Does Everyone Benefit Equally From Self-Efficacy Beliefs? The Moderating Role of Perceived Social Support on Motivation

Abstract

This study investigated whether perceived goal support from family and friends may moderate the relationship between academic self-efficacy and motivational outcomes among early adolescent students recruited from a low-middle socio-economic status(SES) background school in Turkey (N = 319, $\bar{X}$ _age = 13.13, SD = .80). Self-report questionnaires included measures of academic self-efficacy, perceived family and friend support, and academic and career motivations. Academic self-efficacy and perceived support from family related positively to both types of motivation. Children who perceived lower family support benefited more from the positive effects of self-efficacy on motivations, whereas children with higher family support seemed to gain less (or not gain at all) from self-enhancing functions of self-efficacy. Same findings were found for peer support, but only when family support was excluded from analyses. Findings implied the need to study larger family and peer contexts under which self-efficacy beliefs may be more or less effective on motivation.

Keywords

academic self-efficacy motivation goal pursuit perceived social support early adolescence

Since the introduction of self-efficacy theory by Bandura (1977, 1986), special attention has been paid to self-efficacy research within the academic context, revealing both antecedents and consequences of self-efficacy beliefs in relation to motivational, emotional, and cognitive aspects of children’s functioning. Previous studies have shown that self-efficacy is a powerful source of motivation, persistence, and resilience in the face of difficulties (Pajares, 1996; Schunk, 1991) and has been consistently related to academic adjustment and achievement (e.g., Marsh & Martin, 2011), and career choices (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 2001). Self-efficacy has a self-regulatory and self-enhancing role on adolescent psychological and academic functioning and increases motivation through effective cognitive strategies such as self-regulated learning and goal setting (Zimmerman, 1995). Although self-efficacy has been demonstrated to have a key role in motivation, researchers have recently found that few factors such as emotional intelligence and task ambiguity may moderate the effects of self-efficacy on motivation and achievement (Adeyemo, 2007; Schmidt & DeShon, 2010). The current study aimed to extend this literature by testing whether associations between academic self-efficacy and academic and career goal motivation may be moderated by external social support mechanisms (friend and family support) among a sample of Turkish early adolescents.

Especially during early adolescence, children’s social life starts to change radically; while many children start to turn away from parents and home environment, schools become important developmental contexts for self-improvement (Eccles & Roeser, 2011). Links between self-efficacy and familial and peer contexts become particularly salient in children’s lives during this transitional period (Bandura et al., 2001) when young adolescents start to reformulate efficacy beliefs to engage in new goals (Eccles & Midgley, 1989). Developmental psychology literature has consistently shown that family, as a support system, constitutes a source of confidence for children and acts as a stress-reduction mechanism (e.g., Lopez, Campbell, & Watkins, 1989). According to Turner and Lapan (2002), parents are the most salient self-efficacy resources during adolescence, and perceived emotional and social support from parents relates to higher academic and career self-efficacy (e.g., Nota, Ferrari, Solberg, & Soresi, 2007), as well as positive school outcomes such as academic effort and interest, motivation, and mastery goal orientation (Wentzel, 1998). Positive relationships with peers are also likely to influence academic and career goal motivations by providing models and advice for adolescents (Wentzel, 2005). Supportive social relationships with peers relate to higher interest in academic goal pursuits, academic and prosocial goals (e.g., Harter, 1996), academic engagement and achievement (e.g., Garcia-Reid, 2007), and career expectations and interests (e.g., Lent & Brown, 1996). Particularly during early adolescence, friendships have major influences on academic grades, exam scores, and involvement in school and consequently influence future academic behavior (e.g., Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Wentzel, 1998).

Although direct associations between self-efficacy and motivation have been shown, previous studies have not yet examined the specific role of social support on this relationship. The current study extends prior research in developmental literature by testing whether associations between early adolescents’ self-efficacy beliefs and academic and career motivations would be moderated by family and peer support. According to Bandura (1997), if the environment encourages positive self-efficacy beliefs, then adolescents’ adaptation is more readily achieved. Bandura (1986) also emphasized the crucial role of modeling and social persuasion in self-efficacy beliefs, indicating that social support from close others may exert influences on how self-regulatory mechanisms operate. Research on goal pursuit and motivation has also indicated that goals are shaped by both individual and contextual factors (Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006), suggesting that family and peers may function as external resources of motivation for children and adolescents (Legault, Green-Demers, & Pelletier, 2006). Both family and peer support have been consistently found to function as protective and promotive factors in adolescent development (e.g., Ostaszewski & Zimmerman, 2006), indicating that perceived social support may play a critical role on the effectiveness of personal self-efficacy beliefs on children’s academic and career goal motivations.

