See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247322803

Self-Efficacy and Parenting Quality: Findings

and Future Applications

Article  in  Developmental Review · March 1998

DOI: 10.1006/drev.1997.0448

CITATIONS READS

761 15,636

2 authors:

Priscilla K Coleman Katherine Hildebrandt Karraker

Bowling Green State University West Virginia University
61 PUBLICATIONS   3,372 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   3,103 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Practitioner/Client interactions on termination of pregnancy. A Grounded Theory study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Katherine Hildebrandt Karraker on 12 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW 18, 47–85 (1997)
ARTICLE NO. DR970448

Self-Efficacy and Parenting Quality:

Findings and Future Applications

Priscilla K. Coleman and Katherine H. Karraker

West Virginia University

Appreciation for cognitive factors associated with parental competence and satis-
faction is increasingly evident in recent developmental research. In particular, paren-
tal self-efficacy beliefs have emerged as both a powerful direct predictor of specific
positive parenting practices and a mediator of the effects of some of the most thor-
oughly researched correlates of parenting quality including maternal depression,
child temperament, social support, and poverty. Parental self-efficacy beliefs em-
body an estimation of the degree to which parents perceive themselves as capable of
performing the varied tasks associated with this highly demanding role. The overall
objective of this review is to synthesize the extant findings related to parental self-
efficacy in order to shed light on the importance of the construct for both theoretical
and applied purposes. A foundation in self-efficacy theory and general self-efficacy
research is offered initially, followed by an exploration of the empirical findings
relevant to parenting self-efficacy. Mechanisms through which self-efficacy beliefs
are likely to develop and influence parenting are subsequently described. Finally,
the possibility of therapeutic intervention designed to alter competency perceptions
among parents who are at-risk or who are currently experiencing difficulty in parent-
ing is examined and avenues for future investigative work are suggested. 1998
Academic Press

Most parents find the experience of parenting to be gratifying, enlight-

ening, and sometimes quite exhilarating. However, parenting also represents
perhaps the most taxing social role encountered in young and middle adult-
hood, placing significant intellectual, emotional, and physical demands on
today’s mothers and fathers. Being a parent obviously entails a commitment
to be regularly available for the protection, nurturance, and care of one’s
children over the course of many years. No other role carries with it such
unrelenting time and energy requirements. Fortunately, many parents seem to
embody a psychological hardiness, characterized by sufficient and sustained
stamina for the challenging elements of parenting, engagement in adaptive
parenting behaviors, and possession of the ability to derive pleasure from
various aspects of the parenting process. Conversely, a minority of parents
are deficient in persistence, lack adequate parenting skills, feel exceedingly

Address reprint requests to Katherine H. Karraker, Department of Psychology, West Vir-

ginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6040.
47
0273-2297/98 $25.00
Copyright  1998 by Academic Press
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
48 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

burdened by the responsibility and work involved in child care, and perceive
very little of their parental experience as enjoyable. Despondency in parent-
ing, and the resulting psychological unavailability of primary caregivers, can
operate as a precursor to child maltreatment with potentially severe detrimen-
tal effects on the physical, socioemotional, and cognitive development of
children in the most extreme cases (Egeland & Erickson, 1987; Mrazek,
1993; Pianta, Egeland, & Erickson, 1989). Milder forms of parental dissatis-
faction expressed in the context of everyday negativity and/or disinterest
may have subtle, yet insidious, effects on development as well.
Competency and satisfaction in parenting are highly intertwined con-
structs (Bohlin & Hagekull, 1987), as it is difficult to obtain proficiency in
endeavors for which intrinsic gratification is not derived; and, conversely,
satisfaction is unlikely with tasks for which at least a minimal degree of
expertise has been obtained. Recent empirical work with the self-efficacy
construct offers considerable hope for enhancing our understanding of both
objective (behavioral competence) and subjective (satisfaction or enjoyment)
responses to parenting, prevention of problematic parenting, and ameliora-
tion of troublesome parenting that is already in motion and likely to lead to
negative child outcomes. Parental competency beliefs seem to be particularly
salient under disadvantaged ecological conditions when the risk for child
maltreatment looms large (Bandura, 1995; Halpern, 1993). Specifically, re-
search suggests that in impoverished communities, possession of inner
strength based on a sense of personal competence can be a critical buffer
against adversity, enabling parents to optimally promote their children’s
well-being (Elder, 1995). As noted by Elder (1995), efficacious parents work
diligently to combat risks and provide positive experiences for their children,
even in the presence of multiple stressors.
Numerous parental, child, and situational factors have been explored in
an attempt to understand discrepant reactions to parenting (Belsky, 1984).
Personal and psychological resources of parents previously examined as cor-
relates of parental competency and/or satisfaction include the following: per-
sonality variables (Luster & Mittelstaedt, 1993), maternal stress (Hagekull &
Bohlin, 1990; Nakagawa, Teti, & Lamb, 1992), maternal depression (Cox,
Puckering, Pound, & Mills, 1987; Field, 1984; Field, Healy, Goldstein,
Perry, Bendell, Schanberg, Zimmerman, & Kuhn, 1988; Gelfand & Teti,
1990; Radke-Yarrow, 1990; Teti, Gelfand, Messinger, & Isabella, 1995),
maternal child care experience and knowledge of child development (Con-
rad, Gross, Fogg, & Ruchala, 1992; Stoiber & Houghton, 1993), maternal
attitudes (Bohlin & Hagekull, 1987; Walker, 1980), maternal beliefs about
parenting (Kochanska, 1990; Pridham & Chang, 1985; Sigel, 1985), maternal
desires (Bohlin & Hagekull, 1987), maternal expectations (Glass, 1983;
Hagekull & Bohlin, 1990; Stoiber & Houghton, 1993), and maternal self-
efficacy (Conrad et al., 1992; Cutrona & Troutman, 1986; Donovan, Leavitt,
& Walsh, 1990; Johnston & Mash, 1989; Teti & Gelfand, 1991). The dimen-
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 49

sions of parenting represented in this list reflect a dramatic shift from the
historical focus on overt parenting behavior to examination of more cognitive
or mentalistic elements (Smetana, 1994). The relatively recent inclusion of
cognitive factors over the last few decades not only illustrates an appreciation
for the full experience of parenting (Smetana, 1994), but also offers consider-
able promise for enhancing both the explanatory power of theoretical models
of parenting and the efficacy of treatment programs designed to foster posi-
tive parenting.
The rapidly expanding parental cognitions literature has revealed that self-
efficacy beliefs, specific to the domain of parenting, represent a potent vari-
able for explaining a significant portion of the variance observed in parental
skills and satisfaction. Therefore, the global purpose of this article is to pro-
vide an in-depth exploration of the meaning, significance, and development
of self-efficacy beliefs as applied to parenting in order to foster awareness
of the potential importance of targeting parental self-efficacy beliefs in the
context of future preventive and intervention work with parents. Although
parenting self-efficacy has been studied within a number of research para-
digms, it has often been one of many variables under investigation and tends
not to have been the primary research focus. Interestingly, however, often
the construct emerges as a powerful correlate of parenting behavior. In order
to address the general aim of this article, several specific objectives were
formulated. First, the major components of Bandura’s (1977, 1982, 1989)
self-efficacy theory will be described to provide a foundation for discussing
parenting self-efficacy. Second, the existing literature relevant to parenting
self-efficacy will be surveyed to highlight the potential importance of this
construct for understanding individual differences in parenting behavior.
Third, possible means through which self-efficacy beliefs conceivably de-
velop and affect competency in parenting will be proposed. Fourth, the ne-
cessity of including self-efficacy in prevention and intervention programs
will be addressed from both practical and scientific perspectives. Finally,
avenues for further basic research on parental self-efficacy will be offered.
SELF-EFFICACY THEORY AND GENERAL APPROACHES
TO MEASUREMENT
The self-efficacy construct, postulated by Bandura (1977), refers to the
belief in one’s ability to successfully perform a particular behavior. Ac-
cording to Ozer and Bandura (1990), self-efficacy is ‘‘concerned with the
motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise
control over given events’’ (p. 472). In Bandura’s (1977, 1982) development
of self-efficacy theory, he has differentiated outcome expectations from self-
efficacy expectations. The former refers to beliefs that particular behaviors
will result in a specified outcome, while the latter relates to self-perceptions
of one’s behavioral competency or ability to execute specific actions in cer-
tain situations. Self-efficacy expectations are tied to one’s perceived skills
50 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

and outcome expectations are more environmentally based, incorporating

both knowledge of requisite behaviors and perceptions of whether or not the
social system will be supportive of one’s actions (Gecas, 1989). There is
considerable overlap between self-efficacy and outcome expectations be-
cause a prerequisite to confidence in one’s capacity to engage effectively in
a given behavioral pursuit is the belief that appropriate actions exist that
carry the potential to lead to the desired behavioral outcome (Wells-Parker,
Miller, & Topping, 1990). Therefore, self-efficacy beliefs are interwoven
with the knowledge of the particular behavior(s) that they relate to as well
as perceptions of situational contingencies. As applied to the parenting do-
main, in order for parents to feel efficacious, they must possess the following:
(a) knowledge of appropriate child care responses (e.g., how to detect infant
distress and how to relieve it or what limits should be established for 3-year-
olds and how to enforce them), (b) confidence in their own abilities to carry
out such tasks, and (c) the beliefs that their children will respond contingently
and that others in their social milieu, including family members and friends,
will be supportive of their efforts.
According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1989), expectations related
to personal efficacy originate from four primary informational sources. Per-
sonal accomplishment history (successes and failures), derived from an au-
thentic experiential base, is perhaps the most obvious and powerful influence
on mastery expectations. However, vicarious experience also represents a
potentially viable vehicle for the development of self-efficacy beliefs. Watch-
ing others engage in particular activities can generate estimations in observ-
ers pertaining to their own capacity for mastery in a given situation. Verbal
persuasion represents the third mode through which self-efficacy beliefs may
develop. This category of information represents verbal feedback from others
regarding one’s potential for accomplishment in a given area. The final
means through which self-efficacy beliefs emerge is that of emotional
arousal. Individuals anticipate failure when they are inundated by aversive
physiological arousal; and, conversely, lower levels of arousal are likely to
be associated with success expectancies.
The impact of information on the development of personal efficacy is
ultimately dependent on how it is cognitively appraised (Bandura, 1989).
Numerous contextual factors, such as the social, situational, and temporal
circumstances under which events occur, enter into the emergence of self-
efficacy from the four sources described above (Bandura, 1989). For exam-
ple, success is more likely to enhance self-efficacy if performance is believed
to result from skills as opposed to factors that are external to the individual.
Cognitive appraisals of the degree of challenge or difficulty level associated
with a particular task can also affect the relative impact of performance ac-
complishments on perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1989). Obviously, suc-
cess associated with tasks perceived to be fairly simple in nature provides
little information regarding competency, whereas mastery of a very hard task
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 51

conveys strong evidence of one’s ability. As indicated by Bandura (1989),

the rate and pattern of attainments also influence subjective estimations of
efficacy. Apparently, the means through which self-efficacy beliefs develop
and the intervening appraisal processes are complex and interrelated.
Bandura (1977, 1986) has defined three distinct dimensions of self-
efficacy. Magnitude indicates one’s subjective estimation of optimal perfor-
mance of particular behaviors at different levels of task difficulty. Individu-
als’ conceptions of personal efficacy vary in terms of the referent task
difficulty level. The second dimension specified by Bandura is strength,
which is a measure of a person’s degree of confidence in performing tasks
at specified levels of difficulty. Finally, generality relates to the degree of
transfer of mastery expectations across specified activities. Essentially Ban-
dura (1977) has proposed that some types of experiences create task-restricted
mastery expectations, while others possess potential applicability to a wide
range of conceptually similar behaviors. The extent to which self-efficacy
beliefs are likely to generalize across behaviors is probably dictated largely
by the type of behavior(s) involved as well as by the environmental context.
Most of the literature relevant to the self-efficacy construct has been con-
ducted within a Bandurian framework, with self-efficacy beliefs viewed as
pertaining to the very specified requirements and dimensions of referent tasks
occurring in a particular context. Self-efficacy, as conceived of by Bandura
(1989), does not represent a global, fixed, personality trait but is instead
conceptualized as an integral component of a dynamic, emergent system sub-
ject to modification in response to the changing demands of the task, situa-
tional determinants, and individual developmental processes. Specificity of
self-efficacy beliefs is central to Bandura’s formulation of self-efficacy, yet
he definitely acknowledges the possibility of the self-efficacy variable op-
erating in a more global manner in certain circumstances, as exemplified in
the following statement: ‘‘If different classes of activities require similar
functions and subskills, one would expect some degree of generality in judg-
ments of self-efficacy’’ (Bandura, 1989, p. 732). However, Bandura does not
contend that self-efficacy beliefs generalize between conceptually unrelated
domains. Further, Bandura clearly prefers retention of a task approach to the
measurement of self-efficacy, noting that use of the omnibus test, incorporat-
ing multidomain assessments, precludes specification of the exact patterning
of self-efficacy beliefs and results in a reduction in the predictive power of
self-efficacy perceptions relative to performance outcomes (Bandura, 1989).
Indeed, a substantial literature attests to the superior predictive validity of
task-specific over global measures of self-efficacy (Beck & Lund, 1981;
Earley & Lituchy, 1991; Lachman & Leff, 1989; Multon, Brown, & Lent,
1991; Pajares & Miller, 1995; Wang & Richarde, 1988).
When a researcher is interested in assessing self-efficacy beliefs relative
to a fairly broad domain of functioning encompassing many discrete task
behaviors, as in the parenting domain, Bandura (1989) advocates the use of
52 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

