bs_bs_banner

Japanese Psychological Research

2012, Volume 54, No. 3, 310320
Special issue: Time perspective study now

doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5884.2012.00522.x

How mothers affect adolescents future orientation:

A two-source analysis
RACHEL SEGINER*
SHIRLI SHOYER

University of Haifa

Oranim Teachers College

Abstract: To expand our knowledge of the effect of parents on adolescents future

orientation we developed a seven-step model which describes the indirect effect (via
adolescents self-esteem) of the future orientation that mothers construct for their
adolescent children on adolescents future orientation. Mother-constructed and
adolescent-constructed future orientation each consists of three components: motivational, cognitive representation, and behavioral engagement. Mothers future orientation focuses on their adolescent child (e.g., it is important that in the future my
daughter/son develops an occupational career). The model is empirically estimated
with data collected from 203 Israeli Jewish 11th grade girls (n = 99) and boys and their
mothers, who responded to future orientation questionnaires assessing two domains:
work and career (i.e., issues related to the occupational or professional career adolescents will have in the future), and marriage and family (i.e., issues related to
marriage and the family adolescents will raise in the future). Adolescents responded
also to a self-esteem scale. Structural equation modeling showed an acceptable fit
between the theoretical and empirical models for work and career, and marriage
family, respectively. The findings are discussed in relation to three issues: the effect
of parents on adolescent children, the mediating functions of self representation, and
the generality of the three-component future orientation model.
Key words: adolescents, mothers, future orientation, self esteem.

Despite popular beliefs and the growing importance of peer relationships during adolescence,
several decades of research have shown that
parents continue to be significant figures for
their adolescent children (Laursen & Collins,
2009). Combining our interest in adolescents
future orientation with the continued importance of parents for adolescents, we have been
conducting an on-going project on the effect of
parents on adolescents future orientation.
While earlier studies have examined the
effect of perceived parenting (Seginer, 2009;
Seginer & Mahajna, 2004; Seginer, Vermulst, &
Shoyer, 2004) and perceived parents beliefs
(Seginer & Mahajna, in press) on future orien-

tation, the aim of this study is to examine how

the future orientation that mothers construct
for their adolescent children affects the future
orientation of adolescents. Underlying it are
three considerations: (a) as adolescents
approach transition to adulthood parents
become more concerned about their future and
actively construct a future orientation for their
child; (b) in the process of family interaction,
parents communicate their views about adolescents future orientation and consequently
influence it; and (c) while reviews of parenting
research (Laursen & Collins, 2009) refer to
parents as a generalized entity, empirical
studies report that adolescents spend more

*Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to: Rachel Seginer, Faculty of Education, University
of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel. (E-mail: rseginer@edu.haifa.ac.il)
2012 Japanese Psychological Association. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Mothers and adolescents future orientation

time with their mother than with their father

(Larson, Richards, Moneta, Holmbeck, &
Ducket, 1996); in a similar vein they disclose
more information to their mother than to
their father (Smetana, Metzger, Gettman,
& Campione-Barr, 2006; Youniss & Smollar,
1985). Therefore, in this study we opted to focus
on mothers only.
To examine the effect of mothers on adolescents future orientation, we developed a sevenstep model. The model draws on three issues:
the conceptualization of future orientation as
consisting of three components, the role of
parents (and mothers in particular) in influencing adolescent development, and the theoretical underpinnings of the effect of the future
orientation that mothers construct for their
children (mother-constructed) on adolescentconstructed future orientation. These three
issues and the ensuing model consist of the conceptual framework, followed by a report of its
empirical testing.

The conceptual framework

Future orientation
Future orientation is an umbrella term that
describes various aspects of future thinking.
Accordingly, its conceptualization varies. Its
importance for adolescent development was
first contended by Douvan and Adelson (1966),
Erikson (1968), and Lewin (1939), and has been
substantiated by more recent research reporting its effect on adolescent functioning, particularly at school (De Volder & Lens, 1982;
Oyserman, Bybee, & Terry, 2006; Seginer, 2009).
Our approach has been guided by three basic
premises: (1) that future orientation is the subjective image that individuals hold about the
Mother
FO
Mot

FO
Cog

311

future; thus, it is not about predicting the future

but rather about what individuals hope the
future to be and wish would not happen (their
fears); (2) it is thematic (Nuttin & Lens, 1985):
images of the future relate to events and experiences subsumed under life domains such as
work and family; and (3) future orientation is
multidimensional. The conceptualization we
use, like that of Nurmi (1991), consists of three
components. Each is described below.
The three component model. The three
component model evolved out of a unidimensional approach that conceptualized future
orientation as the subjective (cognitive) representation of the future indicated by hopes and
fears about the future. Postulating that cognitive representation is prompted by motivational forces and results in behavior, the future
orientation construct was expanded to include
motivational, cognitive representation, and
behavioral components. The motivational component affects the cognitive and the behavioral
components, and the cognitive component
affects the behavioral component. Each component is indicated by 13 empirical variables
(Figure 1). The model is generalized and
applies to different life domains. Thus, as we
expended the conceptualization of future orientation from a unidimensional construct to a
multidimensional construct, its thematic nature
has been maintained.
The motivational component. Guided by
motivation theory (Atkinson, 1964; Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002) and future orientation
conceptualization (Nuttin & Lens, 1985;
Trommsdorff, 1983), three variables indicate
this component: the value of prospective life
Child

FO
Behav

Ch Self
Rep.

FO
Mot

FO
Cog

FO
Behav

Figure 1 The indirect effect of the mother-constructed future orientation on the adolescent-constructed
future orientation: A theoretical model of the three-component approach.
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.

312

R. Seginer and S. Shoyer

domains; expectance pertaining to the subjective

probability that hopes and plans will be materialized and the ensuing affective tone;and a sense
of internal control by which individuals assume
responsibility for the materialization of prospective hopes and plans. The cognitive representation component. Underlying it are two
assumptions: (1) future thinking consists of both
hopes and fears, and (2) individuals differ in how
often they think about different life domains.
The behavioral component. The behavioral component is indicated by two variables:
exploration and commitment. The purpose of
exploration is to examine future options and
the extent to which they fit personal abilities
and values, social expectations, and environmental circumstances (Lewin, 1939). Hence, it
relates to seeking information and advice
regarding future options. Commitment results
in a sense of knowing where one is going
(Erikson, 1968, p. 165), and pertains to the decision to pursue one option. Both add to the
instrumentality of future orientation for the
achievement of future goals.
Future life domains. Adolescents across
different socio-cultural settings include in their
future life space three core domains: higher
education, work and career (instrumental
domains), and marriage and family (relational
domain) (Seginer, 2008). Of these, in the
present study we examine the two adult future
life domains: work and career, and marriage
and family.
The role of parents in influencing their
adolescent children
Although few, if any, researchers doubt that
children affect parents as much as parents
affect children, most research focuses on the
unidirectional effect of parents on children (for
a study testing the reciprocal effect of parents
and children, see Zhang, Haddad, Torres, &
Chen, 2011). Underlying it is parents responsibility for their children, research tradition
focusing on the effect of parents on children,
and, not the least, statistical limitations on the
analysis of bidirectional influences (Laursen &
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.

Collins, 2009). Given the importance of parentchild relationships as experienced by the

child for adolescent development, much of
the research on the influence of parents has
focused on perceived parent-child relationships, referred to in this literature as parenting.
Assuming this approach, our earlier research
has focused on perceived parenting as indicated
by two variables: parental acceptance and
granted autonomy (Seginer, 2009; Seginer et al.,
2004). These studies showed that the effect of
parenting on future orientation is positive but
indirect and is mediated by adolescents self
representations. It applies to such different
domains as higher education, work and career,
and marriage and family, holds for girls and
boys, and is maintained across different cultural
settings.
However, although parenting has been a key
issue in adolescent research (Laursen &
Collins, 2009), for both theoretical and practical
reasons it cannot be considered the only aspect
of adolescents family environment. While
parenting pertains to the social-emotional
aspect of family environment, parents ideas,
which subsume their beliefs, attitudes, expectations, and values, comprise the cognitive aspect
of the family environment. Their effect on adolescent functioning has been demonstrated in
numerous studies. In our studies, we found that
perceived parental beliefs affect the future orientation of Israeli Muslim girls (Seginer &
Mahajna, 2004, in press) and Israeli ultraorthodox Jewish girls (Seginer, 2009). In a
similar vein, research carried out on parents
educational involvement indicates that parents
aspirations, and conversations about school
matters and future plans affect adolescents
academic
motivation
and
achievement
(Seginer, 2006; Yamamoto & Holloway, 2010;
Zhang et al., 2011).
The effect of mother-constructed on
adolescent-constructed future orientation
The hypothesis that adolescents future orientation is affected by the future orientation
their parents construct for them draws on two
bodies of knowledge. One, reviewed above, is
about the effect of parents on adolescents

Mothers and adolescents future orientation

functioning in general and on future orientation in particular, and the other is about the
similarity between parents and adolescents
future orientation. These studies are briefly
reviewed below (for a more extensive review,
see Seginer, 2009).
The future orientation of parents and
adolescents: Earlier research. The pioneering work of Trommsdorff (1983) in Germany on
the future orientation of adolescents and their
parents was followed by research in Finland
(Malmberg, Ehrman, & Lithen, 2005), Italy
(Lanz, Rosnati, Marta, & Scabini, 2001; Scabini,
Marta, & Lanz, 2006), and in Muslim and Jewish
Israel (Seginer, 2009). Given their cultural diversity, historical time span and different research
questions, the low agreement between the
researchers findings is not surprising. Nevertheless, all studies showed that, when asked about
the materialization of future hopes, plans, and
goals, regardless of diversity, the parents were
more optimistic than their adolescent children.
Although much of the research examines
parent-adolescent congruence, two studies
also tested the relations between the parents
and the adolescents future orientation. One
(Malmberg et al., 2005) showed that the effect
of the parents estimate of goal fulfillment on
the adolescents goals is both direct and mediated by the adolescent-parent relationships.
The second (Shoyer, 2006), using the threecomponent model approach, showed that the
effect of mothers on adolescents future orientation is both component and domain specific.
Specifically, whereas the motivational component of the mothers does not affect that of the
adolescents, the mothers cognitive component
has a direct effect on the adolescents cognitive
component for both the work and career and
the marriage and family domains. The mothers
behavioral component affects the behavioral
component of the adolescents only for the work
and career domain.
Altogether, the two sets of findings suggest
two competing home environment forces. On
the one hand, homes serve as an arena of social
learning resulting from parent-adolescent interaction, parents behavior, and the cultural

313

capital they convey to their children both

directly and indirectly via their behavior, ideas,
and preferences. On the other hand, given their
social relationships, experience, interests, and
priorities, parents and adolescents have access
to different information. Moreover, drawing on
attribution theory and its analysis of actorobserver differences (Jones & Nisbett, 1971),
even the information parents (as observers)
and adolescents (as actors) commonly share is
interpreted and used differently by each. The
interplay between these two forces may explain
why for some individuals and social groups the
congruence and effect of parents on adolescents future orientation varies. This interplay
and its consequences are affected by multiple
factors, such as interactive agency (Bandura,
1989), peers, and the school as additional
major aspects of the children and adolescents
microsystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), parentadolescent agreement about beliefs (Cashmore
& Goodnow, 1985), and the childs motivation
to accept the parents position (Grusec &
Goodnow, 1994). Moreover, the effect of these
factors is not static. Instead, it reflects . . . the
progressive mutual accommodation between
an active, growing human being and the changing properties of the immediate settings in
which the developing person lives . . . (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 21).
The three-component parents-adolescents model. While earlier studies of parents
and adolescents future orientation focused
mainly on univariate analyses pertaining either
to the relations or the discrepancy between
parents and adolescents scores, the threecomponent model provides an opportunity to
take the analysis one step further and examine
two related issues: (1) the fit of the model (initially conceptualized for the future orientation
individuals construct for themselves) to the
future orientation mothers construct for their
adolescent children; and (2) whether the relations found among components of the future
orientation model (Shoyer, 2006) can also apply
to relations between the three-component
future orientation models of mothers and their
adolescent children.
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.

314

R. Seginer and S. Shoyer

Underlying it was the proposition that,

although the future orientation that individuals
construct for others, be they as close as their own
children, may differ in content and endorsement
(Lanz et al., 2001; Scabini et al., 2006), it is
similar in structure. Support comes from consistent findings showing that the three-component
model has been empirically estimated for adolescents differing in age, sex, culture, and ethnicity, and for different life domains (Seginer,
2009). Jointly, these propositions and findings
may have led to the hypothesis that the threecomponent model depicting how mothers construct a future orientation for their children
directly affects the three-component model
depicting adolescents future orientation.
However, two considerations led us to
propose that the effect of the three-component
future orientation of mothers on the threecomponent future orientation of their adolescent is not a direct one, but rather mediated by
the adolescents self esteem. One was the role
of the self in processing incoming information,
and prompting a wide range of behaviors as
well as various aspects of psychological functioning: these grow particularly important
during adolescence, as the direct impact of
parental behavior on behavior decreases and
is channeled via the self (Harter, 1999; Higgins,
1991). The second is findings showing that self
representations mediate the effect of parenting,
as well as of perceived relationships with siblings and peers, on future orientation (Seginer,
2009).
Thus, we posit that mothers constructed
three-component future orientation has an
indirect effect via self-esteem on adolescents
three-component future orientation. In light of
our thematic approach, the hypothesis is here
tested on two life domains pertaining to the
core roles of adults: work and career, and marriage and family.

Method
Participants
Participants (N = 203) were Israeli Jewish 11th
grade girls (n = 99) and boys attending a
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.

college-bound program, and their mothers. The

majority of children (92%) grew up in twoparent small families (mean number of children
2.94, SD = .93). The majority of the mothers
(73%) had some or a full college education and
were born in Israel (65%). The majority of the
mothers (72%) held full-time paid jobs and
11% held part-time paid jobs in professional or
semi-professional occupations. Drawing on this
information as well as on information about the
fathers (84% were fully employed in professional or semi-professional jobs, and 72 % had
some or a full college education), the participants grew up in middle or upper middle class
families.
Instruments
The description of instruments follows the
model, that is, from mothers to adolescents.
Table 1 presents sample items, means, SDs, and
a reliability coefficients for each of the three
instruments: adolescents and mothers future
orientation, and adolescents self esteem.
Future orientation for mothers (Shoyer,
2006). The scale consists of Likert type
(1 = low to 5 = high) items assessing each of the
three motivational variables (value, expectance,
internal control), one cognitive and two behavioral variables (exploration and commitment)
for the work and career and marriage and
family domains, respectively.
Adolescents self-esteem (Rosenberg,
1965). The scale consists of Likert type
(1 = low to 5 = high) items describing global
aspects of self evaluation. Its Hebrew version
has been used earlier (Seginer et al., 2004) with
satisfactory a reliabilities.
Future orientation for adolescents
(Seginer, 2009; Seginer et al., 2004). The
questionnaire consists of two parts: the Prospective Life Course, and My Future. The Prospective Life Course questionnaire applies
separately to the work and career, and marriage
and family domains. Each includes Likert type
(1 = low to 5 = high) items pertaining to the

Mothers and adolescents future orientation

315

Table 1 Instruments employed in study: sample items and psychometric information

Instruments

Future Orientation
Mothers
Motivational
component
Value
Expectance
Internal Control
Cognitive component
Hopes
Behavioral component
Exploration

Commitment
Self Esteem Adolescent 1

Self Esteem Adolescent 2

Future Orientation
Adolescents
Motivational
component
Value

Expectance

Internal Control

Cognitive component
Hopes

Behavioral component
Exploration

Commitment

Sample item

Work and career

Mean
(SD)

No. of
items

Career/marriage and family is

central to ones life
I expect my child to have a
career/a family
Good career/happy family life is
worth an effort

4.37 (.62)

4.49 (.57)

Marriage and family

a
reliability

a
reliability

Mean
(SD)

No. of
items

.76

4.41 (.54)

.75

.79

4.54 (.56)

.85

4.50 (.50)

.64

4.47 (.56)

.76

I often think about my childs

career/marriage and family

3.03 (.86)

.84

2.86 (.81)

.82

It is important for me that my

child will examine options re
career/marriage family
I have no doubt my child will
develop a career/get married
I feel I am a person of worth, at
least on an equal plane with
others
Overall, I tend to think I am a
failure

4.29 (.70)

r = .64*

4.04 (.69)

.69

3.74 (.67)

r = .49*

3.62 (.93)

3.88 (.89)

.79

4.16 (.65)

.70

How important is your

prospective career/family for
you?
How likely do you think it is that
your career/family plans will
materialize?
What effect will ability have on
materialization of your career/
family plans?

4.44 (.54)

.76

4.42 (.72)

.90

3.85 (.72)

.81

3.75 (.80)

.89

4.28 (.61)

.70

3.59 (.87)

.76

Thinking about the future how

often do consider your future
job/family life?

3.27 (.92)

.86

3.02 (.98)

.60

To what extent do you look for

information regarding your
career/marriage?
I have clear plans regarding my
future career/ marriage and
family

2.69 (.95)

.87

1.80 (.74)

.70

2.80 (.90)

.85

2.49 (.84)

.56

r = .66*

*p < .001.

three motivational variables, the cognitive representation variable, and the two behavioral
variables. The My Future questionnaire consists
of items related to the cognitive representation
of each domain, and respondents report how
often (1 = seldom to 5 = always) they think
about each issue in terms of hopes and fears.

Procedure. Data collection consisted of

three steps: obtaining Israeli Ministry of Education permission to conduct the study, contacting mothers and obtaining their permission
and willingness to participate, and data collection. Adolescents responded to the questionnaire during one classroom session; mothers
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.

316

R. Seginer and S. Shoyer

responded to a mailed questionnaire in their

homes and returned it by a stamped envelope.
The rate of return was 39%. (i.e., 203 mothers
of the 516 to whom questionnaires were sent).
Analysis by means of one-way MANOVA
comparing the means and SDs of the 203
whose mothers responded to the questionnaire
and the 313 whose mothers did not return
the questionnaire showed only two significant
differences.

Results
Preliminary analysis. Hypothesis testing
was preceded by four preliminary analyses: sex
differences for the study variables, differences
between adolescent participants of this study
(n = 203) and those who did not participate
because their mothers did not respond to the
questionnaire (n = 313), the relation between
the background variables and the study variables, and correlation coefficients between
mothers and adolescents scores for each
future orientation variable. Sex differences
were tested by one-way MANOVAs run separately for the work and career and marriage
and family of (a) mothers of girls and boys and
(b) girls and boys. These analyses showed a
nonsignificant sex effect, with one exception:
girls scored higher on exploration of marriage
and family options than boys, M = 1.98 and 1.64,
and SDs = .74 and .71, p = .001 for girls and
boys, respectively.
The differences between the participants of
this analysis and the nonparticipants were also
tested using one-way MANOVAs for each
domain. They showed only two significant findings, both pertaining to the work and career
domain: the mean score of cognitive representation, M = 3.27 and 3.56, SDs = .92 and .88,
p = .001 for the participants of this analysis and
nonparticipants, respectively, and commitment,
M = 2.80 and 3.02, SDs = .91 and 1.00, p = .02
for the participants of this analysis and
nonparticipants, respectively, were lower
for participants of this study than for the
nonparticipants.
Correlations between background variables
(i.e., mothers level of education, mothers
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.

country of birth, family size, and family structure) and the study variables were low and
mostly nonsignificant. Consequently, the data
collected from girls and boys were combined
and the background variables were omitted
from the analysis. Correlations between the
mothers and the adolescents future orientation variables were run separately for each
domain. The results showed that the relations
between the mothers and the adolescents
scores for each empirical variable tended to be
lower for the work and career domain, rs
ranging from -.04 n.s. to .16, p < .05, median
r = .14, than for the marriage and family
domain, rs ranging from -.07 n.s. to .26, p < .001,
median r = .23.
Structural equation models. The fit of the
data to the model was tested using structural
equation modeling (SEM, AMOS 17). Each
structural equation model consists of two
parts, the measurement part (factor loadings)
and the structural part (relations between
latent variables) estimated simultaneously. The
measurement part shows all indicators are
loaded significantly, p < .001, on their latent
variables. The fit of the models is presented
with the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the
Root Mean Squared Error (RMSEA). Analyses testing the fit of the empirical models
(Figure 2ab) are acceptable for both the work
and career domain, with RMSEA of .069 and
CFI of .916, and the marriage and family
domain, with RMSEA of .072 and CFI of .906.
In addition, we estimated two alternative
models of theoretical relevance. In the first, selfesteem was omitted and the model consisted of
only a direct path between the mothers behavioral component and the adolescents motivational component. For the work and career
domain the fit was acceptable, CFI = .913 and
RMSEA = .076, but the path between the
mothers and the adolescents future orientation
was nonsignificant; for the marriage and family
domain the analysis resulted in poor fit indices,
CFI = .817 and RMSEA = .112. Given that
parents and children reciprocally affect each
other (Laursen & Collins, 2009), in the second
model we reversed the order of the mothers

Mothers and adolescents future orientation

and the adolescents three-component future

orientation so that the adolescents future orientation affected the mothers future orientation via the adolescents self esteem. This
analysis showed non-acceptable fit indices for
both domains (for work and career CFI = .881
and RMSEA =.082, and for marriage and
family CFI = .875 and RMSEA = .083).
Thus, our hypothesis that the future
orientation that mothers construct for their
adolescent children as indicated by the threecomponent model affects adolescents future
orientation as indicated by the threecomponent model indirectly via adolescents
self esteem is supported for both the work and
career, and the marriage and family domains.

Discussion
The main objective of this study has been to
continue the work initially carried out by
several researchers on the effect of parents on
adolescents future orientation. Those studies

(a)
X1

focused on three parental aspects: adolescentparent relationships (parenting), parental

beliefs regarding adolescents future life
domains (e.g., marriage and family) and the
future orientation which parents construct for
their adolescents. Drawing on these studies, the
purpose of our study has been to go beyond
analyses pertaining to specific empirical variables and focus on the structural aspect of
future orientation consisting of the three component model.
Our hypothesis about the indirect effect of
mothers future orientation structural aspects
(i.e., the three-component model) on the adolescents future orientation structural aspect via
adolescents self representation is confirmed
for both the work and career, and the marriage
and family domains.The meaning of this finding
relates to three issues: the effect of parents on
their adolescent children, the pivotal role of self
representation in mediating the effect of
parents on children, and the generality of the
future orientation three-component construct.
Each is discussed below.

Child

Mother
X2

X3

Y1

.46

FO
Mot

317

Y2

.34

FO
Cog

Y3

Y4

.26

FO
Behav

Y5

.59

Ch Self
Rep.

=.83

=.21

Y7

Y8

Y9

.44

FO
Mot

.66

CFI = .916

FO
Behav
=.69
6

.70

N = 203

Y11

=.20

Y10

FO
Cog

=.32

=.07

Y6

.31

RMSEA = .069

(b)
Child

Mother
X1

X2

FO
Mot

X3

Y1

.19

Y2

.27

FO
Cog

Y3

=.35
2

.48

CFI = .906

.24

FO
Behav

=.04

N = 203

Y4

Y5

Y6

.43

Ch Self
Rep.

=.06
3

Y7

FO
Mot

Y8

Y9

.39

=.22
4

Y10

.51

FO
Cog

Y11

FO
Behav
=.40

=.16

.22

RMSEA = .072

Figure 2 (a) Empirical estimate of the mother-constructed adolescent-constructed future orientation model
for the work and career domain. (b) Empirical estimate of the mother-constructed adolescent-constructed
future orientation model for the marriage and family domain.
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.

318

R. Seginer and S. Shoyer

The effect of parents on their adolescent

children. While the majority of studies about
the effect of family environment on future
orientation has conceptualized and assessed
family environment in terms of perceived
parenting, this study focuses on the future orientation that parents construct for their adolescent children. Thus, rather than examining the
relational perspective as experienced and
reported by the child, it examines mothers
ideas about their child, as reported by mothers.
Altogether, our emphasis on the future orientation that mothers construct for their adolescents augments knowledge on adolescent
development in the family context in two ways:
by showing the effect of parents ideas
(Goodnow & Collins, 1990) specifically applying to the adolescents future, and by including
the perspective of parents, as indicated by the
mothers report. The importance of perceived
parenting notwithstanding (Seginer et al.,
2004), the findings of this study as well as the
findings of other studies of the effect of parents
on future orientation (Lanz et al., 2001;
Mahajna, 2007; Malmberg et al., 2005; Scabini
et al., 2006) indicate the importance of representing the parents perspective as well.
Self representation as mediating the
effect of parents on children. Our research
on the effect of parents on adolescents future
orientation has been guided by a basic
premise about the role of the self in processing incoming information and subsequently
guiding individuals behavior and thinking
(Harter, 1999). Consequently, our models have
included self representation as mediating
parenting (as well as relationships with siblings and peers) and future orientation. The
results of the present study support our
hypothesis that the effect of parents on future
orientation is mediated by adolescents self as
an internal mechanism processing incoming
information, integrating it into self representation, and guiding behavior (Harter, 1999).
However, existing research led us to consider
also a direct path between parents and adolescents future orientation. In particular, one
recent study of Israeli Muslim adolescent girls
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.

(Seginer & Mahajna, in press) shows that perceived parents beliefs are directly related to
future orientation in the higher education, and
marriage and family domains. The second is a
study by Knafo and Schwartz (2003) showing
that perceived parenting (affectionate parenting) is directly linked to the accuracy
of perception of parents values. However,
analysis of an alternative model directly
linking mother-constructed and adolescentconstructed future orientation showed an
unacceptable goodness of fit of the empirical
models.
Whether the direct effect found by Knafo
and Schwartz and by Seginer and Mahajna
relates to the nature of the independent (parental beliefs in the Seginer and Mahajna study)
and dependent variables (perceived accuracy of
values in the Knafo and Schwartz study) or the
religious-cultural characteristics of the respondents (Israeli Muslim adolescent girls in the
Seginer and Mahajna study) or both can be
tested only in subsequent research. At present,
more studies support the mediating role of the
self than support its omission.
The generality of the three-component
future orientation model. A basic premise of
future orientation research has been that future
thinking is both universal and specific. Thus,
while age, sex, culture, and social and economic
conditions may influence the content of future
thinking, the hopes versus fears ratio, and the
relations between future orientation and its
antecedents and outcomes, it has been postulated that the structure of future orientation is
relatively consistent (Seginer, 2009). Our
earlier research supported the generality of the
future orientation model for adolescents of different age groups, sex, culture, and ethnicity.
Specifically, it showed that although the
effect of the interpersonal antecedents and selfrepresentation mediators on future orientation,
and the effect of future orientation on developmental outcomes may vary by age, sex, cultural
setting, and future life domain, the structure of
the future orientation and the nature of the
empirical indicators of each component (latent
variable) remain consistent. However, while

Mothers and adolescents future orientation

our earlier analyses were carried out on adolescents and emerging adults, the present study
shows that the future orientation model applies
also to adults. Nonetheless, in light of the limitations of this study, listed next, this conclusion
should be presently treated with caution and
calls for continued research.

319

forces shared by members of specific societies,

and across them (global stereotypes). By overcoming these limitations, future research will
expand our knowledge of how parents affect
adolescents future orientation.

References
Present limitations and future directions.
The limitations we list here pertain to the
design of this study as well as to the interpretation of findings on parental effects. Four issues
relate to the design: (a) Sample size did not
allow us to estimate the model for girls and
boys separately, and include parenting variables; (b) the cross-sectional (instead of longitudinal) design prevented us from assessing the
effect of children on mothers across time; (c)
sample characteristics limit our conclusions
to a limited group of adolescents; and (d) to
mothers only. Consequently, future research
should aim to include a larger sample of
respondents from a diversified social background, and enlist the participation of fathers as
well as of mothers.
The other limitation pertains to the interpretation of the findings in terms of family processes. As suggested by earlier research on the
effect of parents on adolescents (Roest, Dubas,
Gerris, & Engels, 2009; Seginer & Vermulst,
2000), at least part of what might be interpreted
as indicating the effect of parents on children
emanates from the culture they share, or their
cultural stereotype (Roest et al., 2009). In our
study the effect of such a cultural stereotype
may be indicated by the correlations between
mothers and adolescents for the two adult life
domains.
Specifically, although marriage and family
belong to the distant future for our participants
(the median age of marriage for the Jewish
population is 25.4 years and 27.7 years for
women and men, respectively (Israel Central
Statistical Bureau, 2011), the similarity between
future orientation regarding marriage and
family as a consensual issue in Jewish society is
somewhat higher than for work and career.
Thus, following Roest et al. (2009), future
research should also examine the cultural

Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation.

Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive
theory. American Psychologist, 44, 11751184.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cashmore, J. A., & Goodnow, J. J. (1985). Agreement
between generations: A two-process approach.
Child Development, 56, 493501.
De Volder, M., & Lens, W. (1982). Academic achievement and future time perspective as a cognitivemotivational concept. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42, 566571.
Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. (1966). The adolescent
experience. New York: Wiley.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivation, beliefs,
and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109
132.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New
York: Norton.
Goodnow, J. J., & Collins, W. A. (1990). Development
according to parents. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, H. J. (1994). Impact of
parental discipline methods on the childs internalization of values: A reconceptualization of
current points of views. Developmental Psychology, 30, 419.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self. New
York: Guilford.
Higgins, E. T. (1991). Development of self-regulatory
and self-evaluative processes: Costs, benefits, and
tradeoffs. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.),
Self processes and development: The Minnesota
Symposia on Child Development. Vol. 23, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 125166.
Israel Central Statistical Bureau (2011). Women and
men. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. (In
Hebrew.)
Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the
observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of
behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H.
Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner
(Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of
behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning
Press, pp. 7994.
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.