The current study also extends previous research by examining these specific interrelationships in a unique setting such as Turkey where youth’s academic and career goal motivations may be based on different values/norms compared with Western contexts. One of the drawbacks of academic self-efficacy and social support literatures in early adolescence is the lack of studies conducted in non-Western contexts. This study was conducted in a small low-middle SES suburban district of Istanbul where conservative and collectivist values are highly endorsed by families. Although self-efficacy beliefs are universally beneficial, how they operate may vary cross culturally (Bandura, 2002). For example, adolescents in collectivist cultures are likely to base their occupational self-efficacy on others’ beliefs about their own capabilities, rather than their own past performance that is more important for adolescents in individualistic cultures (Oettingen, 1995). Likewise, during early adolescence, social support from peers and family becomes an important aspect of adolescents’ lives both in Turkish and Western contexts, but Turkish parents were found to exert more control over adolescents compared with Western parents (Hortaçsu, 1989). Few studies conducted in the Turkish context demonstrated that although both peer and familial support played significant roles in youth’s well-being, parental support was more closely related to self-esteem, depression, and problem behaviors (Siyez, 2008). Although these studies have shown that both self-efficacy beliefs and adolescent outcomes may be shaped by family and peer support, no research to our knowledge tested the moderating role of social support on the association between self-efficacy and motivational outcomes in Turkish adolescents.

Based on the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997) and empirical findings showing self-efficacy as a facilitator in youth’s adjustment (Vieno, Santinello, Pastore, & Perkins, 2007), it was suggested that academic self-efficacy would be positively associated with academic and career motivation (Hypothesis 1). Based on research on friendships and family as support systems (e.g., Legault et al., 2006), it was hypothesized that friend and family support would have unique positive associations with both outcomes (Hypothesis 2). Regarding the moderating role of perceived support, based on the promotive role of both support types in adolescent development, we hypothesized that children would benefit more from internal motivational factors such as self-efficacy, when they perceive higher family or friend support (Hypothesis 3); children who perceive higher social support are likely to experience a match between their own and others’ beliefs in their capabilities, and therefore, gain more from the positive effects of personal self-efficacy beliefs.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 319 children (84 sixth graders, 109 seventh graders, and 126 eighth graders; $\bar{X}$ _age = 13.13, SD = .80; 173 boys, 146 girls) recruited from a school (15 classrooms) in Istanbul, Turkey. The school was randomly selected from secondary schools in Şile (an outskirt district of Istanbul) where most families come from low-middle SES backgrounds. Only 21.3% of the participants reported that their fathers had an education level equal or higher than university degree, while approximately 20% were indicated to have primary school education or lower.

Procedure

Self-report questionnaires were administered during classroom hours. Children and parents were provided with informed consents that described the ethical procedures involved in the study and the aims of the research. Data were collected by the main researcher and assisting undergraduate university students who were trained about the aims and the scope of the study. The completion of the questionnaires took approximately 40 min. Students were debriefed at the end of the study.

Measures

Except demographic variables (age, gender, and SES), responses for each measure were based on a 5-point Likert-type format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). For all scales, mean scores were computed to represent the relevant constructs. For all multi-item scales, reliability was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha and ω coefficients.

Control variables

Age (in years), gender (female = 0, male = 1), SES (father’s education ranging from 1 [no formal school-level education] to 7 [doctoral level]), and academic self-concept were used as control variables, since they were shown to be related to academic outcomes in previous research (Choi, 2005; Eamon, 2005). Academic self-concepts were measured by asking children how good they thought they were on mathematics, English, Turkish, science and technology, and social sciences. The measure was previously used by Gogol et al. (2014) and has good psychometric properties. The response scale was based on a 5-point Likert-type format ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). The reliability across items was good (Cronbach’s α = .81 and ω = .86). An exploratory factor analysis showed that the scale was unidimensional with all factor loadings above .70.

Academic self-efficacy

Self-efficacy has been a complicated construct to measure due to its “domain specific” nature. Bandura (2012) suggested that measurements of self-efficacy should be concerned with the particular area of interest. In this research, a seven-item academic self-efficacy measure was used (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1999). An example item was “I am able to achieve what has to be done in my school education.” The Turkish adaptation was developed by Yılmaz, Gürçay, and Ekici (2007) and provided a satisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s α = .79). In this study, the reliability coefficient was satisfactory (Cronbach’s α = .74 and ω = .87).

