Family Efficacy

Journal of Research and ReviewVolume 1, number 1, September 2008

Developing Asian Values, Self-construal, and Resiliency, through Family Efficacy and Parental Closeness

Carlo Magno Dyana Profugo

De La Salle University-ManilaSonia Mendoza

De La Salle–College of Saint Benilde

AbstractThe study tested a model showing the effects of perceived parent and adolescent interaction factors such as family efficacy and parental closeness on Asian values, self-construal, and resiliency. Based on Bronfrenbrenner’s ecological system’s theory, it is hypothesized in the study that family efficacy, parental closeness, and Asian values are facilitated with group emergent properties such as family interaction factors. Different measures for each factor will be administered to 1000 college students using a longitudinal design. The measures for family efficacy and parental closeness will be administered on the first wave and the scales for Asian values, self-construal, and resiliency in another time. The proposed model is tested using Structural Equations Modeling.

The family plays an important role in the development of children’s values, conception of individuality, and way of coping with real life problems. There are various factors in the family that facilitates children’s values, self-construal, and resilient behavior. These factors are the elements in the family such as closeness between the child and parents (Magno, 2007) and the capability of the family to manage different situations experienced called family efficacy (Caprara, Regalia, Scabini, Barbaranelli, & Bandura, 2004). These family interaction variables are important because it involves a socialization process where the family interacts and facilitates a child’s development. The present study investigates the socialization process in the family as reflected in closeness and family efficacy. Through these socialization processes, an adolescents’ sense of a shared self is formed especially among Asians. According to Markus and Kitayama (1991) that one’s self-construal is formed because of the kind of interaction that occurs in one’s cultural context. These contexts involve socialization in the school and home environment. The home environment plays an intense role on developing self-construal because it provides an immediate influence on the growth child (Bonfrenbrenner, 1979). Through the socialization process in the family, a child also develops skills in managing stressful events that they experience and becomes resilient. Managing these stressful events or resiliency is made possible because an individual is interwoven in the family’s social network which provides communal support (Hobfall, Jackson, Hobfall, Pierce, & Young, 2002; Magno, Mamauag, & Parinas, 2007). Aside from developing self-construal and resiliency, the interaction that occurs in the family also transmits values to a child.

1

Family Efficacy

There is a need to provide a framework showing how family interaction variables such as parental closeness and family efficacy influence a child’s resiliency, values, and self-construal. Available theories on the influence of family on the child’s development are not very specific especially on the kind of behavior produced by the child. For example, Bronfrenbrenner’s ecologcal system only emphasized on the different layers of the environment that affect a child’s development. On the other hand, Bowen’s family systems theory is limited in describing the interaction that occurs among family members and consequences to these interactions are not explicitly mentioned. It is also established from previous studies that influence of family factors on the child shows that healthy family functioning reflects children who are well-adjusted in life as measured by a variety of variables (Bradley & Corwyn, 2000; Brody et al., 2006; Szapocznik & Prado, 2007; Uebelacker et al., 2006).

In the present study, a model is tested showing how family interactions such as parental closeness and family efficacy influence an adolescents’ self-construal, resiliency, and Asian values. The model will demonstrate how each of the variables in an emergent group property interacts and influence an adolescents’ behavior. The study aims to determine if: (1) the interaction through family efficacy increases with parental closeness; (2) both family efficacy and parental closeness directly or indirectly produce adolescents’ resiliency; (3) Asian values is facilitated through family efficacy and parental closeness; and (4) an interdependent self-construal is facilitated through the emergent group properties such as family efficacy, parental closeness, and Asian values.

Resiliency

Over the years, studies had been made to examine resiliency. In these studies, the word resilience was used to describe the ability of individuals to adapt surprisingly well under adverse and stressful environmental conditions through healthy and flexible ways (Klohnen, 1996; Tusaie, Puskar, & Sereika, 2007). Literature on resiliency has depicted a resilient individual as one who has a healthy sense of self, is self-efficacious, bold, determined, and able to find equanimity and meaningfulness in life (Earles & Earles, 1987; Huner & Chandler, 1999; Wanild & Young, 1990; Werner & Smith, 1982). However, such view may take a resilient individual out of one’s own context and presuppose that resilience is a product of the individual, and nothing else.

