This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 22 November 2014, At: 12:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Youth StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjys20

An examination of the relationshipbetween self-efficacy and stress inadolescents: the role of gender andself-esteemMichael T. McKaya, Martin Dempsterb & Don G. Byrnec

a Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University,Liverpool, UKb School of Psychology, Queens University, Belfast, UKc School of Psychology, Australian National University, Canberra,AustraliaPublished online: 03 Apr 2014.

To cite this article: Michael T. McKay, Martin Dempster & Don G. Byrne (2014) An examinationof the relationship between self-efficacy and stress in adolescents: the role of gender and self-esteem, Journal of Youth Studies, 17:9, 1131-1151, DOI: 10.1080/13676261.2014.901494

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2014.901494

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

An examination of the relationship between self-efficacy and stress inadolescents: the role of gender and self-esteem

Michael T. McKaya*, Martin Dempsterb and Don G. Byrnec

aCentre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK; bSchool ofPsychology, Queens University, Belfast, UK; cSchool of Psychology, Australian National

University, Canberra, Australia

(Received 10 July 2013; accepted 13 February 2014)

This cross-sectional study investigated gender differences on domains of stress, self-esteem and self-efficacy beliefs (academic, social and emotional) as well as theassociation between stress, self-esteem and self-efficacy using a sample of adolescents(N = 610) from the United Kingdom. Participants were randomly selected from highschools and completed the Adolescent Stress Questionnaire (ASQ), the Self-EfficacyQuestionnaire for Children and the Adolescent Alcohol Involvement Scale (AAIS).The results showed that girls had significantly higher mean scores on seven out of tenstress domains. Females also scored significantly lower on self-esteem, and social self-efficacy (SSE), but higher on emotional self-efficacy. Regression analyses showeddifferential relationships between self-efficacy domains and stress domains. Moreover,tests of interaction effects revealed that these relationships were invariant both forgender and for levels of self-esteem; in other words, neither gender nor self-esteemmoderated the relationship between adolescent stress and self-efficacy. Additionalanalyses revealed that moderating effects of self-efficacy domains on the relationshipbetween stress domains and alcohol use were infrequent. This study begins to untanglea complex relationship between these multi-dimensional constructs and offerssuggestions for future research.

Keywords: self esteem; self efficacy; stress

Introduction

There is now widespread agreement that the misuse of alcohol, or drinking that causesphysical, psychological and social problems, is responsible for a wide variety of both short-and long-term harms (World Health Organization 2008). However, the specific problemsfaced by young people (those aged 16 or under) and their susceptibility to alcohol use andalcohol-related harms varies greatly [National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence(NICE) 2010]. Two of the variables that have been implicated in the initiation andmaintenance of adolescent alcohol use behaviours are adolescent stress (Authors blinded)and self-efficacy (McKay et al. 2011; McKay and Cole 2012). However, the relationshipbetween these two variables and their combined relationship with alcohol-use behavioursis complex. The present study sought to begin to disentangle this relationship.

As well as knowing what actions need to be undertaken in order to achieve a goal,individuals also need to be confident about their ability to carry out those actions. This

*Corresponding author. Email: M.T.Mckay@ljmu.ac.uk

Journal of Youth Studies, 2014Vol. 17, No. 9, 1131–1151, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2014.901494

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

perceived ability to produce a desired action is what Bandura (1997) termed self-efficacy.Self-efficacy has been suggested as a cognitive mechanism through which individualsreact to stress with feelings of controllability (Bandura et al. 1988), and is an importantdeterminant of behaviour as the incentive to take action is diminished if one does notbelieve that he/she has the capacity to perform and coordinate the actions necessary toproduce results (Suldo and Shaffer 2007). Efficacy beliefs are best understood as domain-specific (e.g. Grau, Salanova, and Peiro 2001; Muris 2001) such that self-efficaciousnessin one domain (e.g. academics) does not always translate to all domains of life (e.g.emotions); therefore, feelings of competence tied to task demands of a given situationhave greater predictive utility than a global self-evaluation (Bandura 1997). The strongertheir perceived self-efficacy, the more vigorous and persistent individuals will be incompleting everyday tasks and attempting more complex tasks (Bandura 1986).

While self-efficacious beliefs are important in many life domains, three in particularhave been extensively studied, namely: academic, social and self-regulatory efficacybeliefs. Collectively, these have been shown to be positively associated with prosocialbehaviour (Bandura et al. 2003), academic aspirations and career trajectories (Banduraet al. 2001), peer preference and academic achievement (Caprara et al. 2004), andnegatively with depression (Comunian 1989; Bandura et al. 1999), shyness (Caprara et al.2003), and internalising and externalising problems (Caprara et al. 2004). Self-efficacyshould be particularly relevant in enhancing internal, cognitive problem-solving strategiesand in reducing withdrawal strategies (Cicognani 2011). Higher self-efficacy has beenshown to be positively correlated with active and internal coping (Cicognani 2011). Inshort, self-efficacy levels are an important determinant of human functioning includingmental and physical health outcomes (Maddux 2002).

This association has also been observed in adolescents where studies have shown thatearlier initiation of alcohol use is more likely in youth with poor competence skills(Gaffney et al. 1998; Jackson et al. 1997). In a sample of High School students,Matsushima and Shiomi (2003) discovered that scores on social self-efficacy (SSE) werenegatively correlated with scores on interpersonal stress. Indeed research has demon-strated the value of self-efficacy beliefs as long-term (5 year) predictors of life satisfactionin adolescents (Vecchio et al. 2007). In a 2-year longitudinal study, Epstein, Griffin, andBotvin (2002) reported that students who felt more competent (assessed by decision-making and self-efficacy) reported higher positive mental health (assessed as psycholo-gical wellness) that in turn protected these adolescents from subsequent alcohol use.

The journey from childhood into adolescence and onwards towards adulthood ischaracterised by biological, social and psychological change (Byrne, Davenport, andMazanov 2007; Moksnes et al. 2010a), and many individuals find these changes stressful(Colten and Gore 1991; Coleman and Hendry 1999; Byrne and Mazanov 2002; Jacksonand Goossens 2006). A large body of research has developed documenting the stressfulexperiences of childhood and early adolescence (e.g. Humphrey 2004; Kraag et al. 2006).Accordingly, children have been shown to experience both life event stress (Kraag et al.2006) and chronic daily hassles (Jewett 1997) with potential adverse consequences forpersonal health (Compas et al. 2001). In fact, it has been suggested that otherwise normalchildren, when subjected to psychological stress, experience higher rates of both physicaland psychological illness than their peers (Forbes and Fairbrother 2008; Wyman et al.2007). These childhood stressors originate from multiple domains in children’s everydaysurroundings, including family, school, health and the multimedia (Vanaelst et al. 2012).

1132 M.T. McKay et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Additional to the physical changes and emotional challenges which accompany puberty,children make the transition from primary to post-primary (or junior to high) school.

The experience of adolescent stress has been suggested to be of central importance tothe understanding of adolescent health (Grant et al. 2003). There is evidence that theexperience of adolescent stress relates to the occurrence of psychiatric symptomatology,sometime of clinical significance (Grant et al. 2004; West and Sweeting 2003), includingaggression (Sontag et al. 2008), depression and anxiety (e.g. Waaktaar et al. 2004; Graberand Sontag 2009; Hankin and Abela 2005; Kessler, Avenevoli, and Merikangas 2001;Moksnes et al. 2010a), obesity (De Vriendt, Moreno, and De Henauw 2009); suicidalideation (e.g. Byrne, Davenport, and Mazanov 2007; Grant et al. 2003; Diaz, Symantov,and Rickert 2002) and actual risk of suicide (Johnson et al. 2002). Adolescent stress hasalso been associated with a range of health-compromising lifestyles and behavioursincluding early and possibly heavy alcohol use (Allison et al. 1999; Udry, Li, and J.Hendrickson-Smith 2003) and the onset of smoking (Byrne and Mazanov 2003). Studiesalso provide evidence that stressful life experiences predict increases in psychologicalproblems over time (Carter et al. 2006; Hankin, Mermelstein, and Roesch 2007; Waaktaaret al. 2004).