Academic motivation

Children were first asked to report the highest educational level they would like to attain and then rate how much they would want to work for this goal. A three-item scale was used to measure academic motivation. Items were “I am planning to work hard to achieve this goal,” “Achieving this goal is very important in my life,” and “I could get over many difficulties to reach this goal.” Items were adapted from previous goal setting and motivation scales (e.g., Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, Wright, & DeShon, 2001). An initial factor analysis with the measurement demonstrated that the scale was unidimensional, with all factor loadings over .80 (Cronbach’s α = .80 and ω = .86).

Career motivation

Participants were asked to write the career goal they would like to pursue in the future. The same three-item measure used for academic motivation was used for career motivation, except participants reflected on career motivation instead of academic motivation. A factor analysis with all items showed that the scale was unidimensional, with all factor loadings over .85 (Cronbach’s α = .83 and ω = .88).

Social support

For each goal indicated, participants were asked separately how much support they receive from their family and friends. One item was used for each goal and support type (“My family would support this academic/career goal” and “My friends would support this academic/career goal”).

Data Analysis

First, it was checked whether the use of hierarchical linear models is necessary (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Unconditional models (students nested in classrooms) showed that inter-item correlations (ICC) were non-significant and low (ICC’s between .01 and .03) for each dependent variable. Thus, ordinary least square multiple regressions were conducted.

The main predictors tested were academic self-efficacy and perceived support from family and friends. Although family and friend support for each goal were correlated (r = .43 for academic motivation and r = .48 for career motivation, p < .001), previous research has shown that different sources of social support may have different influences on school-related outcomes among students (Wang & Eccles, 2012). Moreover, when a composite score of social support was formed, the reliability of the scales were low (α = .53 and .60 for Academic and Career Motivation, respectively). Therefore, perceived support from friends and family were examined as separate predictors and moderators (Self-Efficacy × Family Support and Self-Efficacy × Friend Support). Simple slope analyses were performed with −1 and +1 standard deviation values of the moderator (Aiken & West, 1991).¹

Results

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations for Main Study Variables Across Gender and Bivariate Correlations for the Total Sample.

	Boys		Girls		Total
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Father education	3.50	1.13	3.67	1.07	3.58	1.10	.17**	.36***	.13*	.03	.06	.03	.18**	.14*
2. Academic self-efficacy	3.62	0.64	3.68	1.72	3.65	0.68	—	.50***	.36***	.31***	.28***	.28***	.55***	.47***
3. Academic self-concept	3.59	0.78	3.91	1.79	3.74	0.80		—	.27***	.14*	.19**	.19**	.43***	.35***
4. Academic goal support–family	4.52	0.86	4.72	0.73	4.61	0.81			—	.43***	.58***	.32***	.57***	.51***
5. Academic goal support–friend	3.77	1.10	4.11	1.12	3.93	1.12				—	.36***	.62***	.32***	.33***
6. Career goal support–family	4.46	0.90	4.61	0.90	4.53	0.90					—	.48***	.51***	.50***
7. Career goal support–friend	3.74	1.20	4.15	1.10	3.93	1.18						—	.42***	.37***
8. Academic goal motivation	4.32	0.75	4.57	0.58	4.44	0.69							—	.71***
9. Career goal motivation	4.52	0.72	4.67	0.54	4.59	0.65								—

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

Academic Motivation

The overall model was significant, F(9, 274) = 32.18, p < .001, and explained 51% of the total variance. Gender had a significant main effect (β = .10, p < .05); girls had higher academic motivation than boys. Both academic self-concept (β = .15, p < .01) and academic self-efficacy (β = .30, p < .001) were significant predictors of academic motivation. While perceived support from friends was not significantly associated with academic motivation, perceived support from the family had the strongest predictive value (β = .32, p < .001). The interaction between academic self-efficacy and family support was significant (β = −.17, p < .01). Simple slope analyses showed that self-efficacy had a positive effect on academic motivation for children who have both higher and lower family support; however, children who perceived lower family support, t(296) = 7.23, p < .001, seemed to benefit more from the positive effects of academic self-efficacy compared with children who perceived higher family support, t(296) = 2.72, p < .05. Figure 1 illustrates the relevant interaction effect.

Figure 1.

Interaction between academic self-efficacy and perceived family support on academic goal motivation.

