Romantic and parental attachment,psychosocial risk,and personal agency in emerging adulthood

Abstract

This study focuses on emerging adults’ personal agency, an individual feature associated with enhanced adaptive and resilient developmental trajectories. The two objectives were to explore the role of demographic, psychosocial risk, and relational factors in predicting personal agency and analyze whether romantic attachment mediates the connection between parental attachment and personal agency. The sample consisted of 607 Portuguese emerging adults aged between 18 and 30 years. Structural equation modeling results suggest that men are more likely to exhibit higher levels of personal agency than women. Trustful romantic relations and good paternal emotional bonds are associated with greater personal agency, while dependent romantic relations and maternal relations, characterized by inhibition of exploration, are associated with lower personal agency. Moreover, in romantic relations, trust, unlike dependence, partially mediates the association between parental attachment and personal agency. These findings are discussed based on attachment and self-determination theories, considering the importance of secure relationships for agency and autonomy in personal actions. This study provides important evidence for the influencers and mediators of personal agency, contributing to a better understanding of this individual capacity.

Keywords

personal agency romantic attachment attachment to parents psychosocial risk emerging adulthood

Personal agency is a key concept in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2014) and is usually defined as the self-perception of being sufficiently competent to take control over one’s course of life (Schoon & Lyons-Amos, 2016). It is a multidimensional process, including a person’s capacity for the following: (1) setting goals that are in accordance with their values; (2) engaging in decision-making processes relevant to the achievement of these goals; and (3) internalizing a sense of self-efficacy along with the expectation of success (optimistic belief) (Nunes et al., 2019a). An agentic person usually applies greater effort and persistence to overcome obstacles and achieve goals efficiently (Bandura, 2001; Schoon & Lyons-Amos, 2016). Empirical evidence suggests that personal agency is linked to higher levels of psychological well-being, emotion regulation, self-esteem, and academic success (Smith et al., 2000). In turn, lower levels of personal agency have been associated with psychopathological symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and psychosis (Graham-Schmidt et al., 2016; Polito et al., 2015).

Côté (2002) argues that personal agency is an important aspect of effective adaptation in emerging adulthood in contemporary Western societies. These societies are characterized by high unpredictability and tend to constrain youth with challenges such as difficulties in achieving job stability. High levels of agency can empower emerging adults to resist and transform these constraints with relative ease, thus shaping their life course (Schoon & Lyons-Amos, 2016). Despite their relevance to individuals’ adjustment to transitioning into adulthood, little is known about the psychosocial and relational factors that might foster personal agency. Identifying the key conditions associated with this capacity can better inform the developmental theory of emerging adulthood. This knowledge can support interventions that aim to promote adaptive and resilient developmental trajectories by improving the personal agency.

Gender and age have been identified as significant predictors of personal agency. Gender plays an important role in determining social roles and expectations, thereby affecting individuals’ self-perceptions of agency (Brancazio, 2019). Previous studies addressing the relationship between gender and personal agency suggest that men display higher levels of personal agency than women (Hurault et al., 2020; Moilanen & Shen, 2013). However, to the best of our knowledge, no prior study has analyzed the association between age and emerging adults’ personal agency. Some authors argue that youth tend to reveal a greater sense of agency as they age and become more independent (Hitlin & Long, 2009). As their freedom to choose and make decisions increases, individuals might perceive themselves as more able to adapt, resist, and transform existing structures.

In addition to these individual characteristics, sociocultural contexts and interactions with significant others as such parents and romantic partners can also shape personal agency (Schoon, 2018). This study aims to investigate how these factors interact with emerging adults’ personal agency.

Psychosocial risk

Limited access to life opportunities and socially imposed constraints can limit individuals’ capacities to be effective actors in shaping their life course (Schoon, 2018; Schoon & Heckhausen, 2019). Some studies suggest that adverse life circumstances, such as low parental education, unskilled parental occupations, separation or divorce among parents, deaths of close relatives, and high residential mobility, can undermine individuals’ development (Hitlin & Kirkpatrick Johnson, 2015; Spisma et al., 2015). Specifically, parents’ low education and unskilled occupations have been associated with their children’s health problems (Suh et al., 2021). Parental unemployment and retirement due to disability or older age, which are often accompanied by significant financial difficulties, have also been described as difficult situations that may impact the choices youth make (Guedes, 2015). Owing to such parental difficulties, emerging adults tend to feel more restrained from taking risks and exploring new paths. Despite the relevance of each of these risk factors, Dannefer and Huang (2017) posited that “real” disadvantage results from the experience of multiple, cumulative risk situations that emphasize unequal access to life opportunities.

Relational context: Attachment to parents and romantic partners

Beyond social contexts, some authors have highlighted the importance of relational contexts in the agency process (Schoon, 2018). According to Ford and Thompson (1985), throughout the lifespan, individuals rely on their social relationships to experience a sense of security and act with intention, autonomy, and agency. From this perspective, personal agency has interpersonal origins and can be shaped by relationships with family, peers, teachers, and the broader community (Schoon, 2018).

According to attachment theory (Ainsworth, 1969; Bowlby, 1988), relationships with attachment figures represent unique emotional bonds with important implications for individual development. Secure relationships facilitate the development of an internal sense of security that supports confident explorations of the self, others, and the world. In turn, insecure bonds (dependent, ambivalent, and avoidant relationships) tend to negatively impact individuals’ exploration processes (Matos & Costa, 2006). Although attachment bonds persist throughout the life cycle, their quality is subject to specific age-related changes (Parkes et al., 1991). Emerging adulthood comprises multiple developmental changes characterized by personal and relational adaptive reorganization. Although parents continue to serve as important secure bases, emerging adults typically aim to achieve autonomy and independence from them. Naturally, romantic partners gain relevance and gradually become major attachment figures (Fraley & Davis, 1997). The resources and functions of attachment are progressively transferred to romantic partners in a sequential process that begins with proximity seeking, followed by safe haven, and finally, a secure base (Heffernan et al., 2012).