Further studies enabled several researchers to identify prospective factors that assist an individual in developing resilience: (a) internal factors such as the dispositional characteristics of temperament, intelligence, sense of humor, emphatic abilities, and an internal locus of control; and (b) external factors such as family cohesion and warmth where the child is valued, protected, and loved by at least one parent (Hunter & Chandler, 1999). Such view recognizes that resilience is a product of the dynamic interaction between adversity and an individual’s internal and external protective factors that will enable the individual to overcome difficulties in one’s life (Hunter & Chandler, 1999). The family resilience perspective also considers an individual’s external protective factors and offers a similar point of view, taking into account that an individual is always embedded in a social group, in this case, a family. The family resilience perspective asserts that while stressful crises and persistent economic, physical, and social challenges influence the whole family, key family processes mediate the impact of these crises and

2

Family Efficacy

the development of resilience in individual members and in the family unit as a whole (Amatea et al., 2006). Resilience, then, ceases to be merely a product of the independent individual but instead, becomes the product of the interdependent person as mediated by other factors in one’s life. In line with this, this study will look into the ability of family efficacy to mediate the effects of Asian values, parental closeness, and self-construal on an individual’s resilience.

Family Efficacy

Previous studies had ascertained that a resilient individual is one who is self-efficacious (Huner & Chandler, 1999). However, it has also been established that one of the external protective factors that affect an individual’s resilience can be found within the family. Since the family is construed as a social system comprising interlocking relationships, operating interactively, an individual’s personal efficacy belief may no longer hold sufficient as a factor of the individual’s resiliency (Caprara, Regalia, Scabini, Barbaranelli, & Bandura, 2004). It becomes more appropriate to also look into family efficacy as this affects the development of resilience in an individual. The social cognitive theory explains that one’s sense of efficacy involves the regulation of one’s cognitive function that makes an individual resilient (Bandura, 1977). Efficacy is not only attained by the individual but can occur in a group such as a family unit. The concept of self-efficacy in a group is termed as collective efficacy, and family efficacy for a family unit.

The study of Caprara, Regalia, Scabini, Barbaranelli, & Bandura (2004) identified four factors of family efficacy. These are filial efficacy, parental efficacy, marital efficacy, and collective family efficacy. In the present study, the researchers only used two factors: filial efficacy and collective family efficacy. Filial efficacy refers to the capabilities of children to discuss with their parents personal problems even under difficult circumstances, express positive feelings and manage negative emotional reactions toward them, get parents to see their side on contentious issues, manage stress arising from marital conflicts, and to influence constructively parental attitudes and social practices. On the other hand, collective family efficacy refers to the capabilities of the family as a whole to manage daily routine operations, achieve consensus in decision-making and planning, cope together with adversities, promote reciprocal commitment, provide emotional support in difficult times and in stressful situations, enjoy each other and relax together in spite of multiple obligations, and keep good relations with each other (Caprara, Regalia, Scabini, Barbaranelli, & Bandura, 2004).

The concept of family efficacy stems from the variable collective efficacy. Collective efficacy is associated with the tasks, level of effort, persistence, thoughts, stress levels, and achievement of groups (Bandura, 1997). According to Bandura (1997), collective efficacy is concerned with the performance capability of a social system as a whole. The study by Goddard and his colleagues (2004) emphasized the importance of looking into collective efficacy beliefs. For them, collective efficacy beliefs directly affect the diligence and resolve with which the person chooses to pursue their collective goal (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004). This importance was also highlighted in the study by Caprara and his colleagues (2004) where they argued that under conditions in which

3

Family Efficacy

outcomes require interdependent effort, as is true in most social systems, success depends on perceived collective efficacy.

Parental Closeness

Part of family efficacy is the ability of children and parents to discuss information no matter how difficult the circumstances may be (Caprara et al., 2004). For children to actually confide in their parents, a certain degree of parental closeness is necessary. Parental closeness is being comfortable enough to share with one’s parents one’s own worries, concerns, leisure time (Kuntsche & Silbereisen, 2004), and even positive thoughts and experiences. Parental closeness emerged as a variable in family studies in the 1990’s but it was deconstructed later on as family bonding and family cohesion variables (Bahr, Marcos, & Maughan, 1995; Farrell, Barnes, & Banerjee, 1995; Zhang, Welte, & Wieczorek, 199). The uniqueness of parental closeness was not established as a variable because of the lack of studies to establish it as a construct. However, the study by Magno (2007) identified that that parental closeness involves the factors of communication, bonding, social support, and succorance. It was also found in the study that parental closeness clusters with parental practices variables which is distinct with parenting styles. Moreover, in a study by Ashby and Clearly (1996), they observed that developing the perception that parents are available when one is in distress would strengthen attachment in the parent-child relationship, which then enables the child to enter adolescence with better self-regulation skills, and helps the child develop resilience. Kuntsche & Silbereisen (2004) found another effect of parental closeness. They observed that speaking about their personal worries and feeling close to their parents leaves children more open to their parents' influence and makes them more likely to have similar attitudes and values. Likewise Steinberg (2002) explained that adolescents who are close with their parents make them more likely to have similar attitudes and values. The internalization of these values enables an adolescent to become resilient against engagement in deviant behaviors (Bell, Forthun, & Sun, 2000).