a multifaceted measure to sample self-perceptions related to several distinct

and specific behaviors as opposed to a conglomerate index composed of
items possessing relevance to diverse behaviors. In line with this approach,
rather than using an instrument with several global type items, such as ‘‘I
am able to deal effectively with the challenges of parenting,’’ perceptions
of competence should be assessed across several specific task behaviors like
the one exemplified in the following item: ‘‘I am able to adequately cope
with high fevers associated with brief illnesses in my child.’’ Bandura con-
tends that the most valid approach for determining domain-level self-efficacy
beliefs is achieved by combining the efficacy information conveyed by nu-
merous behaviorally specific assessments. Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara,
and Pastorelli (1996) recently provided empirical support for the notion that
use of a multifaceted measurement strategy would provide a more specific
assessment of causal structures than would omnibus measures. These re-
searchers found that three forms of self-efficacy (academic, social, and self-
regulatory) were significant predictors of academic achievement in children;
however, none of the intercorrelations among the three forms was significant.
Moreover, path analyses incorporating a number of different child variables
revealed very distinct mediational patterns of influence between each of the
three forms of child self-efficacy and academic achievement.
A few researchers have offered theoretical formulations of self-efficacy
that have diverged from the task-focused Bandurian conceptualization of the
construct. For example, Woodruff and Cashman (1993) discuss domain self-
efficacy as being broader than task-specific self-efficacy as it is presumably
based on a larger portion of life events, emerging via the combined efficacy
information from several conceptually related experiences. The assessment
of domain level self-efficacy typically does not adhere to Bandura’s recom-
mendations for combing task-specific information and involves items de-
signed to tap into respondents’ general sense of efficacy across various areas
of functioning as opposed to their perceptions of efficacy relevant to con-
crete, highly specified behaviors in a given domain (Lachman, 1983;
Wallston, Wallston, Kaplan, & Maides, 1976).
Several other researchers (Harter, 1978; Shelton, 1990; Sherer & Adams,
1983; Tipton & Worthington, 1984) have departed even more dramatically
from Bandura’s perspective, espousing conceptions of self-efficacy as a pre-
dominantly stable personality trait with relevance to diverse behaviors and
situations, cutting across many distinct behavioral domains. General self-
efficacy is typically conceptualized as the totality of self-efficacy beliefs over
the individual’s entire history of achievement experiences (Watt & Martin,
1994). General self-efficacy proponents offer a theoretical position that is
clearly discrepant with Bandura’s formulation, as they contend that specific
self-efficacy beliefs do, in fact, generalize to create a very broad sense of self-
efficacy which in turn influences expectations of mastery in new situations as
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 53

well. Shelton (1990) has proposed that general self-efficacy is a function of

the proportion of success credits to the self in relation to the amount of self-
blame for failures. Lending credence to this orientation, a few studies have
found that general self-efficacy does operate as an effective predictor of vari-
ous life experiences (Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Ja-
cobs, & Rogers, 1982; Eden & Kinnar, 1991). For example, Sherer et al.
(1982) found that recovering alcoholics with high general self-efficacy were
more likely to be employed and were less likely to have quit or been fired
from jobs than those with low general self-efficacy. Support for the trait
approach to self-efficacy has also been provided in research revealing fairly
strong correlations between general and task-specific self-efficacy, implying
that general self-efficacy may operate as one of many informational sources
used to estimate task-specific self-efficacy (Watt & Martin, 1994; Wood-
ruff & Cashman, 1993).
Transferal of self-efficacy beliefs beyond the level of behaviorally specific
competency estimations has often resulted in a blurring of the distinction
between self-efficacy and conceptually similar self-referential constructs
such as self-agency (Dumka, Stoerzinger, Jackson, & Roosa, 1996), percep-
tions of competence (Johnston & Mash, 1989), perceived control (Lachman,
1983; Lachman, Baltes, Nesselroade, & Willis, 1982), and effectance moti-
vation (Harter, 1978). Research designed to clarify points of congruence and
distinctions among these concepts would be beneficial.
Although the preceding brief overview of the various forms of self-
efficacy beliefs may convey the impression that self-efficacy researchers are
likely to align themselves with either the Bandurian formulation or the more
recently proposed trait approach, many researchers are in actuality open to
the possibility that research conducted at each level of analysis is merited
and may potentially advance the field in distinct ways (Berry & West, 1993;
Woodruff & Cashman, 1993). For instance, Berry and West (1993) contend
that while task-specific self-efficacy measures offer enhanced hope for preci-
sion in identifying efficacy-performance relationships, more general self-
efficacy measures are likely to possess greater merit for providing informa-
tion regarding self-evaluation of abilities. Global measures of domain-level
parenting self-efficacy may operate as inferior predictors of parental quality
(compared to measures conforming to a task-specific orientation) when par-
ticular forms of parental competency are examined; however, more general-
ized self-efficacy measures may offer considerable utility as predictors of
broadly construed parenting qualities, such as sensitivity, warmth, concern
for the child’s cognitive development, etc. An open-minded approach, en-
couraging of research at each level of analysis, seems particularly wise in
the parenting self-efficacy domain, given that research in this area has not
reached a highly refined stage. Indeed, in the area of parenting self-efficacy,
contrary to the work in other domains, no studies to date have attempted to
54 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

verify the superior predictive validity of task measures over more general
measures, suggesting that we do not yet know what the optimal level of
analysis is.
Self-efficacy research typically addresses only one of the three forms spec-
ified above; therefore, relatively little is known about the extent to which
task, domain, and general self-efficacy operate independently or interact to
affect behavior (Woodruff & Cashman, 1993). For example, as applied to
the realm of parenting, how do self-efficacy beliefs at the task level (e.g.,
ability to discipline, provide adequate nutrition, or comfort one’s child) enter
into one’s perceptions of competency as a parent (the domain level) or as a
human being (the general level)? Conversely, does one’s level of general
self-efficacy influence parental self-efficacy at the domain and/or the specific
level? Perhaps interrelationships are multidirectional.
THE HISTORY OF SELF-EFFICACY RESEARCH
Bandura introduced the concept of self-efficacy beliefs 20 years ago and,
over the past few decades, the construct has captured a remarkable amount
of scholarly attention in social, developmental, and clinical psychology as
well as in other disciplines including sociology and political science (Gecas,
1989). The concept of general self-efficacy is just beginning to command
research attention, and the vast majority of research has focused on the rela-
tionship between task or domain specific self-efficacy beliefs and perfor-
mance across a broad spectrum of behaviors.
The empirical self-efficacy literature in psychology has addressed nearly
the full gamut of human experience. For instance, self-efficacy beliefs have
been found to positively influence behavior related to academic achievement
(Multon et al., 1991), athletic performance (Feltz, 1982), treatment of bu-
limia, (Schneider, O’Leary, & Bandura, 1985, cited in Shelton, 1990), career
choice (Betz & Hackett, 1981), complex decision making (Bandura & Jour-
den, 1991), fear reduction (Bandura, Reese, & Adams, 1982), health
(O’Leary, 1985), intelligence testing (Lachman, 1983), interpersonal rela-
tionship quality (Kanfer & Zeiss, 1983), memory functioning (Berry,
West, & Dennehey, 1989), motor tasks performance (McAuley, Duncan, &
McElroy, 1989), reduction of phobic disorders (Bandura, Adams, Hardy, &
Howells, 1980; Biren & Wilson, 1981), smoking cessation (Baer, Holt,
& Lichtenstein, 1986), sex-role differences (Long, 1989), teaching (Dembo
& Gibson, 1985), weight loss (Chambliss & Murray, 1979), and assertive
behavior (Kazdin, 1979).
Research findings spanning a diverse range of topics, methods of measure-
ment, and populations have consistently demonstrated that individuals pos-
sessing low and high estimations of perceived self-efficacy consistently ex-
hibit distinct affective, motivational, and cognitive reactions to the task
situation in addition to exhibiting discrepant behavioral responses. These
differences will be discussed in the context of postulated explanations for
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 55

the means through which self-efficacy beliefs are likely to impact parenting
practices that will follow a review of the parenting self-efficacy literature.
However, in brief, people with a high sense of perceived efficacy confidently
trust their own abilities in the face of environmental demands, tend to con-
ceptualize problems more as challenges than as threats or events that are
beyond their control, experience less negative emotional arousal when en-
gaged in challenging tasks, and exhibit perseverance when confronted with
difficult situations (Jerusalem & Mittag, 1995). In contrast, when individuals
possess low self-efficacy, they tend to experience significant levels of self-
doubt and anxiety when they encounter adversity, assume more responsibil-
ity for failure than success, appraise environmental demands as threatening,
avoid challenge, and cope dysfunctionally with problems (Jerusalem & Mit-
tag, 1995).
PARENTING SELF-EFFICACY RESEARCH
Research application of the self-efficacy construct to the domain of parent-
ing, although not neglected, has been relatively sparse. Nevertheless, the
existing studies dramatically illustrate the gravity of this variable for under-
standing personal satisfaction or adjustment to parenting and the quality of
the environment (both physical and psychological) that parents are able to
provide for their children. Several reasons can be postulated to account for
the relative paucity of data on parenting self-efficacy. First, as indicated ear-
lier, parental cognitions of all forms were not often addressed scientifically
and afforded much weight in the developmental research until fairly recently.
Second, the nature of most previous self-efficacy research may have hindered
application of the construct to parenting. Typically, self-efficacy research
has been based on experimentally induced success and failure experiences,
performance contingent feedback, etc. The examination of naturally oc-
curring self-efficacy may have been impeded by the more highly constrained
self-efficacy research designed to actively manipulate the variable (Teti &
Gelfand, 1991). Third, most self-efficacy research has been in the Bandurian
tradition, focusing on only a few clearly defined and narrowly specified tasks,
and parenting behavior is composed of multiple complex behaviors possess-
ing significant variability across child ages.
A fourth factor related to the deficit of research on parenting self-efficacy
is the minimal research attention devoted to the construction of psychometri-
cally sound parenting self-efficacy measures. At present, only a few parent-
ing self-efficacy questionnaires have been developed, each composed of very
few items. Available measures of parenting self-efficacy and related con-
structs, brief descriptions of each, and available psychometric data are pro-
vided in Table 1. There is burgeoning awareness of the need for appropriate,
psychometrically sound measures to address parental perceptions of compe-
tence. Common criticisms of existing measures include minimal validation,
lack of conceptual clarity, homogeneous normative samples (typically con-
56 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