While levels of stress are said to increase from preadolescence to adolescence(Rudolph 2002), it has also been suggested that it is not the experience of stress per sethat is harmful, but rather the adolescents’ lack of individual and environmental resourcesto allow them to cope adequately with various stressors that produces the documentednegative impact on adolescent health and well-being (Murberg and Bru 2005; Oppedaland Røysamb 2004; Grant et al. 2006). Research has suggested that individuals’ beliefsabout their control over outcomes and their self-efficacy play an important role in stresslevels and outcomes (Shelley and Pakenham 2004; Abouserie 1994; Wiedenfeld et al.1990). Overall individuals’ beliefs that they are in control can be as important as actuallyhaving control (Shapiro, Schwartz, and Astin 1996). Self-efficacy has been found to havea significant negative correlation to level of stress (Hackett et al. 1992; Newby-Fraser andSchlebusch 1997), suggesting that those who have a higher self-efficacy also report alower level of stress. Therefore, it would appear that higher self-efficacy may act as amoderator of stress. Roddenberry and Renk (2010) found that those who self-reportedhigher levels of stress also reported higher levels of external locus of control, lower self-efficacy and higher levels of illness. This fits within Lazarus’ (Lazarus 1966) cognitivelyoriented theory of stress which suggests that locus of control and self-efficacy both play arole in stress and coping. Other research has suggested that in terms of health responses tohealth service provision, when people feel that they are gaining control over a stressor,the effects of the stressor on the immune system decrease (Wiedenfeld et al. 1990).Therefore, self-efficacy appears to serve a protective function in individuals’ responses tostress.

Research has shown that stressors have a reduced negative impact when individualshave a more positive self-perception (Mossholder, Bedein, and Armenakis 1982). Self-efficacy has been suggested to moderate the relationship between personal illness andwork (Bandura 1997; Jex and Bliese 1999) such that the experience of stress isunderstood in terms of low self-efficacy for exercising control over stressful situations orconditions (Grau, Salanova, and Peiro 2001). In a study of Norwegian adolescents,Moksnes et al. (2010a) reported small but significant moderation effects between stressand emotional states. However, these associations were not moderated by gender.However, self-esteem was found to moderate the association between stress related to

Journal of Youth Studies 1133

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

peer pressure, romantic relationships and school performance and the outcome of anxiety,although none of the moderator effects were strong, indicating that the strength of theassociation between stress and state anxiety is not highly dependent on self-esteem.

Adolescence is a critical period for the development of self-esteem (DuBois andTevendale 1999), a process which has been described as discontinuous, rather thansmooth (Biro et al. 2006; Cole et al. 2001; Abela et al. 2006; Baldwin and Hoffmann2002). Self-esteem is said to refer to the extent to which individuals like, value, acceptand respect themselves at a general (global) level (Rosenberg 1989) and is widelyconsidered to be a critical element in healthy human development and functioning(Michaels et al. 2007). While in general, high self-esteem is associated with positiveoutcomes and lower self-esteem with less desirable outcomes (Crocker and Wolfe 2001;Dusek 2000; Trzesniewski, Donnellan, and Robins 2003), the evidence for low self-esteem and health-compromising behaviours is inconsistent across all such behaviours.Individuals reporting higher levels of self-esteem are assumed to have better copingresources and are thus protected against the deleterious consequences of stressful lifeevents than their peers (Orth Robins, and Meier 2009). Global self-esteem has beenshown to be predictive of later health-compromising behaviours (e.g. problem eating,suicidal ideation). However, Baumeister et al. (2003) reported that high self-esteem didnot prevent children from smoking, drinking, taking drugs or from engaging in earlysexual activity. In a longitudinal study of females, higher self-esteem was related to morepositive outcomes generally (e.g. academic achievement, social relationships), whilstlower self-esteem was related to more adverse outcomes (substance use as an example;Biro et al. 2006). Elsewhere inverse associations between self-esteem and symptoms ofdepression (Orth, Robins, and Meier 2009; Orth, Robins, and Roberts 2008) and anxiety(Boden, Fergusson, and Horwood 2008; Kim 2003) have been reported. Additionally,Byrne and Mazanov (2001) reported that while both self-esteem and stress independentlyinfluenced adolescent smoking behaviour, high self-esteem did not appear to act as abuffer (as hypothesised) between high stress and smoking behaviour.

The measurement of stress has been compromised by conceptual difficulties in bothadults (Henderson, Byrne, and Duncan-Jones 1981) and adolescents (Byrne, Davenport,and Mazanov 2007), and the Adolescent Stress Questionnaire (ASQ; Byrne, Davenport,and Mazanov 2007) was developed to address some of these. The ASQ consists of itemsdesigned to measure common stressors that adolescents may experience. It also allowsadolescents to report the extent to which any recent stressor experience has constituted apsychological challenge for them. The scale has been in use since the beginning of the1990s and was recently extensively revised, with new item content (and language)derived from focus groups wherein adolescents were consulted on the nature of commonstressors in their everyday lives. Importantly, the ASQ reinforced the long-held view thatthe experience of adolescent stress spanned a number of domains, each of which reflectedcontemporary theory in adolescent development.

What is clear from the preceding discussion is that gender must be a significant playerin any equation linking self-efficacy, self-esteem and stress in adolescence. For instance,adolescent boys have reported higher average levels of emotional self-efficacy than girls(Muris 2001; Bacchini and Magliulo 2003; McKay et al. 2011). Findings regardingacademic self efficacy are contradictory, with some studies suggesting girls have higheracademic self-efficacy (Bacchini and Magliulo 2003; Saunders et al. 2004) and othersfailing to detect a significant difference between gender groups (Usher and Pajares 2006;McKay et al. 2011). Regarding social self-efficacy, a study of 10- to 12-year-old children

1134 M.T. McKay et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

found girls reported higher SSE than boys (Coleman 2003), while similar research withadolescents found no differences between gender groups (Bacchini and Magliulo 2003;McKay et al. 2011). In terms of stress, gender differences appear to be more unequivocal,with girls reporting higher levels of stress than boys, especially in relation to interpersonalstressors, for example, peers, romantic partners and family relationships (Charbonneau,Mezulis, and Hyde 2009; Hankin, Mermelstein, and Roesch 2007; Rudolph 2002; Shihet al. 2006; Byrne, Davenport, and Mazanov 2007; Moksnes et al. 2010a, 2010b).

Emerging research from the United Kingdom, and from Northern Ireland in particular,suggests that while previously boys would have consumed significantly more than girls,and as such would have had a more problematic relationship with alcohol, a convergencehas taken place such that males and females are as likely as each other to drink topossibly harmful levels (e.g. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency 2008;McKay et al. 2011). This same research continues to support the idea that between ages10 and 18, the prevalence of alcohol consumption increases with each increasing yearband, so that while adolescent consumption may begin in early adolescence, it workstowards a peak in later adolescence and into early adulthood (McKay et al. 2011; NISRA2008; Percy and Iwaniec 2010).

The evidence presented here then clearly highlights the capacity of both self-efficacyand stress to influence both present and future states of health and well-being inadolescents. That evidence establishes the domain-specific nature of both self-efficacyand adolescent stress, and supports the postulated link between self-efficacy andadolescent stress through the impact of the former on adolescents’ beliefs surroundingthe notion of their ability to control their social environments. But despite a real wealth ofstrong evidence bearing on the capacity of these two variables, singly or together, topredict adolescent health and well-being, some level of ambiguity remains, and threereasons would appear to underlie this. First, neither self-efficacy nor adolescent stress ismonolithic in their appearance, but occurs as a set of theoretically coherent, yetempirically independent domains. And current evidence would suggest that associationsbetween the two may be domain-specific. Second, self-esteem among adolescents is alsoindicated, both as an independent correlate of dysfunctions in adolescent health, broadlyconstrued, and as a possible moderator of the effects of stress on adolescent health. Andfinally, there is a clear role of gender in examining associations between adolescent healthand each of the constructs of self-efficacy, self-esteem and stress. The present studyrecognises this and seeks to bring a greater understanding to the complex relationshipbetween self-efficacy and stress by taking a closer account of the possible roles of bothself-esteem and gender. Accordingly the present study sought to examine to what extent(if any) gender and self-esteem could be moderators of the relationship between the ASQvariables and self-efficacy. The present analyses used adolescent alcohol use as anindicator of health behaviour (e.g., World Health Organisation 2008) and furtherexamined the potential moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship betweenstress measures and self-reported alcohol use.