Career Motivation

The overall model was significant, F(9, 272) = 24.49, p < .001, and the total variance explained was 49%. Academic self-concept (β = .14, p < .05) and self-efficacy (β = .26, p < .001) were significant predictors. Family support also had a significant positive association with career motivation (β = .25, p < .001). The interaction between academic self-efficacy and family support was significant (β = −.24, p < .001). The simple slope analysis showed that children with higher support from family had similar levels of career motivation when self-efficacy was either lower or higher, t(296) = 0.71, p > .05. Children with lower family support had significantly higher career motivation when self-efficacy was higher, t(296) = 7.71, p < .001. Figure 2 illustrates this interaction effect. Final regression models are presented in Table 2.

Figure 2.

Interaction between academic self-efficacy and perceived family support on career goal motivation.

Table 2.

Multiple Regression Models Predicting Academic and Career Goal Motivation.

	Academic goal motivation		Career goal motivation
	B (SE)	Bootstrap 95% CI	B (SE)	Bootstrap 95% CI
Control variable
Gender	.10 (.06)*	[.02, .25]	.02 (.06)	[−.10, .15]
Age	−.04 (.04)	[−.11, .04]	−.06 (.04)	[−.13, .03]
Father’s education	−.01 (.03)	[−.05, .05]	.01 (.03)	[−.05, .06]
Academic self-concept	.15 (.04)**	[.03, .23]	.14 (.05)*	[.03, .20]
Main predictor
Self-efficacy	.30 (.05)***	[.20, .38]	.26 (.05)***	[.16, .32]
Goal support from family	.32 (.05)***	[.14, .43]	.25 (.04)***	[.08, .31]
Goal support from friends	.01 (.03)	[−.05, .07]	.07 (.03)	[−.02, .11]
Interaction variable
Self-Efficacy × Family Support	−.17 (.03)**	[−.18, −.01]	−.24 (.03)***	[−.26, −.03]
Self-Efficacy × Friend Support	.02 (.03)	[−.03, .09]	−.05 (.03)	[−.10, .05]
F value	F(9, 274) = 32.18***		F(9, 272) = 24.49***
R ²	.51		.45

Note. Standardized beta coefficients and standard errors (in parentheses) are presented. CI = confidence interval.

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

Additional Analyses

Because friend support was also highly correlated with both motivational outcomes (r = .32-.42), regression analyses without family support as a predictor were conducted to see whether family support suppressed the associations between friend support and dependent measures. As suspected, when family support variables were excluded from the model, friend support had a positive association with academic and career motivation (β = .12 and β = .18, both p < .01) and significantly interacted with self-efficacy for both outcomes (β = −.12 and β = −.23, both p < .05). For children with lower friend support, the associations between self-efficacy and academic and career motivation was stronger, t(296) = 6.87 and t(296) = 7.16, p < .001, compared with children with higher friend support, t(296) = 4.47 and t(296) = 2.35, p < .05.

Discussion

The current research aimed to explore whether perceived goal support from friends and family would moderate the associations between self-efficacy and motivational outcomes. Findings showed that academic self-efficacy and perceived family support had significant positive associations with each outcome variable. More importantly, perceived family support moderated the associations between academic self-efficacy and outcome variables such that children who received lower family support for their goals benefited more from the positive effects of self-efficacy beliefs on motivations. Friend support was also directly and positively related to outcome variables and had a similar moderating role, when it was taken into account as the sole predictor in the model.

Concerning Hypothesis 1, which suggested positive associations between academic self-efficacy and motivation, children with higher academic self-efficacy were more motivated to pursue specific academic and career goals they set compared with children with lower academic self-efficacy. This finding is consistent with self-efficacy literature suggesting the self-enhancing role of self-efficacy on academic and career goals and motivations (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996). Moreover, self-efficacy was still an effective resource after accounting for academic self-concept which was also indicated to be one of the strongest predictors of academic goals and motivations (e.g., Choi, 2005).