TABLE 1
Available Measures of Parenting Self-Efficacy and Related Constructs

Measure/Number Psychometric
of items General description information

Comfort with Parenting Comfort with parenting *Test–retest reliability at

Performance
(Ballenski & Cook,
1982)
60 items
(8–14 per age period)
Maternal Efficacy Addresses mothers’
Questionnaire
(Teti & Gelfand, 1991)
10 items
Maternal Self-Definition Measure of both task-
Measure
(Deutsch, Ruble,
Fleming, Brooks-
Gunn, & Stangor, 1988)
33 items
Parental Efficacy subscale Domain-level measure
of the Parental Locus of
Control Scale
(Campis, Lyman, &
Prentice-Dunn, 1986)
10 items
ability is assessed with
reference to several
specific parenting tasks,
across different
developmental stages
from infancy through
adolescence.
feelings of efficacy in
relation to specific
infant care tasks (e.g.,
engaging in daily
routine care, infant
soothing, understanding
what the infant wants,
etc.).
specific mothering
behaviors and general
attributes that women
perceive themselves to
possess.
emphasizing persistence
and attributions of
control in parenting
across different
contexts. A few items
relate to specified
situations (e.g., one item
pertains to parental
control in the context of
child tantruming
behavior).
2 weeks 5 .85
*No validation data
*Internal consistency
reliability, Cronbach’s
α 5 .86
*Concurrent validity
established with PSI
Sense of Competence
Scale (r 5 2.75)
*Internal consistency
reliability, Cronbach’s
α 5 .68
*Concurrent validation
provided via
correlations with a
measure of direct
information-seeking
related to the parental
role.
*Internal consistency
reliability, Cronbach’s
α 5 .75.
*Concurrent validity:
Parental Efficacy scores
were correlated (r 5
2.27) with the General
Self-Efficacy (Sherer et
al., 1982)
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING
Measure/Number
of items
Parenting Self-Agency
Measure
(Dumka, Stoerzinger,
Jackson, & Roosa,
1996)
25 items
Parenting Self-Efficacy
subscale of Parenting
Sense of Competence
Scale
(Gibaud-Wallston &
Wandersman, 1978;
cited in Johnston &
Mash, 1989)
7 items
Parenting subscale of
Wells-Parker, Miller,
Topping’s (1990) Self-
Efficacy Scales
Sense of Competence of
Competence subscale from
the Parent Domain—
Parenting Stress Index
(Abidin, 1986)
13 items
TABLE 1—Continued
General description
Domain-level measure
developed to assess
parents’ general levels
of confidence in their
ability to function as
successful parents.
Specifically addresses
confidence, helplessness
when confronted with
child opposition,
ability to resolve
parent–child conflict,
effort expended, and
persistence in parenting.
Domain-level measure
designed to measure
parental feelings of
competence, ability to
solve problems, and
familiarity with the
parental role.
Domain-level measure
developed to assess
parenting self-efficacy
as related to
generalized, abstract
parenting problems.
Contains 5 7-point
Likert-type items.
Domain level measure
designed to tap into
perceptions of competence
in parenting in terms of
generally handling
difficulties, coping with
daily demands, exercising
control over child behavior,
etc.
57
Psychometric
information
*Internal consistency
reliability, Cronbach’s α
coefficients 5 .68–.70.
*Construct validity
evidence provided
through factor analysis
and correlations with
coping style and
parenting practices.
*Internal consistency
reliability, Cronbach’s
α 5 .70
*Construct validity
evidence provided with
factor analysis.
*Concurrent validity
evidence provided by
Cutrona & Troutman
(1986). Efficacy scores
correlated with general
self-esteem.
*Internal consistency
reliability, Cronbach’s
α 5 .77
*Construct validity provided
through factor analysis and
correlations with standard
indexes of depression and
self-esteem.
*Internal consistency
reliability, Cronbach’s α
coefficients for the
Parenting Domain scale 5
.55–.80 (Sabatelli Waldron,
1995); Cronbach’s α 5
.73 for Sense of
Competence subscale.
*Test–retest reliability (3
month) 5 .69, (Sabatelli &
Waldron, 1995)
*Validity data (content,
construct, & criterion-
related) are available in the
manual.
58 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

sisting of middle-class, white parents), and employment of ambiguous termi-

nology (Dumka et al., 1996; Sabatelli & Waldron, 1995). In an attempt to
address some of the shortcomings, Dumka et al. (1996) recently developed
a 25-item measure of parenting self-agency (a variable possessing consider-
able conceptual overlap with the self-efficacy construct). Although the au-
thors have provided substantial promising psychometric information on this
scale, it only addresses domain level perceptions of competence in the par-
enting role (e.g., persistence during times of adversity). Constructually valid
assessment of perceived self-efficacy from a Bandurian perspective dictates
tapping into the individual facets of the domain of parenting. Table 2 pro-
vides a list of task-specific parental self-efficacy belief categories, related
areas of parental behavioral competency, and possible associated child out-
comes which may be of use to researchers seeking to comprehensively exam-
ine parenting self-efficacy at the more specified task level of analysis. Future
instrumentation should incorporate the changing tasks required of parents as
children grow older, and additional measures should be developed to enable
assessment of task-level parenting self-efficacy in demographically diverse
normal and abnormal populations.
Parental self-efficacy beliefs refer to the parent’s expectations about the
degree to which he or she is able to perform competently and effectively as
a parent (Teti & Gelfand, 1991). Parental self-efficacy can also be construed
as one’s perceived ability to exercise positive influence on the behavior and
development of one’s children. According to the basic tenets of self-efficacy
theory, as outlined by Bandura (1989), parental self-efficacy beliefs should
incorporate both the level of specific knowledge pertaining to the behaviors
involved in child rearing and the degree of confidence in one’s ability to
carry out the designated role behaviors. The work of Conrad et al. (1992)
clearly illustrates the importance of each component of self-efficacy in asso-
ciation with mother–toddler interactions. Significant main effects for mater-
nal knowledge of child development and for maternal self-confidence on the
quality of mother–toddler interactions were not detected; however, a signifi-
cant interaction between the two independent variables was found. Among
less confident mothers, the data revealed no differences in the quality of
interaction based on maternal level of knowledge, but with the more confi-
dent mothers, increased knowledge resulted in more effective interaction.
An expanding body of research has linked maternal self-efficacy beliefs
to maternal behavioral competency. For example, Teti and Gelfand (1991)
found that among mothers of infants, maternal self-efficacy beliefs related
significantly to maternal behavioral competence, independent of the effects
of other variables. These authors employed a 10-item self-efficacy measure
with nine relatively task-specific items, pertaining to behaviors such as sooth-
ing the baby and knowing what the baby wants. The tenth item on the scale
tapped feelings of efficacy in mothering at the domain level. Teti and Gel-
fand’s (1991) research is particularly noteworthy because they found mater-
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 59

TABLE 2
Suggested Categories of Task-Specific Parental Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Related Areas
of Parental Behavioral Competency, and Possible Associated Child Outcomes

Task-specific
self-efficacy Areas of
category behavioral competency Child outcomes

Facilitation of child’s Provision of freedom to Intelligence

cognitive development explore Intellectual curiosity
Provision of stimulating Academic motivation
play and reading Academic achievement
materials Creativity
Engagement in cognitively Daily problem-solving
stimulating interactions ability
Encouragement of school Ability to formulate and
work carry out plans
Interest in school activities
Encouragement of
problem-solving skills
Ability to serve as a
consultant
Encouragement of
creativity
Nurturance and provision Sensitivity to child’s needs Attachment security
for child’s emotional Emotional warmth Predominant mood—
development Awareness of, and interest positive/negative
in, child’s feelings Emotional regulation
Expression of own Ability to demonstrate
feelings affection toward others
Ability to listen attentively Self-esteem
to child/emotional Empathetic ability
confidant
Encouragement of age-
appropriate
independence
Encouragement of child’s Arrangement for child’s Social adjustment with
recreation and social interaction with peers peers
development Facilitation of child’s Ability to interact with
participation in adults
recreational activities Sibling relationship quality
Engagement in play with Engagement in a variety
child of recreational activities
Interest in child’s
recreation
Provision of a variety of
activities and
opportunities for
recreation
Provision of age-
appropriate recreational
equipment
Provision of physical
space for play
60 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

TABLE 2—Continued

Task-specific
self-efficacy Areas of
category behavioral competency Child outcomes

Provision of structure and Ability to formulate age- Compliance with rules,

discipline appropriate rules behavioral regulation
Interest in discipline Respect for authority
Assumption of Compliance with daily
responsibility for routine
discipline Absence of behavior
Ability to enforce rules problems
Use of age-appropriate, Prosocial behavior
nonabusive, corrective
behavior techniques
Ability to implement
structure and routine in
children’s lives
Maintenance of child’s Provision of proper General physical health
physical health nutrition Age-appropriate physical
Obtainment of timely growth
preventive and Appropriate weight
corrective health care Frequency of minor
Detection of signs of illnesses
illness in child
Encouragement of proper
hygiene
Provision of appropriate
injury prevention
Encouragement of
appropriate amount of
sleep
Encouragement of outdoor
activity

nal self-efficacy operated as a mediator variable between various psychoso-

cial variables (including socio-demographic status, infant temperamental
difficulty, social marital supports, and depression) and maternal competence.
Specifically, when self-efficacy was controlled, these factors no longer re-
lated to mothers’ behavioral competence. In essence, self-efficacy accounted
for or explained the relationship between several predictor variables and par-
enting quality. Evidence that diverse psychosocial variables do not directly
impair parental functioning, but do so through their ability to undermine
competency perceptions, provides important clarification of at least one
means through which certain infant, maternal, and contextual factors con-
ceivably influence parenting. Furthermore, this finding provides specification
of an appropriate point of entry for intervention efforts geared toward attenu-
ating the effects of nonmanipulable variables such as temperament or SES
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 61

on parenting quality. Elevation of parents’ feelings of competency may ne-

gate the impact of uncontrollable environmental circumstances.
Cutrona and Troutman’s research (1986) likewise highlighted the potency
of the self-efficacy construct in new mothers, as these authors demonstrated
that this variable mediated the effects of infant temperament and social sup-
port on postpartum depression, which can significantly impair maternal func-
tioning (Cox et al., 1987; Field, 1984; Field et al., 1988; Gelfand & Teti,
1990). Gibaud-Wallston’s (1978; cited in Johnston & Mash, 1989) Parenting
Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC) was used by Cutrona and Troutman to
examine self-efficacy beliefs. This domain-level measure diverges from the
Bandurian formulation; however, the generality of the items perhaps renders
the instrument more broadly applicable to parents of children of different
ages. For example, one item on the PSOC reads ‘‘Considering how long I’ve
been a mother, I feel thoroughly familiar with the role.’’ Similarly, Donovan
and Leavitt (1985) found that maternal self-efficacy (measured with an attri-
butional style questionnaire) mediated the effects of child temperament and
social support on infant attachment, which is believed to be largely a re-
sponse to maternal sensitivity. Other studies have found a relationship be-
tween parental self-efficacy and competency with mothers of older children
(Bugental, Blue, & Cruzcosa, 1989; Mash & Johnston, 1983a, 1983b). For
instance, Bugental et al. (1989), employing a sample of both abusive and
nonabusive mothers of children aged 3 to 13, found that abusive mothers
tended to have lower levels of self-efficacy related to parenting than did
nonabusive parents.
Current research generally supports an association between high maternal
self-efficacy and specific adaptive parenting skills, such as responsive, stimu-
lating, and nonpunitive caretaking (Donovan, 1981; Donovan & Leavitt,
1985; Unger & Waudersman, 1985), the ability to attend to and understand
infant signals (Donovan et al., 1990), more active and direct parenting inter-
actions (Mash & Johnston, 1983a), parental acceptance (or an interest in
promoting children’s concerns; Dumka et al., 1996), active maternal coping
orientations (Wells-Parker et al., 1990), and a relative absence of maternally
perceived behavioral problems (Johnston & Mash, 1989). Low maternal self-
efficacy has been correlated with maternal depression (Cutrona & Troutman,
1986; Teti & Gelfand, 1991), maternal learned helplessness (Donovan et al.,
1990), maternal defensive and controlling behaviors (Donovan et al., 1990),
actual behavior problems in children (Gibaud-Wallson & Waudersman,
1978, cited in Johnston & Mash, 1989), maternal perceptions of child diffi-
culty (Bugental & Shennum, 1984; Gibaud-Wallson & Waudersman, cited
in Johnston & Mash, 1989; Halpern, Anders, Coll, & Hua, 1994), high levels
of maternally reported stress (Wells-Parker et al., 1990), and a passive coping
style in the parenting role (Wells-Parker et al., 1990). Findings by Bugental
and her colleagues derived from a number of research projects (Bugental,
Blue, & Lewis, 1989, cited in Mash & Johnston, 1990; Bugental & Cortez,
62 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