In this study, we analyzed four dimensions of romantic attachment (trust, dependence, ambivalence, and avoidance) and three dimensions of parental attachment (quality of the emotional bond, inhibition of exploration of individuality, and separation anxiety). These dimensions have been theoretically derived from six conceptual categories of attachment relationships as defined by Bowlby (1988) and Ainsworth (1969). They are proximity seeking, safe haven, separation anxiety, fear of loss, admiration, and secure base. These dimensions consider attachment reorganizations across lifespan development, capturing the specifics of romantic and parental attachment in adolescence and emerging adulthood (Matos & Costa, 2006; Gouveia & Matos, 2013).

Relationships with romantic partners and personal agency

Integrating new relationships into the self can contribute to a greater sense of competence and personal agency, particularly when emerging adults trust their partners to validate and encourage their efforts toward achieving self-determined goals (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013). A trustful relationship can facilitate goal accomplishment, contributing to more agentic actions. Furthermore, emerging adults can acquire a wider range of experiences and knowledge through interactions with romantic partners, which can facilitate their autonomy. Conversely, insecure romantic relationships can undermine agency (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013). For instance, individuals who show high dependency toward their romantic partners (high separation anxiety) tend to need constant approval for their decisions and actions, which seems to undermine the individual agency. Moreover, developing agency can be a challenging task for individuals who oscillate between the desire for emotional closeness and the fear of rejection (ambivalence). On the one hand, these individuals tend to discredit their ability to achieve self-determined goals, which leads to increasing pursuit of partner support and emotional closeness. On the other hand, they also tend to doubt their romantic partners’ availability and responsiveness to help them. Finally, individuals with a defensive pattern of self-sufficiency resulting from avoidant attachment relationships tend to feel discomfort with closeness, refraining from sharing their fears, goals, and constraints (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Matos et al., 2001).

This perspective supports the evidence from a two-wave longitudinal study analyzing a large sample of emerging adults (Kvitkovičová et al., 2017). This study found that the quality of attachment with mothers, fathers, romantic partners, and best friends predicted participants’ career decision-making, a key aspect of personal agency. However, notably, only the effect of quality of romantic attachments on personal agency remained significant over time, highlighting the romantic relationships’ contribution to emerging adults’ decision-making processes. Another study involving heterosexual couples found that gender moderated the effect of relational trust and emotional availability on the progress and achievement of self-determined goals (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016). Specifically, positive romantic relationships predicted the goal development progress more strongly for wives than for husbands. This evidence suggests that the quality of romantic relationships is associated with key indicators of personal agency—decision-making and goal-setting.

Relationships with parents and personal agency

Despite the relevance of romantic partners, parents can still contribute to emerging adults’ exploratory behaviors through financial and material support and by providing emotional availability, that which can serve as a source of security and guidance (Goldsmith, 2018). For example, emerging adults beginning their professional careers, facing considerable difficulty in entering the labor market, can benefit from parental emotional support to believe in their abilities and maintain their goal-related efforts (Goldsmith, 2018; Moilanen & Shen, 2013). Ford and Thompson (1985) stated that the processes of personal agency develop during childhood through the experience of responsive care by parents. A secure emotional bond, characterized by parental sensitivity and responsiveness, can potentially translate into emerging adults’ feelings of personal worth, confidence, and trust in self-capacity. In turn, individuals whose parents typically restrain their independent thoughts, initiatives, and explorations tend to repress themselves and do not act in an authentic and self-determined manner (Ryan et al., 2016). Moreover, individuals with high separation anxiety from parents tend to be dependent, requiring constant support. Conversely, youth who have extremely low separation anxiety tend to be avoidant and do not ask for support from significant others because they do not trust in their availability (Matos & Costa, 2006).

Prior studies have established a connection between attachment styles and distinct components of agency (Komitaki & Homaei, 2015; Moilanen & Shen, 2013). Komitaki and Homaei (2015) found that secure attachment was related to self-efficacy and optimism in a sample of 300 university students, whereas Moilanen and Shen (2013) found that adolescents who received more support from their mothers reported higher levels of mastery.

The bonds established with each parent are related to specific relationships that can satisfy different needs (Ainsworth, 1969). Although some studies have found no significant differences between attachments to fathers and mothers (McCormick & Kennedy, 1994), others have suggested the differential roles of each parent as attachment figures in terms of several outcomes—internalizing symptomatology (depression, anxiety, and stress) and prosocial behavior (McGinley & Evans, 2020). Nevertheless, more research is required to fully understand the specific contributions of differential parental attachments to emerging adults’ personal agency.

Attachment to parents and personal agency: The mediating role of romantic attachment

Early parental attachments typically provide internal models for the development of intimate relationships (Bowlby, 1988). Several researchers have found significant correlations between emerging adults’ retrospective self-reports of parental relationships during childhood and the quality of future romantic attachments (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). However, notably, changes in attachment representations are possible and normative, given the dynamic nature of attachment relationships (Chris Fraley, 2002). Based on the mutability of representations of attachment, some authors consider that the quality of emerging adults’ present parental relationships can also develop perspectives for their intimate relationships (Fermani et al., 2019). For instance, Ávila et al. (2012) found that emerging adults who demonstrated higher scores for inhibition of exploration, individuality, and real-time separation anxiety from parents revealed increasing levels of dependence or avoidance toward their romantic partners. Moreover, Fermani et al. (2019) found that individuals with secure parental attachments during emerging adulthood also reported higher quality romantic relationships. Unfortunately, this interplay between different relationships during emerging adulthood has scarcely been explored, and further evidence is required to clarify whether romantic attachments can establish a separate path to developing youths’ personal agency.

