The Relationships between Knowledge Structures and Appraisals of Economically Disadvantaged Adolescents

The Relationships between KnowledgeStructures and Appraisals of Economically

Disadvantaged Adolescents

Gülden Güvenç,* Timuçin Aktan and Meral Gezici YalçınIsık University, Turkey

The study’s objective was to test adolescents’ self-regulation based uponCervone, Shadel, Smith, and Fiori’s (2006) knowledge and appraisal personal-ity architecture model. Self-regulation was defined as the relationships betweenknowledge structures (enduring mental representations of the world) andappraisal processes (dynamic meanings constructed to evaluate various events).In our study, the knowledge variables were authoritarianism and locus ofcontrol while appraisal variables were categorized as personal orientation(coping, communication, self-esteem) and relational orientation (perspectivetaking, empathy, prosocial behavior tendency). The purpose of the study was toidentify the relationships between these variables and compare gender differ-ences for each indicator. The participants were 246 adolescents (125 males and121 females) whose ages ranged between 12 and 15 and who were the inhabit-ants of a poor urban neighborhood in Ankara, Turkey. The results showed thatexternal locus of control and authoritarianism were not related, while theformer was negatively related to both personal and relational orientations andauthoritarianism was positively related to only relational orientation. Boys’external locus of control was higher than girls’, whereas girls’ scores exceededboys’ in self-reliant coping with stress, open communication, and interpersonalreactivity. No gender differences were observed for authoritarianism, prosocialbehavior tendency, and self-esteem.apps_419 594..615

Notre projet était d’estimer l’autorégulation des adolescents à partir du modèlestructurale de connaissances et d’évaluation de la personnalité de Cervone,Shadel, Smith et Fiori (2006). L’autorégulation recouvre les relations entreles connaissances (les représentations stables du monde) et les processusd’évaluation (les significations dynamiques élaborées pour apprécier différentsévènements). Dans notre recherche, les variables de connaissances étaientl’autoritarisme et le locus of control tandis que les variables d’évaluation étaientregroupées sous les rubriques « orientation personnelle » (faire-face, commu-nication, estime de soi) et « orientation relationnelle » (changement de point devue, empathie, tendance à adopter un comportement favorable aux autres). Cetravail cherchait à identifier les relations entre ces dimensions et à comparer lesdifférences dues au genre pour chacun des indicateurs. Les sujets étaient 246

* Address for correspondence: Gülden Güvenç Isık University, Üniversite Sokak. No. 2,Mesrutiyet Köyü, 34980 Sile, Istanbul, Turkey. Email: [email protected]

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2010, 59 (4), 594–615doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00419.x

© 2010 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2010 InternationalAssociation of Applied Psychology. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

adolescents (125 garçons et 121 filles) entre douze et quinze ans qui habitent unquartier pauvre d’Ankara (Turquie).

Les résultats montrent qu’un locus of control externe et l’autoritarisme ne sontpas en rapport, alors que le premier est corrélé négativement aux orientationspersonnelle et relationnelle ; l’autoritarisme n’est lié positivement qu’àl’orientation relationnelle. Le locus of control externe des garçons est supérieurà celui des filles alors que les scores des filles dépassent ceux des garçons dans letraitement autonome du stress, la communication libre et la sensibilité inter-personnelle. Les deux genres se rejoignent sur l’autoritarisme, la tendance àadopter un comportement favorable aux autres et l’estime de soi.

INTRODUCTION

Development of autonomy is conceived as closely connected to self-regulation, which is defined as the capacity to plan and guide activities for theattainment of desired goals (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005; Cervone, Shadel,Smith, & Fiori, 2006). Researchers have asserted that even though there isno simple definition of self-regulation, all approaches share the commonassumption that self-regulating individuals adapt their cognitions, emotions,and actions to constraining developmental and contexual characteristics andactively generate meanings to reach their goals (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005;Cervone et al., 2006; Cynthia & Mak, 1998; Kuhl, Kazen, & Koole, 2006;Moilanen, 2007; Pajares, 1997; Zimmerman & Cleary, 2006). For instance, itis argued that particularly during early and mid-adolescence the capacity forthinking abstractly is not sufficient to overcome inadequacy in integratingcontradictory traits as well as pressures from peers, teachers and parents(DuBois, Burk-Braxton, Swenson, Tevendale, & Hardesty, 2002; Hamill,2003; Jacobs, Bleaker, & Constantino, 2003; Smetana, Campion-Barr, &Metzger, 2006).

In terms of contexual characteristics, researchers stress the importance ofsocio-political and cultural background of self-regulation as well as situ-ational experiences (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005). Within this frame, it is pos-sible to define Turkish culture as the synthesis of traditional approacheswith the modern approaches of science and technology (Kagıtçıbası, 1998;Yılmaz, 2006). This characterization of culture at the macro level is experi-enced as a tension between authoritarian norms and individual autonomyneeds at the micro-social level (Aycan, 2004; Imamoglu, 1995; Kagıtçıbası,1998). In fact, the predominant authoritarian expectations among gendersand generations within poor urban Turkish families function as economic andpsychological unifying strategies (Kagıtçıbası, 1998; Kandiyoti, 1995;Yılmaz, 2006). Following this line of thought, the purpose of the present studywas to explore adolescents’ self-regulation tendencies with reference toCervone, Shadel, Smith, and Fiori’s (2006) “Knowledge and Appraisal Per-sonality Architecture Model” in a poor community in Ankara, Turkey.

COGNITIVE-AFFECTIVE-BEHAVIORAL SELF-REGULATION 595

© 2010 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2010 InternationalAssociation of Applied Psychology.

The Theoretical Foundation of the Study

Self-regulation in the current study is based on intra-personal “knowledgestructures” (assumptions) and “appraisal processes” (evaluations) which aredifferentiated in the belief aspect of cognition in Cervone et al.’s model (2006)(see Figure 1). Knowledge structures are defined as the highly accessible,enduring beliefs about one’s self, other persons, or the world (for example,“nothing can be done in the face of illness”). Appraisal processes, on theother hand, are idenitified as the dynamic personal meanings attributed tospecific events (for instance, self-efficacy beliefs in certain encounters).According to Cervone et al. (2006), enduring knowledge structures haveprimacy over the dynamic appraisal processes, motivations, affective states,and actions. Although their model does not directly apply to adolescents, weadopted the “belief” aspect of the knowledge structures and appraisal pro-cesses because of its clearer differentiation between the two constructs ratherthan for instance Bandura’s conceptualization of self-efficacy (Cervone et al.,2006). On the other hand, evaluative standards and goals, which are the otheraspects of cognition in the model, were not included in our study.

Even though empirical research may reveal other culture-specific beliefsystems, the self-regulation process is generally related to two major knowl-edge (belief) systems in Turkey. These are identified as external locus ofcontrol (Dag, 2002) and authoritarianism (Yılmaz, 2006). External locus ofcontrol is defined as an enduring belief in fate or luck or an unjust world andthe meaninglessness of individual effort (Dag, 2002), whereas authoritarian-ism is defined as an enduring respect for powerful others and intolerance ofhuman frailty, based upon Adorno’s conceptualization (Ray, 1973; Heyder& Schmidt, 2003). The combination of the two knowledge structures suggestsa conservative individual who explains the way things are by external attri-bution, who inhibits autonomy and accepts human weakness while respect-ing the authority of powerful others (Ray, 1973; Heyder & Schmidt, 2003).However, Feldman’s (2003) description of authoritarianism as a tensionbetween autonomy and social conformity is also relevant for interpretingempirical findings on adolescents’ knowledge structures within a dual cultureof traditionalism and modernism.

In addition to locus of control and authoritarianism which were the twoknowledge structures, two molar appraisal capacities were identified as thepersonal and relational orientations towards encounters (Bandura, 1994;2001; Boekaerts, Maes, & Karoly, 2005; Cervone et al., 2006). Personalorientation consists of dynamic, socially situated beliefs about intra-individual capabilities such as coping with stress, self-esteem, communicationof one’s feelings and thoughts which are basic to psychological survival. Thismotive defines an individual’s beliefs in his/her own resilience to adversity, inother words, an individual’s own emotion or stress regulation within relational

596 GÜVENÇ ET AL.


Bel

iefs

abo

ut o

ne’s

re

latio

n to

an

enco

unte

r (e

.g. s

elf-

effi

cacy

app

rais

als)

Stan

dard

s fo

r ev

alua

ting

one’

s se

lf a

nd th

e w

orld

(e

.g. e

thic

al s

tand

ards

,cr

iteri

a fo

r fo

r se

lf-

wor

th)

Bel

iefs

abo

ut o

ne’s

se

lf a

nd th

e w

orld

(e

.g. s

elf-

sche

mas

,st

iuat

iona

l bel

iefs

)

Aim

s in

an

enco

unte

r (e

.g. i

nten

tions

-in-

actio

n, p

erso

nal g

oals

du

ring

a ta

sk)

Stan

dard

s fo

r ev

alua

ting

an e

ncou

nter

(e.

g.

stan

dard

s fo

r ev

aula

ting

ongo

ing

perf

orm

ance

)

Pers

onal

, in

terp

erso

nal a

nd

soci

al a

ims

(e.g

. pe

rson

al g

oal

syst

ems)

Knowledge vs. Appraisal

Appraisal Knowledge

Inte

ntio

nal S

tate

s w

ith

Alt

erna

tive

Dir

ecti

ons

of F

it

BE

LIE

FS

EV

AL

UA

TIV

E S

TA

ND

AR

DS

AIM

S/G

OA

LS

FIG

UR

E1.

Cer

von

e,S

had

el,

Sm

ith

,an

dFi

ori

’sm

od

el(2

006)

.



encounters. The second motive, relational orientation, is concerned withunderstanding feelings and thoughts of others in certain situations. It isfundamental to the development of moral-relational agency and interdepen-dence between people which is indicated by dynamic interpersonal reactivity(persective taking and empathy). In the same vein, because helping others givespeople a sense of responsibility and attachment to community and moralidentity (Smetana et al., 2006), the study also included prosocial behaviortendency within relational orientation which was characterized by positiveaffect regulation (capacity to generate positive affect towards others).

In traditional cultures, it would be expected that beliefs regarding knowl-edge structures such as higher external locus of control and authoritarianismwould be positively correlated with avoidant coping, timid communication,and lower self-esteem on the one hand, and with empathy and helping peopleon the other (Hortaçsu, Kalaycıoglu, & Rittersberger-Tiliç, 2003; Sayıl,Yılmaz, & Uçanok, 2002). Therefore, besides the relationships between therelatively enduring knowledge systems and dynamic appraisals regardingadolescents’ well-being, the socio-cultural (traditional vs. modern) settingwhich presents restrictions or opportunities for developing self-efficacy skillsconstitutes a third factor. Since all the early and mid-adolescents in thepresent study came from the same economically deprived area, and age didnot have any significant effect on the variables (Güvenç & Aktas, 2006), onlygender was considered as an indicator of the contexual expectations.However, in line with the model of Cervone et al., gender was not included inour model and instead gender differences were compared separately for eachindicator.

Empirical Findings Related to the Variables

In this section, the definition of each of the knowledge and appraisal vari-ables, their interrelationships, and the related gender differences are summa-rized. Of the two knowledge structures the first one, authoritarianism, wasoriginally defined by Adorno et al. as a relatively stable personality (knowl-edge) structure (respect for authority and intolerance of human frailty; citedin Feldman, 2003; Ray, 1973; Heyder & Schmidt, 2003). More recently,however, Feldman’s (2003) alternative definition provided a more dynamicexperience of tension between individual autonomy and social cohesionwhich was particularly adopted for discussing the culture-specific conditionin Turkey (the integrated nature of modern practices with a traditional wayof life). The other knowledge structure which is locus of control is correlatedwith many other variables (Anderson, Hattie, & Hamilton, 2005) and isdefined as an enduring belief in self-controlled behavior in contrast to theeffect of external events in achieving various goals (for instance chance, fate,or an unjust world; Dag, 2002).

598 GÜVENÇ ET AL.


When the appraisal variables are considered, personal orientation is indi-cated by the capacity for coping with stress, self-esteem, and communication.Coping is defined along the poles of optimism–self-responsible coping andincompetent–avoidant coping (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; Sahin & Durak, 1995). According to the Westernliterature (Olson, Fazio, & Hermann, 2006; Pelham, Koole, Hardin, Hetts,Seah, & De-Hart, 2005; Tafarodi, 2006), self-responsible coping is positivelycorrelated with self-esteem which is defined as the level of satisfaction withthe self. Open communication is the last capability included within personalorientation and is also positively related to self-confident coping and self-esteem (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003; Laible, Carlo, &Roesch, 2004).

The second molar appraisal capacity included in self-regulation is rela-tional orientation which consists of two evaluative capabilities. One of themis prosocial behavior tendency, that is defined as the “other-directed” helpingbehavior, and reflects belief in empathizing with others (Chubb & Fertman,1997; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Fabes, Carlo, Kupanoff, & Laible, 1999;Kumru, Carlo, & Edwards, 2004). Findings show signifiant positive correla-tions between prosocial behavior tendencies, perspective taking, andempathy for both male and female adolescents in poor urban Turkey(Güvenç & Aktas, 2006). Therefore interpersonal reactivity is also includedas the second evaluative capability within the relational orientation and ischaracterized by caring about others’ views (perspective taking) and empathy(Laible et al., 2004; Kumru et al., 2004).

In terms of gender differences in personal orientation, there is ampleevidence that both Western and Turkish males have significantly higher levelsof stress compared to females (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996; Eagly & Steffen,1986; Hortaçsu et al., 2003; Knight, Fabes, & Higgins, 1996; Sayıl et al., 2002).On the other hand, even though girls experience relatively lower levels of self-esteem, they adopt more open communication styles when coping with stress(Bettencourt & Miller, 1996; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Güvenç & Aktas, 2006;Knight et al., 1996; Plancherel, Bolognini, & Halfon, 1998; Sayıl et al., 2002).

Likewise, when the gender differences in relational orientation (i.e. per-spective taking, empathy, prosocial tendency) are considered in both cul-tures, adolescent females again show higher levels of empathy (Clarbour &Roger, 2004; Manger & Eikeland, 2000; Smith, 2003; Sayıl et al., 2002) andprosocial behavior tendency (Fabes et al., 1999; Pakaslahti & Keltikangas-Järvinen, 2001). This is complicated, however, when the factors of prosocialbehavior tendencies are examined. For instance, while adolescent boysexceed girls in public prosocial behavior, adolescent girls exceed boys inemotional or anonymous prosocial tendencies (Aktas & Güvenç, 2006;Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Carlo, Hausmann, Christiansen, & Randall, 2003;Kumru et al., 2004; Sayıl et al., 2002).



When gender differences are compared for each relatively stable knowl-edge structure on the other hand, there are cultural as well as intraculturaldifferences which may be interpreted in the light of economic practices aswell. It seems possible that authoritarianism in Western cultures is higheramong boys than in girls (Lippa & Arad, 1999); however, this tends todecrease in both genders as cognitive development, political interest. andmoral reasoning increase (Bergen, 2001; Feldman, 2003). Conversely,authoritarianism can be conceived as an enduring personality structure, espe-cially dominant in Turkey’s poor urban communities where social solidarityis achieved via conservative beliefs and relationship strategies (Acar-Savran,2004; Güvenç & Aktas, 2006; Kagıtçıbası, 1998; Kandiyoti, 1995; White,1994). Research in Turkey, for instance, supports the fact that although thelaws and policies of the Turkish government are based on democracy andegalitarianism, the majority of poor families who live in rural areas or whomigrate to urban areas for socioeconomic reasons still hold authoritarianattitudes (Fisek, 1982; Hortaçsu et al., 2003; Imamoglu, 1995; Imamoglu &Yasak-Gültekin, 1993; Kagıtçıbası, 1998). The authoritarian power hierar-chy reflects the influence of macro-level traditional (patriarchal) ideologyparticularly on micro-social-level generation relationships (Kagıtçıbası,1998; White, 1994; Yılmaz, 2006). Authoritarian attitudes historically inher-ent to child rearing practices are observed even in the upper-class familiesduring the transition to a modern way of life (Feldman, 2003; Fisek, 1992;Yılmaz, 2006). Therefore it is possible to argue that authoritarian attitudes(stressing social conformity, obedience, politeness, and honoring parentsand elders) that are historically embedded within the traditional Turkishculture are still integrated into the modern ideology and practices (stressingautonomy, self-direction, freedom, choosing one’s own goals, and indepen-dence) (Fisek, 1982; Imamoglu & Yasak-Gültekin, 1993; Kagıtçıbası, 1998;Yılmaz, 2006).

In the case of locus of control, on the other hand, while some Westernfindings point to higher levels of external locus of control among adolescentmales compared to females (Clarbour & Roger, 2004; Manger & Eikeland,2000; Smith, 2003), some other findings reflect either higher external controlamong adolescent girls or no gender differences at all (Chubb & Fertman,1997; Wood & Hillman, 1996). Similarly, within the dual cultural context inTurkey, it may be possible to attribute girls’ higher external locus of controlto the perception of their secondary position in the family power hierarchyor in other institutional relationships (Fisek, 1982; Imamoglu & Yasak-Gültekin, 1993). Alternatively, boys’ higher external locus of control may berelated to attributing causality to practices of powerful others or the impactof macro events in society, especially in relations of employment. Forinstance, gender comparisons for each dimension of locus of control revealthat the two factors of locus of control, namely “belief in an unjust world”

600 GÜVENÇ ET AL.


and “meaninglessness of personal effort”, are higher among adolescent boyscompared to girls (Aktas & Güvenç, 2006; Güvenç & Aktas, 2006).

The Purpose of the Study

To explore the disadvantaged adolescents’ self-regulation process in the lightof the above summarized literature, a model regarding the relationshipsbetween the belief aspect of knowledge structures (authoritarianism andlocus of control) and the belief dimension of appraisal processes (the personalorientation i.e. coping with stress, self-esteem, communication, and the rela-tional orientation, i.e. interpersonal reactivity, prosocial tendencies) wasdeveloped. This model is based on the model of Cervone et al. (2006) asmentioned. The hypotheses are given below:

1. Similar to the model of Cervone et al. (2006), knowledge variables(locus of control and authoritarianism) would predict the appraisalvariables (personal and relational orientations). Personal orientation,however, would be negatively predicted, whereas relational orientationwould be positively predicted by the knowledge variables. On the otherhand, external locus of control and authoritarianism would be posi-tively related to each other within the traditional context.

2. In terms of gender comparison for knowledge variables, while boys’external locus of control would be higher than girls’, there would beno gender difference in authoritarianism because of the traditional wayof life.

3. In terms of gender differences for the personal dimension of theappraisal variables, girls’ self-reliant coping with stress and open com-munication would be higher than boys’ while boys’ self-esteem wouldbe higher than girls’.

4. Regarding gender differences for the relational dimension of theappraisal variables, girls’ interpersonal reactivity, again, would behigher than boys’, whereas there would be no gender difference inprosocial tendency.

METHOD

Participants

The participants were the 7th and 8th grade students (246 adolescents: 125males and 121 females) in the the primary school of Sincan-Saraycık,Ankara. Adolescents ranged in age from 12 to 15 years (M = 13.58, SD =1.17). The majority of families had migrated from the provinces of theCentral Anatolian Region to Ankara which is Turkey’s capital. Saraycık



stands below the poverty line according to graphs published in geographicalstudies (Güvenç, 2005) and information given by the school’s principal. Theeducational information gathered from the adolescent participants reflectedthe fact that most fathers had graduated from elementary school (67.6%),some from middle school (20.1%), and some did not finish elementary school(5.7%). Most of them worked in seasonal construction jobs often equivalentto being unemployed (49.2%), followed by small entrepreneurs (13.1%), blue-collar workers (7.0%), and retired (5.3%). The majority of mothers, althoughliterate, had either left primary school (29.5%) or had only primary schooldiplomas (64.3%). Some had finished middle school (5.8%) and high school(0.4%). Virtually all were housewives (97.1%).

Measures

In order to evaluate the relationships between the variables, 5-point Likertscales (a total of seven scales) were administered to the adolescents. Approxi-mately half of the items in all the scales were negatively worded. The numberof negative and positive items were equal in the communication scale, thenegatively worded items outnumbered the positive ones, 29 out of 52, inthe coping with stress scale, while only nine items out of 21 were negative inthe interpersonal reactivity scale. The self-esteem and the communicationscales were developed on the basis of the International Personality Item Pool(2001). As mentioned above, economically disadvantaged adolescents gener-ally exhibit external locus of control and authoritarian attitudes in Turkey(Fisek, 1982; Imamoglu & Yasak-Gültekin, 1993). Therefore, a new self-esteem scale was developed as an alternative to Rosenberg’s scale whichmeasured only the satisfaction and the capability of individuals from theirown point of view. In addition, the new scale measured the individual’sevaluation of others’ perceptions about oneself. Thus, items regarding fear ofrejection by others or avoidance of problems with others were also includedin the new 22-item scale.

Knowledge systems were assessed using the locus of control and authori-tarianism scales. The Locus of Control Scale constructed by Dag (2002)includes 47 items and measures internal/external locus of control with beliefin fate, chance, an unjust world, and futility in effort as sub-dimensions (e.g.“No matter how hard one tries it is impossible to attain one’s ideal”). Cron-bach’s alpha of the original total scale was .92. In this study, after theelimination of four items due to very low internal reliability coefficients, theminimum and maximum scores stood at 43 and 215, respectively. Cronbach’salpha was .77. Higher total scores indicated higher external locus of control.

The Authoritarianism Scale (California F scale, form 40–45) originallydeveloped by Adorno et al. includes 30 items measuring the level of rigidityin regard to rules (e.g. “young people must respect and obey their elders”).

602 GÜVENÇ ET AL.


The positive support in literature (Ray, 1973) and the practical availability ofthe scale in Turkey were the reasons for choosing this relatively old scale. Thereliability coefficient of the original scale was .81 (cited in Christie, 1990). Inthe present study, the number of items was reduced to 22 due to low internalreliability. The possible range of scores was 22–110. Cronbach’s alpha was.72 for the total scale. Higher total scores reflected more rigid conformity andintolerance of human frailty.

The psychological capabilities within personal orientation were measuredby coping with stress, communication, and self-esteem scales. The Copingwith Stress Scale, a 66-item scale developed by Folkman et al. (1986),explores adolescents’ coping strategies vis-a-vis events in life. It was adaptedfor the Turkish culture by Siva, and the Cronbach’s alphas in the Turkishversion ranged from .45 to .80 for optimistic, self confident, compliant strat-egies, search for social support, and helplessness sub-scales (e.g. “I try to betolerant towards myself”) (cited in Sahin & Durak, 1995). In the presentstudy, when the number of items was reduced to 52 because of low internalreliability coefficients, the Chronbach’s alpha was .86 for the total scale andthe minimum and maximum scores were 52 and 260, respectively. Highertotal scores implied more optimistic and self-confident strategies.

The Communication Scale consisted of 32 items (e.g. “I find it hard toexpress my feelings”) and measured openness and clarity of communication.The scale exhibited a satisfactory internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha =.74. The minimum score was 32 whereas the maximum score was 160. Highertotal communication scores revealed open and clearer communication.

The Self-esteem Scale consisted of 22 items (e.g. “I like being myself andaccept myself the way I am”). Cronbach’s alpha was .77 for the total globalself-esteem scale. The range of scores was between 22 and 110. Higher totalscores reflected higher global self-esteem.

Relational Orientation was measured by interpersonal reactivity and proso-cial behavior tendency scales. The Interpersonal Reactivity Scale was devel-oped by Davis (cited in Kumru et al., 2004) and consisted of 21 itemsmeasuring perspective taking (the cognitive component, e.g. “Sometimes Ifind it difficult to perceive others’ point of view”), empathy, and personaldistress (the emotional components) as sub-categories. The validity and reli-ability measurements were computed by Kumru et al. (2004) with 11–21-year-old Turkish adolescents. Cronbach’s alphas of the sub-scales ranged from .53to .59. In the present study the total scale exhibited a satisfactory internalconsistency; Cronbach’s alpha was .71. The range of scores was between 21and 105. Higher total scores indicated higher interpersonal reactivity.

The Prosocial Behavior Tendencies Scale including 25 items, developed byCarlo and Randall (2002), was adapted for Turkish adolescents by Kumruet al. (2004) and consists of 22 items (e.g. “It is easy for me to help others whoare in deep trouble”). The scale allowed the evaluation of public, anonymous,



emotional, compliant, and altruistic tendencies. In the current study, thescale exhibited an internal consistency of .62, similar to the results of Kumruet al. The minimum score was 22 and the maximum score was 110. Highertotal scores indicated higher levels of prosocial attitudes.

Procedure

The researchers and their assistants translated and revised the scales. Upondeciding the final forms of scales, the comprehension level of items was testedon a randomly selected group of 30 adolescents in the school. Words andsentences that were not understood were changed, then the scales were admin-istered to all the 7th and 8th grade students in Saraycık school. Approximatelytwo scales were administered every day, within an hour. Because the partici-pants were able to perceive that some of the variables were similar to each other(for instance, items of interpersonal reactivity and prosocial behavior ten-dency, likewise items of authoritarianism and locus of control, coping withstress and self-esteem scales), the likelihood of obtaining exaggerated correla-tions among the above-mentioned pairs of variables was controlled by admin-istering the scales on separate days in random order. Therefore it took fourconsecutive days to complete the administration of all the scales.

RESULTS

To examine the relationships between the variables, first the measurement,then the structural models were tested by using AMOS 5.0 (Arbuckle, 2003).The estimation of the measurement model allowed the examination of therelationships between items and the latent constructs as well as the relationsbetween constructs themselves. This may be considered an alternative to aseries of separate tests of single measurement models (Heyder & Schmidt,2003). Furthermore, it is possible to gather information on whether the itemsload on only the target variables or on other dimensions as well. Based uponthe model of Cervone et al. (2006), the structural model was tested in termsof the belief aspect of knowledge structures (locus of control, authoritarian-ism) as related to the belief aspect of appraisal processes (personal andrelational orientations).

Results of the Measurement Model (ConfirmatoryFactor Analysis: CFA)

In order to conduct a CFA, the items from the coping with stress, commu-nication, and self-esteem scales were summed and taken as the measuredindicators of the latent factor, personal orientation. Likewise, measures ofinterpersonal reactivity and prosocial behavior tendency were pooledtogether and treated as the two indicators of the second latent construct,relational orientation.

604 GÜVENÇ ET AL.


The results of the first-order-correlated CFA showed a reasonable model fitregarding some of the fit indices. To pinpoint possible areas of misfit, themodification indices were examined, and the error terms coping with stress andprosocial behavior tendency were found to be correlated. The goodness of fitvalues of the measurement model were acceptable (c2 = 22.496, df = 9, p = .007;CMIN/DF = 2.500; CFI = .973; GFI = .976; RMSEA = .078; p-close = .111;SRMR = .0366). It is important to note that the RMSEA value indicated amediocre fit, that is, it was higher than the suggested cut-off points (e.g.Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Hu and Bentler (1999) warn that when sample sizeis small, the RMSEA tends to over-reject the true population models.

According to our findings, three items loaded significantly on the personalorientation factor (coping with stress: .82, communication skills: .82, self-esteem: .71). Similarly, interpersonal reactivity (.74) and prosocial behaviortendency (.68) loaded significantly on the relational orientation factor. Allfactor loadings were significant at p < .001. The factor loadings can be seen inTable 1.

TABLE 1Results of Measurement Model

Model Goodness of Fit

Null model c2 (DF = 21, N = 246) = 529.397, p = .000,c2/df = 25.209

Four-factor(correlated)model

c2 (DF = 9, N = 246) = 22.496, p = .007; CFI = .973, GFI = .976,RMSEA = .078, p-close = .111, SRMR = .0366,c2/df = 2.500

Factor loadings

Authoritarianism Locus ofControl

PersonalOrientation

RelationalOrientation

— — .82 .74.82 .68.71

Inter-correlations

1 2 3 4

1. Authoritarianism 12. Locus of Control -.02† 13. Personal Orientation -.01† -.63*** 14. Relational Orientation .43*** -.28 .31*** 1

† p > .05; * p = .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.



In terms of correlations between belief structures and the two orientations,authoritarianism was correlated significantly with relational orientation (b =.43, p = .001) and (external) locus of control was negatively correlated withrelational orientation (b = -.28, p = .001) as well as with personal orientation(b = -.63, p = .001). Additionally, personal and relational orientations werepositively related to each other (b = .31, p = .001), whereas no significantrelationship was found between locus of control and authoritarianism. SeeTable 1 for inter-correlations between knowledge and appraisal variables.Also see Table 3 in the Appendix for the inter-correlations among the indi-cators of latent variables.

The error terms coping with stress and prosocial behavior tendency werenegatively intercorrelated (b = -.25, p = .001). This error association repre-sented a measurement error and may be attributed to item oppositionbecause the coping with stress scale involved items measuring personal inde-pendence, whereas prosocial behavioral tendency captured items related topersonal obligation to help others. Thus, it is reasonable to think of perceivedredundancy in item content as the source of this error correlation.

Results of the Structural Model

The results regarding the fit indices suggested that the structural modelrevealed an acceptable fit as in the measurement model (c2 = 22.496, df = 9,p = .007; CMIN/DF = 2.500; CFI = .973; GFI = .976; RMSEA = .078; p-close= .111; SRMR = .0366). The parameter estimates showed that authoritari-anism significantly predicted relational orientation (b = .42, p = .001), but notpersonal orientation (b = -.02, p = .718). On the other hand, locus of controlshowed negative but significant relationships with both personal orientation(b = -.64, p = .001) and relational orientation (b = -.27, p = .001). The resultsare shown in Figure 2.

The structural model revealed a positive intercorrelation between the errorterms (residuals) of personal and relational orientations (b = .21, p = .028).This intercorrelation may be accepted as reasonable if the item overlapparticularly between coping with stress and interpersonal reactivity scales isconsidered.

Results Regarding Gender Differences in Terms of theIndicators of Knowledge and Appraisal Variables

In order to make detailed comparisons between genders along each indicatorthat constituted the knowledge and appraisal varaibles, t-tests were per-formed. The gender results and the descriptive statistics are presented inTable 2.

606 GÜVENÇ ET AL.


As can be seen in Table 2, external locus of control was higher amongboys whereas coping with stress, communication, and interpersonal reactiv-ity were higher among girls. No gender differences were found for authori-tarianism, self-esteem, and prosocial behavior tendencies. Results regardingthe intercorrelations between the indicators are given in Table 3 in theAppendix.

FIGURE 2. Structural model.

TABLE 2Descriptive Statistics and Gender Differences in Relation to Knowledge and

Appraisal Indicators (Independent Samples t-test)

Male(n = 125)

Female(n = 121) Difference

Total(n = 246)

Knowledge VariablesLocus of control 112.66 (18.21) 107.77 (17.69) 4.89* 110.25 (18,08)Authoritarianism 76.21 (9.44) 77.02 (8.98) -.80 76.60 (9,20)

Personal OrientationCoping with Stress 170.60 (22.33) 181.77 (22.56) -11.16*** 176.09 (23,09)Communication 108.67 (13.89) 115.56 (13.89) -6.88*** 112.05 (14,28)Self-Esteem 72.84 (11.33) 75.29 (12.29) -2.45 74.04 (11,85)

Relational OrientationInterpersonal Reactivity 65.18 (9.68) 69.64 (8.13) -4.46*** 67.37 (9,20)Prosocial Tendencies 66.86 (7.40) 67.35 (6.52) -.48 67.10 (6,97)

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.Note: Standard deviations are presented in parentheses.



DISCUSSION

This study was based on the hypothesized model of Cervone et al. (2006) andshowed that while locus of control was related to all the personal and rela-tional variables, authoritarianism was linked only to relational variables.These findings provide partial support for Cervone et al.’s (2006) model;however, directions regarding most of the relationships in the first hypothesiswere not confirmed. While the positive relationship between external locus ofcontrol and authoritarianism was not supported, external locus of controlwas not positively linked to relational orientation, and authoritarianism wasnot negatively related to personal orientation as expected. Such unexpectedresults require a reconsideration of the interpretation of the pattern of intra-individual knowledge and appraisal relationships for disadvantaged urbanadolescents.

Previously, relying on the results of Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway(2003), we thought that conservative people who would have higher authori-tarian attitudes might accept an unjust world, but would tend to justifyinequality, accept it as a given, and resist change. Therefore we thought thatrespect for authority and belief in external power over people’s lives would bepositively related to each other due to a traditional way of life predominantin the poor districts of urban Turkey. We also expected that the higher thelevel of these traditional knowledge structures among adolescents, the lowerwould be the tendency to believe in modern capabilities such as personalworth, belief in coping, and communicating via personal capabilities. Con-versely, we thought that an increase in the same knowledge structures wouldcontribute to a positive variance in relational capabilities, particularly inempathy and prosocial behavior tendencies. Nonetheless, as stated above, wefound that external locus of control was not positively linked to relationalorientation, whereas authoritarianism although positively related to rela-tional capabilities had no relationship with personal orientation.

The various unexpected results regarding the first hypothesis may beattributed to the tension between belief in authoritarianism to preserve soli-darity and engagement of personal capabilities to change things (Feldman,2003) within a socioeconomic context of prevailing unemployment andpoverty (Tekeli, 2002). Disadvantaged adolescents, while preserving authori-tarian norms for social solidarity, may at the same time start questioning theinequalities stemming from “an unjust world”. They may become aware ofthe fact that their personal capacities cannot exceed a certain threshold duethis “unjust world” and may perceive that a belief in fate or resistance againstaction would not alleviate unemployment or poverty. In other words, thesplit between authoritarianism (intolerance for weakness, respect for power)and external locus of control (acceptance of fate, or belief in the meaning-lessness of individual effort in an unjust world) and the split between authori-

608 GÜVENÇ ET AL.


tarian attitudes and personal orientation plus the negative relationshipsbetween external locus of control and personal-relational orientations mayaltogether hint at a differentiation between collective support and individualautonomy (i.e. internal locus of control).

The above-mentioned interpretation for the first hypothesis can also berelated to the findings concerning the second hypothesis (expectation of nogender difference for authoritarianism, but higher external locus of control inmales). It is possible that authoritarianism functions as a shield againstsocioeconomic threats like homelessness or other risks that the “underclass”have to face in a globalizing world (Morlicchio, 2005). Hence, respect forauthoritarian power hierarchy and social solidarity may coexist among dis-advantaged adolescents. In other words, authoritarianism and social confor-mity may carry positive connotations such as interdependence for thesocialization of both genders (Fisek, 1982; Hortaçsu et al., 2003; Imamoglu,1995; Imamoglu & Yasak-Gültekin, 1993; Kagıtçıbası, 1998).

On the other hand, according to traditional norms, females are expected todo domestic work at home while males are held responsible for the materialsubsistence of their families. Therefore, females who are expected to developpersonal and relational capabilities particularly atuned to raising childrenmay feel relatively free of the responsibility to provide for their families(Acar, 1993; White, 1994). Unfortunately since unemployment in Turkey hasbecome an almost permanent situation that can be alleviated neither bypeople nor the government, seasonal jobs appear to be the only option foreconomic survival (Morlicchio, 2005; Sayın, 2007). So it would not be sur-prising that adolescent boys for the time being (who adopt the bread winnerrole) believe in a more unjust world where their efforts may seem powerlessto change the conditions of poverty (Güvenç & Aktas, 2006).

The third hypothesis, regarding the role of gender on the indicators ofpersonal orientation, is partially confirmed by findings that reflect moreself-reliant coping strategies and a more open communication style amonggirls (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Güvenç & Aktas,2006; Knight et al., 1996). As mentioned above, such findings may be attrib-uted to the prevailing gender ideology and practices world-wide (Action forEquality, Development and Peace Platform for Action, 1995; Acar-Savran,2004; Hortaçsu et al., 2003; Sayıl et al., 2002). Contrary to the same hypoth-esis, however, boys’ self-esteem is not higher than girls’ and this finding maybe linked to the traditional cultural norms in poor urban areas where strongrelational support for and control of both genders may have similar inhibi-tory effects on self-esteem.

In terms of the last hypothesis regarding gender differences for indicatorsof relational orientation, girls’ higher interpersonal reactivity is confirmedagain and this may be attributed to gender socialization practices that requireadoption of relational skills and empathic development (Bettencourt &



Miller, 1996; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Güvenç & Aktas, 2006; Knight et al.,1996; Sayıl et al., 2002). As expected, there is no gender difference in proso-cial tendency, which may be explained by the norms of interdependence in apoor traditional area.

Overall, the findings suggest that if promoted, internal locus of controlmay spill over to positive personal appraisals such as self-responsible coping,open communication, hence higher self-esteem. Development of internallocus of control may also play a role in promoting relational capacities suchas perspective taking, empathy, and prosocial tendencies which in turn mayenhance adaptable self-regulation and individual–collective agency. In fact itseems that boys (relative to girls) need more encouragement to develop bothof the personal and relational capacities mentioned above. Nevertheless, theidentified positive relationship between authoritarianism and relationalcapacities which is also shown for generation relationships (Kagıtçıbası,1998; Kandiyoti, 1995; Yılmaz, 2006) must be taken into account andresearchers must not neglect to explore its repressive force on the develop-ment of autonomy in both genders. Hence if researchers were to design andimplement empowerment programs for early and mid-adolescents in a dis-advantaged urban area in Turkey, promotion of internal locus of control andsensitive consideration of authoritarian attitudes appear among the mostimportant factors.

The present study has certain limitations such as data collection only fromearly and mid-adolescents in a single community representing an SES belowthe poverty line. Hence, future investigations should also provide analysis ofmoderation and mediation relationships at different stages of adolescence,comparison of genders, generations, and various SES. Additionally, thestructural model should be cross-validated in a similar sample to confirm itsfit to the data.

REFERENCES

Acar, F. (1993). Gecekondularda Bireylerarsı iliskiler [Interpersonal relationships inpoor urban settlements]. In B. Gökçe et al. (Eds.), Gecekondularda aileler arasıgeleneksel dayanısmanın çagdas organizasyonlara dönüsümü [Transformation ofinter-family solidarity networks in contemporary organizations] (pp. 195–247).T.C. Basbakanlık Kadın ve Sosyal Hizmetler Müstesarlıgı. Ankara: Türk TarihKurumu Basımevi.

Acar-Savran, G. (2004). Beden, Emek, Tarih. Diyalektik Bir Feminizm için [Body,labor and history: For a dialectical feminism]. Istanbul: Pusula yayıncılık Ltd.

Action for Equality, Development and Peace Platform for Action. Division for theAdvancement of Women. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (1995).Retrieved from: www.un.org/womenwatch.daw/beijing/platform

Aktas, V., & Güvenç, B.G. (2006). Kız ve erkek ergenlerde saldırgan ve olumludavranıslar ile yas, iliskisel baglam ve kisiler arası duyarlık arasındaki iliskiler [The

610 GÜVENÇ ET AL.


relationships between aggression, prosocial behavior and age, relational contextand interpersonal reactivity in female and male adolescents]. Hacettepe Ünivers-itesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi [Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty ofLetters], 23(2), 233–264.

Anderson, A., Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R.J. (2005). Locus of control, self-efficacy, andmotivation in different schools: Is moderation the key to success? EducationalPsychology, 25(5), 517–535.