1988; Bugental & Shennum, 1984) have demonstrated that low maternal self-
efficacy is associated with the tendency to focus on relationship difficulties,
negative affect, elevated autonomic arousal, feelings of helplessness in the
parenting role, and use of coercive discipline.
Self-efficacy has also been found to be positively associated with some
more specified or concrete behavioral tendencies, such as parental efforts to
educate themselves about parenting by attending parent education programs
and reading literature relevant to parenting (Spoth & Conroy, 1993) and with
parental efforts to teach their children injury protection (Peterson, Farmer, &
Kashani, 1990). Based on the accumulating parenting self-efficacy literature,
it is possible to assert with certainty that high parenting self-efficacy is
strongly related to maternal ability to foster a healthy, happy, and nurturant
childrearing environment.
Interestingly, however, the degree of influence exerted by the parental
self-efficacy construct seems to be affected by situational factors. Mash and
Johnston’s (1983b) research with mothers of hyperactive children revealed
that during unstructured play, mothers’ behavior was predicted only from
child behavior; but in the context of a more demanding task situation, parent-
ing self-efficacy became a significant predictor of maternal interactive re-
sponses along with child behavior. Mothers exhibiting low self-efficacy
were more likely to withdraw from the taxing situation than were mothers
with high self-efficacy. The work of Bugental and her associates (Bugental,
Blue, & Lewis, 1989, cited in Mash & Johnston, 1990; Bugental & Cortez,
1988; Bugental & Shennum, 1984) has suggested that mothers with low
self-efficacy tend to become sensitized to difficult child behavior, pre-
cluding active, effective coping attempts. Donovan et al. (1990) have sug-
gested that parents with high self-efficacy probably interpret child difficulty
as a challenge necessitating greater effort and application of their skills in
creative ways, whereas parents exhibiting low self-efficacy are likely to
perceive child difficulty as a threat that exceeds their ability to cope as
parents.
Stressful circumstances draw more heavily on all parental resources, in-
cluding those of a cognitive nature; therefore, logically one would expect
that, under duress, self-efficacy would exert a greater impact on parenting
quality. There is evidence in the general psychology literature suggesting
that when physical constraints are imposed on coping attempts, alternative
cognitive strategies tend to be called into play (Taylor, 1983). Moreover,
research relevant to parenting self-efficacy does indeed suggest that the ef-
fects of perceptions of competency increase considerably in magnitude under
stressful environmental circumstances. For example, Elder’s (1995) research
has illustrated that psychological risk in economically disadvantaged, inner-
city children, can be profoundly reduced when nurturing parents are able to
maintain a sense of personal efficacy in the parental role despite the adverse
environmental situations that they find themselves immersed in. When pov-
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 63

erty does significantly impair child developmental outcomes, it apparently

does so indirectly by undermining parents’ self-efficacy. Impoverished par-
ents’ abilities to raise their children successfully in the face of unsupportive
communities and perpetual financial burdens seems to be directly related to
the amount of personal control that they feel they are able to exercise. Ozer’s
(1992, cited in Bandura, 1995) work revealed that the psychological well-
being of women balancing the demands of multiple employment and family
roles was not directly predicted from income, employment workload, nor
division of childcare responsibilities. Instead, these variables operated indi-
rectly through their impact on self-efficacy perceptions. Bandura (1995)
notes that the effects of family structure likewise are mediated by the effects
of self-efficacy, with efficacious single parents being quite capable of ac-
tively encouraging their children’s success. Clearly, high self-efficacy may
buffer sociostructural influences; however, low parental self-efficacy may
actually accentuate the negative impact of external demands on the quality
of parent–child interactions.
Given the above research and theoretical support for the crucial role paren-
tal self-efficacy is likely to exert on a number of dimensions of parental
competency occurring across both affective and behavioral levels of parental
functioning, it is essential for researchers to discern both the processes that
contribute to the development of parental self-efficacy and the time frame
within which they occur. For example, does the emergence of parental self-
efficacy beliefs have a history that dates back to early childhood, or is it a
cognitive process that characterizes approaching physical maturity and/or
adult development? Perhaps it is a process that is highly confined to the
period of a first pregnancy. Or is it possible that there are marked individual
differences, precluding the establishment of normative patterns in terms of
the most typical time for the establishment of parental self-efficacy beliefs?
Identification of the sources of efficacy beliefs, the means through which
they develop, and mechanisms of change are fundamental to future efforts
geared toward the development and implementation of intervention strate-
gies designed to foster positive self-efficacy beliefs in parents and thereby
enhance the probability of high levels of parental competency and positive
child outcomes.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARENTAL SELF-EFFICACY
Preliminary evidence seems to suggest that parental self-efficacy beliefs
arise, at least in part, from childhood experiences (Grusec, Hastings, & Mam-
mone, 1994). Parents bring internal representations of relationships with
them into the experience of parenting. Noted researchers contend that
‘‘working models’’ or cognitive structures that ‘‘represent regularities in
their patterns of interpersonal relating’’ (Grusec et al., 1994, p. 9) are influ-
ential in guiding behavior in the parental domain (Bugental, 1991; Grusec
et al., 1994). This approach to understanding the development of parenting
64 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

self-efficacy essentially focuses on the impact of general beliefs dealing with

one’s relationships to others. The process through which relationship sche-
mas take form has been most thoroughly researched in the attachment litera-
ture (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). Attachment theorists view
relationship schemas as working models, because schemas are construed to
be gradually constructed over the course of development and are also be-
lieved to be activated regularly in the processes of interpreting environmental
events and guiding behavior.
Attachment theory identifies three distinct models of relationships (secure,
avoidant, and resistant) that emerge as a result of the quality of primary
caregiver–infant relationships (Ainsworth et al., 1978). These early proto-
types of relationships are believed to carry the potential for influencing inter-
personal behavior across the life course. George, Kaplan, and Main (1985,
cited in van IJzendoorn, & Bakersman-Kranenburg, 1996) developed the
Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), which assesses an adult’s current state
of mind with respect to early attachment experiences. Three primary patterns
of adult attachment have been identified and they are believed to parallel
infant styles. Adults classified as ‘‘secure-autonomous’’ value close relation-
ships but are able to exercise objectivity in evaluating their own experiences.
Adults classified as ‘‘dismissive’’ show a tendency to limit the influence of
attachment relationships in their thinking, feeling, and behavior while mak-
ing superficial claims of normalcy, strength, and independence. Finally,
adults identified as ‘‘preoccupied’’ with early attachments lack objectivity
and demonstrate substantial confusion in their descriptions of early relation-
ships. Although very few studies have examined the association between
adult attachment orientation and maternal self-efficacy, Grusec et al. (1994)
have provided some preliminary support for continuity between the two con-
structs. In addition, Deutsche, Ruble, Fleming, Brooks-Gunn, and Stangor
(1988) found that among pregnant women, as the qualitative nature of
women’s reported relationships with their own mothers became more posi-
tive, they were more inclined to report possessing adaptive parenting skills in
addition to expressing more self-confidence about the prospect of becoming a
mother.
A second, very different approach to the question of how maternal self-
efficacy beliefs develop has focused on elements of the macrosystem (Grusec
et al., 1994). Cultures and communities most certainly deliver numerous
messages about parenting values as well as factual information relevant to
the care and development of children; however, as Grusec et al. point out,
it is probably unlikely that the cultural context has a significant influence on
specific parental cognitions such as self-efficacy. According to Goodnow
(1985), cultural influences on parental cognitions are likely to be minimal,
because parents are not merely passive recipients of cultural information and
values. Instead, parents screen cultural messages in accordance with their
own unique belief systems. They also typically seek out other parents, with
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 65

similar orientations, to discuss various dimensions of child rearing and to

develop a supportive social network (Grusec et al., 1994). Parental belief
systems are possibly more of a product of informal gatherings than the result
of more broadly based cultural messages.
A third possible avenue of influence on the emergence of mothers’ per-
sonal efficacy beliefs is the actual experiences of mothers with children, en-
counters with both their own children and with the children of relatives and
community members. Goodnow (1985) argues that feedback from parent–
child interactions is a primary source of competency information and there-
fore should exert considerable influence on parents’ perceptions of their abili-
ties to deal effectively with the challenges of parenting. There is considerable
research support for this position, stemming primarily from studies that have
examined levels of parental self-efficacy in families with children who are
inherently difficult to control due to temperamental qualities (Teti & Gelfand,
1991) or behavioral disorders, such as ADHD (Mash & Johnston, 1983a).
Generally, these studies have found lower levels of personal efficacy among
parents with atypically demanding children when compared to parents of
nonproblem children. Interestingly, the self-efficacy of parents with difficult
children tends to decrease as their children grow older, while the self-efficacy
of parents of nonproblem children tends to show increases corresponding to
child age (Mash & Johnston, 1983a). When parents are dealing with behav-
iorally difficult children, the ratio of positive to negative parenting encoun-
ters is likely to be much lower than with average children; therefore, this
literature is congruent with Bandura’s (1989) notion of the nature of personal
accomplishment histories playing a primary role in the emergence of per-
sonal efficacy beliefs.
Studies examining the relationship between parental experience with other
people’s children and self-efficacy have been limited; however, one study
revealed no relationship between the two variables (Pridham & Chang,
1992). Literature pertaining to the relationship between parity and self-
efficacy is likewise quite restricted. Nevertheless, Gross, Rocissano, and
Roncoli’s (1989) work revealed that prior child care experience and child
birth order (only for preterm births) were strong predictors of maternal con-
fidence in toddlerhood. Despite the minimal research attention devoted to
this area, the idea of maternal self-efficacy perceptions developing as a result
of direct experience is consistent with Bandura’s (1989) contention that di-
rect involvement with the actual behaviors (that are related to the particular
domain on which the efficacy beliefs are based) exercise the most power as
a source of information in the formation of efficacy estimations.
A final potential source of maternal self-efficacy beliefs, which has not
been systematically examined nor mentioned in the available literature, is the
degree of cognitive/behavioral preparation for the maternal role. Consistent
cognitive/behavioral themes are reportedly experienced by pregnant women,
as evidenced by descriptive studies (Affonso & Sheptak, 1989; Colman &
66 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

Colman, 1971); however, systematic empirical support for the existence of

a distinct process of role adaptation occurring during pregnancy does not
exist. A few studies have addressed the relationship between rather specific
dimensions of maternal cognitive adjustment to pregnancy and postpartum
maternal self-confidence, competency, and/or future child outcomes. For in-
stance, Bohlin and Hagekull (1987) and Winnicott (1976) found that mater-
nal ‘‘preoccupation’’ defined as a transient cognitive-emotional reorientation
involving introversion or a turning inward and a very focused orientation on
the unborn child, was related to maternal self-confidence. In a somewhat
similar vein, Heinicke, Distin, Ramsey-Klee, and Given (1983) discovered
a positive relationship between early prenatal ability to confidently visualize
oneself as a mother and infant soothability at 1 month as well as between
visualization and mothers’ affectionate responsiveness at 6 months.
Theoretical models have been formulated in an attempt to clarify how
women equip themselves, mentally and practically, for the monumental life
changes that inevitably transpire subsequent to the birth of a child. For exam-
ple, Rubin (1984) has proposed that prenatal cognitive/behavioral prepara-
tion occurs in three distinct stages: Replication, Fantasy, and Dedifferentia-
tion. Replication is divided into two phases, mimicry and role-play, and is
defined by Rubin as entailing a self-initiated search for, and trying on of,
various socially esteemed elements of the maternal role. Mimicry consists
of mentally exploring the behaviors of women who have successfully
achieved the role. In role-play, instead of just cognitively examining behav-
iors, the pregnant woman selects children from her environment to practice
role behaviors with. According to Rubin, the feedback from these children
serves as a vehicle for enhancing or detracting from a woman’s sense of
competency as a soon-to-be mother. Fantasy is defined as a future-focused
mental projection of the mother and her child-to-be. This second operation
enables the mother to cognitively explore a variety of situations she is likely
to encounter with her child. Finally, dedifferentiation involves an analysis
of the attitudes and behavior of a model for congruence with the woman’s
present self-image as a mother.
Logically, the degree to which women progress through Rubin’s hypothe-
sized stages could very well be related to the emergence of maternal self-
efficacy beliefs. This is true, because the operations detailed by Rubin are
congruent with the four informational sources specified by Bandura to be
instrumental as antecedents to the development of self-efficacy beliefs in
general. Specifically, Rubin’s constructs involve direct experience with ma-
ternal role behaviors (mimicry and role-play), vicarious learning (relevant
to certain elements of mimicry and dedifferentiation), as well as verbal per-
suasion (verbal feedback monitored by pregnant women as they engage in
role-play). Having reviewed various forms of experience possibly underlying
the development of parenting self-efficacy, the processes through which par-
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 67