Current study

This is one of the first studies to simultaneously examine the unique contributions of psychosocial risks and distinct social relationships on emerging adults’ personal agency. We hypothesized that experiencing higher levels of psychosocial risks would be positively associated with emerging adults’ perceptions of limited life possibilities and choices (lower personal agency). Based on the literature and prior evidence, we also anticipated the following. Emerging adults who reported positive emotional bonds with their parents and romantic partners would perceive greater personal agency than those who reported higher levels of parental inhibition of exploration, high or low separation anxiety, as well as avoidant, ambivalent, and dependent romantic relationships. Further, we expected romantic attachments to mediate the association between parental attachments and personal agency. We hypothesized that positive relationships with both parents would promote trustful romantic relations, which, in turn, would be positively linked to higher levels of personal agency. Conversely, we expected that experiences of parental inhibition and separation anxiety would be linked to avoidant, ambivalent, and dependent romantic relationships, which, in turn, could undermine the personal agency.

Method

Participants

The sample comprised 607 Portuguese emerging adults, among which most were female (76%), with ages ranging from 18 to 30 years (M = 23.25, SD = 3.36). Half of the participants (52.2%) had a college degree. Most participants were students (50.0%) or full-time workers (36.5%). Some were working students (7.0%) or unemployed (5.0%). Most participants (66.4%) reported currently being in a romantic relationship. Approximately 25.6% cohabited with a partner or were married, and most were dating (72.7%). There were 1.7% missing values. All participants still had both their parents, although this was not an inclusion criterion for the study. Further, 56% of them lived with both parents, 15% lived with one parent, 9% lived alone, and 17% lived with a romantic partner (3% values were missing). We observed the following risk factors among our participants: (a) unskilled occupations of both parents, 53.2%; (b) mobility, 36.9%; (c) one parent’s unskilled occupation, 28.3%; (d) one parent’s low education level, 26.7%; (e) both parents’ low education, 26.7%; (f) recent experience of two or more negative events, 26.0%; (g) and recent experiences of an accident or serious illness, 15.7%. Regarding the cumulative psychosocial risk, 5.8% of participants reported no risk experiences, 13% experienced one risk factor, 21.0% experienced two risk factors, 22.9% experienced three risk factors, 23.9% participants experienced four risk factors, 9.9% experienced five risk factors, 3.0% experienced six risk factors, and 0.5% experienced seven risk factors. The results of the risk factor analysis are described below.

Measures

Factorial structure was evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Confirmatory factor analysis was performed using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation in AMOS. Model fit was evaluated using the χ² statistic, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). An adequate model fit is indicated when CFI and TLI values are equal to or higher than .90 and when RMSEA and SRMR values are equal to or lower than .08 (Kline, 2015).

Personal Agency. We analyzed personal agency based on a multidimensional model that includes four distinct dimensions: goal-setting, decision-making, optimism, and self-efficacy (Nunes et al., 2019a). These dimensions were measured through three self-report questionnaires.

To assess the goal-setting and decision-making dimensions, we used the Short Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SSRQ, Carey et al., 2004) in its Portuguese version by García Del Castillo and Dias (2009). This questionnaire includes 16 items measuring three dimensions: goal-setting (seven items), decision-making (five items), and learning from mistakes (four items). Although the SSRQ includes three dimensions, in this study, we only used the goal-setting and decision-making dimensions. The goal-setting subscale assesses participants’ ability to plan and set clear goals (“When I have a goal, I usually plan how to achieve it”). In turn, the decision-making subscale assesses the ability to engage in decision-making processes (“I put off making decisions”). The SSRQ items are completed using a five-point scale, ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree.” Cronbach’s alpha was .85, both for goal-setting and decision-making. The scale’s factorial structure revealed an acceptable fit to the data (χ²₍₁₂₉₎ = 388.91, p = .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .06).

The optimism subscale (6 items) from the Vision About Future scale (VAF, Ginevra et al., 2016, Portuguese version by Nunes et al.( 2018)) was used to assess the extent to which participants expected general positive results for their future (“Usually, I am full of enthusiasm and optimism about my future”). Items were rated on a five-point scale ranging from (1) “it does not describe me at all” to (5) “it describes me very well.” The scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .92 and acceptable model fit (χ²₍₆₎ = 20.32, p = .002, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .06).

We used the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE, Schwarzer & Jerusalém, 1995, Portuguese version by Nunes et al., 1999) to evaluate self-efficacy. This 10-item scale captures self-beliefs concerning the ability to cope with various difficult demands (“I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort”). Items are rated on a four-point scale ranging from (1) “Not at all true” to (4) “Exactly true.” Cronbach’s alpha was .85, and the CFA revealed acceptable model fit (χ²₍₃₃₎ = 115.28, p = .001, CFI = .96, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .06).

The scores for these three questionnaire were converted into Z-scores to express all variables on the same scale. Cronbach’s alpha showed adequate reliability for the total score (α = .92) and the subscales (α = .85 for goal-setting; α = .80 for decision-making; α = .92 for optimism and; α = .85 for self-efficacy). Confirmatory factor analysis for the personal agency’s measurement model, combining goal-setting, decision-making, optimism, and self-efficacy revealed acceptable fit to the data (χ²₍₃₄₄₎ = 1000.81, p = .001, CFI = .91, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .06).

Multi-Risk Index Questionnaire. We developed a multi-risk index questionnaire to collect information about participants’ parental figures and life experiences relevant to developmental risk factors (Dannefer & Huang, 2017; Hitlin & Kirkpatrick Johnson, 2015; Johnson & Hitlin, 2017; Schoon & Lyons-Amos, 2016; Spisma et al., 2015). The cumulative risk model (Gutman et al., 2002) served as a guideline for the analysis of risk factors. A composite risk index (CRI) was calculated using the sum of the five risk factors:

Low parental education. Parents’ education equal to or lower than the sixth grade was identified as a risk factor. Possible scores were as follows: 0 (“no risk”); 1 (“risk associated with one parent”); and 2 (“risk associated with both parents”).

Unskilled/unemployed parents. Unemployed or retired parents (due to disability or old age) or parents in unskilled occupations (professions requiring level 1 and 2 skills according to the Portuguese Classification of Occupations) were considered risk factors. Possible scores were as follows: 0 (“no risk”); 1 (“risk associated with one parent”); and 2 (“risk associated with both parents”).