Asian Values

The values of a child can be acquired through the family. This is explained in Hirschi's social control theory (Hirschi, 1969) where strong bonds with parents promote and reflected in the adolescent's adoption of conventional societal norms and values. Parental closeness makes it possible for parents to pass their values and attitudes on to their children.

It is also not surprising that people from certain cultures emphasize family interconnectedness and closeness over independence. The sense of interdependence makes values so intricately part of their being. Individuals from interdependent cultures such as those of Asian ancestry place more importance on relationships and familial commitments than do people from Western cultures (Yeh & Wang, 2000). In the study done by Heppner and his colleagues (2006), they identified the following Asian values: (1) the ability to resolve psychological problems, (2) avoidance of family shame, (3) collectivism, (4) conformity to family norms and expectations, (5) deference to authority figures, (6) educational and occupational achievement, (7) filial piety, (8) importance of

4

Family Efficacy

family, (9) maintenance of interpersonal harmony, (10) placing other’s needs ahead of one’s own, (11) reciprocity, (12) respect for elders and ancestors, (13) self-control and restraint, and (14) self-effacement. In almost all of the values identified, the importance of the family is evident. In such collectivistic cultures, the self is understood to be part of the family, and of a larger whole and is largely defined in terms of connections to significant others and groups (Cross, Morris, & Gore, 2002). It has been argued that people in collectivistic cultures (like Asians, for example), emphasize an inextricable connectedness of human beings to each other (Church et al., 2003).These Asian values, which are intricately embedded in a person, eventually affect how the person views one’s self. True enough, researchers had identified that people from collectivistic cultures view themselves differently from others.

Self-Construal

Individuals from collectivistic cultures are thought to have interdependent self-construals, that is, they view themselves as connected to others and define the self, at least in part, by important roles, group memberships, or relations (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000). And ultimately, how people define themselves influence how they think, feel, and interact with others (Cross, Morris, & Gore, 2002).

Individuals who have an interdependent self-construal tend to think and behave in ways that emphasize their connectedness to others and strengthen their existing relationships (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000). As for these individuals, maintaining close relationships is central to maintaining a stable sense of self and self-esteem, then they engage in behavior that foster close relationships, such as disclosing on intimate topics and considering the implications of their decisions for close others (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000). This kind of self-construal is consistent with the values of individuals of Asian ancestry hold. They conform to family norms and expectations, behave in ways that would prevent family shame (also in respect of elders and ancestors), give importance to their families, efface themselves by placing the needs of the group before their own, and even attributing educational and occupational achievement as achievement of the whole family. The individual’s position in the group or situation dictates behavior; therefore, knowing one’s place, behaving according to one’s role, and putting the needs of the group before one’s own needs are central dictums that shape the self-construal (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000).

A person’s self-construal even affects how one reacts and copes to adverse situations. Asians’ strong interconnectedness with others shows through their coping styles (Yeh, Inman, Kim, & Okubo, 2006). In a study by Yeh & Wang (2000) found that previously reported underuse of mental health services among Asian Americans did not mean that Asian American mental health concerns were not being addressed. Instead, Asian Americans, who have interdependent self-construal, seek help for psychological problems from family, relatives, friends, and other close others. In a later study, it was also observed that a loss of a family member did not merely refer to a loss of a particular person, but a loss of a role in the family, a loss of self or of shared identity (Yeh, Inman, Kim, & Okubo, 2006).

5

Family Efficacy

Conceptual Framework

The present study investigates the influence of parental closeness and family efficacy on Asian values, self-construal, and resiliency. Parental closeness and family efficacy are conceptualized as family interaction factors because these variables involve the relationship of the parent and adolescence to produce positive consequences. The effects of family interaction on Asian values, self-construal, and resiliency are based on the Bronfrenbrenner’s ecological system theory. The ecological systems theory specifies four types of nested environmental systems, with bi-directional influences within and between the systems (microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem). Each system contains roles, norms, and rules that can powerfully shape human development (Bronfrenbrenner, 1979). In the present study, family efficacy and parental closeness is part of the immediate microsystem. These two factors influence the development of a child’s resiliency, self-construal, and Asian values. Through family interaction such as closeness and efficacy, a child becomes resilient by developing different ways of coping as they experience problems (Hobfoll, Jackson, Hobfoll, Pierce, & Young, 2002; Benard, 1991; Seligman, 1995; Werner & Smith, 1982; Zimrin, 1986). A child becomes resilient because of the social support that is part of parental closeness (Magno, Mamauag, & Parinas, 2007). In the same way, a more interdependent self-construal is facilitated such as harmonious interdependence and connectedness where the self is less differentiated with others. The family provides a venue for socialization and the child acquires Asian values. Asian families are said to promote values such as hard work, respect for education, and high expectations for achievement (Chen & Stevenson, 1995; Sue & Okazaki, 1990; Vernon, 1982).