Methods

Participants

A total of 27 high schools in the Belfast Education and Library Board area were recruitedto participate in a number of alcohol-focused studies. Schools were coded and randomlychosen to participate in a number of studies, one of which assessed the relationship

Journal of Youth Studies 1135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

between alcohol use and adolescent stress in six of these schools. Post-primary schools inNorthern Ireland are either Grammar or Secondary schools. Grammar schools selectstudents at age 11 (school year 8) on the basis of higher academic ability, whileSecondary schools are more comprehensive/vocational. Schools were stratified forinclusion according to the Grammar/Secondary divide and randomly chosen to reflectthe overall demographics of the area. All schools approached agreed to participate.Schools were asked to provide one class from each of years 8–12 (ages 11–16). Theschool health coordinator chose the participating class from each year group. In effect,this was one of the classes that were available at the mutually convenient data collectiontime agreed with the researchers (in other words, not groups involved in subjectsincluding Mathematics, English or Physical Education). To this extent, the inclusion of aclass group was random. All pupils present on the day of data collection participated inthe study. The study received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee at theUniversity of Liverpool and also from the designated Head Teacher of each school.

Consent

Each participating school which consented to take part was supplied with ParentalConsent forms for the parents of each pupil. A form of ‘opt out’ consent was approved bythe Ethics Committee so that parents received detailed information on the study and wereonly required to respond if they were unhappy about their child’s participation. On theday of the study, each participating pupil was also asked to give their own InformedConsent, indicating their willingness to take part. All participants recruited gave informedconsent to participate, and no parent/carer withheld consent for their participation.

Procedure

Data were gathered under examination-like conditions so that each participant had theirown desk and was therefore able to complete the questionnaires without undue influencefrom friends and/or peers. Participants were issued with a set of response sheets and allquestionnaires were administered verbally by the researcher, allowing pupils with literacydifficulties to take part and also to help maximise the number of fully completed responsesheets. There were no issues raised by participants with regard to the comprehensibility ofassessment tools. Data collection took approximately 30 minutes in each school.

Instruments

The ASQ consists of 56 items in ten components or stress domains. These are Stress ofHome Life; Stress of School Performance; Stress of School Attendance; Stress of RomanticRelationships; Stress of Peer Pressure; Stress of Teacher Interaction; Stress of FutureUncertainty; Stress of School/Leisure Conflict; Stress of Financial Pressure and Stress ofEmerging Adult Responsibility. For each item, participants are asked ‘How stressful do youfind (e.g. going to school)’. Participants rated the level of stress experienced on a 5-pointLikert-type scale (1 = not stressful at all to 5 = very stressful). Byrne, Davenport, andMazanov (2007) reported good test-retest reliabilities with one-week correlations rangingfrom r = .68 to r = .88. Cronbach’s α values for the ASQ ranged from .62 to .92, with eightout of ten domains yielding α values ≥.80.

The Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children (Muris 2001) contains 21 items whichrepresent three domains of self-efficacy, namely (1) academic self-efficacy, (2) emotionalself-efficacy and (3) SSE. For each item, participants are asked ‘how well’ they feel

1136 M.T. McKay et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

themselves to be capable of dealing with a range of issues, for example, ‘how well areyou able to control your feelings?’ Participants rate their level of self-efficacy on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very well). The scale has been validated inDutch-, Belgian- and English-speaking populations with Cronbach’s α of .82 (social), .84(academic) and .86 (emotional; Suldo and Shaffer 2007).

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg 1989) is a 10-item self-reportmeasure of global self-esteem. It consists of 10 statements related to overall feelings ofself-worth or self-acceptance, for example ‘I am able to do things as well as most otherpeople’. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which the items best describedthe way they feel about themselves on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 =strongly agree). The scale yields a single overall score of self-esteem, with high scoresindicating high levels of self-esteem. The scale has demonstrated good reliability andvalidity across a large number of different sample groups (Gray-Little, Williams, andHancock 1997). The RSES has been validated for use with substance users and otherclinical groups, and is regularly used in treatment outcome studies. The scale has beenvalidated for use with both male and female adolescent, adult and elderly populations(Gullette and Lyons 2006).

The Adolescent Alcohol Involvement Scale (AAIS; Mayer and Filstead 1979) is a 14-item self-report screening measure for alcohol abuse in adolescents. It is a compilation ofpreviously verified indicators of alcohol misuse, for example, ‘How often do you drink’,or, ‘I usually start to drink because…’. It functions as a research tool which helps identifyadolescents whose alcohol use impacts adversely on psychological functioning, socialrelations and/or family life. Questions are answered on a scale allowing for a highestpossible score of 79. Total scores offer the following range of categories: abstainers = 0;‘normal’ (those who rarely drink) adolescents = 1–19; adolescents who drink but do notexperience problems = 20–41; alcohol misusers = 42–57; ‘alcoholic-like’ drinkers = 58–79. In a meta-analysis of Adolescent Alcohol Screening Measures, Shields and colleagues(2008) reported that among AAIS-administered samples made up of at least 80%Caucasians, the average reliability estimate was .86, compared to a single study thatadministered the AAIS to an all African-American sample yielding a reliability estimateof .62. Given the demographics of the present sample, the AAIS was considered anappropriate assessment tool.

Additionally information was gathered on participants’ gender, year of education(school year 8–12) and the type of school which they attended (Grammar or Secondary).

Analyses

All analyses were conducted using SPSS v.20. Pearson’s correlations (two-tailed) werecomputed between stress and self-efficacy measures. Independent samples t-tests werecomputed with sex as the independent variables and stress domains as the dependentvariables. It was hypothesised that gender and self-esteem could be moderators of therelationship between the ASQ variables and self-efficacy. To investigate this, termsrepresenting the interactions between self-esteem and all the ASQ variables and theinteractions between gender and all the ASQ variables were created, using centredvariables. Separate regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationshipbetween each interaction term and the self-efficacy variables in the presence of thevariables that contributed to the interaction term. Only interaction terms that werestatistically significant in these preliminary analyses were retained for the final regression

Journal of Youth Studies 1137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

analyses. The final regression analyses consisted of three separate regression models, onefor each self-efficacy variable as an outcome. Each regression model contained thefollowing predictor variables: demographic variables, ASQ variables, self-esteem and theinteraction terms found to be statistically significant in the preliminary analyses. Finally,we examined the potential moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship betweenstress measures and self-reported alcohol use.

Results

A total of 610 pupils (61% female) participated in the study. The participants wereapproximately evenly distributed across the five year groups. Results of reliabilityanalyses for the ASQ revealed that all Cronbach α-values were lower than in the originalscale development (Byrne, Davenport, and Mazanov 2007) and only four out of ten hadCronbach α-values of ≥.8. However, five other factors had α-values in the range of.74–.78. The α-values for each factor were: Stress of Home Life, .88; SchoolPerformance, .84; School Attendance, .74; Romantic Relationships, .74; Peer Pressure,.84; Teacher Interaction, .81; Future Uncertainty, .75; School/Leisure Conflict, .78;Financial Pressure, .78 and Emerging Adult Responsibility, .50. Descriptive statistics forthe variables examined in the study are presented in Table 1.

Results of Pearson’s correlations between ASQ domains and self-esteem supportedthose reported elsewhere (Byrne, Davenport, and Mazanov 2007; Moksnes et al. 2010b)in so far as all stress domains (except Emerging Adult Responsibility) correlatednegatively and significantly with self-esteem. Correlations with self-esteem in the presentstudy were as follows (all p < .01 unless stated): Home Life, r = −.31; SchoolPerformance, r = −.31; School Attendance, r = −.19; Romantic Relationships, r = −.18;Peer Pressure, r = −.31, Teacher Interaction, r = −.20; Future Uncertainty, r = −.32;School/Leisure Conflict, r = −.19; Financial Pressure, r = −.25; Emerging AdultResponsibility r = −.05 NS.

Table 2 illustrates that there were significant sex differences on seven out of the tenstress domains, and in all cases, females reported significantly higher stress than males. In

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

Possible range Mean SD

ASQ home life 12–60 41.63 10.63ASQ school performance 7–35 28.55 6.53ASQ school attendance 3–15 11.69 4.05ASQ romantic relationships 5–25 14.14 4.14ASQ peer pressure 7–35 20.21 6.42ASQ teacher interaction 7–35 21.68 6.03ASQ future uncertainty 3–15 9.71 3.07ASQ school/leisure conflict 5–25 17.36 4.37ASQ financial pressure 4–20 11.95 3.74ASQ emerging adult responsibility 3–15 6.08 2.49Self-esteem 10–40 29.73 4.10Academic self-efficacy 7–35 22.99 5.11Emotional self-efficacy 7–35 26.00 4.06SSE 7–35 21.89 4.59

1138 M.T. McKay et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

terms of self-concept measures, males scored significantly higher on SSE and self-esteem,females scored significantly higher on academic self-efficacy, while there was no sexdifference for emotional self-efficacy.