Mobility. Change in residence and/or university and/or employment within the last 5 years. Scores: 0 (“no risk”); 1 (“risk”).

Accident or serious illness. The experience of an accident or serious illness in the last 5 years. Scores: 0 (“no risk”); 1 (“risk”).

Experience of two or more negative events. The experience of two or more negative events (e.g., death of a close relative, parents’ divorce or separation, and loss of a meaningful romantic relationship) in the last 5 years. Scores: 0 (“no risk”); 1 (“risk”).

Mobility, accidents or serious illnesses, and experiences of two or more negative events were only considered as risk factors when they had a demonstrated negative impact on quality of life. To assess the impact, we used a Likert scale ranging from 1 (“did not affect me negatively”) to 4 (“It affected me a lot”). Scores from 2 to 4 indicated the presence of risk. The CRI varies on a scale from 0 to 7, with higher scores indicating greater risk experiences.

The Romantic Attachment Questionnaire (RAQ, Matos et al., 2001) was used to assess attachment representations of current or longest-lasting romantic relationships. This self-report measure includes 25 items distributed across four subscales: Trust (6 items; e.g., “I know that I can count on my partner whenever I need them”), dependence (6 items; e.g., “When I cannot be with my partner, I feel abandoned”), avoidance (6 items; e.g., “When I have a problem, I prefer being alone instead of being with my partner”), and ambivalence (7 items; e.g., “Sometimes I think that my partner is very important in my life, other times I do not”). The trust dimension assesses the extent to which a romantic partner is seen as a source of emotional support. Dependence assesses the need for physical and emotional proximity, separation anxiety, and fear of loss. Avoidance reflects the secondary role of the romantic partner in the fulfillment of attachment needs. Finally, ambivalence assesses the individual’s perception of insecurity expressed by irritability in unexpected situations or doubt regarding the role played as a romantic partner. Responses were rated on a six-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree” to 6 = “strongly agree”). Cronbach’s alphas were α = .92 for trust, α = .81 for dependence, α = .81 for avoidance, and α = .85 for ambivalence. The scale factor structure revealed an acceptable fit to the data (χ²₍₂₆₆₎ = 917.86, p = .001, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .06). Ávila et al. (2012) reported associations between RAQ scores and the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR, Brennan et al., 1998). The results indicated moderate to strong correlations, providing support for the convergent validity of the RAQ score. Experiences in Close Relationships Scale anxiety correlated significantly with RAQ dependence (r = .61, p < .001), whereas ECR avoidance correlated positively with RAQ avoidance (r = .31, p < .001) and negatively correlated with RAQ trust (r = .71, p < .001).

The Father and Mother Attachment Questionnaire (FMAQ, Nunes et al., 2019b) was used to assess attachment representations independently for fathers and mothers. This questionnaire includes 15 items distributed in three dimensions: quality of emotional bond (QEB, five items), separation anxiety (SA, five items), and inhibition of exploration and individuality (IEI, five items). QEB evaluates the importance individuals attribute to parental figures (“I know I can count on my parents whenever I need them”). Separation Anxiety refers to the individual’s experiences of anxiety and fear related to the separation from the attachment figure (“I can only face new situations if my parents are with me”). IEI collects individuals’ perceived constraints on individuality expression and discouragement of the exploratory movement (e.g., “My parents discourage me when I want to try something new”). The responses are given on a six-point scale ranging from (1 = “totally disagree” to 6 = “totally agree”). The internal consistency analysis showed the following values: QEB = .95/.92, SA = .86/.83, and IEI = .82/.82, for fathers and mothers, respectively. Scale scores demonstrated an acceptable fit to fathers’ (χ²₍₈₄₎ = 376.17, p = .001, CFI = .95, TLI= .94, RMSEA = .08) and mothers’ (χ²₍₈₆₎ = 276.48, p = .001, CFI = .96, TLI= .95, RMSEA = .07). In this study, residual invariance was found among parental roles (Δχ²₍₁₅₎ = 25.00, p = .001, ΔCFI = .004, ΔRMSEA = −.001). Results from the FMAQ were compared to data provided by independent judges on a codified semi-structured interview with 82 adolescents (Family Attachment Interview; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), pointing to small to moderate correlations. Further analyses showed that the subscales were moderately to highly correlated with dimensions of another widely used attachment measure, the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA, Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; PBI, Parker et al., 1979), providing evidence for convergent validity (see Gouveia & Matos, 2013).

Procedures

The authors’ institutional ethics committee approved this study. Data were collected between August and November 2018 using an online platform (www.limesurvey.org). This platform did not allow access to users’ IP addresses, warranting anonymous participation. The study was implemented in different contexts (e.g., universities and youth associations) using several social networks. The voluntary nature of participation, confidentiality, and anonymity of responses were guaranteed before data collection. All participants agreed to participate in this study through informed consent, and they did not receive any reward for participation.

Data analysis

SPSS 25.0 and AMOS 22.0 were used for data analysis. The sample size was determined in accordance with recommendations from Kline (2015), stating that structural equation models (SEM) require at least 200 participants, as five or 10 participants per parameter are required to find a reasonable effect. For the models tested in this study, a minimum of 220 participants would be needed to achieve reasonable effect sizes. Responding to each item in the self-reported measures was mandatory; therefore, there were no missing values. However, responses were not mandatory in the sociodemographic questionnaire. The univariate outliers were identified through Z-scores < −3 or >3, while multivariate outliers were identified by calculating the Mahalanobis distance scores. Participants identified as outliers were not included in the statistical analyses. The normality distribution was analyzed according to Kline’s (2015) reference values: skewness < 3 and kurtosis < 8–10. Skewness ranged from –1.86 to 1.76, and kurtosis ranged from –1.68 to 4.10, indicating no deviance from normality in all questionnaires. Correlations, means, and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated. Next, we tested a multiple linear regression using sociodemographic variables, psychosocial cumulative risk, and romantic and parental attachments to predict personal agency. Further mediational analyses were conducted by estimating direct and indirect effects using bootstrap resampling procedures. Bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the unstandardized effects were obtained based on 5000 bootstrap samples (MacKinnon et al., 2004).