Arbuckle, J.L. (2003). Amos 5 User’s Guide Supplement. Chicago, IL: Small WatersCorporation.

Aycan, Z. (2004). Key success factors for women in management in Turkey. AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 53(3), 453–477.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofhuman behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). San Diego, CA: New York AcademicPress.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review ofPsychology, 52, 1–26.

Baumeister, R.F., Campbell, J.D., Krueger, J.I., & Vohs, K.D. (2003). Does highself-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, orhealthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1–44.

Bergen, T.J. Jr. (2001). The development of prejudice in children. Education, 122(1),154–162.

Bettencourt, B.A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a functionof provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447.

Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective onassessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2),199–231.

Boekaerts, M., Maes, S., & Karoly, P. (2005). Self-regulation across domains ofapplied psychology: Is there an emerging consensus? Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review, 54(2), 49–154.

Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assesing model fit. In K.A.Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 445–455).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B.A. (2003). Sociocognitiveand behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents.Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 107–134.

Carlo, G., & Randall, B.A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocialbehaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 31–44.

Cervone, D., Shadel, W.G., Smith, R.E., & Fiori, M. (2006). Self-regulation: Remind-ers and suggestions from personality science. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 55(3), 333–385.

Christie, R. (1990). Authoritarianism and related constructs. In J.P. Robinson, P.R.Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychologi-cal attitudes (pp. 501–571). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Chubb, N.H., & Fertman, C.I. (1997). Adolescent self-esteem and locus of control:A longitudinal study of gender and age differences. Adolescence, 32(125), 113–129.



Clarbour, J., & Roger, D. (2004). The construction and validation of a new scale formeasuring emotional response style in adolescents. Journal of Child Psychologyand Psychiatry, 45, 496–509.

Cynthia, F., & Mak, A.S. (1998). Measuring social self-efficacy in a culturally diversestudent population. Social Behavior and Personality, 26(2), 131–145.

Dag, I. (2002). Kontrol odagı ölçegi (KOÖ): Ölçek gelistirme, güvenirlik ve geçerlilikçalısması [LOC Scale: Scale development, reliability and validity]. Türk PsikolojiDergisi [Turkish Journal of Psychology], 17, 77–90.

DuBois, D.L., Burk-Braxton, C., Swenson, L.P., Tevendale, H.D., & Hardesty, J.L.(2002). Race and gender influences on adjustment in early adolescence: Investiga-tion of an integrative model. Child Development, 73(5), 1573–1592.

Eagly, A.H., & Steffen, V.J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analyticreview of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309–330.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R.A. (1998). Prosocial development. In W. Damon (SeriesEd.), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3: Social,emotional, and personality development (5th edn., pp. 701–778). New York: JohnWiley.

Fabes, R.A., Carlo, G., Kupanoff, K., & Laible, D. (1999). Early adolescence andprosocial/moral behavior I: The role of individual processes. Journal of EarlyAdolescence, 19, 5–16.

Feldman, S. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: A theory of authoritarianism.Political Psychology, 24, 41–74.

Fisek, G.O. (1982). Psychopathology and the Turkish Family: A family systemstheory analysis. In Ç. Kagıtçıbası (Ed.), Sex roles, family and community in Turkey(pp. 295–322). Indiana, IN: Indiana University Turkish Studies 3.

Fisek, G.O. (1992). Aile yapısında yakınlık ve hiyerarsi boyutları: Kültürlerarası birkarsılastırma [The proximity and hierarchy dimensions within the family struc-ture: An intercultural comparison]. In R. Bayraktar & I. Dag (Eds.), VII. UlusalPsikoloji Kongresi Bilimsel Çalısmaları [The scientific studies in the SeventhNational Congress] (pp. 27–40). Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Dernegi (TurkishJournal of Psychlogy).

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R.S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., De Longis, A., & Gruen, R.J. (1986).Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping and encounteroutcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992–1003.

Güvenç, M. (2005). Toplumsal-mekansal farklılasmayı haritalamak: 1990 sayımın-dan Ankara manzaraları [Mapping the socio-spatial differentiation: Ankara in the1990 census]. In T. Senyapılı (Ed.), Cumhuriyet’in Ankara’sı [The Republic’sAnkara] (pp. 185–197). Ankara: ODTÜ (METU).

Güvenç, G., & Aktas, V. (2006). Ergenlik döneminde yas, toplumsal cinsiyet, bireyselve iliskisel tutumlar, benlik degeri ve yasam becerilerine iliskin algı arasındakiiliskiler [The relationships between the perception of self-esteem, life skills, indi-vidual and relational attitudes, age and gender during adolescence]. Türk PsikolojiDergisi [Turkish Journal of Psychology], 21(57), 45–64.

Hamill, S.K. (2003). Resilience and self-efficacy: The importance of efficacy beliefsand coping mechanisms in resilient adolescents. Colgate University Journal of theSciences, 35, 115–146.

612 GÜVENÇ ET AL.


Heyder, A., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Authoritarianism and ethnocentrism in East andWest Germany—Does the system matter? In R. Alba, P. Schmidt, & M. Wasmer(Eds.), Germans or foreigners? Attitudes toward ethnic minorities in post reunifica-tion Germany (pp. 187–210). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hortaçsu, N., Kalaycıoglu, S., & Rittersberger-Tiliç, H. (2003). Intrafamily aggres-sion in Turkey: Frequency, instigation and acceptance. Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 143(2), 163–184.

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-ture analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural EquationModeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.

International Personality Item Pool (2001). A scientific collaboratory for the devel-opment of advanced measures of personality traits and other individual differ-ences. Retrieved from http://ipip.ori.org/

Imamoglu, O. (1995). Degisim sürecinde aile; evlilik iliskileri, bireysel gelisim vedemokratik degerler [Family in the process of transition: Marital relationships,individual development and democratic values]. Aile Kurultayı. T.C. BasbakanlıkAile Arastırma Kurumu Baskanlıgı [The Family Congress organized by the GeneralDirectorate of Family Research Institute of the Turkish State]. Ankara: BirinciKitap.

Imamoglu, O., & Yasak-Gültekin, Y. (1993). Önerilen dengelenmis toplumsal bireymodeli ısıgında üniversite gençliginin sorunları [Problems of university students inthe light of the proposed socio-individual interdependence model]. Türk PsikolojiDergisi [Turkish Journal of Psychology], 8(30), 27–41.

Jacobs, J.E., Bleaker, M.M., & Constantino, M.J. (2003). The self-system duringchildhood and adolescence: Development, influences, and implications. Journal ofPsychotherapy Integration, 13(1), 33–65.

Jost, J.T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A.W., & Sulloway, F.J. (2003). Political conserva-tism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.

Kagıtçıbası, Ç. (1998). Kültürel Psikoloji: Kültür Baglamında Insan ve Aile [Culturalpsychology: The ındividual and the family within the context of culture]. Istanbul:Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

Kandiyoti, D. (1995). Ataerkil örüntüler: Türk toplumunda erkek egemenligininçözümlenmesine yönelik notlar [Patriarchal patterns: Notes on the analysis ofmale dominance in Turkey]. In S. Tekeli (Ed.), 1980’ler Türkiye’sinde Kadın BakısAçısından Kadınlar [Women from the perspective of women in Turkey during the1980s] (pp. 367–382). Istanbul: Iletisim Yayınları.

Knight, G.P., Fabes, R.A., & Higgins, D.A. (1996). Concerns about drawing causalinferences from meta-analyses: An example in the study of gender differences inaggression. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 410–421.

Kuhl, J., Kazen, M., & Koole, S.L. (2006). Putting Self-Regulation Theory intopractice: A user’s manual. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(3),408–418.

Kumru, A., Carlo, G., & Edwards, C.P. (2004). Olumlu sosyal davranısların iliskisel,kültürel, bilissel ve duyussal bazı degiskenlerle iliskisi [The relationship of proso-cial behavior to the relational, cultural, cognitive and affective variables]. TürkPsikoloji Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Psychology], 19, 109–129.



Laible, D.J., Carlo, G., & Roesch, S.C. (2004). Pathways to self-esteem: The role ofparent and peer attachment, sympathy, and social behaviors. Journal of Adoles-cence, 27, 703–716.

Lippa, R., & Arad, S. (1999). Gender, personality and prejudice: The display ofauthoritarianism and social dominance in interviews with college men and women.Journal of Research in Personality, 33(4), 463–493.

Manger, T., & Eikeland, O.J. (2000). On the relations between locus of control, levelof ability and gender. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 225–229.

Moilanen, K.L. (2007). The adolescent self-regulatory inventory: The developmentand validation of a questionnaire of short-term and long-term self-regulation.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 835–848.

Morlicchio, E. (2005). Challenging the family: The new urban poverty inSouthern Europe. In Y. Kazepov (Ed.), Cities of Europe (pp. 277–300). Oxford:Blackwell.

Olson, M.A., Fazio, R.H., & Hermann, A.D. (2006). Implicit and explicit measures ofself-esteem. Retrieved from: http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/swann/docu/fall395Pdocs/OLSONF

Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P.R.Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 1–49). Green-wich, CT: JAI Press.

Pakaslahti, L., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2001). Peer-attributed prosocial behavioramong aggressive/preferred, aggressive/non-preferred, non-aggressive/preferredand non-aggressive/non-preferred adolescents. Personality and Individual Differ-ences, 30, 903–916.

Pelham, B.W., Koole, S.L., Hardin, C.D., Hetts, J.J., Seah, E., & De-Hart, T. (2005).Gender moderates the relation between implicit and explicit self-esteem. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 41, 84–89.

Plancherel, B., Bolognini, M., & Halfon, O. (1998). Coping strategies in early andmid-adolescence: Differences according to age and gender in a community sample.European Pychologist, 3, 192–201.

Ray, J.J. (1973). Conservatism, authoritarianism and related variables: A review andempirical study. In G.D. Wilson (Ed.), The psychology of conservatism (Ch. 2).London: Academic Press.

Sahin, H.N., & Durak, A. (1995). Stresle basa çıkma tarzları ölçegi: Üniversiteögrencileri için uyarlanması [Coping with stress scale: Adaptation of the scale toTurkish university students]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Psychol-ogy], 10(34), 56–73.

Sayıl, M., Yılmaz, A.G., & Uçanok, Z. (2002). Ergenlige geçiste bilgilendirmeninergenin bilgi düzeyi ve benlik algısına etkisi [The effect of an informative pubertyprogram on early adolescents’ knowledge base and self-perceptions]. TürkPsikoloji Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Psychology], 17, 47–58.

Sayın, A. (2007). Gender mainstreaming and working life. The debate on gendermainstreaming in Turkey (pp. 31–38). Istanbul: Heinrich Böll Foundation.

Smetana, J.G., Campion-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent developmentin interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255–284.

614 GÜVENÇ ET AL.


Smith, T.W. (2003). Altruism in contemporary America: A report from the NationalAltruism Study. National Opinion Research Centre, University of Chicago.Report prepared for the Fetzer Institute.

Tafarodi, R.W. (2006). Implicit and explicit self-esteem: What are we measuring?Canadian Psychology. Retrieved from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3711/is_200608/ai_n16840893/print

Tekeli, I. (2002). Yoksullugu düsünme biçimimiz samimiyet sınavını geçebilir mi?[Does our way of thinking about poverty pass the test of sincerety?]. Yoksuluk, KentYoksullugu ve Planlama [Poverty, urban poverty and planning] (pp. 37–44). 6–8Kasım Dünya Sehircillik günü 26. Kolokyumu [The 26th World Colloquium onUrban Planning, 6–8 November 2002]. Ankara: TMMOB Sehir Plancılar Odası.

White, J.B. (1994). Money makes us relatives: Women’s labor in urban Turkey. Austin,TX: University of Texas Press.

Wood, P.C., & Hillman, S.B. (1996). Locus of control, self-concept and self-esteemamong at-risk African-American adolescents. Adolescence, 31(123), 597–604.

Yılmaz, H. (2006). Türkiye’de muhafazakarlık: Aile, din, Batı. Ilk sonuçlar üzerinegenel degerlendirme. Yayımlanmamıs arastırma raporu [Conservatism in Turkey:The family, religion and the West. A general evaluation of the preliminary find-ings. Unpublished research project]. Proje Destegi: Açık Toplum Enstitüsü veBogaziçi Üniversitesi Kamuoyu Arastırması: Infakto Research Group. Danıs-manlar: Dr Emre Erdogan, Güçlü Atlgan. Arastırma asis. Bahar Baser, Ömer Ak.Kamuoyu arastırma tarihi: Ocak 2006.

Zimmerman, B.J., & Cleary, T.J. (2006). Adolescents’ development of personalagency. Retrieved from: www.des.emory.edu/mfp/zimmermanclearyAdoEd5.pdf

APPENDIX

TABLE 3The Intercorrelations between the Indicators of Personal and

Relational Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Self-Esteem 12. Prosocial

Tendencies.097 1

3. AuthoritarianAttitudes

-.076 .258*** 1

4. Locus of Control -.516*** -.243*** -.022 15. Interpersonal

Reactivity.111 .514*** .347*** -.168** 1

6. Communication .587*** .265*** .038 -.476*** .216*** 17. Coping with

Stress.567*** .090 000 -.522*** .137* .677*** 1

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.



Documents

The Relationships between Knowledge Structures and Appraisals of Economically Disadvantaged Adolescents