320

R. Seginer and S. Shoyer

Knafo, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Parenting and

adolescents accuracy in perceiving parental
values. Child Development, 74, 595611.
Lanz, M., Rosnati, R., Marta, E., & Scabini, E. (2001).
Adolescents future: A comparison of adolescents and their parents views. In J.-E. Nurmi
(Ed.), Navigating through adolescence: European
perspectives. New York: Routledge, pp. 169198.
Larson, R. W., Richards, M. H., Moneta, G., Holmbeck, G., & Ducket, E. (1996). Changes in adolescents daily interactions with their families
from ages 10 to 18: Disengagement and
transformation. Developmental Psychology, 32,
744754.
Laursen, B., & Collins, W.A. (2009). Parent-child relationships during adolescence. In R. M. Lerner &
L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology. 3rd ed. Vol. 2, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp.
342.
Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in
social psychology. American Journal of Sociology, 44, 868896.
Mahajna, S. (2007). Future orientation: Its nature and
meaning among girls from different Israeli Arab
settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Malmberg, L.-E., Ehrman, J., & Lithen, T. (2005).
Adolescents and parents future beliefs. Journal
of Adolescence, 28, 709723.
Nurmi, J. E. (1991). How do adolescents see their
future? A review of the development of future.
orientation and planning. Developmental
Review, 11, 159.
Nuttin, J., & Lens, W. (1985). Future time perspective
and motivation: Theory and research method.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible
selves and academic outcomes: How and when
possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 188204.
Roest, A. M. C., Dubas, J. S., Gerris, J. R. M., & Engels,
R. C. M. E. (2009). Value similarities among
fathers, mothers, and adolescents and the role of
a cultural stereotype: Different measurement
strategies reconsidered. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 19, 812833.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent selfimage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Scabini, E., Marta, E., & Lanz, M. (2006). The transition to adulthood and family relations: An intergenerational perspective. New York: Psychology
Press.
Seginer, R. (2006). Parents educational involvement:
A developmental ecology perspective. Parenting,
6, 148.

Japanese Psychological Association 2012.

Seginer, R. (2008). Future orientation in times of

threat and challenge: How resilient adolescents
construct their future. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 32, 272282.
Seginer, R. (2009). Future orientation: Developmental
and ecological perspectives. New York: Springer.
Seginer, R., & Mahajna, S. (2004). How the future
orientation of traditional Israeli Palestinian girls
link beliefs about womens roles and academic
achievement. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
28, 122135.
Seginer, R., & Mahajna, S. (in press). With Gods
help:The future orientation of Palestinian girls in
Israel growing up Muslim. In G. Trommsdorff &
X. Chen (Eds.), Values, religion, and culture in
adolescent development. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Seginer, R., & Vermulst, A. (2000). The intergenerational transmission of child rearing stress: Congruence, psychological mediators, and ecological
moderators. In J. Gerris (Ed.), Dynamics of
parenting. Leuven: Garant Publishers, pp. 157
178.
Seginer, R., Vermulst, A., & Shoyer, S. (2004). The
indirect link between perceived parenting and
adolescent future orientation: A multiple-step
analysis. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 28, 365378.
Shoyer, S. (2006). The construction of future orientation in the context of adolescent-parent relationships as viewed by adolescents and parents.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Smetana, J. G., Metzger, A., Gettman, D. C., &
Campione-Barr, N. (2006). Disclosure and
secrecy in adolescent-parent relationships. Child
Development, 77, 201217.
Trommsdorff, G. (1983). Future orientation and
socialization. International Journal of Psychology, 18, 381406.
Yamamoto, Y., & Holloway, S. (2010). Parental
expectations and childrens academic performance in sociocultural context. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 189234.
Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations
with mothers, fathers, and friends. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Zhang, Y., Haddad, E., Torres, B., & Chen, C. (2011).
The reciprocal relationships among parents
expectations, adolescents expectations, and adolescent achievement: A two-wave longitudinal
analysis of the NELS data. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 40, 479489.
(Received May 25, 2011; accepted November 5, 2011)

Copyright of Japanese Psychological Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.