of parenting on adolescents. Although many parenting studies access adolescents' views of themselves, which were captured in the present study via assessments of psychological discomfort and positive self-perceptions, studies rarely assess expectations for future success.

In addition to our hypotheses regarding the main effects of parental support and parental control on adolescent adjustment, we hypothesized that parental control would have more negative outcomes for older versus younger youth, and for males versus females. In general, these hypotheses were supported for Dutch males, but not for either Italian or Dutch females. Parental control was associated with lower expectations of success among Dutch males, but high expectations of success among Italian and Dutch females. Differences in gender socialization may account for these findings, but additional research is needed to understand how these processes operate within a particular cultural context.

Study Strengths and Limitations

Strengths of the study include inclusion of two samples of European adolescents, a focus on middle and late adolescents, and use of multiple outcomes tapping different aspects of adolescent adjustment. However, because of the scope of the instrument used, only two items were used to capture parental support. The measurement issue needs to be tackled in future cross-national studies of parenting and adolescent adjustment. This study considered the influence of parents on adolescents, but did not address how adolescents' views of themselves might impact parenting behavior. As numerous researchers have noted (e.g., Stattin & Kerr, 2000), youth influence parental behavior as well as the obverse. Lastly, this study was cross-sectional and data were based on adolescent self-report without the benefit of the parents' perspectives.

Future Directions

Future studies, particularly with middle and late adolescents, should attempt to understand the meaning of parental behavioral control and parental support within the cultural context under investigation. Use of qualitative, in addition to quantitative methods, can help to explicate the reasons for cross-cultural differences in the effect of parenting behavior when those differences are observed.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aunola, K., Stattin, H., & Nurmi, J. E. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents' achievement strategies. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 205-222.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Types of adolescent life-styles Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4(1, Pt. 2).

Baumrind, D. (1989) Rearing competent children in W. Demon (Ed.), Child development today and tomorrow. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 2, 56-95.

Bonino, S. (1998). Questionario: Io e la mia salute [Me and my health]. Torino: Dipartimento di Psicologia, Universita.

Bonino S., Cattelino, E., & Ciairano, S. (2005). Adolescents and risk behaviors, functions and protective factors. New York: Springer Verlag.

Bonino, S., Ciarano, S., Jackson, S., & Bijstra, J. (1998). Vragenlijst: Ik en jijn gezondheid [Questionnaire: my health and I]. Groningen (The Netherlands): Department of Psychology, University.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34, 844-850.

Ciairano, S. (2004). Risk behavior in adolescence: Drug-use and sexual activity in Italy and the Netherlands. Groningen (the Netherlands): Strichting Kinderstudies Publishers.

Claes, M. (1998). Adolescents' closeness with parents, siblings, and friends in three countries: Canada, Belgium, and Italy. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 165-185.

Cook, R. D., & Weisberg, S. (1982). Residuals and influences in regression. London: Chapman and Hall.

Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (2002). Culture and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Volume 2: Biology and ecology of parenting (2nd edition), pp. 253-280. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harkness, S., Super, C. M., & van Tijen, N. (2000). Individualism and the "Western mind" reconsidered: American and Dutch parents' ethnotheories of the child. In S. Harkness, C. Raeff, & C. M. Super (Eds.), New directions in child development: Vol. 87. The social construction of the child: Understanding variability within and across contexts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jessor, R., Donovan, J. E., & Costa, F. M. (1991). Beyond adolescence--Problem behavior and young adult development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jessor, R., Turbin, M. S., Costa, F. M., Dong, Q., Zhang, H., & Wang, C. (2003). Adolescent problem behavior in China and the United States: A cross-national study of psychosocial protective factors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 329-360.

Kandal, D. B., & Lesser, G. S. (1969). Parent-adolescent relationships and adolescent independence in the U.S. and Denmark. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 69, 348-358.