Figure 1The Influence of Family Interaction on Resiliency, Asian Values, and Self-construal

Method

6

Parental Closeness

Family Efficacy

Resiliency

Asian Values

Self-construal

Family Efficacy

Research Design

The study will make use of the longitudinal design to infer the causality between family interaction (parental closeness and family efficacy) with Asian values, resiliency, and self-construal. The design is executed by administering first the measures for the parental closeness and family efficacy and in another period of time the measures of Asian values, resiliency, and self-construal. A two wave administration enables to describe the direction of the causal relationship among the variables. The gap between the two time frames is two weeks which is sufficient.

Participants

The participants will be 1000 undergraduate college students from different universities in Metro Manila from 16 to 21 years old. The students will be selected using purposive sampling. The inclusion criteria includes: (1) living with both mother and father in the same house, (2) both parents are still living, (3) one or both parents are not presently working abroad.

Instruments

Family Efficacy Scale. The study by Caprara, Regalia, Scabini, Barbaranelli, & Bandura (2004) confirmed that family efficacy is composed of factors such as filial self-efficacy, parental self-efficacy, marital self-efficacy, and collective family efficacy. In the present study only filial self-efficacy and collective family efficacy are used.

The participants’ perceived collective family efficacy will be measured by 20 items assessing beliefs in the family’s efficacy to operate as a whole system in accomplishing tasks necessary for family functioning (see Appendix A). Collective family efficacy focuses on the perceived operative capabilities of the family as a whole. The items focus on the family’s capability to: manage daily routine operations, achieve consensus in decision-making and planning, cope together with adversities, promote reciprocal commitment, provide emotional support in difficult times and in stressful situations, enjoy each other and relax together in spite of multiple obligations, and keep good relations with the community at large. The scale used a 4-point response format, from 1 = not at all, to 4 = very well.

On the other hand, the subscale on filial efficacy will be measures using 16 items assessing belief in the families’ capabilities to discuss with their parents personal problems even under difficult circumstances, express positive feelings and manage negative emotional reactions toward them, get parents to see their side on contentious issues, manage stress arising from marital conflicts, and to influence constructively parental attitudes and social practices (see Appendix B). The construction of the scale shows competencies that are likely to foster a good relationship with parents. The same response format was used with the collective efficacy subscale. For each item, participants rated their perceived efficacy to manage given family relationships.

Both subscales shows high internal consistency and they significantly correlate with other subscales of the family efficacy questionnaire.

7

Family Efficacy

Parental Closeness Inventory (PCI). The PCI will be used to measure the degree to which adolescents’ shows closeness with his/her parents (Magno, 2007). The inventory is composed of 36 items assessing four factors (see Appendix C). The factors of parental closeness are bonding, communication, support, and succorance (Cronbach’s alpha are .81, .91, .86, and .69 respectively). The inventory used a Lickert scale response format, 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly disagree. The scale underwent two exploratory factor analysis where the same factors are consistently extracted. The four factors were also confirmed using a Confirmatory Factor Analysis with adequate goodness of fit (χ2=50.11, df=1, p<.05; RMS=0.072; McDonald Noncentrality Index=0.908, Population Gamma Index=0.912). The items internal consistency for three pilot tests are .94, .98, and .92 respectively.

Resiliency Attitudes and Skills Profile (RASP). The RASP is used to measure the resiliency of the adolescent respondents of the study. The items of the RASP are based on the theory of Wolin and Wolin (1993) composed of the dimension insight, independence, creativity, humor, relationships, initiative, and values orientation (see Appendix D). There are 34 items based from the original scale with high factor loadings. The Likert scale was used in a selection from strongly agree to strongly disagree for each item. Construct validity was conducted where each of the seven dimensions loaded significantly on the overall concept of resiliency. Correlation analysis indicates that the dimensions of the RASP are more related to each other than to the other factors. The assessment of internal consistency revealed that the RASP, as a whole, achieved an alpha coefficient of .91, indicating strong internal consistency for the total scale. Alpha levels for the seven subscales were somewhat lower: Insight = .65, Independence = .62, Creativity = .68, Humor = .49, Relationships = .71, Initiative = .53, and Values Orientation = .68.

Asian Value Scale (AVS). The AVS is a 25 item instrument designed to measure an individual’s adherence to Asian cultural values and maintenance of one’s native cultural values and beliefs (Kim & Hong, 2004). The values include collectivism, conformity to norms, respect for authority figure, emotional restraint, filial piety, hierarchical family structure, and humility. The instrument uses a 4-point Lickert scale with 1 as strongly agree to 4 as strongly agree. The AVS has internal consistency from .80 to .83. Test-retest reliability of .83 was obtained with two weeks interval. Both construct and concurrent validity was established. Confirmatory factor analysis was established for all the values.

Self-construal Scale. The items are based on the conceptualization of the relational form of the interdependent self-construal (Cross, Bacon, & Moris, 2000). In completing the scale, participants will be instructed to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each of these statements. Participants will respond using a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The possible range of scores is from 11 to 77. High item-total correlations were obtained in its third pilot test.

8

Family Efficacy

Procedure

Students from different selected colleges and universities in the Metro manila will be requested to answer a series of questionnaires. In the actual administration, informed consent will be obtained from the college respondents and those who are willing to participate in the study will be given the set of questionnaires and instructed to answer them. The respondents will be monitored while answering the questionnaires in case questions would arise. The set of questionnaires will be given to the students’ professors who will administer it in class. The administration of the scales will take 30 minutes. After completing the answers for all the questionnaires, the students will be thanked and debriefed about the purpose of the study.

The administration of the two sets of instruments will take place on two different time frames. In the first wave, family efficacy scale and parental closeness inventory will be administered. After two weeks, the Asian values scales, self-construal scale, and Resiliency Attitude Skills Profile will be administered to the same respondents for the second wave. The same respondents will be tested during the second wave administration through repeated measures.

Data Analysis

Descriptive Statistics. The mean and the standard deviation will be used to report the levels of each measure in the scales. All the factors of the measures will be intercorrelated to establish the relationship and the covariances will be entered in the Structural Equations Modeling.

Structural Equations Modeling (SEM). The SEM will be used as the major analysis in the study. The model is tested using the SEM where the exogenous latent construct are family efficacy (filial and collective) and parental closeness (bonding, communication, support, and succorance) while the endogenous latent constructs are Asian values (collectivism, conformity to norms, respect for authority figure, emotional restraint, filial piety, hierarchical family structure, and humility), self-construal (interdependence and independence), and resiliency (insight, independence, creativity, humor, relationships, initiative, and values orientation) (see Figure 1).

Noncentrality and Single Sample Fit Indices will be used to evaluate the goodness of fit of the model. The noncentrality measures represent a change of emphasis in assessing model fit. Instead of testing the hypothesis that the fit is perfect, it tests how bad is the fit of the model to the statistical population and how accurate is the population badness-of-fit from the sample data (citation). The obtained Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA) which is a noncentrality measure will be used to determine the best fitting model. Values of the RMSEA index below .05 indicate good fit, and values below .01 indicate outstanding fit (Steiger, Shapiro, & Browne, 1985). The RMSEA compensates for model parsimony by dividing the estimate of the population noncentrality parameter by the degrees of freedom. Single sample goodness of fit indices will also be used to evaluate the model. The noncentrality fit indices will be used to assess the model are Joreskog (GFI and AGFI: Values above .95 indicate good fit), Bentler-Bonett, Relative Fit Index/Bollen’s rho (RFI: values close to 1 indicate a

9

Family Efficacy

relatively good fit), Incremental Fit Index/Bollen’s delta (IFI: values close to 1 indicate a relatively good fit), and Comparative Fit Index/McDonald’s Fit index (CFI: values close to 1 indicate a relatively good fit, values above .95 are acceptable) (Browne & Cudeck, 1989).

Results

The scores for the subscales of parental closeness (bonding, communication, support, and succorance), Family efficacy (filial efficacy and collective efficacy), resiliency (Independence, Creativity, Humor, Initiative, Relationship, and Values Orientation), Asian values (Collectivism, Conformity to norms, Respect for authority, Emotional restraint, Filial piety, Hierarchical family structure, and Humility) and self-construal. Table 1 shows the mean and standard deviation.

Table 1Mean and Standard Deviation

N M SDParental Closeness Bonding 300 46.07 7.13 Communication 300 19.29 3.83 Support 300 28.97 5.48 Succorance 300 9.29 1.79Family Efficacy Filial efficacy 300 45.58 8.19 Collective efficacy 300 57.47 8.87Resiliency Independence 300 4.23 1.47 Creativity 300 8.80 2.49 Humor 300 6.58 2.02 Initiative 300 7.49 1.94 Relationship 300 13.92 3.07 Values Orientation 300 14.30 3.17Asian Values Collectivism 300 5.36 1.44 Conformity to norms 300 10.43 1.91 Respect for authority 300 3.87 1.37 Emotional restraint 300 9.87 2.10 Filial piety 300 10.34 2.01 Hierarchical family structure 300 10.24 1.98 Humility 300 13.23 2.53Self-construal 300 32.14 5.40 Parcel1 300 5.67 1.37 Parcel2 300 6.37 1.46 Parcel3 300 4.45 1.41 Parcel4 300 5.78 1.44 Parcel5 300 8.64 1.98

10

Family Efficacy

The means for the subscales showed a large spread as indicated by the large standard deviations especially for parental closeness and family efficacy. Majority of the participants obtained high scores in almost all the subscales of the measures used.

Table 2Correlation Matrix

Parental Closeness Family Efficacy

Bonding

Communication

Support Succorance Filial efficacy

Collective efficacy

Independence -0.12* -0.17* -0.20* -0.11 -0.17* -0.25*Creativity -0.33* -0.28* -0.48* -0.36* -0.40* -0.48*Humor -0.38* -0.27* -0.45* -0.37* -0.37* -0.48*Initiative -0.11 -0.11* -0.15* -0.11 -0.14* -0.19*Relationship 0.45* 0.26* 0.45* 0.40* 0.51* 0.55*Values orientation

0.40* 0.37* 0.45* 0.38* 0.46* 0.52*

Self-construal 0.48* 0.43* 0.55* 0.41* 0.53* 0.57*Collectivism 0.33* 0.24* 0.27* 0.22* 0.27* 0.21*Conformity to norms

0.15* 0.13* 0.20* 0.20* 0.15* 0.13*

Respect for authority

-0.15* -0.04 -0.03 -0.03 -0.07 -0.07

Emotional restraint

-0.16* -0.08 0.08 -0.01 0.01 -0.03

Filial piety 0.16* 0.00 0.24* 0.13* 0.19* 0.20*Hierarchical family structure

0.07 0.07 0.18* 0.09 0.15* 0.11

Humility 0.35* 0.27* 0.37* 0.28* 0.34* 0.23**p<.05

The correlation coefficient between the factors of resiliency (Independence, Creativity, and Humor) and factors of parental closeness and family efficacy have a negative magnitude, p<.05. However, for relationship and values orientation, they have a positive magnitude with the factors of parental closeness and family efficacy. Bonding is significantly related with almost all Asian values except for hierarchical family structure, p<.05. Filial piety and humility are all significantly related with all the factors of parental closeness and family efficacy, p<.05.

11

Family Efficacy

Figure 2The Effect of Parental Closeness and Family Efficacy on Resiliency, Asian Values, and Self-construal

The results of the Structural Equations Modeling, showed that all manifest variables of the parental closeness, family efficacy, resiliency, Asian values, and self-construal were significant, p<.05 (see Appendix A). Since self-construal is a unidimensional measure five parcels were created where items are combined based on their factors loadings in a principal components analysis. In the procedure, the factor loadings in the first extracted factor were arranged from highest to lowest and the items with highest and lowest loadings consecutively were combined as one parcel (see Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002).

Parental closeness, family efficacy, and self-construal do not significantly increase resiliency. But the effects of parental closeness and family efficacy on Asian Values and self-construal were significant, p<.05. The relationship between parental closeness and family efficacy was significant, p<.05. The relationship is also significant between Asian values and self-construal, p<.05.

The entire model when tested for goodness of fit had a χ2=982.08, df=222, discrepancy function of 4.42. The population noncentrality parameter is 3.292, RMSEA of .022, PGI of .97 and APGI of .97. The measures of goodness of fit indicate that the data fits the specified model.

Discussion

The results of the study indicate that the subscales independence, creativity, humor, and initiative as subscales of resiliency were negatively related with the factors of family efficacy and parental closeness. The other subscales like relationship and values orientation were positively related with the factors of family efficacy and parental closeness. There is a pattern here that the subscales of resiliency that has a social

12

Parental Closeness

Family Efficacy

Resiliency

Self-construal

.01

3.80*.46*

.004

1.78*

.31*

1.5* -.002

.11*Asian Values

Family Efficacy

orientation is positively related with family efficacy and parental closeness as compared with the subscales that is oriented more on independence (independence, creativity, humor, and initiative). The previous studies did not explain the specific components of resiliency on other factors and only explained resiliency as a whole (Hurtes & Allen, 2001). The orientation of the subscales of the resiliency scale into social and independent is evident in its differences in magnitude across the factors of parental closeness and family efficacy. It can be further theorized in future studies about the possible clusters of resiliency as a construct.

It was also found in the study that humility and filial piety had consistent relationship with the factors of family efficacy and parental closeness. This is explained by the nature of the Filipino participants who value the family and all important decisions made in the family. These values increase with closeness with parents and family efficacy. Family orientation and interdependence are greatly emphasized in the Filipino culture. More so, the value of filial piety highly values obedience, respect for parents and elders, and individual interests are secondary to those of the family. The Filipinos tend to place high regard to parents and to the family as a whole because everyone in the family has a responsibility to make the family proud. Humility is also emphasized in the family where one’s achievement is an achievement of the family as a whole. The family acknowledges if an adolescent conforms to values of humility (Hartley, 1995).

In the Structural Equations Modeling, both parental closeness and family efficacy significantly increases self-construal and Asian values but not on resiliency. The significant effect of the parental closeness on Asian values can be explained that most of the Asian values are centered and produced within the family. The adolescent who interacts with their parents (through closeness and family efficacy) imbibes the values that are acceptable within their unit. When the parent engages in certain activities with the child like recreational activities that promotes closeness, the child starts to imbibe values like collectivism, conformity to norms, respect for authority, emotional restraint, filial piety, hierarchical family structure, and humility. Most of these values are embedded and contextualized within the family that explains the effect of parental closeness and family efficacy which characterize interactions that occurs between the parents and children.

Both family efficacy and parental closeness also significantly increase self-construal. Self-construal in the present study is determined as a continuum where high scores would indicate interdependence and low scores indicate independence. As indicated in the parameter estimates that an increase of 1.0 in parental closeness increased self-construal by 1.78. Also, an increase of 1.0 in family efficacy increased self-construal by 0.31. This shows that when the child socializes with the parents promotes a more interdependent orientation in the child. This finding is consistent across the study where the socialization with parents through family efficacy and parental closeness are relatyed with socially oriented ways of resiliency and increases Asian values.

References

Amatea, E., Adcock, S., & Villares, E. (2006). From family deficit to family strength: Viewing families’ contributions to children’s learning from a family resilience perspective. Professional School Counseling, 9, 177-189.

13

Family Efficacy

Ashby, T. & Clearly, S. (1996). How are social support effects mediated? A test with parental support and adolescent substance use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 937-952.

Bahr, S. J., Marcos, A. C., & Maughan, S. L. (1995). Family, educational and peer influences on the alcohol use of female and male adolescents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 56, 457–469.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.Benard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school,

and community. Portland, OR: Western Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities.

Bell, N. J., Forthun, L. F., & Sun, S.-W. (2000). Attachment, adolescent competencies and substance use: Developmental considerations in the study of risk behaviors. Substance Use and Misuse, 35, 1177–1206.

Bradley, R. H. & Corwyn, R. F. (2000). Moderating effect of perceived amount of family conflict on the relation between home environmental processes and the well-being of adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 349-364.

Brody, G. H., Murry, V. M., Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F. X., McNair, L., Brown, A. C., Wills, T. A., Molgaard, V, Spoth, R, L., Luo, Z. Chen, Y. (2006). The strong African American families program: Prevention of youths' high-risk behavior and a test of a model of change. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 1-11.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariances structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445-455.

Caprara, G., Regalia, C., Bandura, A. (2002). Longitudinal impact of perceived self-regulatory efficacy on violent conduct. European Psychologist, 7, 63-69.

Caprara, G., Regalia, C., Scabini, E., Barbaranelli, C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Assessment of filial, parental, marital, and collective family efficacy beliefs. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20, 247-261.

Chen, C. & Stevenson, H. (1995). Motivation and mathematics achievement: A comparative study of Asian-American, Caucasian-American, and East Asian high school students. Child Development, 66, 1215-1234.

Church, A., Ortiz, F., Katigbak, M., Avdeyeva, T., Emerson, A., Flores, J., & Reyes, J. (2003). Measurign Individual and Cultural Differences in Implicit Trait Theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 332-347.

Constantine, M. (2006). Perceived family conflict, parental attachment, and depression in African American female adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 697-709.

Cross, S., Bacon, P. & Morris, M. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791-808.

Cross, S., Morris, M., & Gore, J. (2002). Thinking about oneself and others: The relational-interdependent self-construal and social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 399-418.

Cross, S., Gore, J., & Morris, M. (2003). The relational-interdependent self-construal, self-concept consistency, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 933-944.

14

Family Efficacy

Farrell, M. P., Barnes, G. M., & Banerjee, S. (1995). Family cohesion as a buffer against the effects of problem-drinking fathers on psychological distress, deviant behavior, and heavy drinking in adolescents. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 377–385.

Goddard, R., Hoy, W., & Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33, 3-13.

Heppner, P., Heppner, J., Lee, D., Wang, Y., Park, H., & Wang, L. (2006). Development and validation of a collectivist coping styles inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 107–125.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Hobfoll, S. E., Jackson, A., Hobfoll, I., Pierce, C. A. & Young, S. (2002). The impact of

communal-mastery versus self-mastery on emotional outcomes during stressful conditions: A prospective study of native American women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 853-871.

Hunter, A. & Chandler, G. (1999). Adolescent resilience. The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31, 243-247.