Results of an independent samples t-test revealed that there was no significantdifference between males and females in terms of overall AAIS score (t = .38; df = 608;p = .71). Results of a one-way ANOVA revealed that there was a significant difference interms of year in school and AAIS score (F = 44.67; df = 4; p < .001). Post-hoc Dunnett’sT3 tests revealed that there were no significant differences between years 8 and 9, orbetween years 10 and 11. All other year group comparisons were significantly different,with AAIS score increasing from year 8 to year 12.

The results of the regression analyses are provided in Tables 3–5. The tables showthat self-esteem and the ASQ peer pressure variables are consistently two of the strongestpredictors of self-efficacy. However, ASQ peer pressure has a positive relationship withacademic self-efficacy but a negative relationship with social and emotional self-efficacy.In addition, females have a significantly higher academic self-efficacy than males, but asignificantly lower SSE than males.

The regression model specified in Table 3 explained a total of 33% of the variance inacademic self-efficacy [F(16,593) = 19.71, p < .001]. The demographic variablesexplained 4% of the variance in academic self-efficacy; the ASQ variables explained anadditional 18% of the variance; and self-esteem explained an additional 11% of thevariance in academic self-efficacy scores. Self-reported stress of school performance andschool attendance were significantly associated with academic self-efficacy but not withthe other types of self-efficacy measured.

The regression model specified in Table 4 explained a total of 21% of the variance inemotional self-efficacy [F(16,593) = 10.85, p < .001]. The demographic variablesexplained 1% of the variance in emotional self-efficacy; the ASQ variables explained anadditional 9% of the variance and self-esteem explained an additional 10% of thevariance in emotional self-efficacy scores. Self-reported stress of romantic relationships,

Table 2. Results of Independent samples t-tests for sex, stress factors, self-esteem and self-efficacydomains. Shown are means (+SD).

Males (n = 238) Females (n = 372) t-test

ASQ home life 39.27 (10.43) 43.13 (10.49) −4.44***ASQ school performance 27.36 (6.65) 29.31 (6.34) −3.62***ASQ school attendance 11.67 (4.08) 11.70 (4.03) NSASQ romantic relationships 13.60 (4.06) 14.48 (4.16) −2.56**ASQ peer pressure 18.05 (5.78) 21.60 (6.44) −6.89***ASQ teacher interaction 20.85 (6.20) 22.21 (5.85) −2.73***ASQ future uncertainty 9.05 (2.85) 10.13 (3.13) −4.29***ASQ school/leisure conflict 16.98 (4.56) 17.61 (4.24) NSASQ financial pressure 11.41 (3.77) 12.29 (3.69) −2.86**ASQ emerging adult responsibility 6.03 (2.36) 6.11 (2.58) NSSelf-esteem 30.70 (3.99) 29.10 (4.06) 4.77***Academic self-efficacy 22.48 (5.14) 23.32 (5.08) −1.99*SSE 23.56 (4.33) 20.82 (4.42) 7.52***Emotional self-efficacy 26.36 (3.90) 25.77 (4.15) NS

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

Journal of Youth Studies 1139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

interaction with teachers and emerging adult responsibility were significantly related toemotional self-efficacy but not to academic or SSE.

The regression model specified in Table 5 explained a total of 30% of the variance inSSE [F(17,592) = 16.20, p < .001]. The demographic variables explained 9% ofthe variance in SSE; the ASQ variables explained an additional 13% of the variance and

Table 3. Regression analysis with academic self-efficacy as the outcome variable.

Standardised coefficient t p

Constant 1.92 .06Grammar vs. secondary school −.04 −1.25 .21Year of education −.08 −1.94 .05Gender −.11 −3.00 .003ASQ home life .02 0.29 .77ASQ school performance −.21 −3.50 <.001ASQ school attendance −.28 −6.11 <.001ASQ romantic relationships .01 0.28 .78ASQ peer pressure .27 5.26 <.001ASQ teacher interaction .05 0.97 .34ASQ future uncertainty .06 1.36 .17ASQ school/leisure conflict .07 1.36 .18ASQ financial pressure −.13 −2.54 .01ASQ emerging adult responsibility −.06 −1.48 .14Self-esteem .36 9.68 <.001Self-esteem × ASQ school performance −.03 −0.70 .48Self-esteem × ASQ future uncertainty −.02 −0.52 .61

Table 4. Regression analysis with emotional self-efficacy as the outcome variable.

Standardised coefficient t p

Constant 0.21 .84Grammar vs. secondary school .02 0.52 .61Year of education .12 2.88 .004Gender −.02 −0.55 .58ASQ home life .01 0.10 .92ASQ school performance −.07 −1.16 .25ASQ school attendance .03 0.51 .61ASQ romantic relationships .16 3.04 .002ASQ peer pressure −.27 −4.32 <.001ASQ teacher interaction .17 3.15 .002ASQ future uncertainty −.001 −0.01 .99ASQ school/leisure conflict .004 0.07 .95ASQ financial pressure −.03 −0.59 .56ASQ Emerging adult responsibility −.11 −2.70 .007Self-esteem .36 8.74 <.001Gender × ASQ peer pressure .06 1.16 .25Gender × ASQ school/leisure conflict .09 1.67 .10

1140 M.T. McKay et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

self-esteem explained an additional 8% of the variance in SSE scores. SSE, but notacademic or emotional self-efficacy, was significantly related to the stress of futureuncertainty.

Previously using this sample (Reference blinded), a domain-specific relationshipbetween stress factors and alcohol use was observed, so that more problematic drinkingwas significantly associated with higher stress on some factors, and lower stress onothers. We found evidence of a significant moderating effect in only three circumstances.Firstly, academic self-efficacy moderated the effect of the stress of peer pressure ondrinking behaviour (F = 5.185, p < .05) so that alcohol scores decreased as theparticipants with lower academic self-efficacy experience greater stress from peerpressure; secondly, emotional self-efficacy moderated the relationship between the stressof future uncertainty and alcohol scores (F = 5.990, p < .05) so that alcohol scoresincrease as stress from future uncertainty increases, but this increase is at a more rapidrate for those with higher emotional self-efficacy; finally, SSE moderated the relationshipbetween the stress of romantic relationships and alcohol score (F = 5.873, p < .05) so thatexperiencing greater stress from romantic relationships is associated with higher alcoholscores, and this effect is enhanced among those with lower SSE scores.

Discussion

The present study sought to investigate the relationship between ten domains ofadolescent stress and three domains of self-efficacy in a large adolescent sample andfurther to what degree the complex relationship between self-efficacy and stress might bemoderated by self-esteem and gender. Moreover, it also sought to investigate to whatextent self-efficacy moderates the relationship between adolescent stress and alcohol-use

Table 5. Regression analysis with SSE as the outcome variable.

Standardised coefficient t p

Constant −1.81 .07Grammar vs. secondary school −.002 −0.06 .95Year of education −.06 −1.41 .16Gender .16 4.34 <.001ASQ home life −.08 −1.25 .21ASQ school performance −.05 −0.89 .38ASQ school attendance .04 0.81 .42ASQ romantic relationships .06 1.20 .23ASQ peer pressure −.19 −3.69 <.001ASQ teacher interaction .03 0.61 .54ASQ future uncertainty −.15 −3.23 .001ASQ school/leisure conflict .07 1.05 .30ASQ financial pressure −.02 −0.37 .71ASQ emerging adult responsibility .03 0.80 .43Self-esteem .32 8.20 <.001Gender × ASQ school/leisure conflict .05 0.87 .39Gender × ASQ home life .04 0.70 .48Gender × ASQ financial pressure .02 0.30 .77

Journal of Youth Studies 1141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

behaviours. Despite the relatively large sample, the study is not without limitations. Datacollected relied totally on participant self-report and, as participants were selected by theindividual school authorities, it must be taken on trust that they provided a representativesample of pupils. Using a mainstream school-based population resulted in exclusion ofearly school leavers and those in more specialist learning centres. The data are cross-sectional and therefore preclude the drawing of causal conclusions.

Results showed that while there were a small number of significant interaction terms,none of these remained significant in the final regression models. The results weretherefore invariant with regard to both gender and self-esteem. This is largely consistentwith results elsewhere (Byrne and Mazanov 2003) and suggests that the imposition of(high) self-esteem onto a high stress environment, with the expectation that it will (partly)counteract the effects of stress, possibly reflects simplistic reasoning. In respect of gender,the results are similar to those reported elsewhere (Moksnes et al. 2010a) where genderdid not moderate the relationship between adolescent stress and emotional states.

Self-esteem and the ASQ Peer Pressure scale were two consistent statistical‘predictors’ of perceived levels of self-efficacy. How adolescents view themselves andthe degree of pressure that they feel from their peers impacts on how competent they feelacross three domains of functioning, above and beyond variables such as age and sex.This result is slightly counterintuitive for academic self-efficacy, where higher ASQ peerpressure is predictive of higher academic self-efficacy. Of course, the result is onlycounterintuitive as long as Peer pressure is understood negatively (pressure to engage inanti- rather than pro-social behaviours). Future prospective research might seek tountangle the possible confounding nature of the precise pressures involved. However,assuming that the peer pressure was understood negatively, this finding is potentiallyrelated to a subgroup of adolescents at school who are focused on academic studies andrecognise that they are probably different from the majority of others. So, they know theyare academically competent but have difficulty joining in with others. The direction ofcausality here is potentially interesting; in other words, perhaps, some adolescents arenaturally attracted to academic work and don’t want to engage in other types of activitieswith their peers but, as a result, feel some stress about this. Or, perhaps there are someadolescents who have always found it difficult to integrate with others and join in withother adolescents’ play and so, as a result, find refuge in books and academic work, andmay even be encouraged down this road by their parents who realise that they need todevelop strength in some areas. Future prospective work would be needed in order todetermine the directionality of this relationship. While the answer is impossible to resolvein a cross-sectional data-set, it is clear from the present study that high academic self-efficacy carries its own penalty (high stress from peer pressure), and points to theimportance of a balance being required across academic self-efficacy and SSE. In otherwords, it is not good for adolescents to grow up thinking that they are devoid of academiccompetencies, but equally it is not good for them only to identify themselves exclusivelyaccording to their academic functioning either.

Academic self-efficacy was significantly associated with the stress of schoolperformance and the stress of school attendance such that higher levels of these stressorswere associated with lower academic self-efficacy. Lower academic self-efficacy was alsosignificantly associated with higher stress of financial pressure. Finally, higher academicself-efficacy was significantly associated with being in lower year of education, beingfemale and with higher levels of self-esteem. Many of these results are intuitive, fit withexisting research and support the validity of the ASQ. Changes have been observed in

1142 M.T. McKay et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

academic and SSE) throughout adolescence (e.g. Vecchio et al. 2007), and in particular,academic self-efficacy has been shown to decrease throughout adolescence in accordancewith the major demands and pressures in young people’s academic performancethroughout these years (e.g. Schunk and Pajares 2002). Additionally, this general findingis related to (1) previous levels of academic performance, (2) intellectual ability andaspirations or (3) competing demands from other domains of life. There are severalexplanations here that might be foreshadowed, even though the data might not currentlybe available to test them, and future prospective research might also be able to clarify thisuncertain relationship.

Additionally, the results suggest that specific school-related stressors significantlyimpact on an individual’s feelings of academic competency. However, these school-specific stressors are very different in so far as one relates to the stress of achievementand the other relates to the stress of going to school at all. The relationship between thestress of financial pressure and academic self-efficacy is perhaps more difficult to explain.It may be that those who feel most academically efficacious are also those from better-offbackgrounds where the pressure of finances can be less. Typically, those attendinggrammar schools (attendance of which is determined by an academic examination) alsotend to be of a higher socio-economic status than those attending secondary schools.

Results suggested that higher emotional self-efficacy was significantly associated withbeing in a higher year of education (in other words being older), reporting higher self-esteem, lower stress of emerging adult responsibility, lower stress of peer pressure butinterestingly, higher stress of romantic relationships and higher stress of teacherinteraction. In respect of age or year of education, this could simply reflect the fact thatyounger children find themselves much earlier in the process of developing social andemotional maturity. The finding that higher relational stressors (romantic and withteachers) are significantly associated with higher emotional self-efficacy is extremelyinteresting and is understandable in so far as adolescents may not necessarily find theforming of new and increasingly adult-like relationship to be easy, but when they attemptto do so, the emotional rewards are positive. However, in a cross-sectional study, cautionis needed in determining causality. It could equally be the case that higher emotional self-efficacy allows for the formation of these more adult-like relationships.

Results suggest that higher levels of SSE are significantly associated with being male,with higher reported self-esteem, with lower levels of the stress of peer pressure, andlower stress of future uncertainty. In many ways, these relationships are intuitive. Socialfunctioning and peer approval are both important at this age, so it is not surprising thatself-esteem and lower levels of the stress of peer pressure are associated with higher SSE.The finding that higher SSE is related to stress of future uncertainty such that higher self-efficacy is associated with lower stress suggests that having higher perceived ability tosocially interact and engage with others buffers the potential stress of having to make newfriends, embark on new experiences and make decisions with regard to the future. Againhowever, a prospective study would be needed to test the definitive nature of thisrelationship.

Stress has been shown to impact males and females differently, and sex differenceshave been found to contribute significantly to differences in the relationship betweenstress and emotional outcomes (Rudolph 2002; Hankin, Mermelstein, and Roesch 2007;Moksnes et al. 2010a, 2010b). Previous studies using the ASQ (or derivatives thereof)have reported significant sex differences for the majority of stress domains with femalestypically scoring significantly higher than males (Byrne, Davenport, and Mazanov 2007;

Journal of Youth Studies 1143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Murray, Byrne, and Rieger 2011; De Vriendt, Moreno, and De Henauw 2009; Moksnesand Espnes 2011; Moksnes et al. 2010a, 2010b). In the present study, there weresignificant sex differences in all domains with the exception of the Stress of SchoolAttendance, School/Leisure Conflict and Emerging Adult Responsibility. These com-bined results support the theory that some stressors may be universal across cultures,while others may be more culturally specific (Plunkett, Radmacher, and Moll-Phanara2000). Specifically, males and females in different cultural contexts may experience theStress of School Attendance to the same degree, while other stressors are experienced todifferent degrees by males and females, in different cultures. Moreover, there could easilybe reason to believe that cultural consistency would be expected for education-basedstressors, at least in cultures where education and career achievement are desiredobjectives, but that cultural differences might be expected to be seen more prominentlywhere, for example, different values related to parental authority and family cohesionmight prevail.

In those studies where it has been examined (Byrne, Davenport, and Mazanov 2007;Moksnes et al. 2010a, 2010b; Murray, Byrne, and Rieger 2011; Moksnes and Espnes2011), all ASQ domains have been found to correlate negatively with self-esteem. Thoseresults are supported herein, and indeed, the size of the correlations in all studies (Murray,Byrne, and Rieger analysed total stress score) was similar in magnitude. Byrne andcolleagues had argued that previous negative associations between stressors and self-esteem (e.g. Byrne and Mazanov 2001; Hall and Torres 2002) were sufficiently clear as toallow the negative connections between all stress domains and self-esteem in their studyto serve as an indicator of scale validity. That being so, current findings offer emergingsupport for the scales’ validity across cultures.

The reliability analyses suggest that the scale is a reliable measure of adolescent stress(all but one had a Cronbach’s α value > .7), with obvious reliability issues with the stressof ‘emerging adult responsibility’ domain. A number of factors may explain this. Firstly,it is only constituted of three items and it has been argued that it is almost impossible toget high alphas in instruments which are designed to measure very broad domains withonly small numbers of items per dimension (Gosling, Rentfrow, and Swann 2003). Thus,it has been argued that alpha values may be somewhat misleading when calculated onscales or subscales with small numbers of items (Kline 2000; Wood and Hampson 2005).Additionally, our sample was slightly younger than that of Byrne and colleagues (2007),ranging as it did from ages 12 to 16. The items within this domain focus on the stress ofnew family responsibilities with getting older, employers expecting too much and workinterfering with social activities. In the United Kingdom, young people may only be inpaid employment from age 13 onwards, and then, only in a limited number of part-timejobs. For all of those in school years 8 and 9 in the present study, and probably for manymore in years 10, 11 and 12, employment-related stress would most likely not be salient.In the Norwegian sample, most of the items which did not load satisfactorily related toresponsibilities with growing older. The authors speculated this to result from the factthat, by virtue of their age, most of sample would still live with parents and be providedfor by them (Moksnes et al. 2010b). This would likely be even truer of the youngercohort in the present study.

Finally, the lack of significant moderating effects of self-efficacy measures on therelationship between stress domains and the potential health-compromising behaviour ofalcohol use is most likely attributable to the nature of the health measure. Previously,these moderating effects have been observed in relation to clinical experiences of mental

1144 M.T. McKay et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

health issues, in particular depression and anxiety. It could be that the physical natureof the adverse consequences of drinking behaviour in adolescence, and the fact thatlevels of drinking themselves lead to rather than actually are health problems, explains thelack of significant moderating effects. Future research using a range of physical andmental health indicators might go some way to clarifying this.

Conclusions

The results emerging from this study highlight the complexity of the relationshipsbetween adolescent stress and self-efficacy. And it is not surprising that this was so. Bothadolescent stress and self-efficacy exist not as single and homogeneous domains, but asinterrelated but theoretically independent sub-domains of broader constructs. None-theless, the relationships between adolescent stress and self-efficacy which did emergewere very largely either consistent with expectations based on past evidence, orunderstandable within the theoretical contact of adolescent psycho-social development(e.g. Caprara et al. 2004; Cicognani 2011).

Contrary to expectations built both on both past evidence and existing theory thatfemales and males differ significantly both in their experience of stress and levels of self-efficacy and self-esteem, the relationships between adolescent stress and self-efficacywere largely unaffected by either gender or self-esteem. While there were univariategender differences in the reported levels of stress and self-efficacy and self-esteem(supporting existing literature which has consistently reported a gender effect on mostareas of adolescent stress, with girls scoring higher than boys on all domains where agender effect exists), the bigger issue of gender in these data was, however, somewhatmore at odds with conventional wisdom. And this is consistent with a wealth of literatureon gender, socialisation and the experience of emotional distress. Moreover, there aregood reasons to believe, based on theories of adolescent development (e.g. Steinberg2008), that patterns of social and emotional development in girls differ from those of boysin relation to their respective capacities to achieve mastery over their psycho-socialenvironments. The finding of gender invariance here does, therefore, challenge a well-developed expectation. What is most likely, we believe, is that the broad robustness of therelationships between stress and self-esteem has allowed them, in the present data at least,to effectively dominate any statistical analysis.

Within the context of the current literature on both adolescent stress and self-efficacy,viewed independently, it should be self-evident that we are dealing with constructs whichare, and would be expected to be, decidedly multi-faceted in their appearance. But muchof the existing work has assumed greater homogeneity in both constructs than is really thecase. Unless the complexity of these relationships is more fully understood, as the presentfindings have been able to elucidate, neither a complete understanding of this crucialdevelopmental phase or the ability to effectively translate evidence into practice(adolescent mental health promotion programs, for example) can be fully realised. Thepresent findings take us somewhat further towards these shared goals.

ReferencesAbela, J. R. Z., C. A. Webb, C. Wagner, M. R. Ho, and P. Adams. 2006. “The Role of Self-

Criticism, Dependency, and Hassles in the Course of Depressive Illness: A MultiwaveLongitudinal Study.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32: 328–338. doi:10.1177/0146167205280911.

Journal of Youth Studies 1145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Abouserie, R. 1994. “Sources and Levels of Stress in Relation to Locus of Control and Self Esteemin University Students.” Educational Psychology 14: 323–331. doi:10.1080/0144341940140306.

Allison, K. R., E. M. Adlaf, A. Ialomiteanu, and J. Rehm. 1999. “Predictors of Health RiskBehaviors among Young Adults: Analysis of the National Population Health Survey.” CanadianJournal of Public Health 90: 85–89.

Bacchini, D., and F. Magliulo. 2003. “Self-Image and Perceived Self-Efficacy during Adolescence.”Journal of Youth and Adolescence 32: 337–350. doi:10.1023/A:1024969914672.

Baldwin, S. A., and J. P. Hoffmann. 2002. “The Dynamics of Self-Esteem: A Growth CurveAnalysis.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 31: 101–103. doi:10.1023/A:1014065825598.

Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman.Bandura, A. 2000. “Self-Efficacy.” In Encyclopedia of Psychology, edited by A. E. Kazdin, 212–

213. New York: Oxford University Press.Bandura, A., C. Barbaranelli, G. V. Caprara, and C. Pastorelli. 2001. “Self-Efficacy Beliefs as

Shapers of Children’s Aspirations and Career Trajectories.” Child Development 72 (1): 187–206.doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00273.

Bandura, A., G. V. Caprara, C. Barbaranelli, M. Gerbino, and C. Pastorelli. 2003. “Role ofAffective Self-Regulatory Efficacy in Diverse Spheres of Psychosocial Functioning.” ChildDevelopment 74 (3): 769–782. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00567.

Bandura, A., D. Cioffi, C. B. Taylor, and M. E. Brouillard. 1988. “Perceived Self-Efficacy inCoping with Cognitive Stressors and Opioid Activation.” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 55 (3): 479–488. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.3.479.

Bandura, A., C. Pastorelli, C. Barbaranelli, and G. V. Caprara. 1999. “Self-Efficacy Pathways toChildhood Depression.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76 (2): 258–269.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.258.

Baumeister, R. F., J. D. Campbell, J. I. I. Krueger, and K. D. Vohs. 2003. “Does High Self-EsteemCause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness, or Healthier Lifestyles?” Psycho-logical Science in the Public Interest 4: 1–44. doi:10.1111/1529-1006.01431.

Biro, F. M., R. H. Striegel-Moore, D. L. Franko, J. Padgett, and J. A. Bean. 2006. “Self-Esteem inAdolescent Females.” Journal of Adolescent Health 39 (4): 501–507. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.03.010.

Boden, J. M., D. M. Fergusson, and L. J. Horwood. 2008. “Does Adolescent Self-Esteem PredictLater Life Outcomes? A Test of the Causal Role of Self-Esteem.” Development andPsychopathology 20 (1): 319–339. doi:10.1017/S0954579408000151.

Byrne, D. G., S. C. Davenport, and J. Mazanov. 2007. “Profiles of Adolescent Stress: TheDevelopment of the Adolescent Stress Questionnaire (ASQ).” Journal of Adolescence 30 (3):393–416. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.004.

Byrne, D. G., and J. Mazanov. 2001. “Self-Esteem, Stress and Cigarette Smoking in Adolescents.”Stress and Health 17 (2): 105–110. doi:10.1002/smi.885.

Byrne, D. G., and J. Mazanov. 2002. “Sources of Stress in Australian Adolescents: Factor Structureand Stability over Time.” Stress and Health 18 (4): 185–192. doi:10.1002/smi.940.

Byrne, D. G., and J. Mazanov. 2003. “Adolescent Stress and Future Smoking Behavior: AProspective Investigation.” Journal of Psychosomatic Research 54: 313–321. doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00411-7.

Caprara, G. V., C. Barbaranelli, C. Pastorelli, and D. Cervone. 2004. “The Contribution of Self-Efficacy Beliefs to Psychosocial Outcomes in Adolescence: Predicting beyond Global Disposi-tional Tendencies.” Personality and Individual Differences 37 (4): 751–763. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.003.

Caprara, G. V., P. Steca, D. Cervone, and D. Artistico. 2003. “The Contribution of Self-EfficacyBeliefs to Dispositional Shyness: On Social-Cognitive Systems and the Development ofPersonality Dispositions.” Journal of Personality 71 (6): 943–970. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7106003.

Carter, J. S., J. Garber, J. A. Ciesla, and D. A. Cole. 2006. “Modeling Relations between Hasslesand Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms in Adolescents: A Four-Year Prospective Study.”Journal of Abnormal Psychology 115 (3): 428–442. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.115.3.428.

1146 M.T. McKay et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Charbonneau, A. M., A. H. Mezulis, and J. S. Hyde. 2009. “Stress and Emotional Reactivity asExplanations for Gender Differences in Adolescents” Depressive Symptoms.” Journal of Youthand Adolescence 38 (8): 1050–1058. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9398-8.

Cicognani, E. 2011. “Coping Strategies with Minor Stressors in Adolescence: Relationships withSocial Support, Self-Efficacy, and Psychological Well-Being.” Journal of Applied SocialPsychology 41: 559–578. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00726.x.

Cole, D. A., S. E. Maxwell, J. M. Martin, L. G. Peeke, A. D. Seroczynski, J. M. Tram, K. B.Hoffman, M. D. Ruiz, F. Jacquez, and T. Maschman. 2001. “The Development of MultipleDomains of Child and Adolescent Self-Concept: A Cohort Sequential Longitudinal Design.”Child Development 72 (6): 1723–1746. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00375.

Coleman, P. K. 2003. “Perceptions of Parent-Child Attachment, Social Self-Efficacy, and PeerRelationships in Middle Childhood.” Infant and Child Development 12 (4): 351–368.doi:10.1002/icd.316.

Coleman, J., and L. Hendry. 1999. The Nature of Adolescence. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.Colten, M. E., and S. Gore. 1991. Adolescent Stress: Causes and Consequences. New Brunswick,

NJ: Aldine Transaction.Compas, B. E., J. K. Connor-Smith, H. Saltzman, A. H. Thomsen, and M. E. Wadsworth. 2001.