Results

Table S1 presents the correlations of key study variables. Trustful relationships with romantic partners and parents and belonging to the male gender were associated with higher personal agency scores (r = .09 to .22). Less secure relationships with romantic partners and parents, as well as higher cumulative risks, were associated with lower personal agency scores (r = −.09 to −.28).

Multiple linear regression model

SEM was used to analyze the role of sociodemographic variables (gender and age), cumulative psychosocial risk, and romantic and parental attachment on personal agency. First, we inspected whether multicollinearity existed among the explanatory variables. The following three dimensions had variance inflation factor (VIF) values greater than five: ambivalence (VIF = 6.56), avoidance (VIF = 6.56), and QEB_Mother (VIF = 5.85). Based on the VIF values, we decided not to include these three variables in the model. The remaining independent variables (trust, dependence, SA_Mother, IEI QEB_Father, SA_Father, IEI_Father, cumulative psychosocial risk, gender, and age) were then included in the model as observed variables. The dependent variable (personal agency) was included as a latent variable, including four manifest indicators (goal-setting, decision-making, self-efficacy, and optimism). This model showed a good fit to the data, χ²₍₃₂₎ = 100.89, p = .001, CFI = .98, TLI = .94, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .06, explaining 19% of personal agency variability (Figure 1). As Figure 1 shows, the following five independent variables demonstrated significant direct associations with personal agency: trust in romantic partner (β = .31, p = .001), dependence of romantic partner (β = −.25, p = .002), IEI_Mother (β = −.17, p = .001), QEB_Father (β = .12, p = .003), and male gender (β = .12, p = .026).

Mediation analysis

Next, we tested whether trust and dependence in romantic relations mediated the connections between IEI_Mother, QEB_Father, and personal agency while controlling for the effect of gender on personal agency. This mediation model exhibited good fit indices: CFI = .96, TLI = .94, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .07, χ²₍₂₁₎ = 79.53, p = .001. As shown in Figure 2, all paths were statistically significant, except the IEI_Mother and QEB_Father paths to dependent romantic relations. Therefore, our hypothesis that dependent romantic relationships mediate the relationship between parental attachment and personal agency was not confirmed. Bootstrapping results indicated that trust in romantic relations partially mediated the links between parental attachment and personal agency. The indirect path from IEI_mother to personal agency through trust in romantic relations was significant (β = −.07, SE = .02, 95% CI [ −.10, −.04], p = .001). Moreover, the indirect path from QEB_father to personal agency via trust in romantic relations was also significant (β = .04, SE = .01, 95% CI [.01, .07], p = .002).

Discussion

This study sought to analyze the effects of demographic variables (gender and age), cumulative psychosocial risk, and both romantic and parental attachment on personal agency within a sample of Portuguese emerging adults. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to investigate the explanatory variables of personal agency in emerging adulthood. Our findings and conclusions may advance the current understanding of interindividual variations among emerging adults’ agency.

We found that men perceive themselves as acting in a more intentional and self-determined manner than women do. These results can be interpreted in the light of gender stereotypes prevalent in Western societies. Women are expected to be more compassionate and considerate of others, while men can actively shape their life courses (Sczesny et al., 2019). In the last few decades, gender equality has been promoted at the legislative level in Western societies. Unfortunately, some of these legislative innovations have faced apathy (Blau, 2016). The labor market, education, politics, family, and relationships are crucial social arenas in emerging adulthood, characterized by gender inequality. This gendered reality may be associated with women’s perception of lower possibilities of actively directing their life courses. If so, then young men may believe they have greater freedom, autonomy, and agency in navigating their lives as compared to young women. Our results align with previous findings suggesting that men have higher personal agency scores than women (Bjuggren & Elert, 2019; Fallan & Opstad, 2016; Hurault et al., 2020).

Contrary to our expectations, risk accumulation was not associated with decreased personal agency. Rather, our results suggest that agency is independent of exposure to risk levels. Nonetheless, this finding should be interpreted with caution. More specifically, as 46% of participants reported three and four risk factors cumulatively, corresponding to the midpoint of our CRI, this unexpected finding may be due to a lack of variance in risk scores. Moreover, participants may have experienced difficulty determining whether certain risks had had negative impacts on their lives.

Our findings confirmed that trustful romantic relationships are linked to stronger personal agency. Conversely, dependent romantic relationships can undermine the personal agency. A romantic partner who validates, encourages, and supports one’s efforts likely serves as a relational resource to promote self-confidence and self-efficacy. Contrastingly, a relationship characterized by an excessive need for physical and emotional closeness, separation anxiety, and fear of loss can undermine personal agency by diminishing emerging adults’ confidence in their pursuit of self-regulated goals and agentic decision-making (Mattingly & Lewandowski, 2013). These results corroborate previous evidence indicating that secure romantic relationships foster emerging adults’ agency in decision-making and achievement of self-determined goals (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016; Kvitkovičová et al., 2017).