Laursen, B., Coy, D. C., & Collins, W. A. (1998). Reconsidering changes in parent-child conflict across adolescence: A meta-analysis: Child Development, 69, 817-832.

Leaper, C. (2002). Parenting girls and boys. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Volume 1: Children and parenting (2nd edition), pp. 189-225. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4), pp. 1-101. New York: Wiley.

Meeus, W., Helsen, M., & Vollebergh, W. (1996). Parents and peers in adolescence: From conflict to connectedness--Four studies. In L. Verhofstadt-Deneve, I. Kienhorst, C. Braet (Eds.), Conflict and development in adolescence (pp. 103-115). DSWO Press, Leiden University.

Sandfort, T. (Ed.), (1998). The Dutch response to HIV: Pragmatism and consensus. London: UCL Press.

Scabini, E. (1995). Psicologia sociale della famiglia. Sviluppo dei legami e trasformazioni sociali [Social Psychology of the family. Development of bonds and social transformation]. Torino: Bollati Borinmghieri.

Slicker, E. K. (1998). Relationships of parenting style to behavioral adjustment in graduating high school seniors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 345-372.

Smetana, J. G. (2000). Middle-class African American adolescents' and parents' conceptions of parental authority and parenting practices: A longitudinal investigation. Child Development, 71, 1672-1686.

Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Daddis, C. (2004). Longitudinal development of family decision making: Defining healthy behavioral autonomy for middle-class African American adolescents. Child Development, 75, 1418-1434.

Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072-1085. Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent-adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1-19.

Steinberg, L., & Silk, J. (2002). Parenting adolescents: In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Volume 1: Children and parenting (2nd edition), pp. 103-133. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Whiting, J. W. M., & Edwards, C. P. (1988). Children of different worlds: The formation of social behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yau, J., & Smetana, J. (2003). Adolescent-parent conflict in Hong Kong and Shenzhen: A comparison of youth in two cultural contexts. International Journal of Behavioral Development 27, 201-211.

This study was partially funded by a Marie Curie Fellowship within the European Community program. TRM (Training and Mobility of Researchers, 6th call for proposals, contract No: ERBFMBIC972738 (Ciairano, 2004).

Requests for reprints should be sent to Silvia Ciairano, Laboratory of Developmental Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Torino, Via Verdi 10 10124, Torino Italy. E-mail: ciairano@psych.unito.it

Silvia Ciairano, Laboratory of Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Torino, Italy.

Wendy Kliewer, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University.

Silvia Bonino, Laboratory of Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Torino, Italy.

Harke Anne Bosma, Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.

Table 1

Results of regression analyses predicting psychological
discomfort by country

 Italy

 B SEB [beta]

Age .76 .34 .18 (a)
Sex -3.12 .56 -.28 (c)
Support -.86 .30 -.23 (b)
Control .33 .11 0.24 (b)
Support X Age -.08 .23 -.03
Support X Sex .62 .40 .12
Control X Age -.13 .08 -.13
Control X Sex -.32 .14 -.18
Support X Control .02 .07 .03
Age X Sex -.92 .43 -.18 (a)
Support X Control X Age .05 .05 .08
Support X Control X Sex .03 .09 .03
Support X Age X Sex -.15 .30 -.04
Control X Age X Sex .06 .10 .05
Sup X Con X Age X Sex -.09 .07 -.12

 The Netherlands

 B SEB [beta]

Age -.03 .35 -.01
Sex -2.3 .48 -.24 (c)
Support -1.17 .20 -.38 (c)
Control .04 .09 .03
Support X Age .15 .22 .04
Support X Sex .75 .32 .16 (a)
Control X Age -.03 .11 -.02
Control X Sex .25 .14 .12
Support X Control -.05 .05 -.07
Age X Sex .38 .53 .05
Support X Control X Age -.16 .06 -.18 (b)
Support X Control X Sex .14 .08 .12
Support X Age X Sex -.22 .35 -.04
Control X Age X Sex -.08 .16 -.04
Sup X Con X Age X Sex .21 .10 .16 (a)

Note. (a) p <.05. (b) p < .01. (c) p <.001. Terms are from the
final step of the regression equation. Model with Italian data,
[R.sup.2] = .17, F (15, 375) = 5.02, p < .001. Model with Dutch data,
[R.sup.2] =.20, F(15, 357) = 5.94, p <.001.

Table 2

Results of regression analyses predicting positive views
of the self by country

 Italy

 B SE B [beta]

Age -.20 .19 -.09
Sex 1.03 .31 .17 (c)
Support .33 .16 .17 (a)
Control -.07 .06 -.10
Support X Age .02 .13 .01
Support X Sex -.28 .22 -.11
Control X Age .07 .04 .13
Control X Sex .11 .08 .12
Support X Control .05 .04 .12
Age X Sex .27 .23 .10
Support X Control X Age -.06 .03 -.18
Support X Control X Sex -.04 .05 -.08
Support X Age X Sex .18 .16 .10
Control X Age X Sex -.08 .05 -.12
Sup X Con X Age X Sex .07 .04 .18

 The Netherlands

 B SEB [beta]

Age .21 .15 .09
Sex 1.03 .21 .24 (c)
Support .32 .09 .23 (c)
Control .06 .04 -.10
Support X Age -.05 .09 -.04
Support X Sex -.09 .14 -.04
Control X Age -.03 .02 -.11
Control X Sex -.09 .06 -.10
Support X Control .04 .02 -.11
Age X Sex .27 .23 .08
Support X Control X Age .06 .03 .16 (b)
Support X Control X Sex .05 .04 .09
Support X Age X Sex .06 .15 .03
Control X Age X Sex .01 .07 .01
Sup X Con X Age X Sex -.07 .04 -.12

Note. (a) p <.05. (b) p <.01. (c) p <.001. Terns are from the
final step of the regression equation. Model with Italian data,
[R.sup.2] =.10, F (15, 375) = 2.65, p <.001. Model with Dutch data,
[R.sup.2] = .20, F(15, 357) = 6.33, p < .001. Four outliers were
removed in the model with Dutch youth.

Table 3

Results of regression analyses predicting expectations
of the future by country

 Italy

 B SE B [beta]

Age -.76 .32 -.2 (a)
Sec .92 .53 .09
Support .74 .28 .22 (b)
control -.03 .10 -.02
Support X Age .33 .22 .13
Support X Sec -.21 .38 -.05
Control X Age .19 .07 .21 (b)
Control X Sex .10 .13 .06
Support X Control .04 .07 .05
Age X Sex .80 .40 .17 (a)
Support X Control X Age -.03 .05 -.05
Support X Control X Sex -.04 .09 -.04
Support X Age X Sex -.39 .28 -.12
Conad X Age X Sex -.25 .09 -.22 (b)
Sup X Con X Age X Sex .03 .06 .04

 The Netherlands

 B SE B [beta]

Age .13 .32 .03
Sec 1.64 .45 .20 (c)
Support .46 .19 .17 (b)
control .09 .09 -.08
Support X Age .04 .20 .01
Support X Sec -.6 .30 -.15 (a)
Control X Age .03 .10 .02
Control X Sex .02 .13 .10
Support X Control -.10 .05 -.15 (a)
Age X Sex -.55 .05 -.08
Support X Control X Age .12 .06 .14
Support X Control X Sex .16 .07 .16 (a)
Support X Age X Sex -.44 .33 -.10
Conad X Age X Sex -.15 .15 -.08
Sup X Con X Age X Sex -.32 .09 -.27 (c)

Note. (a) p <.05. (b) p <.01. (c) p <.001. Terms are from
the final step of the regression equation. Model with
Italian data, [R.sup.2] = .11, F(15, 375) = 3.09, p < .001.
Model with Dutch data, [R.sup.2] = .10, F(15, 357) = 2.66,
p < .001.