Hypothesis 2 suggested that family and friend support would have positive associations with both types of motivations; evidence was found for strong associations between family support and academic and career motivations. In fact, family support was almost as strong as academic self-efficacy as a predictor. Previous research has confirmed the role of familial support on motivations (Lopez et al., 1989; Nota et al., 2007). Perceived support from friends, on the other hand, was not significantly associated with academic or career motivation when family support was taken into account, but was related to both outcomes when family support was excluded. Previous research has shown that peer influence starts to peak during early adolescence, and children are highly affected by their friends during this period (e.g., Wang & Eccles, 2012). The lack of findings for friend support when family support was accounted may be explained by differential effects of familial and friend support on distinct aspects of motivational outcomes. Wentzel (1998) found that while peer support was related to prosocial goal pursuit, parental support was associated with school-related interest and goal orientations among sixth graders. Legault et al. (2006) also demonstrated that parents were more important in predicting academic goals compared with peers among 12- to 19-year-old students. Findings may be also explained by the particularly influential role of parents on child and adolescent outcomes in the Turkish culture, highlighting the need to take into account the unique social setting where self-efficacy, support, and motivations are associated (Siyez, 2008).

In regard to the moderating role of social support, findings were opposed to Hypothesis 3 suggesting that children with higher external social support would benefit more from self-efficacy beliefs to reach their goals. In fact, children who reported lower familial support had an increased self-efficacy effect, while for children with higher family support, the relationship between self-efficacy and motivation was weaker. Same results were obtained for friend support when family support was excluded. These findings illustrate that external resources from family and peers such as advice and support may interact with internal self-related processes on motivations, and children with lower levels of perceived social support may resort more to their own inner self-enhancing and self-regulatory mechanisms such as self-efficacy. Consistent with this, Vieno et al. (2007) indicated that adolescents with higher self-efficacy beliefs may be less dependent on environmental conditions. Therefore, children with higher self-efficacy may need less support from close others to regulate their behaviors. Similar to the current findings, recent research has suggested that there may be conditions under which the effects of self-efficacy on performance could be decreased (Schmidt & DeShon, 2010; Yeo & Neal, 2013). Further research should be conducted to uncover other processes that may moderate the effects of self-efficacy on motivation.

Some limitations of the study should be noted. First, the generalizability of findings to different socio-cultural contexts should be stated, since children were recruited from a low-middle SES area in Turkey. Previous research indicated that SES may be influential on parenting practices and lower SES parents are often more restrictive and disapproving (e.g., Hoff, Laursen, & Tardif, 2002), which may in turn influence children’s academic motivation. Moreover, the collectivist nature of Turkish culture suggests the importance of interdependence and individual expressions of desires and needs may not be highly valued (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This may explain why familial influence was as strong as academic self-efficacy on guiding motivations. Future work should also examine the influence of gender on family support for boys’ and girls’ academic self-efficacy and career motivation and how these patterns may change over time. Lower rates of educational participation for girls and gender-related inequalities continue to be a major issue in Turkey (Smits & Hoşgör, 2006), and gendered academic and career stereotypes are known to affect adolescents’ academic and career aspirations, goal pursuits, and self-efficacy beliefs (e.g., Skaalvik & Rankin, 1990).

The use of single-item measures for social support and motivation scales that were not previously validated may have been an issue. Future research should explore the intricacies of social support in more depth than we were able to in this study. A further limitation was the use of academic self-efficacy for both academic and career motivations. Self-efficacy is often domain-specific and should be concerned with the particular area of interest (Bandura, 2012). Although academic outcomes are usually related to career outcomes (Vermeulen & Schmidt, 2008), the use of career self-efficacy for career motivation would have improved our understanding of this particular outcome. Finally, the study was conducted at a single time point, and based on a convenience sample and self-report data, restricting statements about the causal ordering between variables. Although a moderation model was suggested in the current study, it is plausible that the link between social support and motivation may be mediated by increased self-efficacy beliefs. To fully understand causal mechanisms between self-efficacy, motivation, and social support, longitudinal studies should be conducted.

In conclusion, this study contributes to developmental literature by showing associations between academic self-efficacy and peer and family support in relation to academic and career motivation among a unique population of early adolescents in Turkey. Findings implied the need to evaluate self-efficacy not as a single individual predictor of motivation, but as a complex self-enhancing process that may interact with other contextual variables, especially during early adolescence when parents and peers are key agents in children’s academic functioning. Future research should investigate further mechanisms that may moderate the positive effects of self-efficacy on motivational outcomes to construct a fuller understanding of the dynamic and complex role of self-efficacy in adolescent functioning.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Sabahat Cigdem Bagci has completed her PhD in psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London and has been an assistant professor at Isik University since September 2015. Her primary research focus is on resilience, self-efficacy, and motivation among socially disadvantaged children.

References

Adeyemo

D. A.

(2007). Moderating influence of emotional intelligence on the link between academic self-efficacy and achievement of University students. Psychology Developing Societies, 19, 199-213.

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychology Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Bandura

(2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51, 269-290.