Regarding parental attachment, we found that maternal relationships characterized by inhibited exploration and individuality were associated with lower personal agency, while strong paternal relationships were related to higher personal agency. Emerging adults’ intentional and self-determined behavior may be diminished if they perceive their mothers as unsupportive and restrictive of their individual expressions and explorations. Conversely, if emerging adults perceive their fathers as supportive and responsive figures, their agentic efforts are likely to be reinforced. These results support the attachment theory-based hypotheses that emerging adults with more secure parental relationships are likelier to be active agents in their own lives. Contrastingly, insecure parental relationships promote more negative internal working models regarding the self, others, and the world, which can compromise emerging adults’ personal agency (Ainsworth, 1969; Bowlby, 1988). These findings are also aligned with the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2014), indicating that parents can promote their children’s ability to act in a self-determined and agentic manner by satisfying children’s basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

There are two explanations for the differences between fathers’ and mothers’ contributions to personal agency. First, emerging adults may assign different meanings to the same dimensions with respect to fathers and mothers. However, the results of the measurement invariance analysis revealed that the FMAQ measurement model is equivalent for fathers’ and mothers’ scores, meaning that differences found in this study possibly reflect the specific, separate contributions of paternal and maternal attachments. Second, non-traditional parental relationships are particularly relevant in predicting personal agency. Although in present times, fathers and mothers tend to play similar roles as attachment figures, previously, mothers were considered the main care figure (Cabrera et al., 2001). In traditional family models, mothers were responsible for caring for and satisfying the emotional needs of children, while fathers established rules and expectations. This relational dynamic, which may have affected our participants, seems to be associated with the development of quality emotional bonds with mothers and the perception of greater inhibition of exploration and individuality from fathers. Our findings seem to suggest that parents who differ from this relational pattern (i.e., fathers capable of being warmer and more caring but mothers being restraining) are particularly important to exercise personal agency. We analyzed the variability of these dimensions in relation to fathers and mothers. We verified that although the participants perceived higher restraints from fathers, it is the perception of restraint from mothers that undermined agency. Despite our initial efforts to explain these results, we believe that further studies are required to understand this differential pattern better.

Furthermore, our results indicated that agency is independent of parental separation anxiety. This finding should also be interpreted with caution. According to attachment theory, even securely attached individuals tend to display and adaptively regulate moderate levels of separation anxiety (Bowlby, 1988). In turn, extremely low or extremely high levels of separation anxiety suggest the presence of avoidant or dependent relationships, respectively. In our sample, participants reported moderate separation anxiety scores for both parents, with low variance, which could have contributed to the absence of significant results.

Finally, our findings indicate that romantic attachment mediates the relationship between parental attachment and personal agency. Specifically, participants’ trust in their romantic relations (but not their dependence on these relations) partially mediated the associations between parental attachment and personal agency while controlling for participants’ gender. Conversely, individuals’ perception of maternal inhibition of exploration and individuality was linked to lower personal agency via the depreciation of trust in romantic relations. In line with self-determination theory (Ryan et al., 2016), these findings suggest that parents’ inhibition of children’s individuality can undermine basic psychological needs and increase the experience of alienation and loneliness, particularly when emerging adults face relational frustration.

Our findings also indicate that the quality of parental relationships can affect emerging adults’ personal agency through its positive role in developing romantic relationships. Establishing quality paternal relationships can enable internal representations of being deserving of love and emotional support and fulfillment of basic psychological needs. Thus, emerging adults feel that their autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs are satisfied and have sufficient confidence to be actors in their life courses. When the need for relatedness is satisfied, youth might feel more emotionally connected to significant others, be likelier to believe in their abilities, and trust their relational figures to be available for support during stressful situations (Ryan et al., 2016).

Our results indicated that parental attachments nurture the agency process through trustful romantic relations but not through dependent romantic relations, which hindered the agency process. Thus, dependency was not confirmed as a process variable linking parental relationships to the personal agency due to the non-significant association between parental attachment and dependency. Contrary to our expectations, neither relationships characterized by parental inhibition nor the quality of parental relationships were positively associated with dependent romantic relationships. Further studies are required to understand this differential pattern.

Our findings suggest that the capacity to develop quality emotional bonds with parents and romantic partners is important for understanding young adults’ sense of personal agency. Trust in romantic relations partially mediated the association between levels of maternal inhibition, the quality of paternal relationships, and personal agency. However, notably, although these indirect effects were significant, their effect sizes were relatively small. Future studies should explore additional mediating variables (e.g., resilience and emotion regulation) to understand better the processes through which attachment to parents can promote or undermine personal agency.

Despite its noteworthy strengths, this study has some limitations that must be acknowledged. The explanatory variables identified in this study explained a modest amount of interindividual variation in personal agency. Therefore, it might be relevant for future studies to develop and test models capable of analyzing other explanatory variables that may shape emerging adults’ agency development processes, such as basic psychological needs, personality, resilience, and self-esteem. Moreover, the data in our study were collected through an online platform that might have precluded participation from those with limited access to computers and the Internet. Thus, we encourage future researchers to use data collection methods suitable for the participation of socially disadvantaged individuals to collect representative samples. Another important suggestion is the inclusion of socioeconomic status (SES) indicators in the assessment of multiple risks. Future studies should also collect more information on parents’ retirement. For instance, it would be important to consider parents’ retirement due to older age only as a risk factor when retirement is accompanied by parents’ financial difficulties or other conditions that can impact emerging adults.

Finally, the correlational and cross-sectional design of this study and our exclusive use of self-report measures prevents the discovery of both causal relationships and the temporal development of the agency. To overcome these limitations, future studies should adopt longitudinal research designs that combine multiple sources of information for measuring personal agency. For instance, it would be valuable to assess the quality of parental and romantic attachments by gathering perspectives from participants’ parents and romantic partners. The implementation of a multilevel design would also allow more sensitive analyses of individuals’ participation and development within embedded relational contexts. It would also be interesting to analyze further the moderating role of romantic attachment in the association of parental attachment and personal agency. Thus, we could test the hypothesis that individuals can revise internal working models in new relationships. Additionally, as we did not ask participants about their gender identity or sexual orientation, studying this information would reveal how parental and romantic relationships and personal agency interact among non-heterosexual and non-binary individuals.