enting self-efficacy beliefs are likely to affect parenting behavior will now
be explored.
SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING:
AVENUES OF INFLUENCE
The extant parenting self-efficacy literature reviewed herein has clearly
demonstrated that parenting self-efficacy can directly impact the quality of
care provided as well as the degree of enjoyment derived from the parenting
experience. Furthermore, parenting self-efficacy has been established as a
powerful mediator of several of the prime variables that have been examined
in relation to parental competency and satisfaction, including child tempera-
ment, social and marital supports, and situational stress. However, more re-
search is clearly indicated for addressing the processes through which
self-efficacy perceptions exercise their influence on parental caregiving and
satisfaction. Possible means of influence, drawing on the work of Bandura
and his predecessors, will be discussed below. The mechanisms through
which self-efficacy beliefs conceivably affect parenting behavior do not ap-
pear to represent a simple process. Instead, parental self-efficacy beliefs po-
tentially influence parental responses through a complex interplay of af-
fective, motivational, cognitive, and behavioral pathways.
With regard to the affective realm, belief in one’s capacity to parent is
likely to affect the level of stress and/or depression experienced in de-
manding parenting situations (Bandura, 1989; Bugental & Cortez, 1988; Bu-
gental & Shennum, 1984; Cutrona & Troutman, 1986). Research clearly sug-
gests that people who feel they lack control over stressors experience
heightened subjective distress, entailing anxiety and elevated autonomic
arousal (Bandura et al., 1982), along with other stress-induced physiological
reactions (Bandura, Cioffi, Taylor, & Brouillard, 1988; Bandura, Taylor,
Williams, Mefford, & Barchas, 1985). Parental depression and stress have
been repeatedly linked with negative effects on parenting including child
abuse and neglect (Halpern, 1993; Mrazek, 1993) as well as maladaptive
child outcomes (Donovan & Leavitt, 1989).
The diathesis–stress component of Abramson, Metalsky, and Alloy’s
(1989) hopelessness theory of depression provides useful insight regarding
the process whereby low self-efficacy estimations are likely to have a detri-
mental impact on parental affective states. The theory postulates that feelings
of hopelessness leading to depression are a result of an interaction between
the tendency to attribute negative life events to internal, stable, and global
causes (attributional diathesis) and the experience of aversive life events
(stress). Particular vulnerability is expected when the attributional diathesis
and the stressor are from the same contextual domains. With hopelessness
defined as expectations that highly desired outcomes are impossible and
highly negative events are inevitable or unavoidable (Abramson et al., 1989),
68 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

and self-efficacy conceptualized as an index of people’s assessments of their

own abilities to influence events, hopelessness and low self-efficacy repre-
sent very analogous constructs. Inefficacious parents are likely to contend
that their children’s negative behavior or problems are associated with inter-
nal, stable, global (unalterable) factors, and if they also encounter substantial
stress in the context of the parental role, a sense of hopelessness may emerge,
operating as a significant precipitating factor for adverse affective reactions
such as depression. In this situation, parents are likely to feel hopeless, be-
cause they believe that no response exists to circumvent adversity. However,
it is also possible for parents to contend that, although there are responses
that carry the potential to positively affect their children’s behavioral devel-
opment, they are not personally capable of effectively engaging in such be-
haviors. As noted by Maddux and Meier (1995), both compromised outcome
expectancies (reflected in the first scenario) and low self-efficacy expectan-
cies (illustrated in the second situation) can potentially play a role in depres-
sion.
Bandura (1989) has noted that when inefficacious beliefs correspond to
desired goals possessing meaning pertaining to one’s sense of self-worth,
depression is particularly likely to ensue. Parenting in our society represents
a highly esteemed and pivotal dimension of the adult experience and with
most individuals embracing the values of society, parenting becomes tightly
bound with most individuals’ conceptions of self. With the desired goal of
most parents being to do the job well, those who are riddled with self-doubts
regarding their competency as parents are likely to experience negative emo-
tional reactions. As alluded to in the outset of this article, a substantial
amount of literature has identified maternal depression as a possible precur-
sor to problematic parenting.
The association between low self-efficacy and depression is not only con-
gruent with current theoretical work on depression, but has also been sub-
stantiated by considerable correlational and experimental data (for a review,
see Maddux & Meier, 1995). Perhaps most noteworthy are a few laboratory
studies reported by Maddux and Meier, in which experimentally induced
low self-efficacy beliefs have been demonstrated to have a causal effect on
depressed mood. Although a causal link between self-efficacy and depression
relevant to the realm of parenting has not been empirically established, the
correlational evidence cited earlier suggests the necessity for more highly
constrained research effort in this area.
Self-efficacy also influences functioning across diverse task domains
through a connection to motivational processes. Self-perceptions of efficacy
have a direct impact on the setting of task-related goals (Schunk, 1990).
Those with high self-efficacy beliefs tend to establish high and specific per-
sonal performance goals, while those possessing low self-efficacy beliefs
tend to shy away from formulating specific behavioral goals (Bouffard-
Bouchard, 1990; Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984). When low effica-
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 69

cious individuals do actually set goals, they tend to encompass low aspira-
tions and are not usually adhered to well (Bandura, 1989). People with low
self-efficacy give up quickly when adversity is encountered (Bandura, 1989).
For instance, a parent with diminished feelings of competency may immedi-
ately give in to her child in response to a temper tantrum, instead of standing
her ground to teach the child that negative behavior is not the appropriate
means for securing a desired end. Personal goals provide a framework for
behavior and parents who fail to develop clear goals are likely to demonstrate
erratic, inconsistent parenting behavior. For example, if a mother lacks clear
goals pertaining to the extent to which she wishes to foster independence in
her 7-year-old child, she may vacillate between reinforcing autonomous and
dependent behaviors, sending confusing signals to the child. Further, because
satisfaction is often derived from fulfilling valued goals, parents who lack
a sense of efficacy in their own ability to parent are likely to derive less
pleasure from their parental experiences than are their more efficacious coun-
terparts.
Self-perceptions of efficacy also influence the actual motivation to select
or engage in challenging tasks (Sexton & Tuckman, 1991). As related to the
parental domain, avoidance of challenging tasks is likely to translate into
avoidance of more effortful disciplinary techniques such as induction, with
low efficacious parents opting instead to control child behavior with tactics
such as spanking and/or yelling. The avoidance of difficulty could also con-
ceivably result in a tendency to shrink from addressing child misbehavior
altogether. Unfortunately, as low efficacious parents maneuver their way
around the challenging tasks of parenthood, they thwart their acquisition of
knowledge and new skills in the process (Bandura, 1982). Self-efficacy be-
liefs thereby carry the potential to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A final means through which self-efficacy beliefs are likely to impact
motivation is through an effect on the intensity of effort and persistence
in domain-relevant tasks. A substantial body of research has linked self-
efficacy judgments to effort and persistence (reviewed in Berry & West,
1993). The approach to tasks by highly efficacious individuals is character-
ized by persistence and intensity of effort (Bandura, 1989). People with high
estimates of self-efficacy tend to become very interested and engrossed in
activities, heightening the expenditure of energy in the face of difficulty or
failure. Interestingly, they also show more stamina and the ability to maintain
attention during boring tasks (Pintrich & deGroot, 1990). Perseverance when
dealing with threatening situations leads to corrective experiences that rein-
force a sense of high self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982). Low efficacious individu-
als show minimal effort and persistence when confronted by obstacles and
seem to be unable to put knowledge of tasks into action. Parents who exhibit
poorly established beliefs in their own competencies tend to give up easily,
presumably due to failure expectancies (Bandura, 1982) and, when failure
results, they tend to rapidly lose faith in themselves (Bandura, 1989). The
70 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

inherent demanding nature of parenting necessitates a high level of effort

and persistence and a lack of resilience and energy will in all likelihood
impair parental functioning.
Many studies have illustrated that self-efficacy perceptions qualitatively
influence the construction of cognitive appraisals pertaining to the likelihood
of future success or failure in a variety of domains (several are reviewed in
Bandura, 1989). High self-efficacy has been associated with visualization of
success scenarios in the relevant domain, which conveniently serve as a
model for positive solutions to future troubling situations. High efficacious
individuals are active cognitive processors of information and can much
more readily engage in analytical thinking than those with low self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1989). Low self-efficacy often results in an inclination to imagine
failure in the contexts of future-oriented cognitive activity as well as a ten-
dency to avoid effortful cognitive processing of information. There is the
inclination to ruminate on possible avenues for disastrous outcomes to later
events and to experience cognitions involving self-doubt. The fears, often
focusing on one’s own limitations, characteristic of the thinking patterns of
low efficacious people, diverts attention from the tasks at hand and can oper-
ate as another vehicle through which self-efficacy beliefs potentially compro-
mise parenting behavior. Cognitions coexisting with high self-efficacy be-
liefs tend to embody hope, ideas for positive coping, and self-affirmations,
while low self-efficacy beliefs tend to bring with them thoughts of impending
doom, self-blame, and an overwhelming sense of futility. Envisioning how
efficacy-referent thoughts operate as a facilitator or hindrance to parenting
efforts is not difficult; however, empirical work associating self-efficacy re-
lated cognitive styles to specific competencies in the domain of parenting is
lacking.
In conjunction with the affective, motivational, and cognitive means
through which self-efficacy beliefs may potentially impact parenting, ef-
fectance beliefs can also directly affect parenting behavior through the pre-
disposition to act in certain ways which hold clear meaning for parenting
quality. For example, high self-efficacy has been found to be associated with
the higher relative use of problem-focused coping (management of the event
itself ) as compared to emotion-focused strategies (regulation of emotions
evoked by the event; Chwalisz, Altmaier, & Russell, 1992). Conversely, low
self-efficacy has been associated with the relatively higher use of emotion-
focused coping as compared to the use of problem-focused coping tech-
niques. Greater reliance on emotion-focused coping has been empirically
associated with occupational burnout (Aldwin & Revenson, 1987; Chwalisz
et al., 1992), suggesting it may be a less adaptive coping orientation. Future
studies should examine the relative use of problem- versus emotion-focused
coping strategies among parents with discrepant levels of self-efficacy and
also test to see if there is an association with feelings of parenting burnout.
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 71

Bandura (1982) has suggested that low self-efficacy can not only inhibit
the acquisition of new skills, but it can also suppress the performance of
existing skills. Therefore, parents who lack confidence in their parenting ca-
pacity are likely to behave in ways that elicit minimal reinforcement from
their children. Parents exhibiting high self-efficacy, in contrast, are likely to
put their knowledge and skills into action and thereby derive substantial lev-
els of positive feedback from their children. The degree of positive reinforce-
ment achieved through parenting encounters will undoubtedly have effects
on the qualitative nature of later interactions and levels of parenting satisfac-
tion.
In the foregoing exploration of the many possible routes (affective, moti-
vational, cognitive, and behavioral) through which parenting efficacy is
likely to influence domain-relevant task behavior, each avenue was described
separately. However, it is important to realize, as is often stressed by Bandura
(1982), that there is a dynamic interplay among self-referent cognitions,
emotional responses, motivations, and actions. The interrelatedness of the
processes mediating self-efficacy beliefs should therefore be examined
within the context of a single research endeavor in an attempt to heighten
our understanding of this potent construct for predicting parenting behavior.
ENHANCEMENT OF PARENTING QUALITY BY FOCUSING
ON SELF-EFFICACY
Parenting in contemporary society is often undertaken in the midst of sig-
nificant levels of social and economic duress. Currently in the United States,
25% of all children under the age of 6 experience home lives that are devoid
of safe housing, sufficient nutrition, or adequate health care (Boyer, 1991).
In such deprived conditions, lack of adequate parental social, educational,
and financial resources, along with the frequently ensuing parental depres-
sion and anxiety, constitute significant developmental risk factors for a large
proportion of our nation’s children (Sameroff & Emde, 1989; Sameroff &
Seifer, 1983; Seifer & Dickstein, 1993). Low-income, multi-problem parents
obviously face significant hardship necessitating avid development of parent-
ing intervention strategies to facilitate and support parents’ capacities to pro-
vide nurturing homes. One relatively unexplored avenue is through elevation
of parents’ perceptions of competency or control. Without the belief that
people can effect real change in their lives, there is little or no incentive to
try; and, as the literature reported above illustrates, parental perceptions of
personal efficacy may represent the primary means through which individu-
als are able to transform poor living conditions into environments conducive
to child growth. In ecologically disadvantaged contexts, the culture of pov-
erty conveys a message of reduced opportunity to exert personal influence
in many facets of life that individuals living in more prosperous communities
take for granted. A collective sense of powerlessness may also impair per-
72 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

sonal efficacy in such environments and the cultural climate may also need
to be addressed in efforts to help parents living troubled lives achieve a sense
of personal effectance.
Although research cited earlier has illustrated the potential compensatory
effects of high parental self-efficacy in the face of environmental stressors,
the likelihood that many parents living under conditions of severe economic
pressure in neighborhoods riddled with crime enter into the parental role
with high estimations of competence seems sadly remote. More plausible is
the notion that increasing numbers of poor young adults approach parenthood
with personal histories of significant distress, consisting of erratic caregiving,
family violence, inadequate shelter and provision for basic needs, alcohol
or drug abuse, and lack of support systems, all of which are logically condu-
cive to very low estimations of personal efficacy. Growing up under condi-
tions of depravity and/or abuse is likely to preclude the establishment of
positive working models of relationships that theoretically translate into fu-
ture parental perceptions of personal competency. Indeed, a substantial body
of literature has clearly demonstrated that a diverse range of adverse child-
hood experiences can generate feelings of worthlessness that greatly under-
mine parents’ personal estimations of competence as caregivers in addition
to producing negative maternal affect and hostile, intrusive parent–child in-
teractions (Crockenberg, 1987; Lyons-Ruth, Zoll, Connell, & Grunebaum,
1989; Strand & Wahler, 1996). Brazelton (1983) found that a fragile sense
of competence presented considerable interference with positive parenting
among mothers with infants who were difficult to provide for; and unfortu-
nately, under conditions of poverty, the incidence of perinatal, birth, and
postnatal complications is especially prevalent (Halpern, 1993), leading to
a higher frequency of difficult babies in economically depressed areas. Op-
portunities for positive experiences interacting with younger children (which
constitutes a primary route to the development of competency perceptions)
are also probably rare in the chaotic daily lives of children maturing in disad-
vantaged communities. Furthermore, situations enabling learning of what
constitutes adaptive parenting responses are likely to be infrequent and
knowledge of requisite task behaviors is a necessary component of high self-
efficacy.
Therapeutic interventions designed to alter internal working models
through positive relationship building and development of high self-efficacy
through direct child care instruction, modeling of appropriate parenting, and
opportunities for success in performance of role behaviors may provide new
hope for reversing intergenerational transmission of ineffective and detri-
mental parenting behaviors. The extant empirical literature relevant to par-
enting self-efficacy provides considerable support for this optimistic orienta-
tion, and it is time to apply the robust research findings to the prevention
and reduction of human suffering. Altering parents’ perceptions of compe-
tency may provide greater potential for improving the immediate rearing
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 73

environments of children than have attempts to alleviate the social conditions

that have perpetuated negativity in so many children’s lives. Elder’s (1995)
research, described at the outset of this article, provides evidence that achiev-
ing a sense of personal efficacy in the context of adverse life circumstances
is both possible and highly advantageous to the psychological well-being of
both parents and children. Many parents are undoubtedly able to feel compe-
tent in the varied tasks associated with parenting despite the presence of
multiple stressors. Nevertheless, extended research is clearly needed to ad-
dress the specifics of how to enhance self-efficacy in the parental domain
when parents experience a lack a personal self-efficacy as related to their
parental role.
Many forms of behavioral, marital, and family therapy have incorporated
strategies for changing family cognitions (Mash & Johnston, 1990), yet very
little clinical attention has been directed toward modification of particular
types of parental cognitions including self-efficacy. Intervention research in
the context of other self-efficacy domains has been met with great success
(Bandura et al., 1980) and self-efficacy generally appears to be a construct
that is alterable on a practical level. Based on the primary means through
which self-efficacy beliefs are believed to develop (through direct experience
with task behaviors), change would seem to be predicated on a change in
the ratio of successes to failures in parental responding and subsequent reap-
praisal of competencies (Bandura, 1981). Treatment sessions could therefore
center around structuring opportunities for success in parent–child interac-
tions and in other dimensions of the role following parenting skills instruc-
tion.
Once therapeutic techniques are specifically designed to address self-
efficacy in new parents at risk and among parents experiencing difficulty in
the parenting of older children, such procedures can be applied in the context
of existing intervention efforts. The majority of high-risk intervention pro-
grams reflect acknowledgment of the importance of instructing parents in
how to effectively respond to and communicate with their infants (Barnard,
Morisset, & Spieker, 1993). Most intervention programs likewise incorporate
recognition of the merit of teaching inexperienced parents about the behav-
ioral organization of children (Barnard et al., 1993). Further, many interven-
tion protocols involve enhancement of parental social relationships (Barnard
et al., 1993). The parent-training program developed by Forehand and
McMahon (1981) represents one of the most widely esteemed and imple-
mented intervention approaches. This program consists of teaching parents
to attend to and reward appropriate behavior while ignoring maladaptive
or inappropriate behavior. Specific techniques include didactic instruction,
modeling, role-play, and practicing of skills in structured clinical settings as
well as at home. Most programs do not directly address how parents internal-
ize their parenting abilities nor are they designed to instill positive change
in this area as new skills are added to parents’ repertoires. However, many
74 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

existing programs may indirectly facilitate inward change as parents experi-

ence greater success in their parenting efforts. Subsequent research should
examine the extent to which parental self-efficacy is modified by established
parenting intervention techniques.
In existing evaluation studies designed to assess the effectiveness of
family-focused, behavioral approaches to parent training, examination of pa-
rental correlates of treatment outcomes has been infrequent (Kazdin, 1993).
Nevertheless, Spoth, Redmond, Haggerty, and Ward (1995) did recently find
that intervention attendance, expressed readiness for parenting change, and
parental self-efficacy were all significant predictors of parenting outcomes
resulting from a program designed to reduce child risk for early substance
use initiation. Ultimately, the degree to which parent-training efforts, incor-
porating traditional goals of providing information and encouraging the de-
velopment of new skills, may very well depend on the degree to which paren-
tal self-efficacy is incorporated into intervention efforts.
Throughout this article, numerous possible parental history antecedents,
as well as current personal, child, and contextual factors likely to influence
the development and expression of specific self-efficacy beliefs, have been
discussed. Development of informed, appropriate, and effective intervention
strategies designed to elevate parents’ estimations of personal efficacy is
necessarily dependent upon an understanding of both proximal and distal
determinants of parental self-efficacy estimations. Table 3 provides a sum-
mary of several factors with possible relevance (based on theoretical and/
or empirical work) to the emergence of self-efficacy beliefs pertaining to
diverse parenting tasks. More thorough and systematic investigation of these
factors may prove to be beneficial to both clinicians seeking to help parents
modify their self-efficacy beliefs as well as researchers interested in under-
standing the evolution, maintenance, and expression of parenting self-
efficacy beliefs.
Finally, given that an expanding body of correlational data has highlighted
the potency of parental self-efficacy for affecting emotional, motivational,
cognitive, and behavioral responses to the caregiving role, subsequent inter-
vention-based research efforts should help clarify whether the previously
detected relationships are causal in nature. Direct manipulation of parental
self-efficacy beliefs in the context of an intervention treatment program is,
therefore, an important avenue for further work from a scientific as well as
an applied perspective. The existing foundation of strong correlational data
should provide a substantial impetus for higher constraint research.
LOOKING AHEAD
Most of the existing research pertaining to parenting self-efficacy has ex-
amined the construct concurrently with various indexes of parenting quality
and satisfaction, precluding the confirmation of directional effects. Subse-
quent prospective research efforts should examine self-efficacy perceptions
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 75

TABLE 3
Suggested Parental History Antecedents and Current Factors Likely to Influence Parenting
Self-Efficacy Across Diverse Skill Areas

Parental history antecedents Current factors

Attachment to primary caregivers in family Child factors

of origin Temperament
Ecological conditions in family of origin Physical/mental health
Neighborhood quality Age
Income Current ecological conditions
Employment status Neighborhood quality
Family structure Income
Social support Employment status
Cognitive/behavioral preparation for Family structure
parenting Social support
Experience with children Parental factors
Experiential history with and knowledge
of task-related behaviors
Domain-level self-efficacy beliefs
(general conceptions of competence as a
parent)
General-level self-efficacy beliefs (global
conceptions of competence as a person)
Knowledge of child development
Perceptions of stress
Psychological health
Education
Cultural information and values

during pregnancy and the early postpartum period in order to better decipher
the temporal relations between self-efficacy beliefs and various dimensions
of parenting behavior. However, it is important to remain cognizant of the
possibility that complex, multidirectional relationships among self-efficacy
and other variables relevant to parenting are operative in the development
of parenting competence and satisfaction. For instance, the possibility that
perceptions of child difficulty or the experience of depression attenuating
self-efficacy beliefs is equally as logical as the reverse, and the expression
of each variable is likely to be influenced by multiple other factors and pro-
cesses.
Fortunately, recent theoretical work in developmental psychology has in-
corporated sensitivity to multiple, dynamically interactive levels of influence
on parenting. When adopting a person–context interactional (or systems)
perspective, there is a focus on individual adaptation to changing contexts,
environmental modifications in response to changing individuals, and the
ability of individuals to shape the environments in which they live. The sys-
tems researcher assumes that parents and children experience ongoing mu-
tual change over time with individuals and contexts both being considered
76 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

fluid systems capable of reciprocal influence. The origin of systems theory

is in the work of Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1968). From Bertalanffy’s per-
spective, the traditional goal of science that focuses on splitting reality into
smaller component units in an attempt to understand linear, causal links is
not an adequate goal for examining complex behavior. Because many aspects
of development are multivariate in nature, unidirectional conceptualizations
of causality become problematic and insufficient. Use of a systems perspec-
tive in designing and conducting studies of parenting self-efficacy should
greatly enhance our understanding of this volatile construct in context.
Cultural influences on self-efficacy are apparent in preliminary research
suggesting that the role of parenting self-efficacy may differ across various
socioeconomic and ethnic groups. Specifically, Elder, Eccles, Ardelt, and
Lord’s (1995) study demonstrated that, among economically stressed Afri-
can-Americans and European-Americans, there was a relationship between
low income and parental self-efficacy; however, the association between the
two variables was mediated by depression among the European-Americans
only. Dumka et al. (1996) conducted a study comparing two very discrepant
groups of mothers, differing in terms of income, education, cultural back-
ground (Mexicans having recently immigrated to the U.S. and U.S. residents
of a large university town), and dominant language. Interestingly, this group
of researchers found an inverse relationship between self-efficacy and incon-
sistent discipline among the Anglos but not among the Mexican immigrants.
Further, only with the Anglo group did the use of active coping strategies
in problem solving correlate with self-efficacy and only among the Mexican
immigrants did the use of a particular emotion-focused coping technique
(positive reinterpretation or thinking back on the stressful event) relate to
high self-efficacy. Unfortunately, sensitivity to racial, ethnic, SES, gender,
national, and cultural diversity has not been a primary concern in most topical
areas of developmental psychology (Lerner, 1995). However, the few find-
ings to date clearly suggest contextually driven differences in the effects of
self-efficacy, thereby highlighting the importance of considering demo-
graphic factors as the research on parenting self-efficacy expands and ma-
tures. Ultimately, understanding the range of effects of individual differences
in parenting self-efficacy across a multitude of environmental contexts is the
only valid approach for arriving at meaningful indexes of interindividual
generalizability.
Another interesting issue raised by the research to date is the extent to
which the self-efficacy construct should be viewed as a dichotomy. Individu-
als with low and high parenting self-efficacy are frequently contrasted and
a picture has emerged of much more adaptive functioning being associated
with high levels of perceived competence. Yet little is known about the func-
tioning of individuals falling in between the extremes. The available correla-
tional data certainly supports the idea of moderate self-efficacy resulting in
moderate competency levels. However, perhaps very few cases actually tend
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 77

to fall in the middle range due to the nature of the variable’s being so tied
to performance on precise tasks in which all-or-none estimations of compe-
tence are likely to predominate. Another possibility is that individuals with
moderate levels of self-efficacy do not perform as predictably on outcome
measures as those with extreme scores. As the self-efficacy construct is ap-
plied to parenting and new scales are devised to measure it, further construct
validation, sensitive to intermediate score differences on various perfor-
mance measures seems in order.
The relative stability (or absence thereof ) characteristic of parenting self-
efficacy across a range of child ages has been virtually neglected in the re-
search. Nevertheless, in a longitudinal study designed to examine various
psychosocial dimensions of the transition to motherhood, confidence in one’s
future parenting abilities was revealed to be a strong predictor of maternal
competence from the 8th month of pregnancy through 2 years postpartum
(Williams, Joy, Travis, Gotowiec, Blum-Steele, Aiken, Painter, & Davidson,
1987). Specifically, maternal sense of competence predicted maternal attach-
ment, emotional state, and adaptation to the maternal role. Further, maternal
perceptions of competence specific to the parenting domain were found to
be a more effective predictor of maternal adjustment than both prior experi-
ence with infants and a global measure of self-esteem. Schneewind (1995)
found perceptions of parenting competence were stable between 3 and 9
months following the birth of a child among both mothers and fathers. Addi-
tional longitudinal research is needed to address the importance of parental
self-efficacy for explaining differences in the quality of parenting over vari-
ous child ages and to address the continuities and discontinuities of perceived
competence over the course of developmental changes in children. Currently,
no extant literature has examined possible normative changes in parenting
self-efficacy over a wide range of child ages. Cross-sectional research would
also be beneficial at this stage in the parenting self-efficacy research.
Subsequent research should likewise address the association between
parenting self-efficacy and coping under previously unexamined stressful
parenting circumstances, such as when a child is physically ill, experienc-
ing peer, or academic difficulties, etc. Affleck, Allen, McGrade, and
McQueeney’s (1982) study did illustrate that perceptions of control, a con-
struct very much related to self-efficacy, mediated the initial response of
parents of newborns with serious illnesses. Coping was less optimal when
parents believed that their child’s condition was beyond their personal con-
trol. Relatedly, it is important to empirically examine how the gamut of non-
normative changes directly affecting the lives of parents (such as divorce,
geographical relocation, employment changes, etc.) potentially modifies pa-
rental self-efficacy beliefs and to investigate the extent to which any detected
alterations are of lasting duration.
Parenting self-efficacy is a relatively new research area possessing great
promise for resolving many ambiguities related to individual differences in
78 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

adapting to parenting. In addition to the suggestions for further study that

have been described above, several other avenues for parenting self-efficacy
research exist. For example, what types of child characteristics and behav-
ioral styles tend to be associated with different levels of parental self-
efficacy? Are there certain parental personality characteristics or other
individual differences that tend to predispose individuals to high or low self-
efficacy? Does parenting self-efficacy have the same meaning for mothers
who are and are not employed outside the home? How does the level of self
investment in the parental role influence self-efficacy? To what extent is it
possible to have high self-efficacy in some aspects of parenting but not in
others? How does parenting self-efficacy influence other aspects of parents’
lives? (For example, do parents with low parental self-efficacy experience
difficulty concentrating at work? Are social lives or marital intimacy com-
promised with low parenting self-efficacy?)
Efficacious parents experience a sense of personal empowerment in their
parental role which facilitates the management of the multifaceted tasks of
parenting and fosters enjoyment in the process. An efficacious parental out-
look should facilitate intrinsic interest in parental activities and deep en-
grossment in the parenting process, rendering it a deeply meaningful experi-
ence (Bandura, 1995). On the opposite end of the spectrum, inefficacious
parents tend to feel overwhelmed by their parental responsibilities, often ac-
tually becoming immobilized by the emotional and physical tasks of parent-
hood. A few studies have suggested a negative relationship between parent-
ing self-efficacy and child maladjustment in the domains of socioemotional
development (Donovan & Leavitt, 1985; Swick & Hassell, 1990) and
achievement (Elder et al., 1995). Nevertheless, the direct and indirect rami-
fications of deficiencies in parental perceptions of competency for child so-
cial, affective, and cognitive development remain largely unexamined. Sub-
jective perceptions of competency influence the objective quality of
parenting behavior and, regardless of its etiology, parental functioning cer-
tainly has an impact on the physical, emotional, and intellectual growth of
children and bears critical meaning for the level of comfort and contentment
experienced in their homes (for a review of child outcome variables associ-
ated with the qualitative nature of parenting, see Strand & Wahler, 1996).
CONCLUSION
The emergence of self-efficacy as a strong predictor of parental function-
ing is exciting from a practical as well as from a scientific perspective. Self-
efficacy is a variable that should not be overlooked or assigned a minimal
degree of importance in theoretical models of parenting and child develop-
ment as it appears to act as a guiding force behind much of the parenting
experience. Moreover, identification of a correlate of parenting competency
that is theoretically alterable ushers in hope of improving the nature of par-
enting and the resulting quality of family life. Parents at risk and currently
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 79

engaging in maladaptive parenting practices need to be more adequately in-

formed about effective parenting and encouraged to develop appropriate
skills. However, the traditional intervention efforts focusing on knowledge
and skills alone may not suffice. To optimize parenting quality, mothers and
fathers need to learn to have faith in their own abilities. Once parents inter-
nalize a sense of competency in the role, satisfaction and pleasure in parent-
ing become attainable even under marginal ecological conditions.
REFERENCES
Abidin, R. R. 1986. Parenting stress index. Charlottesville, VA: Pediatric Psychology Press.
Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Alloy, L. B. 1989. Hopelessness depression: A theory-
based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358–372.
Affleck, G., Allen, D., McGrade, B. J., & McQueeney, M. 1982. Maternal causal attributions
at hospital discharge of high-risk infants. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86,
575–580.
Affonso, D. D., & Sheptak, S. 1989. Maternal cognitive themes during pregnancy. Maternal-
Child Nursing Journal, 18, 147–166.
Aldwin, C. M., & Revenson, T. A. 1987. Does coping help? A reexamination of the relation
between coping and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,
337–348.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. 1978. Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baer, J. S., Holt, C. S., & Lichtenstein, E. 1986. Self-efficacy and smoking reexamined: Con-
struct validity and clinical utility. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54,
846–852.
Ballenski, C. B., & Cook, A. S. 1982. Mothers’ perceptions of their competence in managing
selected parenting tasks. Family Relations, 31, 489–494.
Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychologi-
cal Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. 1981. Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In J. H.
Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social and cognitive development: Frontiers and possible fu-
tures. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Bandura, A. 1982. Self-efficacy in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. 1989. Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Develop-
mental Psychology, 25, 729–735.
Bandura, A. 1995. Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A.
Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1–45). New York: Cambridge
Univ. Press.
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N. 1980. Tests of the generality of
self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3, 39–66.
Bandura, A., Babaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. 1996. Multifaceted impact of
self-efficacy on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222.
Bandura, A., Cioffi, D., Taylor, C. B., & Brouillard, M. E. 1988. Perceived self-efficacy in
coping with stressors and opioid activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
55, 479–488.
80 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. J. 1991. Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social
comparison on complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
60, 941–951.
Bandura, A., Reese, L., & Adams, N. E. 1982. Microanalysis of action and fear arousal as a
function of differential levels of perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 5–21.
Bandura, A., Taylor, C. B., Williams, S. L., Mefford, I. N., & Barchas, J. D. 1985. Catechola-
mine secretion as a function of perceived coping self-efficacy. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 53, 406–414.
Barnard, K. E., Morisset, C. E., & Spieker, S. 1993. Preventive interventions: Enhancing
parent-infant relationships. In C. H. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (pp.
386–401). New York: Guilford Press.
Beck, K. H., & Lund, A. K. 1981. The effects of health threat seriousness and personal efficacy
upon intentions and behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 401–415.
Belsky, J. 1984. The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55,
83–96.
Berry, J. M., & West, R. L. 1993. Cognitive self-efficacy in relation to personal mastery and
goal setting across the life span. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16,
351–379.
Berry, J., West, R., & Dennehey, D. 1989. Reliability and validity of the memory self-efficacy
questionnaire. Developmental Psychology, 25, 701–713.
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General systems theory. New York: Braziller.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. 1981. The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations
to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 28, 399–410.
Biren, M., & Wilson, G. T. 1981. Treatment of phobic disorders using cognitive and exposure
methods: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49,
886–899.
Bohlin, G., & Hagekull, B. 1987. Good mothering: Maternal attitudes and mother–infant inter-
action. Infant Mental Health Journal, 8, 352–363.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T. 1990. Influence of self-efficacy on a cognitive task. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 130, 353–363.
Boyer, L. E. 1991. Ready to learn: A mandate for the nation. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Founda-
tion for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brazelton, T. B. 1983. Assessment techniques for enhancing infant development. In J. Call,
E. Galenaon, & R. Tyson (Eds.), Frontiers of infant psychiatry, New York: Basic Books.
Bugental, D. B. 1991. Affective and cognitive processes within threat-oriented family systems.
In I. E. Sigel, A. V. McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & J. J. Goodnow (Eds.), Parental belief sys-
tems: The consequences for children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bugental, D. B., Blue, J., & Cruzcosa, M. 1989. Perceived control over caregiving outcomes:
Implications for child abuse. Developmental Psychology, 25, 532–539.
Bugental, D. B., & Cortez, V. 1988. Physiological reactivity to responsive and unresponsive
children–As modified by perceived control. Child Development, 59, 686–693.
Bugental, D. B., & Shennum, W. A. 1984. ‘‘Difficult’’ children as elicitors and targets of
adult communication patterns: An attributional–behavioral transactional analysis. Mono-
graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 49 (1, Serial No. 205).
Campis, L. K., Lyman, R. D., & Prentice-Dunn, S. 1986. The parental locus of control scale:
Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15, 260–267.
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 81

Chambliss, C. A., & Murray, E. J. 1979. Efficacy attribution, locus of control, and weight
loss. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3, 349–353.
Chwalisz, K., Altmaier, E. M., & Russell, D. M. 1992. Causal attributions, self-efficacy cogni-
tions, and coping with stress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 377–400.
Colman, A., & Colman, L. 1971. Pregnancy: The psychological experience. New York:
Hender and Hender.
Conrad, B., Gross, D., Fogg, L., & Ruchala, P. 1992. Maternal confidence, knowledge, and
quality of mother–toddler interactions: A preliminary study. Infant Mental Health Jour-
nal, 13, 353–362.
Cox, A., Puckering, C., Pound, A., & Mills, M. 1987. The impact of maternal depression in
young children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28, 917–928.
Crockenberg, S. 1987. Predictors and correlates of anger toward and punitive control of tod-
dlers by adolescent mothers. Child Development, 58, 964–975.
Cutrona, C., & Troutman, B. 1986. Social support, infant temperament, and parenting self-
efficacy: A mediational model of postpartum depression. Child Development, 57, 1507–
1518.
Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S. 1985. Teacher’s sense of self-efficacy: An important factor in
school improvement. Elementary School Journal, 86, 173–184.
Deutsch, F. M., Ruble, D. N., Fleming, A., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Stangor, G. S. 1988. Informa-
tion seeking and maternal self-definition during the transition to motherhood. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 420–431.
Donovan, W. L. 1981. Maternal learned helplessness and physiologic response to infant crying.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 919–926.
Donovan, W. L., & Leavitt, L. A. 1985. Simulating conditions of learned helplessness: The
effects of interventions and attributions. Child Development, 56, 594–603.
Donovan, W. L., & Leavitt, L. A. 1989. Maternal self-efficacy and infant attachment: Integrat-
ing physiology, perceptions, and behavior. Child Development, 60, 460–472.
Donovan, W. L., Leavitt, L. A., & Walsh, R. O. 1990. Maternal self-efficacy: Illusory control
and its effect on susceptibility to learned helplessness. Child Development, 61, 1638–
1647.
Dumka, L. E., Stoerzinger, H. D., Jackson, K. M., & Roosa, M. W. 1996. Examination of
the cross-cultural and cross-language equivalence of the Parenting Self-Agency Measure.
Family Relations, 45, 216–222.
Earley, P. C., & Lituchy, T. R. 1991. Delineating goal and efficacy effects: A test of three
models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 81–98.
Eden, D., & Kinnar, J. 1991. Modeling Galatea: Boosting self-efficacy to increase volunteer-
ing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 770–780.
Egeland, B., & Erickson, M. F. 1987 Psychologically unavailable caregiving. In M. R. Bras-
sard, R. Germain, & S. N. Hart (Eds.), Psychological maltreatment of children and youth
(pp. 110–120). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Elder, G. H. 1995. Life trajectories in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy
in changing societies (pp. 46–68). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Elder, G. H., Eccles, J. S., Ardelt, M., & Lord, S. 1995. Inner city parents under economic
pressure: Perspectives on the strategies of parenting. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
57, 771–784.
Feltz, D. L. 1982. Path analysis of the causal elements of Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy
and an anxiety-based model of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 42, 764–781.
82 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