Bandura

(2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38, 9-44.

Bandura

Barbaranelli

Caprara

G. V.

Pastorelli

(2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72, 187-206.

Choi

(2005). Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students’ academic performance. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 197-205.

10.

Eamon

M. K.

(2005). Social-demographic, school, neighborhood, and parenting influences on the academic achievement of Latino young adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 163-174.

11.

Eccles

J. S.

Midgley

(1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In Ames

Ames

(Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-181). New York, NY: Academic Press.

12.

Eccles

J. S.

Roeser

R. W.

(2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 225-241.

13.

Garcia-Reid

(2007). Examining social capital as a mechanism for improving school engagement among low income Hispanic girls. Youth & Society, 39, 164-181.

14.

Gogol

Brunner

Goetz

Martin

Ugen

Keller . . .Preckel

(2014). “My questionnaire is too long!” The assessments of motivational-affective constructs with three-item and single-item measures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 188-205.

15.

Harter

(1996). Teacher and classmate influences on scholastic motivation, self-esteem, and level of voice in adolescents. In Juvonen

Wentzel

K. R.

(Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp. 11-42). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Hoff

Laursen

Tardif

(2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 2. Biology and ecology of parenting (pp. 231-252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

17.

Hortaçsu

(1989). Targets of communication during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 12, 253-263.

18.

Klein

H. J.

Wesson

M. J.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Wright

P. M.

DeShon

R. P.

(2001). The assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 32-55.

19.

Legault

Green-Demers

Pelletier

L. G.

(2006). Why do high school students lack motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 567-582.

20.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

(1996). Social cognitive approach to career development: An overview. The Career Development Quarterly, 44, 310-321.

21.

Lopez

P. G.

Campbell

V. L.

Watkins

C. E.

(1989). The relation of parental divorce to college student development. Journal of Divorce, 12, 83-90.

22.

Markus

Kitayama

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

23.

Marsh

H. W.

Martin

A. J.

(2011). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Relations and causal ordering. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 59-77.

24.

Nota

Ferrari

Solberg

V. S.

Soresi

(2007). Career search self-efficacy, family support, and career indecision with Italian youth. Journal of Career Assessment, 15, 181-193.

25.

Oettingen

(1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy. In Bandura

(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 149-176). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Ostaszewski

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2006). The effects of cumulative risks and promotive factors on urban adolescent alcohol and other drug use: A longitudinal study of resiliency. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 251-262.

27.

Pajares

(1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.

28.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Schmidt

A. M.

DeShon

R. P.

(2010). The moderating effects of performance ambiguity on the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 572-581.

30.

Schunk

D. H.

(1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.

31.

Schwarzer

Jerusalem

(1999). Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen [Scales measuring teacher and student characteristics]. Berlin, Germany: Free University of Berlin.

32.

Siyez

D. M.

(2008). Adolescent self-esteem, problem behaviors, and perceived social support in Turkey. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36, 973-984.

33.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Rankin

R. J.

(1990). Math, verbal, and general academic self-concept: The internal/external frame of reference model and gender differences in self-concept structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 546-554.

34.

Smits

Hoşgör

A. G.

(2006). Effects of family background characteristics on educational participation in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 26, 545-560.

35.

Turner

Lapan

R. T.

(2002). Career self-efficacy and perceptions of parent support in adolescent career development. The Career Development Quarterly, 51, 44-55.

36.

Urdan

T. C.

Schoenfelder

(2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 331-349.

37.

Vermeulen

Schmidt

H. G.

(2008). Learning environment, learning process, academic outcomes and career success of university graduates. Studies in Higher Education, 33, 431-451.

38.

Vieno

Santinello

Pastore

Perkins

D. D.

(2007). Social support, sense of community in school, and self-efficacy as resources during early adolescence: An integrative, developmentally oriented model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 177-190.

39.

Wang

M. T.

Eccles

J. S.

(2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development, 83, 877-895.

40.

Wentzel

K. R.

(1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 202-209.

41.

Wentzel

K. R.

(2005). Peer relationships, motivation, and academic performance at school. In Elliot

Dweck

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 279-296). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

42.

Yeo

G. B.

Neal

(2013). Revisiting the functional properties of self-efficacy: A dynamic perspective. Journal of Management, 39, 1385-1396.

43.

Yılmaz

Gürçay

Ekici

(2007). Akademik özyeterlik ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması [Adaptation of the academic self-efficacy scale to Turkish]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33, 253-259.

44.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In Bandura

(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.