Despite these limitations, this study provides important findings regarding the explanatory variables of personal agency, contributing to a better understanding of the development and moderators of agentic behavior. These findings are the first step toward a more complete understanding of personal agency in emerging adulthood. This study advances knowledge on key conditions for emerging adults’ personal agency, revealing the interactions of personal agency with the quality of emerging adults’ current parental and romantic relationships. Further, this study establishes specific findings regarding the individual contributions of paternal and maternal attachments toward emerging adults’ self-determination and agentic behaviors. Our results and conclusions form the first step toward guiding and planning interventions aimed at promoting more positive and agentic developmental trajectories for emerging adults.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-spr-10.1177_02654075211042317 – Supplemental Material for Romantic and parental attachment, psychosocial risk, and personal agency in emerging adulthood

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-spr-10.1177_02654075211042317 for Romantic and parental attachment, psychosocial risk, and personal agency in emerging adulthood by Filipa Nunes, Paula Mena Matos, Tiago Ferreira and Catarina Pinheiro Mota in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Professor Frederick G. Lopez (University of Houston) for his constructive comments and editing on a preliminary draft of this paper.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Center for Psychology at the University of Porto, Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT UIDB/00050/2020; FCT UIDP/00050/2020) and a PhD scholarship (SFRH/BD/133032/2017).

History of the manuscript

A preliminary version of this manuscript was presented at the 19^th European Conference on Developmental Psychology (ECDP 2019) in August 2019 in Athens, Greece.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are not available. The data can be obtained by emailing: catppmota@utad.pt. The materials used in the research are not available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: catppmota@utad.pt. The covariance table will be made available at the B2SHARE platform (https://b2share.eudat.eu/records/5feddadfb9d14e8f84df46a0b3976afb)

ORCID iD

Filipa Nunes

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Ainsworth

M. D. S.

(1969). Object relations, dependency, and attachment: theoretical review of the infant-mother relationship. Child Development, 40(4), 969–1026. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1127008.

Armsden

G. C.

Greenberg

M. T.

(1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02202939.

Ávila

Cabral

Matos

P. M.

(2012). Identity in university students: The role of parental and romantic attachment. Journal of Adolescence, 35(2), 133–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.05.002.

Bandura

(2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.

Bartholomew

Horowitz

L. M.

(1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.61.2.226.

Bjuggren

C. M.

Elert

(2019). Gender differences in optimism. Applied Economics, 51(47), 5160–5173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2019.1610714.

Blau

D. F.

(2016). Gender, inequality, and wages: Oxford University Press.

Bowlby

(1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development: Basic Books.

Brancazio

(2019). Gender and the senses of agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 18(2), 425–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-018-9581-z.

10.

Brennan

K. A.

Clark

C. L.

Shaver

P. R.

(1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(Eds), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford Press.

11.

Cabrera

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Bradley

R. H.

Hofferth

Lamb

M. E.

(2000). Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71(1), 127–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00126.

12.

Carey

K. B.

Neal

D. J.

Collins

S. E.

(2004). A psychometric analysis of the self-regulation questionnaire. Addictive Behaviors, 29(2), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.001.

13.

Chris Fraley

(2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_03.

14.

Côté

J. E.

(2002). The role of identity capital in the transition to adulthood: The individualization thesis examined. Journal of Youth Studies, 5(2), 117–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676260220134403.

15.

Dannefer

Huang, MGS

(2017). Precarity, inequality, and the problem of agency in the study of the life course. Innovation in Aging, 1(3), 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx027.

16.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2014). Handbook of self-determination theory. British Library.

17.

Fallan

Opstad

(2016). Student self-efficacy and gender-personality interactions. International Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 32–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v5n3p32.

18.

Fermani

Bongelli

Carrieri

del Moral Arroyo

Muzi

Portelli

(2019). “What is more important than love?” Parental attachment and romantic relationship in Italian emerging adulthood. Cogent Psychology, 6(1), 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2019.1693728.

19.

Ford

M. E.

Thompson

R. A.

(1985). Perceptions of personal agency and infant attachment: Toward a life-span perspective on competence development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8(4), 377–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502548500800402.

20.

Fraley

R. C.

Davis

K. E.

(1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults'close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00135.x.

21.

García Del Castillo

J. A.

Dias

P. C.

(2009). Auto-regulação, resiliência e consumo de substâncias na adolescência: Contributos da adaptação do questionário reduzido de auto-regulação [Self-regulation, resiliance and substance use in adolescence: adaption of the short self-regulation questionnaire]. Psicologia, Saúde & Doenças, 10(2), 205–216.

22.

Ginevra

M. C.

Sgaramella

T. M.

Ferrari

Nota

Santilli

Soresi

(2016). Visions about future: a new scale assessing optimism, pessimism, and hope in adolescents. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 17(2), 187–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10775-016-9324-z.

23.

Goldsmith

(2018). Emerging adults' relationships with their parentsClinical Science Insights. The Family Institute at Northwestern University. https://www.family-institute.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/csi-emerging-adults-relationships-with-parents.pdf.

24.

Gouveia

Matos

P. M.

(2013). Manual QVPM – Questionário de vinculação ao pai e à mãe. [Manual FMAQ – Father and Mother attachment questionnaire]. Vila Nova de Gaia: Euedito https://sites.google.com/site/manualqvpm/home.

25.

Graham-Schmidt

K. T.

Martin-Iverson

M. T.

Holmes

N. P.

Waters

F. A. V.

(2016). When one's sense of agency goes wrong: Absent modulation of time perception by voluntary actions and reduction of perceived length of intervals in passivity symptoms in schizophrenia. Consciousness and Cognition, 45, 9–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.08.006.

26.

Guedes

J. M. T. M.

(2015). Modos de vida na reforma: Construção de uma tipologia [Modes of life in retirement: Construction of a typology]. Institute of Biomedical Sciences Abel Salazar: University of Porto. Unpublished PhD dissertation.

27.

Gutman

L. M.

Sameroff

A. J.

Eccles

J. S.

(2002). The academic achievement of African American students during early adolescence: an examination of multiple risk, promotive, and protective factors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(3), 367–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015389103911.

28.

Heffernan

M. E.

Fraley

R. C.

Vicary

A. M.

Brumbaugh

C. C.

(2012). Attachment features and functions in adult romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(5), 671–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512443435.

29.