Hurtes, K. & Allen, L. (2001). Measuring resiliency in youth: The resiliency attitudes and skills profile. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 35, 333-148.

Kim, B. & Hong, S. (2004). A psychometric revision of the Asian values scale using the Rasch model. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37, 15-28.

Klohnen, E., (1996). Conceptual analyisis and measurement of the construct of ego-resiliency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1067-1079.

Kuntsche, E. & Silbereisen, R. (2004). Parental closeness and adolescent substance use in single and two-parent families in Switzerland. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 63, 85-92.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equations Modeling, 9, 151-173.

Magno, C. (2007). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of parental closeness and multidimensional scaling with other parenting models. The Guidance Journal, 36, 61-87.

Magno, C., Mamauag, M., & Parinas, N. (2007). The Influence of communal and self-mastery in building a model of resiliency. Paper presented at the Asian Association of Social Psychology at Sabah Malaysia, July 21 to 23, 2007.

Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Ong, A., Bergeman, C., Bisconti, T., & Wallace, K. (2006). Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 730–749.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). The optimistic child: A revolutionary program that safeguards children against depression and builds lifelong resilience. New York: NY: Houghton Mifflin.

Steiger, J.H., Shapiro, A., & Browne, M.W. (1985). On the multivariate asymptotic distribution of sequential chi-square statistics. Psychometrika, 50, 253-264.

15

Family Efficacy

Steinberg, L. (2002). Adolescence (6th ed.) New York: McGraw-HillSue, S. & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian American educational achievements. A phenomenon

in search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45, 913-220.Szapocznik, J. Prado, G. (2007). Negative effects on family functioning from

psychosocial treatments: A recommendation for expanded safety monitoring. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 468-478.

Tusaie, K., Puskar, K., & Sereika, S. (2007). A predictive and moderating model of psychosocial resilience in adolescents. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 39, 54-60.

Uebelacker, L. A., Beevers, C. G., Battle, C. L., Strong, D., Keitner, G. I., Ryan, C. E., Solomon, D. A., Miller, I. W. (2006). Family functioning in bipolar I disorder. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 701-704.

Vernon, P. E. (1982). The abilities and achievements of orientals in north America. New York: Academic Press.

Werner, E. E. & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and youth. New York: McGraw Hill.

Wolin, S. & Wolin, S. J. (1993). The resilient self: How survivors of troubled families rise above adversity. New York: Villard Books.

Yeh, C. & Wang, Y. (2000). Asian American coping attitudes, sources, and practices: Implications for indigenous counseling strategies. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 94-103.

Yeh, C. (2002). Taiwanese students’ gender, age, interdependent and independent self-construal, and collective self-esteem as predictors of professional psychological help-seeking attitudes. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 19–29.

Yeh, C., Inman, A., Kim, A., & Okubo, Y. (2006). Asian American families’ collectivistic coping strategies in response to 9/11. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 134-148.

Zhang, L., Welte, J. W., & Wieczorek, W. F. (1999). The influence of parental drinking and closeness on adolescent drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 245–251.

Zimrin, H. (1986). A profile of survival. Child Abuse and Neglect, 10, 339-349.

Appendix AParemeter Estimates of the Manifest Factors of Parental Closeness, Family Efficacy, Resiliency, Asian Values, and Self-construal.

ParameterEstimate

Standardized

estimate

T Prob.

Parental Closeness Bonding 4.842 0.370 13.072* 0.000 Communication 2.142 0.211 10.162* 0.000 Support 4.342 0.268 16.220* 0.000 Succorance 1.148 0.096 11.985* 0.000Family Efficacy Filial efficacy 6.385 0.708 9.024* 0.000 Collective efficacy 2.109 0.772 2.730* 0.006Resiliency

16

Family Efficacy

Independence 1.000 Creativity -34.425 254.418 -0.135* 0.000 Humor -24.257 179.346 -0.135* 0.000 Initiative -12.166 90.322 -0.135* 0.000 Relationship 60.649 447.973 0.135* 0.000 Values Orientation 57.148 422.159 0.135* 0.000Asian Values Collectivism 1.000 Conformity 0.088 0.029 3.043* 0.002Respectfulness -0.022 0.019 -1.113* 0.006 Emotional restraint -0.012 0.030 -0.385* 0.000 Filial piety 0.095 0.030 3.155* 0.002 Hierarchical Family structure 0.063 0.029 2.163* 0.031 Humility 0.213 0.041 5.203* 0.000Self-construal Parcel1 1.000 Parcel2 0.641 0.132 4.846* 0.000 Parcel3 -0.312 0.118 -2.646* 0.008 Parcel4 1.103 0.145 7.592* 0.000 Parcel5 1.772 0.215 8.238* 0.000

17