“Coping with Stress during Childhood and Adolescence: Problems, Progress and Potential inTheory and Research.” Psychological Bulletin 127 (1): 87–127. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87.

Comunian, A. L. 1989. “Some Characteristics of Relations among Depression, Anxiety, and Self-Efficacy.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 69 (3): 755–764. doi:10.2466/pms.1989.69.3.755.

Crocker, J., and C. T. Wolfe. 2001. “Contingencies of Self-Worth.” Psychological Review 108 (3):593–623. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.593.

De Vriendt, T., L. A. Moreno, and S. De Henauw. 2009. “Chronic Stress and Obesity inAdolescents: Scientific Evidence and Methodological Issues for Epidemiological Research.”Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases 19 (7): 511–519. doi:10.1016/j.numecd.2009.02.009.

Diaz, A., E. Symantov, and V. I. Rickert. 2002. “Effect of Abuse on Health: Results of a NationalSurvey.” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 156: 811–817. doi:10.1001/archpedi.156.8.811.

DuBois, D. L., and H. D. Tevendale. 1999. Self-Esteem in Childhood and Adolescence: Vaccine orEpiphenomenon.” Applied and Preventive Psychology 8 (2): 103–117. doi:10.1016/S0962-1849(99)80002-X.

Dusek, J. B. 2000. “Commentary on the Special Issue: The Maturing of Self-Esteem Research withEarly Adolescents.” The Journal of Early Adolescence 20: 231–240. doi:10.1177/0272431600020002006.

Epstein, J. A., K. W. Griffin, and G. J. Botvin. 2002. “Positive Impact of Competence Skills andPsychological Wellness in Protecting Inner-City Adolescents from Alcohol Use.” PreventionScience 3 (2): 95–104. doi:10.1023/A:1015479216401.

Forbes, D., and S. Fairbrother. 2008. “Cyclic Nausea and Vomiting in Childhood.” AustralianFamily Physician 37: 33–36.

Gaffney, L. R., K. Thorpe, R. Young, R. Collett, and S. Occhipinti. 1998. “Social Skills,Expectancies and Drinking in Adolescents.” Addictive Behaviors 23: 587–599. doi:10.1016/S0306-4603(98)00025-2.

Gosling, S. D., P. J. Rentfrow, and W. B. Swann, Jr., 2003. “AVery Brief Measure of the Big FivePersonality Domains.” Journal of Research in Personality 37: 504–528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.

Graber, J. A., and L. M. Sontag. 2009. “Internalizing Problems during Adolescence.” In Handbookof Adolescent Psychology, 3rd ed., edited by R. M. Lerner and L. Steinberg, 642–682. Hoboken,NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Grant, K. E., B. E. Compas, A. F. Stuhlmacher, A. E. Thurm, S. D. McMahon, and J. A. Halpert.2003. “Stressors and Child and Adolescent Psychopathology: Moving from Markers to Mechan-isms of Risk.” Psychological Bulletin 129 (3): 447–466. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.447.

Grant, K. E., B. E. Compas, A. E. Thurm, S. D. McMahon, and P. Y. Gipson. 2004. “Stressors andChild and Adolescent Psychopathology: Measurement Issues and Prospective Effects.” Journal

Journal of Youth Studies 1147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 33 (2): 412–425. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3302_23.

Grant, K. E., B. E. Compas, A. E. Thurm, S. D. McMahon, P. Y. Gipson, A. J. Campbell, K.Krochock, and R. I. Westerholm. 2006. “Stressors and Child and Adolescent Psychopathology:Evidence of Moderating and Mediating Effects.” Clinical Psychology Review 26 (3): 257–283.doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2005.06.011.

Grau, R., M. Salanova, and J. M. Peiro. 2001. “Moderator Effects of Self-Efficacy on OccupationalStress.” Psychology in Spain 5: 63–74.

Gray-Little, B., V. S. L. Williams, and T. D. Hancock. 1997. “An Item Response Theory Analysisof the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23 (5): 443–451. doi:10.1177/0146167297235001.

Gullette, D. L., and M. A. Lyons. 2006. “Sensation Seeking, Self-Esteem, and Unprotected Sex inCollege Students.” Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 17 (5): 23–31.doi:10.1016/j.jana.2006.07.001.

Hackett, G., N. E. Betz, J. M. Casas, and I. A. Rocha-Singh. 1992. Gender, Ethnicity, and SocialCognitive Factors Predicting the Academic Achievement of Students in Engineering.” Journal ofCounseling Psychology 39: 527–553. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.39.4.527.

Hall, A. S., and I. Torres. 2002. “Partnerships in Preventing Adolescent Stress: Increasing Self-Esteem, Coping and Support through Effective Counseling.” Journal of Mental HealthCounseling 24: 97–109.

Hankin, B. L., and J. R. Z. Abela. 2005. “Depression from Childhood through Adolescence andAdulthood. A Developmental Vulnerability and Stress Perspective.” In Development ofPsychopathology, edited by B. L. Hankin and J. R. Z. Abela, 245–288. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Hankin, B. L., R. Mermelstein, and L. Roesch. 2007. “Sex Differences in Adolescent Depression:Stress Exposure and Reactivity Models.” Child Development 78: 278–295. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00997.x.

Henderson, A. S., D. G. Byrne, and P. Duncan-Jones. 1981. Neurosis and the Social Environment.Sydney: Academic Press.

Humphrey, J. H. 2004. Childhood Stress in Contemporary Society. Binghamton, NY: The HaworthPress.

Jackson, C., L. Henriksen, D. Dickinson, and D. W. Levine. 1997. “The Early Use of Alcohol andTobacco: Its Relation to Children’s Competence and Parent’s Behavior.” American Journal ofPublic Health 87: 359–364. doi:10.2105/AJPH.87.3.359.

Jackson, S., and L. Goossens, eds. 2006. Handbook of Adolescent Development. Hove: PsychologyPress.

Jex, S. M., and P. D. Bliese. 1999. “Efficacy Beliefs as a Moderator of the Impact of Work-RelatedStressors: A Multilevel Study.” Journal of Applied Psychology 84: 349–361. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.349.

Johnson, J. G., P. Cohen, M. S. Gould, S. Kasen, J. Brown, and J. S. Brook. 2002. “ChildhoodAdversities, Interpersonal Difficulties, and Risk for Suicide Attempts during Late Adolescenceand Early Adulthood.” Archives of General Psychiatry 59: 741–749. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.59.8.741.

Kessler, R. C., S. Avenevoli, and K. R. Merikangas. 2001. “Mood Disorders in Children andAdolescents: An Epidemiologic Perspective.” Society of Biological Psychiatry 49: 1002–1014.doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01129-5.

Kim, Y.-H. 2003. “Correlation of Mental Health Problems with Psychological Constructs inAdolescence: Final Results from a 2-Year Study.” International Journal of Nursing Studies 40(2): 115–124. doi:10.1016/S0020-7489(02)00037-8.

Kline, P. 2000. Handbook of Psychological Testing. London: Routledge.Kraag, G., M. P. Zeegers, G. Kok, C. Hosman, and H. H. Abu-Saad. 2006. “School Programs

Targeting Stress Management in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of SchoolPsychology 44 (6): 449–472. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.07.001.

Lazarus, R. S. 1966. Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Maddux, J. E. 2002. “Self-Efficacy: The Power of Believing You Can.” In Handbook of Positive

Psychology, edited by C. R. Snyder and S. J. Lopez, 277–287. London: Oxford University Press.

1148 M.T. McKay et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Matsushima, R., and K. Shiomi. 2003. “Social Self-Efficacy and Interpersonal Stress inAdolescence.” Social Behavior and Personality 31: 323–332. doi:10.2224/sbp.2003.31.4.323.

Mayer, J., and W. J. Filstead. 1979. “The Adolescent Alcohol Involvement Scale.” Journal ofStudies on Alcohol 40: 291–300.

McKay, M. T., H. R. Sumnall, M. Field, A. J. Goudie, and J. C. Cole. 2011. “What DifferentiatesAdolescent Problematic Drinkers from Their Peers? Results from a Cross Sectional Study inNorthern Irish School Children.” Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 18: 187–199.doi:10.3109/09687637.2010.502160.

McKay, M. T., and J. C. Cole. 2012. “Adolescent Drinking and Adolescent Stress: A Domain-specific Relationship in Northern Irish Schoolchildren.” Journal of Youth Studies 16 (2):237–256.

Michaels, M. L., A. Barr, M. W. Roosa, and G. P. Knight. 2007. “Self-Esteem: AssessingMeasurement Equivalence in a Multi-Ethnic Sample of Youth.” The Journal of EarlyAdolescence 27: 269–295. doi:10.1177/0272431607302009.

Moksnes, U. K., D. G. Byrne, J. Mazanov, and G. A. Espnes. 2010a. “Adolescent Stress:Evaluation of the Factor Structure of the Adolescent Stress Questionnaire (ASQ-N).”Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 51: 203–209. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00803.x.

Moksnes, U. K., I. E. O. Moljord, G. A. Espnes, and D. G. Byrne. 2010b. “The Associationbetween Stress and Emotional States in Adolescents: The Role of Gender and Self-Esteem.”Personality and Individual Differences 49 (5): 430–435. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.04.012.

Moksnes, U. K., and G. A. Espnes. 2011. “Evaluation of the Norwegian Version of the AdolescentStress Questionnaire (ASQ-N): Factorial Validity across Samples.” Scandinavian Journal ofPsychology 52: 601–608. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00907.x.

Mossholder, K. V., A. G. Bedein, and A. A. Armenakis. 1982. Employee-Organization Linkages:The Psychology of Commitment and Turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Murberg, T. A., and E. Bru. 2005. “The Role of Coping Styles as Predictors of DepressiveSymptoms among Adolescents: A Prospective Study.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 46:385–393. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005.00469.x.

Muris, P. 2001. “A Brief Questionnaire for Measuring Self-Efficacy in Youths.” Journal ofPsychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 23 (3): 145–149. doi:10.1023/A:1010961119608.

Murray, K. M., D. G. Byrne, and E. Rieger. 2011. “Investigating Adolescent Stress and BodyImage.” Journal of Adolescence 34 (2): 269–278. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.05.004.

Newby-Fraser, E., and L. Schlebusch. 1997. “Social Support, Self-Efficacy and Assertiveness asMediators of Student Stress.” Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior 34: 61–69.

NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) 2010. Alcohol-Use Disorders:Preventing Harmful Drinking. London: NICE Public Health Guidance 24. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13001/48984/48984.pdf

NISRA (Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency) 2008. Young Person’s Behaviour andAttitudes Survey. Belfast: NISRA.

Oppedal, B., and E. Røysamb. 2004. “Mental Health, Life Stress and Social Support among YoungNorwegian Adolescents with Immigrant and Host National Background.” Scandinavian Journalof Psychology 45: 131–144. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2004.00388.x.

Orth, U., R. W. Robins, and B. W. Roberts. 2008. “Low Self-Esteem Prospectively PredictsDepression in Adolescence and Young Adulthood.” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 95 (3): 695–708. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.695.

Orth, U., R. W. Robins, and L. L. Meier. 2009. “Disentangling the Effects of Low Self-Esteem andStressful Life Events on Depression: Findings from Three Longitudinal Studies.” Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 97 (2): 307–321. doi:10.1037/a0015645.

Percy, A., and D. Iwaniec. 2010. Teenage Drinking: Causes and Consequences. Saarbrücken:Lambert Academic.

Plunkett, S. W., K. A. Radmacher, and D. Moll-Phanara. 2000. “Adolescent Life Events, Stress andCoping: A Comparison of Communities and Genders.” Professional School Counseling 3:356–366.

Roddenberry, A., and K. Renk. 2010. “Locus of Control and Self-Efficacy: Potential Mediators ofStress, Illness, and Utilization of Health Services in College Students.” Child Psychiatry andHuman Development 41 (4): 353–370. doi:10.1007/s10578-010-0173-6.

Journal of Youth Studies 1149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Rosenberg, M. 1989. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. rev. ed., 325–327. Middletown, CT:Wesleyan University Press.

Rudolph, D. R. 2002. “Gender Differences in Emotional Responses to Interpersonal Stress duringAdolescence.” Journal of Adolescent Health 30: 3–13. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(01)00383-4.

Saunders, J., L. Davis, T. Williams, and J. H. Williams. 2004. “Gender Differences in Self-Perceptions and Academic Outcomes: A Study of African-American High School Students.”Journal of Youth and Adolescence 33 (1): 81–90. doi:10.1023/A:1027390531768.

Schunk, D. H., and F. Pajares. 2002. “The Development of Academic Self-Efficacy.” InDevelopment of Achievement Motivation, edited by A. Wigfield and J. Eccles, 16–31. SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.

Shapiro, D. H., C. E. Schwartz, and J. A. Astin. 1996. “Controlling Ourselves, Controlling OurWorld.” American Psychologist 51 (12): 1213–1230. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.12.1213.

Shelley, M., and K. I. Pakenham. 2004. “External Health Locus of Control and General Self-Efficacy: Moderators of Emotional Distress among University Students.” Australian Journal ofPsychology 56 (3): 191–199. doi:10.1080/00049530412331283336.

Shields, A. L., D. C. Campfield, C. S. Miller, P. T. Howell, K. Wallace, and R. D. Weiss. 2008.“Score Reliability of Adolescent Alcohol Screening Measures: A Meta-Analytic Inquiry.”Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse 17: 75–97. doi:10.1080/15470650802292855.

Shih, J. H., N. K. Eberhart, C. L. Hammen, and P. A. Brennan. 2006. “Differential Exposure andReactivity to Interpersonal Stress Predict Sex Differences in Adolescent Depression.” Journal ofClinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 35 (1): 103–115. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3501_9.

Sontag, L. M., J. Graber, J. Brooks-Gunn, and M. P. Warren. 2008. “Coping with Social Stress:Implications for Psychopathology in Young Adolescent Girls.” Journal of Abnormal ChildPsychology 36: 1159–1174. doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9239-3.

Steinberg, L. 2008. Adolescence. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Suldo, S. M., and E. J. Shaffer. 2007. “Evaluation of the Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children in

Two Samples of American Adolescents.” Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 25 (4): 341–355. doi:10.1177/0734282907300636.

Trzesniewski, K. H., M. B. Donnellan, and R. W. Robins. 2003. “Stability of Self-Esteem across theLife Span.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (1): 205–220. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.205.

Udry, J. R., R. M. Li, and J. Hendrickson-Smith. 2003. “Health and Behavior Risks of Adolescentswith Mixed Race Identity.” American Journal of Public Health 93: 1865–1870. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.11.1865.

Usher, E. L., and F. Pajares. 2006. “Sources of Academic and Self-Regulatory Efficacy Beliefs ofEntering Middle School Students.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 31 (2): 125–141.doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.03.002.

Vanaelst, B., T. De Vriendt, I. Huybrechts, S. Rinaldi, and S. De Henauw. 2012. “EpidemiologicalApproaches to Measure Childhood Stress.” Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 26: 280–297.doi:10.1111/j.1365-3016.2012.01258.x.

Vecchio, G. M., M. Gerbino, C. Pastorelli, G. Del Bove, and G. V. Caprara. 2007. “Multi-FacetedSelf-Efficacy Beliefs as Predictors of Life Satisfaction in Late Adolescence.” Personality andIndividual Differences 43 (7): 1807–1818. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.05.018.

Waaktaar, T., A. I. H. Borge, H. P. Fundingsrud, H. J. Christie, and S. Torgersen. 2004. “The Roleof Stressful Life Events in the Development of Depressive Symptoms in Adolescence – ALongitudinal Study.” Journal of Adolescence 27: 153–163. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.09.006.

West, P., and H. Sweeting. 2003. “Fifteen, Female and Stressed: Changing Patterns ofPsychological Distress over Time.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 44 (3): 399–411. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00130.

Wiedenfeld, S. A., A. Bandura, S. Levine, A. O’Leary, S. Brown, and K. Raska. 1990. “Impact ofPerceived Self-Efficacy in Coping with Stressors on Components of the Immune System.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 1082–1094. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1082.

Wood, S. A., and S. E. Hampson. 2005. “Measuring the Big Five with Single Items Using a BipolarResponse Scale.” European Journal of Personality 19: 373–390. doi:10.1002/per.542.

1150 M.T. McKay et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

World Health Organization. 2008. Management of Substance Abuse – Alcohol. Geneva: WorldHealth Organization. Accessed January 7, 2014. http://www.who.int/substanceabuse/facts/alco-hol/en/index.html.

Wyman, P. A., J. Moynihan, S. Eberly, C. Cox, W. Cross, X. Jin, and M. T. Caserta. 2007.“Association of Family Stress with Natural Killer Cell Activity and the Frequency of Illnesses inChildren.” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 161 (3): 228–234. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.3.228.

Journal of Youth Studies 1151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

22 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014