Field, T. M. 1984. Early interaction between infants and their postpartum depressed mothers.
Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 527–532.
Field, T. M., Healy, B., Goldstein, S., Perry, S., Bendell, D., Schanberg, S., Zimmerman,
E. A., & Kuhn, C. 1988. Infants of depressed mothers show ‘‘depressed’’ behavior even
with nondepressed adults. Child Development, 59, 1569–1579.
Forehand, R., & McMahon, R. J. 1981. Helping the noncompliant child: A clinician’s guide
to effective parent training. New York: Guilford.
Gecas, V. 1989. The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 291–
316.
Gelfand, D. M., & Teti, D. M. 1990. The effects of maternal depression on children. Clinical
Psychology Review, 10, 329–353.
Glass, J. 1983. Pre-birth attitudes and adjustment to parenthood: When ‘‘preparing for the
worst’’ helps. Family Relations, 32, 377–386.
Goodnow, J. J. 1985. Change and variation in ideas about childhood and parenting. In I. E.
Sigel (Ed.), Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children. Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gross, D., Rocissano, L., & Roncoli, M. 1989. Maternal confidence during toddlerhood: Com-
parison of preterm and fullterm groups. Research in Nursing and Health, 12, 1–9.
Grusec, J. E., Hastings, P., & Mammone, N. 1994. Parenting cognitions and relationship sche-
mas. In J. G. Smetana (Ed.), Beliefs about parenting: Origins and developmental implica-
tions (pp. 5–19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hagekull, B., & Bohlin, G. 1990. Early infant temperament and maternal expectations related
to maternal adaptation. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 13, 199–214.
Halpern, R. 1993. Poverty and infant development. In C. H. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant
mental health (pp. 73–86). New York: Guilford.
Halpern, L. F., Anders, T. F., Coll, C. G., & Hua, J. 1994. Infant temperament: Is there a
relation to sleep–wake states and maternal nighttime behavior? Infant Behavior and De-
velopment, 17, 255–268.
Harter, S. 1978. Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human
Development, 21, 34–64.
Heinicke, C. M., Distin, S. D., Ramsey-Klee, D. M., & Given, K. 1983. Pre-birth parent
characteristics and family development in the first year of life. Child Development, 54,
194–208.
Jerusalem, M., & Mittag, W. 1995. Self-efficacy in stressful life transitions. In A. Bandura
(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 177–201). New York: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
Johnston, C., & Mash, E. J. 1989. A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy. Journal
of Clinical Child Psychology, 18, 167–175.
Kanfer, R., & Zeiss, A. M. 1983. Depression, interpersonal standard setting, and judgments
of self-efficacy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 319–329.
Kazdin, A. E. 1979. Imagery elaboration and self-efficacy in the covert modeling treatment
of unassertive behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 725–733.
Kazdin, A. E. 1993. Adolescent mental health: Prevention and treatment programs. American
Psychologist, 48, 127–141.
Kochanska, G. 1990. Maternal beliefs as long term predictors of mother-child interaction and
report. Child Development, 61, 1934–1943.
Lachman, M. E. 1983. Perceptions of intellectual aging: Antecedent or consequence of intellec-
tual functioning? Developmental Psychology, 19, 482–498.
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 83

Lachman, M. E., & Leff, R. 1989. Perceived control and intellectual functioning in the elderly:
A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 25, 722–728.
Lachman, M. E., Baltes, P., Nesselroade, J. R., & Willis, S. L. 1982. Examination of
personality-ability relationships in the elderly: The role of the contextual (interface) as-
sessment mode. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 485–501.
Lerner, R. M. 1995. Developing individuals within changing contexts: Implications of develop-
mental contextualism for human development research, policy, and programs. In T. A.
Kindermann & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Development of person-context relations (pp. 13–37).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. 1984. Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and
task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241–251.
Long, B. 1989. Sex-role orientation, coping strategies, and self-efficacy of women in traditional
and nontraditional occupations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 307–324.
Luster, T., & Mittelstaedt, M. 1993. Adolescent mothers. In T. Luster & L. Okagaki (Eds.),
Parenting: An ecological perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lyons-Ruth, K., Zoll, D., Connell, D., & Grunebaum, H. 1989. Family deviance and family
disruption in childhood: Associations with maternal behavior and infant maltreatment
during the first few years of life. Development and Psychopathology, 1, 219–236.
Maddux, J. E., & Meier, L. 1995. Self-efficacy and depression. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-
efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 143–169).
New York: Plenum.
Mash, E. J., & Johnston, C. (1983a). Parental perceptions of child behavior problems, parenting
self-esteem, and mothers’ reported stress in younger and older hyperactive and normal
children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 86–99.
Mash, E. J., & Johnston, C. (1983b). The prediction of mothers’ behavior with their hyper-
active children during play and task situations. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 5,
1–14.
Mash, E. J., & Johnston, C. 1990. Determinants of parenting stress: Illustrations from families
of hyperactive children and families of physically abused children. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 19, 313–328.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & McElroy, M. 1989. Self-efficacy cognitions and causal attribu-
tions for children’s motor performance: An exploratory investigation. The Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 150, 65–73.
Mrazek, P. 1993. Maltreatment and infant development. In C. H. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of
infant mental health (pp. 159–170). New York, Guilford.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. 1991. Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic
outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30–38.
Nakagawa, M., Teti, D. M., & Lamb, M. E. 1992. An ecological study of child–mother attach-
ments among Japanese sojourners in the United States. Developmental Psychology, 28,
584–592.
O’Leary, A. 1985. Self-efficacy and health. Behavior Research and Therapy, 23, 437–451.
Ozer, E. M., & Bandura, A. 1990. Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A self-
efficacy analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 472–486.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. 1995. Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics performances:
The need for specificity of assessment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 190–198.
Peterson, L., Farmer, J., & Kashani, J. 1990. Parental injury prevention endeavors: A function
of health beliefs? Health Psychology, 9, 177–191.
Pianta, R., Egeland, B., & Erickson, M. F. 1989. The antecedents of maltreatment: Results
of the mother–child interaction research project. In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds.),
84 COLEMAN AND KARRAKER

Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse
and neglect (pp. 203–253). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & deGroot, E. V. 1990. Motivational and self-regulated learning components
of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pridham, K. F., & Chang, A. S. 1985. Parents’ beliefs about themselves as parents of a new
infant: Instrument development. Research in Nursing & Health, 8, 19–29.
Pridham, K. F., & Chang, A. S. 1992. Transition to being the mother of a new infant in the
first 3 months: Maternal problem solving and self-appraisals. Journal of Advanced Nurs-
ing, 17, 204–216.
Radke-Yarrow, M. 1990. Family environments of depressed and well parents and their chil-
dren: Issues of research methods. In G. R. Patterson (Ed.), Depression and aggression
in family interaction (pp. 169–184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rubin, R. 1984. Maternal identity and the maternal experience. New York: Springer.
Sabatelli, R. M., & Waldron, R. J. 1995. Measurement issues in the experiences of parenthood.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 969–980.
Sameroff, A. J., & Emde, R. N. (Eds.). 1989. Relationship disturbances in early childhood:
A developmental approach. New York: Basic Books.
Sameroff, A. J., & Seifer, R. 1983. Family risk and child competence. Child Development,
54, 1254–1268.
Schneewind, K. A. 1995. Impact of family processes on control beliefs. In A. Bandura (Ed.),
Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1–45). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Schunk, D. H. 1990. Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychologist, 25, 71–86.
Seifer, R., & Dickstein, S. 1993. Parental mental illness and infant development. In C. H.
Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (pp. 120–142). New York, Guilford.
Sexton, T. L., & Tuckman, B. W. 1991. Self-beliefs and behavior: The role of self-efficacy
and outcome expectation over time. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 725–
736.
Shelton, S. H. 1990. Developing the construct of general self-efficacy. Psychological Reports,
66, 987–994.
Sherer, M., & Adams, C. 1983. Construct validity of the self-efficacy scale. Psychological
Reports, 53, 899–902.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W.
1982. The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51,
663–671.
Sigel, I. E. 1985. A conceptual analysis of beliefs. In I. E. Sigel (Ed.), Parental belief systems:
The psychological consequences for children (pp. 345–371). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smetana, J. G. 1994. Editor’s notes. In J. G. Smetana (Ed.), Beliefs about parenting: Origins
and developmental implications (pp. 1–4). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spoth, R., & Conroy, S. 1993. Survey of prevention-relevant beliefs and efforts to enhance
parenting skills among rural parents. The Journal of Rural Health, 9, 227–239.
Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Haggerty, K., & Ward, T. 1995. A controlled parenting skills outcome
study examining individual difference and attendance effects. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 57, 449–464.
Stoiber, K. C., & Houghton, T. G. 1993. The relationships of adolescent mothers’ expectations,
knowledge, and beliefs to their young children’s coping behavior. Infant Mental Health
Journal, 14, 61–79.
 SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTING 85

Strand, P. S., & Wahler, R. G. 1996. Predicting maladaptive parenting: Role of maternal object
relations. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 43–51.
Swick, K. J., & Hassell, T. 1990. Parental efficacy and the development of social competence
in young children. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 17, 24–32.
Taylor, S. E. 1983. Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cognitive adaptation. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 38, 1161–1173.
Teti, D. M., & Gelfand, D. M. 1991. Behavioral competence among mothers of infants in the
first year: The mediational role of maternal self-efficacy. Child Development, 62, 918–
929.
Teti, D. M., Gelfand, D. M., Messinger, D. S., & Isabella, R. 1995. Maternal depression and
the quality of early attachment: An examination of infants, preschoolers and their mothers.
Developmental Psychology, 31, 364–376.
Tipton, R. M., & Worthington, E. L. 1984. The measurement of generalized self-efficacy: A
study of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 545–548.
Unger, D. G., & Waudersman, L. P. 1985. Social support and adolescent mothers: Action
research contributions to theory and application. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 29–45.
van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakersman-Kranenburg, M. J. 1996. Attachment representations
in mothers, fathers, adolescents, and clinical groups: A meta-analytic search for normative
data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 8–21.
Walker, L. O. 1980. Early parental attitudes and the parent–infant relationship. In D. B. Sawin,
R. C. Hawkins, L. O. Walker, & J. H. Peticaff (Eds.), The exceptional infant (Vol. 4).
New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Wallston, B. S., Wallston, K. A., Kaplan, G. D., & Maides, S. A. 1976. Development and
validation of the Health Locus of Control Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 44, 580–585.
Wang, A. Y., & Richarde, R. S. 1988. Global versus task-specific measures of self-efficacy.
The Psychological Record, 38, 533–541.
Watt, S. E., & Martin, P. R. 1994. Effect of general self-efficacy expectancies on performance
attributions. Psychological Reports, 75, 951–961.
Wells-Parker, E., Miller, D. I., & Topping, S. 1990. Development of control of outcome scales
and self-efficacy scales for women in four life roles. Journal of Personality Assessment,
54, 564–575.
Williams, T. M., Joy, L. A., Travis, L., Gotowiec, A., Blum-Steele, M., Aiken, L. S., Painter,
S. L., & Davidson, S. M. 1987. Transition to motherhood: A longitudinal study. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 8, 251–265.
Winnicott, D. W. 1976. The maturational process and the facilitating environment. London,
UK: Hogarth Press.
Woodruff, S., & Cashman, J. F. 1993. Task, domain, and general self-efficacy: A reexamina-
tion of the Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychological Reports, 72, 423–432.
Received: November 4, 1996; revised: December 13, 1996

View publication stats