Hitlin

Kirkpatrick Johnson

(2015). Reconceptualizing agency within the life course: the power of looking ahead. American Journal of Sociology, 120(5), 1429–1472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/681216.

30.

Hitlin

Long

(2009). Agency as a sociological variable: A preliminary model of individuals, situations, and the life course. Sociology Compass, 3(1), 137–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00189.x.

31.

Hurault

J.-C.

Broc

Crône

Tedesco

Brunel

(2020). Measuring the sense of agency: A French adaptation and validation of the sense of agency scale (F-SoAS). Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584145.

32.

Jakubiak

B. K.

Feeney

B. C.

(2016). Daily goal progress is facilitated by spousal support and promotes psychological, physical, and relational well-being throughout adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 317–340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000062.

33.

Johnson

M. K.

Hitlin

(2017). Adolescent agentic orientations: Contemporaneous family influence, parental biography and intergenerational development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(10), 2215–2229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0669-5.

34.

Kline

R.B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. In Press

T. G.

(Ed). New York & London.

35.

Komitaki

N. B.

Homaei

(2015). The investigation of the relationship between secure attachment style, self-efficacy, optimism and life satisfaction among the students of Ahvaz Islamic Azad University. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 2(3), 1111–1122. http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index.

36.

Kvitkovičová

Umemura

Macek

(2017). Roles of attachment relationships in emerging adults’ career decision-making process: A two-year longitudinal research design. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 101, 119–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.006.

37.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Williams

(2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4.

38.

Matos

P. M.

Barbosa

Costa

M. E.

(2001). Avaliação da vinculação amorosa em adolescentes e jovens adultos: Construção de um instrumento e estudos de validação [The romantic attachment questionnaire: Development and validation studies]. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica, 11(1), 93–109. https://www.aidep.org/sites/default/files/articles/R11/R115.pdf.

39.

Matos

P. M.

Costa

M. E.

(2006). Vinculação aos pais e ao par romântico em adolescentes [Parental and romantic attachment in adolescente]. Psicologia, 20(1), 97–126. https://doi.org/10.17575/rpsicol.v20i1.379.

40.

Mattingly

B. A.

Lewandowski

G. W.

(2013). An expanded self is a more capable self: The association between self-concept size and self-efficacy. Self and Identity, 12(6), 621–634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2012.718863.

41.

McCormick

C. B.

Kennedy

J. H.

(1994). Parent-child attachment working models and self-esteem in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537139.

42.

McGinley

Evans

A. M.

(2020). Parent and/or peer attachment? Predicting emerging adults’ prosocial behaviors and internalizing symptomatology. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(7), 1833–1844. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01715-3.

43.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00108.x.

44.

Moilanen

K. L.

Shen

Y.-L.

(2013). Mastery in middle adolescence: the contributions of socioeconomic status, maternal mastery and supportive-involved mothering. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(2), 298–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9951-3.

45.

Nunes

Matos

P. M.

Mota

C. P.

(2018). Perspetivas sobre o futuro: Tradução e adaptação para a população portuguesa [Visions about future. Translation and adaptation into Portuguese]. Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences at the University of Porto. Unpublished manuscript.

46.

Nunes

Mota

C. P.

Costa

Assunção

R. S.

Matos

P. M.

(2019b). Short form version of the father and mother attachment questionnaire (FMAQ). Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(4), 1187–1199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01672-6.

47.

Nunes

Mota

C.P.

Matos

P. M.

(2019a). Personal agency: An assessment model in emerging adulthood. 19th European Conference on Developmental Psychology (ECDP). Athens, Greece. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29522.50885

48.

Nunes

Schwarzer

Jerusalem

(1999). Auto-eficácia geral percepcionada [Perceived general self-efficacy]. Retrieved on March 28, 2017 in: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/∼health/auto.htm.

49.

Parker

Tupling

Brown

L. B.

(1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1979.tb02487.x.

50.

Parkes

C.M.

Stevenson-Hinde

Marris

(1991). Attachment across the life cycle: Routledge.

51.

Polito

Waters

F. A. V.

McIlwain

(2015). Sense of agency: theory, methods, and application. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(3), 207–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000073.

52.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E.L.

Vansteenkiste

(2016). Autonomy and autonomy disturbances in self-development and psychopathology: Research on motivation, attachment, and clinical process. In Cicchetti

(Ed), Developmental psychopathology, theory and method (pp. 385–438). Wiley.

53.

Schoon

(2018). Conceptualising learner agency: A socio-ecological developmental approach: Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies.

54.

Schoon

Heckhausen

(2019). Conceptualizing individual agency in the transition from school to work: A socio-ecological developmental perspective. Adolescent Research Review, 4(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-019-00111-3.

55.

Schoon

Lyons-Amos

(2016). Diverse pathways in becoming an adult: the role of structure, agency and context. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 46, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2016.02.008.

56.

Schwarzer

Jerusalem

(1995). Perceived general self-efficacy. Retrieved on March 28, 2017 in: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/health/selfscal.htm.

57.

Sczesny

Nater

Eagly

A. H.

(2019). Agency and communion: Their implications for gender stereotypes and gender identities. In Abele

A. E.

Wojciszke

(Eds), Agency and communion in social psychology. Routledge Taylors & Francis Group.

58.

Sipsma

H. L

Ickovics

Lin

Kershaw

T. S

(2015). The impact of future expectations on adolescent sexual risk behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(1), 170–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10964-013-0082-7.

59.

Smith

G. C.

Kohn

S. J.

Savage-Stevens

S. E.

Finch

J. J.

Ingate

Lim

Y.-O.

(2000). The effects of interpersonal and personal agency on perceived control and psychological well-being in adulthood. The Gerontologist, 40(4), 458–468.

60.

Suh

S. H.

Song

S. H.

Choi

H. S.

Kim

C. S.

Bae

E. H.

S. K.

Kim

S. W.

(2021). Parental educational status independently predicts the risk of prevalent hypertension in young adults. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 3698–3707. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83205-0.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB