Children’s and Adolescents’ Happiness and Family Functioning: A Systematic Literature Review
Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(24), 16593; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416593
Submission received: 8 October 2022
/
Revised: 4 December 2022
/
Accepted: 8 December 2022
/
Published: 10 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Life Satisfaction and Psychological and Physical Well-Being)
Abstract
:Background: the present research represents the first systematic review of the literature on the relation between happiness (i.e., subjective well-being, life satisfaction, positive affect) and family functioning in families with children aged 6–18 years. Method: relevant articles were systematically searched in three scientific databases (i.e., PsycInfo, Pubmed, and Web of Science) in June 2022. The databases were searched for original articles published after 1968 with the keywords “happiness” and “family functioning.” Results: of the 2683 records recovered, 124 original articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The articles were divided according to four emergent themes: (1) family dimensions and happiness; (2) global family functioning (i.e., family functioning, and family relationships), environmental variables, and happiness; (3) parental differences; (4) longitudinal studies. Conclusions: the results of the review provide evidence for a positive relation between happiness and family functioning, across different cultures and age groups: Family dimensions (e.g., cohesion, communication) were found to strongly predict children’s and adolescents’ happiness. Future studies should investigate the differences between fathers and mothers using multi-informant and mixed methods procedures and a longitudinal research approach. The implications of the findings for children’s positive development are discussed.
1. Introduction
Research on children’s and adolescents’ happiness has increased in recent years [1] due to the association between happiness and improved physical and mental health [2,3]. For the present systematic review, happiness was conceptualized as a relatively stable, positive, and affective trait [4,5], with an emphasis on subjective well-being and general life satisfaction [2,6,7]. Previous studies [8,9] have suggested that family emotional bonds and positive relationships are primary sources of children’s happiness. Indeed, dimensions of family functioning have been shown to significantly predict children’s happiness, beyond the influence of peer and school settings [10]. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no systematic review of the relation between children’s happiness and family functioning. Thus, the present systematic literature review aimed to understand the associations between children’s and adolescents’ happiness and dimensions of family functioning.
Happiness is comprised of an affective and a cognitive component [6,11]: (a) the affective component involves high levels of pleasant emotions (e.g., joy, interest, excitement, confidence, readiness) and low levels of negative emotions (e.g., anger, fear, sadness, guilt, contempt, disgust) [12]; (b) the cognitive component represents a global assessment of quality of life, indicating the degree to which one’s essential needs, goals, and desires are satisfied [13]. These judgments are usually understood to describe overall life satisfaction, or satisfaction within a specific domain (e.g., work, family life, social life, school).
1.1. Family Functioning and Happiness
Previous studies have suggested that healthy family functioning is associated with children’s and adolescents’ happiness [14]. Since the 1980s, the Circumplex model [15] and the McMaster Model of Family Functioning (MMFF) [16] have promoted a new vision of the family as an open system in interaction with the environment. However, there is no single definition of family functioning in the literature. Regardless of the differing compositions of modern families, family functioning refers to effective emotional bonding between family members, the use of family rules, family communication, and the management of external events [17]. Thus, family functioning describes the dynamic interactions within a family unit and how a family fulfills its functions [18], referring to the ways in which family members interact and work together to achieve common goals and outcomes [19,20]. Various factors may influence family functioning, including family structure, socioeconomic status, life events, family relationships, and the evolutive stages of the family [19,21,22]. Although family functioning is a complex phenomenon that can be assessed in various ways [23], it generally refers to the quality of family life at a systemic level, emphasizing wellness, competence, strengths, and weaknesses [24].
Previous studies have reported that positive family functioning is associated with children’s and adolescents’ happiness [25,26,27]. In particular, research has found that family connectedness promotes well-being and parental support directly contributes to children’s happiness [28]. Furthermore, the quality of family relationships has been shown to be more important to students’ happiness than the peer group, school, or community [29].
Family cohesion and adaptability have been found to be linearly correlated with family functioning (i.e., family communication and satisfaction) [15]. Effective communication is a central feature of high family functioning [30], and research has shown that when parent–adolescent communication is good, the family is closer, more loving, and more flexible in solving problems [31]. Indeed, when defining their perceptions of well-being, adolescents frequently refer to good relationships and pleasant moments spent with family members [32].
As conflict tends to generate negative emotions, high-conflict families have been found to be associated with lower levels of happiness and life satisfaction [33]. On the other hand, family satisfaction, defined as the extent to which individuals feel satisfied with the level of perceived support from family members [34], has been shown to be associated with increased happiness and overall life satisfaction in children and adolescents [35,36,37,38]. Other studies have confirmed that a dysfunctional family relationship (e.g., low-income, family coherence, family conflict) is a risk factor for children’s and adolescents’ happiness [32,39].
1.2. The Present Study
Decades of research have highlighted the importance of studying children’s development within their immediate life contexts (i.e., home, school, and community) [40]. During childhood and adolescence, these contexts represent microsystems where young people spend large parts of their daily lives [2,41]. However, few studies have comprehensively examined the personal and familial factors associated with happiness as a function of developmental age. Family functioning, parent–child relationship quality, and family satisfaction have been identified as significant predictors of children’s happiness [42,43,44]. Moreover, studies have shown that happy people tend to have stronger social relationships than less happy people [45]. Research has also reported that the family plays an essential role in shaping the positive development of children and adolescents [46]. Finally, longitudinal studies have found that adolescents’ family experiences predict multiple facets of adult functioning, including physical and mental health, well-being, and academic achievement [47].
To the best of our knowledge, the present study represents the first systematic review of the literature on the relation between happiness (i.e., subjective well-being, life satisfaction, and positive affect) and family functioning during the developmental ages of 6–18 years. The importance of exploring this specific development phase derives from scientific evidence that happiness declines with increasing age [2,27,48]. Again, studies have highlighted the importance of addressing multicontextual influences on happiness, with the relevant literature strongly supporting the ecological theory, emphasizing the effects of salient life contexts [49]. In this sense, a systematic review of the literature could improve our understanding of the associations between children’s and adolescents’ happiness and dimensions of family functioning.
2. Methods
2.1. Search Strategy
The present systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [50]. Relevant articles, indexed in three scientific databases (i.e., PsycInfo, Pubmed, and Web of Science), were searched. Further studies were identified through by-hand searches of the reference lists of the included articles. The investigation was conducted in June 2022, and the search included all original research articles published post-1968.
The exact search term combinations were: ([“happi *” OR “happy” OR “positive affect *” OR “positive emotions” OR “subjective well-being” OR “subjective wellbeing” OR “well-being” OR “wellbeing” OR “life satisfaction” OR “satisfaction with life”] AND [“family funct *” OR “family conflict” OR “family cohesion” OR “family communication” OR “family flexibility” OR “family problem-solving” OR “family problem solving” OR “family satisfaction” OR “family relation*”] AND [“toddler *” OR “infant *” OR “child *” “pre-schooler *” OR “preschooler *” OR “pre-adoles *” OR “preadoles *” OR “adolesc *” OR “student *” OR “pupil *”]).
2.2. Study Screening Selection
Two reviewers independently selected abstracts, excluding articles that did not meet the selection criteria. Age and language filters were applied to the various databases to limit the search to studies reported in only English, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and German. Since the review focused on childhood and adolescence, studies involving participants over 18 years old were excluded. Specifically, only original research articles published in scientific journals were included in the review. Furthermore, only scientific studies using mixed or quantitative methodology were selected, while no studies involving clinical samples were included. Pure qualitative studies, books, and book chapters were excluded. No reviews examining the association between children’s and adolescents’ happiness and family functioning were found.
Moreover, to be considered for inclusion, studies had to assess both happiness and family functioning. Studies with a single measure evaluating the two variables as subdimensions (i.e., general life satisfaction and family satisfaction) were excluded. Only studies reporting associations between happiness and family functioning, or the effects of family functioning on children’s happiness, were included. When the results appeared vague, the researchers contacted the authors (n = 50) to clarify their methodology and results (n = 8 responded). In the absence of a response, the relevant studies were excluded. Figure 1 displays the PRISMA flowchart of the systematic review process.
2.3. Data Extraction
The following information was independently extracted using a structured template by two reviewers: author(s), year of publication, country, study design, participant age and gender, sample size, measures of happiness and family functioning, and main findings. Coding disagreements were resolved through discussion between the first two reviewers. The Cohen’s kappa coefficient, calculated to assess inter-rater reliability, was 0.94, reflecting very high agreement. The third author resolved any discrepancies.
3. Results
3.1. Study Characteristics
A total of 2683 scientific articles were identified (777 from PsycInfo, 662 from Pubmed, and 1244 from Web of Science), and 56 other records were added through other sources. After 970 duplicates were removed, a further 833 articles were excluded based on a review of their titles and abstracts. The remaining 936 studies were considered potentially eligible for inclusion. The full-text articles were obtained and assessed for eligibility, resulting in a final selection of 124 studies. Although the search included works published between 1968 and 2022, the present review was restricted to the years 1991–2022, because no articles published prior to 1991 met the inclusion criteria.
Regarding the study characteristics, sample sizes ranged from 74–25,906. Participant ages were also heterogeneous, though predominantly falling within the pre-adolescent and adolescent age range. With respect to school level, 18 studies examined elementary school students (i.e., aged 6–11 years) and 111 studies explored middle and high school students (i.e., aged 12–18 years). The studies were conducted in different continents: 30% in Asia (i.e., 27 in China, 1 in India, 2 in Indonesia, 3 in Israel, 3 in Korea, and 1 in Palestine), 22% in Europe (i.e., 4 in Croatia, 3 in Finland, 1 in France, 1 in Germany, 1 in Holland, 1 in Ireland, 3 in Italy, 1 in The Netherlands, 2 in Portugal, 8 in Spain, and 3 in the United Kingdom), 18% in the United States, 13% in South America (i.e., 3 in Brazil, 11 in Chile, 1 in Mexico, and 1 in Peru), and 2% in Australia. In addition, 13 articles (i.e., 11%) were cross-cultural, while 5 (i.e., 4%) were conducted in transcontinental states (i.e., 1 in Russia, 4 in Turkey). Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 present detailed characteristics of each of the reviewed articles, including the study design, participants, and tools.
The articles were categorized according to four emergent themes (and subthemes): (1) family dimensions and happiness; (2) global family functioning (i.e., family functioning and family relationships), environmental variables, and happiness; (3) parental differences; (4) longitudinal studies. The studies are presented in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 (according to theme), and the significant findings within these four themes are synthesized in Section 3.2, Section 3.3, Section 3.4 and Section 3.5.
3.1.1. Happiness Measures
The investigated studies used various measures to assess affective, cognitive, or global components of happiness. The affective component of happiness was evaluated using the Happiness Face Scale [26], Piers-Harris Children’s Concept Scale 2 (PHS) [51], Subjective Happiness Scale [52], Chinese Happiness Inventory (CHI) [53], Oxford Happiness Inventory (OHI) [54], Happiness Overall Life (HOL) [55], Happiness Taking into Account Overall Life (HTOL) [56,57], Russell’s Core Affect [58], Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) [59], Positive and Negative Affect Scale for Children [60], Scale of Positive and Negative Affects for Adolescents (PNAA) [61], Affect Balance Scale (ABS) [62], Profile of Mood States-Adolescents (POMS-A) [63], positive affect subscales of the Profile of Mood States (POMS) [64], Personal Wellbeing Index—School Children (PWI-SC) [65], and Patients’ Well-Being Questionnaire for adolescents (PWBQ) [66].
The cognitive component of happiness was assessed using the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) [67], Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS) [34], Cantril Ladder [68], Quality of Life Questionnaire (modified version) [69], Multidimensional Life Satisfaction Scale [70], Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS) [71], Overall Life Satisfaction (OLS) [57], Life 3 Scale [72], General Questionnaire for Adolescents [73], and Rating of Global Life Satisfaction (RGLS) [71]. Finally, the global measures of happiness were investigated using the World Health Organization—Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5 WBI) [74]), Berne Questionnaire of Subjective Well-Being/Youth form (BSW/Y) [75], Multidimensional Scale for the Measurement of Subjective Well-being of Anguas-Plata and Reyes-Lagunes (EMMBSAR) [76], and Emotional Well-Being Scale (EWS) [77].
3.1.2. Family Functioning Measures
Family functioning and relationships were evaluated using nine measures, including self-report questionnaires (12 articles) and interview assessments (n = 1). Of the self-report measures of family functioning, the most frequently used were the Family Assessment Instrument (FAI) [78] (n = 7), Family Assessment Device (FAD) [23] (n = 6), Self-Report Family Instrument (SFI) [79] (n = 6), Behaviour Assessment System for Children (BASC) [80] (n = 2), Family Relationships Scale [81] (n = 2), and Family Relationship subscale of the International Survey of Children’s Well-Being (ISCWeB) [82] (n = 2).
Less frequently used measures (n = 1) included the Brief Family Function Questionnaire (BFFQ) [83], Family APGAR Index [84], Family Dynamics Measure (FDM II) [85], Family-of-Origin Scale (FOS) [86], Father/Mother Involvement Scale [87], and Relationship with Father/Mother Questionnaire (RFMQ) [88]. The only qualitative measure of family functioning was the Adolescent Interview Schedule [89], which measures the perceived family environment and the parent–adolescent relationship. Finally, some studies used specially-designed measures to investigate the quality of family relationships (e.g., [90,91]).
The investigated studies assessed specific family dimensions: (a) family cohesion and adaptability, (b) family communication and satisfaction, and (c) family conflict. Family cohesion and adaptability were evaluated using the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES II, [92]; FACES III, [93]; FACES IV; [94,95]), Colorado Self-Report of Family Functioning Inventory (CSRFFI) [96], Family Environment Scale (FES) [96], and Brief Family Relationship Scale [97]. Only one study measuring family cohesion used a graphical method, applying the Pictorial Representation Index [98].
Family communication and satisfaction were assessed using the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale [31], Attitudes and Behaviors Survey (A&B) [99], Family Satisfaction subscale of the Multidimensional Life Satisfaction Scale for Adolescents (MLSSA) [100], Family Satisfaction subscale of the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS) [70], Family Satisfaction subscale of the Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS) [71], Satisfaction with Family Life Scale (SWFLS; Based on SWLS [67]), Satisfaction with Family Relationships (adaptation of a scale proposed by Cantril Ladder [68]), Satisfaction with Family subscale of the General Domain Satisfaction Index [101], Satisfaction with Family Life (SWFaL) [102], Family Life Satisfaction Scale (FLSS) [103], Satisfaction with Different Life Domains [104], General Family Satisfaction subscale of the Quality of Family Interaction Scale [105], and the Adolescent Interview Schedule (with the latter representing the only qualitative measure) [89].
Finally, family conflict was investigated using the Father-Adolescent Conflict Scale (FACS), Mother-Adolescent Conflict Scale (MACS) [106], Family Conflicts Scale [107], Aversive Parent-Child Interactions subscale of the Youth Everyday Social Interactions and Mood measure [108], Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI) [109], and Family Conflict subscale of the Brief Family Relationship Scale [97]. Only one study measured daily family conflict by adapting items from the Family Environment Scale [96].
3.2. Family Dimensions Predicting Happiness
Regarding the first theme (n = 91), family dimensions (i.e., cohesion and communication) were found to strongly predict children’s and adolescents’ levels of happiness. Three interconnected subdimensions characterized this theme: family cohesion and adaptability, family satisfaction and communication, and family conflict (Table 1).
3.2.1. Family Cohesion and Adaptability
In the selected studies (n = 21), family cohesion—reflecting the strength of the family bond—was positively correlated with both the affective (i.e., positive affect and emotions) and the cognitive components (i.e., life satisfaction) of children’s and adolescents’ happiness [77,110,111,112]. Adolescents from families with higher cohesion reported a more positive mood and a higher level of happiness [111,113]. The affective component of happiness was positively correlated with family cohesion and closeness [25,114]. Feeling close to family members, doing things with family members, and sharing interests and hobbies with family members were also associated with happiness, especially in boys [25].
Children’s and adolescents’ happiness was positively correlated with family cohesion and intimacy [7,28,44,115,116,117,118,119,120]. Therefore, children who perceived a less cohesive atmosphere at home reported lower life satisfaction and higher negative affect [121], which precipitated negative thoughts towards people and events (i.e., hostility). Therefore, increased life satisfaction and low negative affect might help children to cope with adverse events [111]. In addition, Song et al. (2018) [44] found that self-esteem mediated the relationship between family cohesion and life satisfaction.
Happiness had a significantly positive correlation with family adaptability [20]—defined as the quality and expression of leadership and organization, role relationships, and rules and negotiations within the family [95]—from the perspectives of both children and parents [27]. Again, adolescents’ perceptions of family flexibility were positively associated with their happiness [122,123]. Although most studies reported that cohesion and flexibility were correlated with higher levels of happiness in children, Verrastro et al. (2020) [27] found that family variables were not significantly predictive of children’s happiness.
3.2.2. Family Conflict
The examined studies highlighted that parent–child conflict (n = 17) strongly negatively predicted children’s and adolescents’ positive affect [77,124,125] and perceived happiness [126]. Adolescents felt less happy and satisfied on days of intense conflict with parents [113], and adequate parental warmth moderated and decreased the negative effect on children’s happiness and well-being [124]. Furthermore, parent–adolescent conflict was associated with low life satisfaction of children and adolescents [33,46,89,114,127,128,129,130], from the perspectives of both parents and children [131]. Even in late adolescence, happiness negatively correlated with family conflict before college [132].
Family conflict directly affected emotional happiness (i.e., life satisfaction and positive emotions) [77,127,133] during late adolescence. Indeed, one study found that satisfaction with life buffered the harmful effects of family conflict among undergraduate students [132]. However, other studies did not reveal a statistically-significant correlation between children’s happiness and parent–child conflict [33,134].
Adolescent gender moderated between- and within-family (i.e., daily cohesion and conflict) effects on mood, and the interaction between daily conflict and adolescent gender was significantly correlated with positive mood. One study found that, relative to girls, boys reported significantly lower levels of happiness in the context of family conflict [113]. However, another study found no gender differences among adolescents in the association between parent–adolescent conflict and adolescent psychological well-being [129].
3.2.3. Family Communication and Satisfaction
In the selected studies (n = 13), mother–adolescent and father–adolescent communication were positively associated with both the affective component (i.e., positive affect) and the cognitive component (i.e., life satisfaction) of adolescents’ happiness [30,135]. Children’s happiness and positive affect positively correlated with family communication [25], from both the children’s and parents’ perspectives [27]. Therefore, having family members who expressed their opinions and talked about their feelings was associated with positive affect [25].
Children’s and adolescents’ life satisfaction [20,136,137] and emotional well-being (i.e., happiness, positive affect, and life satisfaction) [30] correlated positively with family communication. Specifically, adolescents’ life satisfaction was positively associated with communicative openness with their father and mother [138] and negatively with offensive and avoidant communication with their parents [114,139,140]. Some research reported that positive (i.e., accessible, comprehensive, and satisfying) family communication significantly predicted life satisfaction [138,141]. Verrastro et al. (2020) [27] found an interaction between children’s gender and family communication, suggesting that, among female participants, having a family that practiced good communication was more strongly associated with higher levels of happiness.
Moreover, studies found positive correlations between family satisfaction (n = 47) and happiness [142,143,144], identifying satisfaction with family life as the strongest predictor of overall life satisfaction, from childhood to adolescence [3,29,35,42,145,146]. In particular, family satisfaction correlated positively with both the affective component (i.e., positive affect and positive emotions) and the cognitive component (i.e., life satisfaction) of happiness [36,37,71,147,148,149,150]. Furthermore, family life satisfaction was positively associated with children’s positive affect [148,151,152,153] and happiness [38,126], from the perspectives of both children [1,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167] and parents [27,73,168,169]. However, one study reported a non-significant positive correlation between happiness and family satisfaction [38].
The relation between family satisfaction and life satisfaction may be bidirectional. Indeed, one study showed that positive affect predicted high school students’ satisfaction with family life [151]. On the other hand, other studies identified family satisfaction as a significant predictor of life satisfaction [170,171,172,173]. For instance, some authors [36,149] found that high satisfaction with family life was related to a greater frequency and intensity of affective experiences of love, affection, joy, and happiness [174].
Table 1.
Sample Characteristics and Methods of Assessment of the Reviewed Studies Investigating Family Dimensions and Happiness (n = 91).
Table 1.
Sample Characteristics and Methods of Assessment of the Reviewed Studies Investigating Family Dimensions and Happiness (n = 91).
| Child Characteristics | Happiness Measure | Family Measure | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author (Year), Country | N | Age | % Male | Method | Measure | Method | Measure | Res. Design | Pub |
| Alcantara et al. (2017) [35], Brazil | 910 | Range 10–13 (M = 11.90) | 47.9 | S | OLS SLSS | S | SDDC | C | Pub |
| Bahrassa et al. (2011) [132], United States | 82 | Range 17–19 (M = 18.5) | 43.9 | S | SWLS | S | FCS | C | Pub |
| Bakalım & Taşdelen-Karçkay (2015) [151], Turkey | 456 | Range 14–18 | 47.1 | S | PANAS | S | FLSS | C | Pub |
| Bedin & Sarriera (2015) [147], Brazil | 543 | Range 12–16 (M = 14.1) | 31.7 | S | HOL OLS SWLS | S | BMSLSS | C | Pub * |
| Bennefield (2018) [25], United States | 10,148 | Range 13–17 (M = 15.2) | 48.9 | S | PAS | S | FCQ FCLQ | C | Pub |
| Bernal et al. (2011) [36], Mexico | 580 | Range 15–19 (M = 16.45) | 49.0 | S | EMMBSAR SWLS | S | SWFLS | C | Pub |
| Bradley & Corwyn (2004) [33], United States | 310 | Range 15–19 (M = 12.24) | 46.5 | S | QLQ | S | FCC | C | Pub |
| Braithwaite & Devine (1993) [115], Australia | 112 | Range 14–21 (M = 16.62) | 53.0 | S | L3S | G | PRI | C | Pub |
| S | PCI | ||||||||
| Cacioppo et al. (2013) [136], Italy | 255 | Range 15–17 (M = 15.98) | 40.8 | S | MSLSS | S | FAD | C | Pub |
| Carrascosa et al. (2018) [139], Spain | 672 | Range 12–19 (M = 14.45) | 51.2 | S | SWLS | S | PACS | C | Pub |
| Casas et al. (2007) [168], Spain (1999 sample) | 1634 | Range 12–16 (M = 14.12) | 48.5 | S | OLS | S | LDS | C | Pub |
| Casas et al. (2007) [168], Spain (2003 sample) | 1618 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.97) | 46.9 | S | OLS | S | LDS | C | Pub |
| Casas et al. (2013) [101], Spain | 5937 | Range 11–14 | ns | S | OLS SLSS | S | GDSI | C | Pub |
| Casas et al. (2015) [154], Spain, Brazil, and Chile | 5316 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.59) | 44.2 | S | OLS | S | BMSLSS | N | Pub |
| Cava et al. (2014) [140], Spain | 1795 | Range 11–18 (M = 14.2) | 52.0 | S | SWLS | S | PACS | C | Pub |
| Caycho-Rodríguez et al. (2018) [142], Peru | 804 | Range 11–18 (M = 13.5) | 53.0 | S | WHO-5 WBI | S | SWFLS | V | Pub |
| Cruz & Piña-Watson (2017) [127], United States | 524 | Range 14–20 (M = 16.23) | 46.9 | S | BMSLSS | S | FCS | C | Pub |
| da Costa & Neto (2019) [155], Portugal | 252 | Range 15–19 (M = 16.87) | 52.0 | S | SWLS | S | SWFLS | V | Pub |
| Dost-Gözkan (2021) [116], Turkey | 1097 | Range 14–16 (M = 15.12) | 38.4 | S | MLSS | S | FES | C | Pub |
| Ercegovac et al. (2021) [156], Croatia | 481 | Range 10–17 (M = 12.45) | 37.4 | S | OLS | S | FSS | C | Pub |
| Estévez López et al. (2018) [114], Spain | 1510 | Range 12–17 (M = 13.4) | 52.0 | S | SWLS | S | PACS FES | C | Pub * |
| Fosco & Lydon-Staley (2020) [113], United States | 151 | Range 13–16 (M = 14.60) | 38.4 | S | POMS SWLS | S | FES | C | Pub |
| Froh et al. (2009) [148], United States | 154 | Range 11–13 (M = 12.14) | ns | S | OLS PNA | S | BMSLSS | C | Pub |
| Gao & Potwarka (2021) [110], China | 675 | Range 12–15 | 47.3 | S | SLSS PANAS | S | FACES II | L | Pub |
| Galarce Muñoz et al. (2020) [152], Chile (students without disabilities) | 70 | Range 14–19 (M = 16.6) | 54.3 | S | PANAS | S | MSLSS | C | Pub * |
| Galarce Muñoz et al. (2020) [152], Chile (students with motor disabilities) | 18 | Range 14–19 (M = 15.7) | 44.4 | S | PANAS | S | MSLSS | C | Pub * |
| Galarce Muñoz et al. (2020) [152], Chile (hearing-impaired students) | 17 | Range 14–19 (M = 15.5) | 76.5 | S | PANAS | S | MSLSS | C | Pub * |
| Galarce Muñoz et al. (2020) [152], Chile (visually impaired students) | 15 | Range 14–19 (M = 16.1) | 46.7 | S | PANAS | S | MSLSS | C | Pub * |
| Gil da Silva & Dell’Aglio (2018) [153], Brazil | 426 | Range 12–18 (M = 14.9) | 38.0 | S | PNAA | S | MLSSA | C | Pub * |
| Gomez (2011) [149], United States | 158 | Range 11–15 (M = 13.49) | 55.0 | S | PANAS SWLS | S | MSLSS | C | Pub |
| Gómez et al. (2019) [1], Chile | 1392 | Range 10–13 (M = 11.5) | 54.2 | S | SLSS | S | GDSI | C | Pub |
| González-Carrasco et al. (2017) [174], Spain | 970 | Range 9–16 (M = 12.02) | 44.1 | S | HTOL OLS RCA | S | SDLD | F | Pub |
| Gross-Manos et al. (2015) [170], Israel | 1081 | Range 11–13 (M = 11.49) | 51.5 | S | HLTW OLS SLSS | S | BMSLSS | C | Pub |
| Hamama & Arazi (2012) [111], Israel | 111 | Range 9–13 (M = 11.8) | 50.5 | S | PANAS SLSS | S | FACES III | C | Pub |
| Huebner (1991a) [29], United States | 79 | Range 10–13 (M = 11.45) | 63.0 | S | SLSS | S | FSD | C | Pub |
| Ingelmo & Litago (2018) [145], Spain | 1409 | Range 11–18 (M = 14.4) | 49.6 | S | CL | S | SWFR | C | Pub |
| Irmak & Kuruüzüm (2009) [157], Turkey | 959 | Range 11–16 (M = 14.35) | 50.0 | S | SWLS | S | MSLSS | V | Pub |
| Jackson et al. (1998) [30], Holland | 660 | Range 13–15 (M = 13.5) | 46.4 | S | ABS CL | S | PACS | C | Pub |
| Jhang (2021) [175], China (Time 1) | 1273 | Range 12–15 (M = 13.55) | 49.0 | S | SWLS | S | FACES III | L | Pub |
| Jhang (2021) [175], China (Time 2) | 1028 | Range 14–17 | ns | S | SWLS | S | FACES III | L | Pub |
| Jiménez et al. (2009) [138], Spain | 565 | Range 11–18 (M = 13.6) | 51.0 | S | SWLS | S | PACS | C | Pub |
| Jiménez et al. (2014) [176], Spain (Time 1) | 1319 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.5) | 46.0 | S | SWLS | S | PACS | L | Pub |
| Jiménez et al. (2014) [176], Spain (Time 2) | 554 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.7) | 46.0 | S | SWLS | S | PACS | L | Pub |
| Kaye-Tzadok et al. (2017) [171], 16 countries | 5000 | 12-year-old children | 46.2 | S | SLSS | S | SWF | C | Pub |
| Khurana (2011) [126], India | 400 | Range 16–18 | 50.0 | S | PHAS | S | MSLSS PCS | C | Pub |
| Kim & Main (2017) [143], South Korea and United Kingdom | 3743 | Range 11–12 (M = 12.0) | 42.0 | S | SLSS | S | SWF | N | Pub |
| Koster et al. (2018) [133], The Netherlands | 255 | Range 15–19 (M = 16.27) | 57.0 | S | SWLS | S | NRI | C | Pub |
| Leto et al. (2019) [7], Russia | 424 | Range 7–10 (M = 9.1) | 49.0 | S | SLSS | S | FAD | C | Pub |
| Lietz et al. (2020) [112], Australia | 5440 | Range 8–15 | 48.1 | S | SLSS | S | ISCWeB | C | Pub |
| Lin & Yi (2019) [117], China | 2690 | Range 13–17 (M = 13.3) | 51.2 | S | LS | S | FACES III | L | Pub |
| Ljubetić & Reić Ercegovac (2020) [73], Croatia | 101 | Range 10–17 (M = 15.4) | 31.7 | S | GQA | S | QFIS | C | Pub |
| Mallette et al. (2021) [122], United States | 207 | Range 11–18 | ns | S | PWI-SC | S | FACES IV | C | Pub |
| Manzi et al. (2006) [118], Italy and United Kingdom | 223 | Range 17–21 (M = 18.9) | 49.3 | S | SWLS | S | CSRFFI | N | Pub |
| Merkaš & Brajša-Žganec (2011) [119], Croatia | 298 | Range 10–15 (M = 12.7) | 43.0 | S | BMSLSS | S | CSRFFI | C | Pub |
| Migliorini et al. (2019) [159], Italy | 1145 | Range 7–10 (M = 8.21) | 49.9 | S | OLS SLSS | S | BMSLSS | C | Pub |
| Moore et al. (2018) [135], United Kingdom | 9055 | Range 11–16 (M = 13.7) | 50.6 | S | SWB | S | FCSFR | C | Pub |
| Moreno-Maldonado et al. (2020) [158], Portugal and Spain | 21,081 | Range 11–16 | 50.2 | S | CL | S | SWFR | N | Pub |
| Orejudo et al. (2021) [172], Mexico, Peru, and Spain (Mexico sample) | 645 | Range 12–18 (M = 14.69) | 72.6 | S | LSD | S | QFR | N | Pub |
| Orejudo et al. (2021) [172], Mexico, Peru, and Spain (Peru sample) | 1331 | Range 12–18 (M = 14.35) | 37.6 | S | LSD | S | QFR | N | Pub |
| Orejudo et al. (2021) [172], Mexico, Peru, and Spain (Spain sample) | 791 | Range 12–18 (M = 14.45) | 41.0 | S | LSD | S | QFR | N | Pub |
| Park & Huebner (2005) [3], Korea and United States (Korea sample) | 472 | Range 12–17 (M = 15.22) | 51.0 | S | SLSS | S | MSLSS | N | Pub |
| Park & Huebner (2005) [3], Korea and United States (United States sample) | 543 | Range 12–17 (M = 14.89) | 46.0 | S | SLSS | S | MSLSS | N | Pub |
| Park (2005) [146], Korea (elementary students sample) | 247 | Range 9–11 (M = 10.7) | 47.0 | S | SLSS | S | MSLSS | C | Pub |
| Park (2005) [146], Korea (middle school student sample) | 231 | Range 12–14 (M = 13.8) | 48.0 | S | SLSS | S | MSLSS | C | Pub |
| Park (2005) [146], Korea (high school student sample) | 258 | Range 15–17 (M = 16.5) | 49.0 | S | SLSS | S | MSLSS | C | Pub |
| Park et al. (2005) [137], South Korea | 501 | Range 14–16 | 54.1 | S | SWLS | S | PACS | C | Pub |
| Raboteg-Šarić et al. (2009) [28], Croatia | 2823 | Range 14–18 (M = 16.86) | 45.5 | S | GSL | S | FES | C | Pub |
| Rees (2017) [42], eight European countries | 9156 | Aged around 12 years old | ns | S | SLSS | S | BMSLSS | N | Pub |
| Rhatigan (2002) [123], United States | 189 | Range 11–14 | ns | S | SWLS | S | FACES II | C | Pub |
| Rodríguez-Rivas et al. (2021) [128], Chile | 287 | Range 15–18 (M = 15.95) | 60.3 | S | SLSS | S | FC | C | Pub |
| Salewski (2003) [121], Germany | 30 | Range 14–19 (M = 17.2) | 56.6 | S | PWBQ | S | FACES II | C | Pub |
| Sastre & Ferrière (2000) [144], France | 100 | Range 12–19 | 50.0 | S | SWLS | S | SWFR | C | Pub |
| Schnettler et al. (2017) [169], Chile | 300 | Range 10–17 (M = 13.2) | 51.0 | S | SWLS | P/S | SWFaL | C | Pub |
| Schnettler et al. (2018a) [160], Chile | 300 | Range 10–17 (M = 13.2) | 51.3 | S | SWLS | P/S | SWFaL | C | Pub * |
| Schnettler et al. (2018b) [161], Chile | 340 | Range 10–17 (M = 13.2) | ns | S | SWLS | P/S | SWFaL | C | Pub * |
| Schnettler et al. (2018c) [162], Chile | 470 | Range 10–17 (M = 13.3) | 52.3 | S | SWLS | S | SWFaL | C | Pub |
| Schnettler et al. (2018d) [163], Chile | 303 | Range 10–17 (M = 13.3) | 48.5 | S | SWLS | S | SWFaL | C | Pub |
| Schnettler et al. (2020) [21], Chile | 473 | Range 10–17 (M = 13.3) | 48.2 | S | SWLS | S | SWFaL | C | Pub |
| Schnettler et al. (2021) [164], Chile | 470 | Range 10–17 (M = 13.3) | 47.7 | S | SWLS | S | SWFaL | C | Pub |
| Schnettler et al. (2022) [165], Chile | 303 | Range 10–17 (M = 13.3) | 48.5 | S | SWLS | S | SWFaL | C | Pub * |
| Seligson et al. (2003) [71], United States | 221 | Range 11–14 (M = 12.33) | 58.0 | S | BMSLSS PANAS RGLS SLSS | S | MSLSS | V | Pub |
| Seligson et al. (2005) [150], United States | 518 | Range 8–11 (M = 9.34) | 46.7 | S | PANAS RGLS SLSS | S | BMSLSS | C | Pub |
| Shek (1997a) [46], China | 365 | Range 12–16 | 80.5 | S | SWLS | S | F/MACS | C | Pub |
| Shek (1997c) [131], China | 429 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.0) | 50.6 | S | SWLS | P/S | F/MACS | D | Pub |
| Shek (1998b) [129], China (Time 1) | 429 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.0) | 50.6 | S | SWLS | P/S | F/MACS | L | Pub |
| Shek (1998b) [129], China (Time 2) | 378 | Range 13–17 (M = 14.0) | ns | S | SWLS | P/S | F/MACS | L | Pub |
| Shek (1998c) [89], China (Time 1) | 429 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.0) | 50.6 | S | SWLS | S | F/MACS | L | Pub |
| I | AIS | ||||||||
| Shek (1998c) [89], China (Time 2) | 378 | Range 13–17 (M = 14.0) | ns | S | SWLS | S | F/MACS | L | Pub |
| I | AIS | ||||||||
| Shek (2002d) [177], China | 229 | Range 12–16 | 53.3 | S | SWLS | S | F/MACS | D | Pub |
| Shek et al. (2001) [130], China | 1519 | Range 11–18 (M = 13.5) | 49.9 | S | SWLS | S | F/MACS | C | Pub |
| Silva et al. (2020) [124], United States | 120 | Range 13–15 (M = 14.36) | 39.0 | S | POMS | S | YESIMM | C | Pub |
| Soares et al. (2019) [141], Portugal | 503 | Range 13–19 (M = 15.92) | 37.0 | S | SWLS | S | A&B | C | Pub |
| Song et al. (2018) [44], China | 428 | Range 11–16 (M = 13.16) | 65.0 | S | SLSS | S | FACES II | C | Pub |
| Sun et al. (2015) [120], China | 1708 | Range 14–18 (M = 15.03) | 45.2 | S | SLSS | S | FACES II | C | Pub |
| Taşdelen-Karçkay (2016) [173], Turkey | 436 | Range 14–19 (M = 16.35) | 44.0 | S | SWLS | S | FLSS | V | Pub |
| Tian et al. (2015) [166], China | 1904 | Range 9–14 (M = 11.25) | 52.0 | S | SLSS | S | BMSLSS | V | Pub |
| Vera et al. (2012) [37], United States | 168 | Range 12–15 (M = 13.5) | 55.0 | S | PANAS SWLS | S | MSLSS | C | Pub |
| Veronese et al. (2012) [38], Palestine | 74 | Range 7–15 (M = 10.80) | 58.0 | G | HFS | S | MSLSS | C | Pub |
| S | PANAS | ||||||||
| Verrastro et al. (2020) [27], Italy | 1549 | Range 7–14 (M = 11.1) | 47.0 | G | HFS | S | FACES IV | C | Pub |
| S | PHS | ||||||||
| Wang et al. (2021) [125], United States | 447 | Range 12–18 (M = 15.09) | 39.1 | S | PANAS | S | NRI | C | Pub |
| Weber & Huebner (2015) [167], United States | 344 | Range 11–14 (M = 12.23) | 45.1 | S | SLSS | S | MSLSS | C | Pub |
| Yuan et al. (2019) [20], China | 703 | Range 10–13 (M = 12.5) | 54.9 | S | SLSS | S | PACS FACES II | C | Pub |
| Yun & Choi (2018) [77], Korea | 527 | Range 10–12 (M = 11.42) | 54.3 | S | EWBS | S | BFRS | C | Pub |
| Zhao et al. (2015) [178], China (Father migrating group) | 145 | Range 10–17 (M = 13.9) | 60.0 | S | SWLS | S | FACES II | C | Pub |
| Zhao et al. (2015) [178], China (two-parent migrating sample) | 96 | Range 10–17 (M = 13.9) | 55.2 | S | SWLS | S | FACES II | C | Pub |
Note. Happiness method: G = graphical assessment; S = self-report questionnaire. Happiness measure: ABS = Affect Balance Scale; PWBQ = Patients’ Well-Being Questionnaire for adolescents; BMSLSS = Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale; CL = Cantril Ladder; EMMBSAR = Multidimensional Scale for the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being of Anguas-Plata and Reyes-Lagune; EWBS = Emotional Well-being Scale; GSL = Global Satisfaction with Life; GQA = General Questionnaire for Adolescents; HFS = Happiness Face Scale; HLTW = Happiness in the Last Two Weeks; HOL = Happiness Overall Life; HTOL = Happiness Taking into Account Overall Life; LS = Life Satisfaction; LSD = Life Satisfaction Domain; L3S = Life 3 Scale; OLS = Overall Life Satisfaction; MLSS = Multidimensional Life Satisfaction Scale; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Scale; PAS = Positive Affect Scale; PHS = Piers-Harris Children’s Concept Scale 2; PHAS = Perceived Happiness Status; PNA = Positive and Negative Affect; PNAA = Scale of Positive and Negative Affects for Adolescents; POMS = Profile of Mood States; QLQ = Quality of Life Questionnaire; RCA = Russell’s Core Affect; RGLS = Rating of Global Life Satisfaction; SLSS = Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale; SWB = Subjective Well-Being; SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale; WHO-5 WBI = World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index. Family Method: I = interview assessments; P/S = parent and self-report; S = self-report. Family measures: A&B = Attitudes and Behaviors survey; AIS = Adolescent Interview Schedule; BFRS = Brief Family Relationship Scale; BMSLSS = Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale; CSRFFI = Colorado Self-Report of Family Functioning Inventory; FACES = Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales; FC = Family Conflict; FCC = Family Conflict Climate; FCS = Family Conflict Scale; FCLQ = Family Closeness Questions; FCQ = Family Communication Questions; FCSFR = Family Communication Subscale of Family Relationships; FES = Family Environment Scale; FLSS = Family Life Satisfaction Scale; F/MACS = Father/Mother–Adolescent Conflict Scale; FSD = Family Satisfaction Domain; FSS = Family Satisfaction Scale; GDSI = General Domain Satisfaction Index; ISCWeB = International Survey of Children’s Well-Being; LDS = Life Domains Satisfaction; MLSSA = Family Satisfaction subscale of the Multidimensional Life Satisfaction Scale for Adolescents; MSLSS = Multidimensional Students Life Satisfaction Scale; NRI = Network of Relationship Inventory; PACS = Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale; PCI = Parent-Child Intimacy; PRI = Pictorial Representation Index; QFIS = Quality of Family Interaction Scale; QFR = Quality of Family Relationships; SDDC = Satisfaction with Different Developmental Contexts; SDLD = Satisfaction with Different Life Domains; SWF = Satisfaction with Family; SWFaL = Satisfaction with Family Life; SWFLS = Satisfaction with Family Life Scale; SWFR = Satisfaction with Family Relationships; YESIMM = Aversive Parent–Child Interactions subscale of the Youth Everyday Social Interactions and Mood Measure. Research design: C = cross-sectional study; D = derived from a longitudinal study (one wave of a longitudinal study); F = 1-year follow-up study; L = longitudinal study; V = validation study of measure. Pub = published; * = Additional data retrieved from authors. ns = not specified.
3.3. Global Family Functioning, Environmental Variables, and Happiness
The impact of global family functioning and family environmental variables (i.e., family relationships and family dynamics) on happiness was supported by a large number of studies (n = 39). Most articles (Table 2) specifically discussed the impact of dysfunctional family functioning on happiness, from both the parents’ and children’s perspectives. Many studies showed that adequate and adaptive family functioning correlated positively with higher levels of happiness [18,24,134,136,174,179,180,181,182,183,184], considering both affective and cognitive components [22,43,185]. Furthermore, some studies showed that family environment and happiness correlated with adolescents’ gender and age [46,181,186]. Only one study found no significant relation between family functioning and adolescents’ happiness [187].
Children’s and adolescents’ global happiness correlated positively with family relationships [12,90,91,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197]. Positive relationships within the family strongly predicted increased subjective happiness [172,198,199] and low depressive symptoms. Children who reported more daily activities with family members reported higher levels of happiness, regardless of the type of activity (e.g., talking, playing, learning together). Studies also indicated that adolescents’ perceptions of high mutuality and stability and a lack of severe problems in the family predicted their global satisfaction [1,200]. Studies further suggested that perceived good relationships in the family helped adolescents to develop feelings of freedom, love, and happiness [172,194,198,199].
Sociodemographic Variables: Age, Gender, and Socioeconomic Status
Sociodemographic variables (e.g., age, gender, socioeconomic status) represent a subtheme of environmental factors associated with happiness (n = 21). The well-being of children and adolescents primarily depended on the closeness of their relationships with family members and, particularly, their parents. Children reported more satisfaction with their family relationships [198] relative to adolescents [43,146]. However, one study found no age or gender differences in the interaction between life satisfaction and family functioning [191]. Young people who perceived a higher quality parent–child relationship had greater and more stable life satisfaction from middle (i.e., aged 14–16 years) to late adolescence (i.e., aged 17–18 years) [197].
The negative correlation between family functioning and life satisfaction was affected by gender differences. Girls perceived less familial dysfunction relative to boys [46]. One study found that family satisfaction was the only significant predictor of girls’ life satisfaction [37]. Another study showed that boys with high overall satisfaction reported high stability and reciprocity and fewer problems in the family [200]. However, other studies found no gender differences in the association between these variables [136,179,201]. Only one study found no correlation between family functioning and the life satisfaction of adolescent boys from low-income families [202].
Shek (1998) [89] showed that adolescents’ life satisfaction correlated with the perceived family atmosphere (i.e., family happiness and family interactions), parent–adolescent relationship, and adolescent–parent communication at both data collection points (i.e., one year apart), regardless of gender. Thus, for both boys and girls, greater life satisfaction was associated with a higher level of perceived happiness in the family and more frequent positive conversations within the family. Some studies revealed that adolescents with a more positive family environment displayed greater happiness and life satisfaction [89,195,196]. Other studies revealed that the link between family functioning and life satisfaction was significantly stronger among adolescent girls, compared to adolescent boys [24,180].
Concerning socioeconomic status, Shek (2002) [177] showed that family functioning was more strongly related to adolescent adaptation among economically disadvantaged adolescents relative to non-economically disadvantaged adolescents. This suggests that family functioning may be associated with better adaptation in high-risk adolescents [22,161]. One study found that satisfaction with family functioning predicted the happiness of rural-urban migrant children—a subgroup with worse self-rated family financial situations [203].
Table 2.
Sample Characteristics and Methods of Assessment of the Reviewed Studies Investigating Global Family Functioning, Environment Variables, and Happiness (n = 39).
Table 2.
Sample Characteristics and Methods of Assessment of the Reviewed Studies Investigating Global Family Functioning, Environment Variables, and Happiness (n = 39).
| Child Characteristics | Happiness Measure | Family Measure | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author (Year), Country | N | Age | % Male | Method | Measure | Method | Measure | Res. Design | Pub |
| Ben-Zur (2003) [12], Israel | 112 | Range 15–19 (M = 17.06) | 48 | S | LSS PANAS | P/S | RFMQ | C | Pub |
| Cacioppo et al. (2013) [136], Italy | 255 | Range 15–17 (M = 15.98) | 40.8 | S | MSLSS | S | FAD | C | Pub |
| Chui & Wong (2017) [18], China | 1830 | Range 10–19 (M = 14.2) | 47.9 | S | SWLS | S | FAI | C | Pub |
| Flouri & Buchanan (2003) [201], United Kingdom | 2722 | Range 14–18 (M = 14.2) | 41.3 | S | HS | S | F/MIS | C | Pub |
| Gilman & Huebner (2006) [188], United States | 485 | Range 11–18 (M = 14.45) | 54.0 | S | SLSS | S | BASC | C | Pub |
| Gómez et al. (2019) [1], Chile | 1392 | Range 10–13 (M = 11.5) | 54.2 | S | SLSS | S | ISCWeB | C | Pub |
| Goswami (2012) [198], United Kingdom | 4673 | Two age groups (8 and 10 year) | 47.0 | S | SLSS | S | MSLSS | C | Pub |
| Heaven et al. (1996) [186], Australia | 183 | Range 13–17 (M = 13.3) | 36.1 | S | SWLS | S | FOS | C | Pub |
| Huebner et al. (2000) [199], United States (Time 1) | 321 | Range 14–18 (M = 16.14) | 35.0 | S | SLSS | S | BASC | L | Pub |
| Huebner et al. (2000) [199], United States (Time 2) | 99 | Range 14–18 | 34.5 | S | SLSS | S | BASC | L | Pub |
| Lawler et al. (2015) [189], 11 countries (United States sample) | 784 | Range 11–14 (M = 12.63) | ns | S | LSI | S | FRQ PIS | C | Pub |
| Lawler et al. (2015) [189], 11 countries (international sample) | 781 | Range 10–14 (M = 12.06) | ns | S | LSI | S | FRQ PIS | N | Pub |
| Lawler et al. (2017) [190], 11 countries (United States sample) | 502 | Range 10–12 (M = 10.66) | ns | S | LSI | S | FRQ PIS | C | Pub |
| Lawler et al. (2017) [190], 11 countries (international sample) | 502 | Range 9–12 (M = 10.12)) | ns | S | LSI | S | FRQ PIS | N | Pub |
| Lawler et al. (2018) [90], South Korea and United States (SK sample) | 489 | Range 10–12 | ns | S | SLSS | S | FRQ PIS | C | Pub |
| Lawler et al. (2018) [90], South Korea and United States (US sample) | 1286 | Range 10–12 (M = 11.21) | ns | S | SLSS | S | FRQ PIS | C | Pub |
| Nevin et al. (2005) [191], Ireland | 294 | Range 15–18 (M = 16.4) | 40.0 | S | OHI SWLS | S | FAD | C | Pub |
| Newland et al. (2014) [192], United States | 149 | Range 12–14 (M = 13.0) | 52.3 | S | LSI | S | FRQ PIS | C | Pub |
| Newland et al. (2015) [193], United States (5th grade) | 502 | Range 10–12 (M = 10.66) | 54.8 | S | LSI | S | FRQ PIS | C | Pub |
| Newland et al. (2015) [193], United States (7th grade) | 784 | Range 12–14 (M = 12.63) | 49.1 | S | LSI | S | FRQ PIS | C | Pub |
| Newland et al. (2019) [91], 14 countries | 25,906 | Range 9–14 (M = 11.4) | 47.8 | S | SLSS + OLS | S | FRQ | N | Pub |
| Rask et al. (2003) [200], Finland | 239 | Range 12–17 (M = 14.0) | 49.0 | S | BSW/Y | P/S | FDM II | C | Pub |
| Sari & Dahlia (2018) [185], Indonesia | 193 | Range 12–15 (M = 12.97) | 50.3 | S | SWLS PANAS | S | FAD | C | Pub |
| Sarriera et al. (2018) [194], Brazil and Spain | 6747 | Range 11–14 (M = 12.07) | 49.3 | S | SLSS | S | ISCWeB | N | Pub |
| Shek (1997a) [46], China | 365 | Range 12–16 | 80.5 | S | SWLS | S | SFI | C | Pub |
| Shek (1997b) [179], China | 429 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.0) | 50 | S | SWLS | S | SFI | D | Pub |
| Shek (1998a) [180], China (Time 1) | 429 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.0) | 50.6 | S | SWLS | P/S | SFI | L | Pub |
| Shek (1998a) [180], China (Time 2) | 378 | Range 13–17 (M = 14.0) | ns | S | SWLS | P/S | SFI | L | Pub |
| Shek (1998c) [89], China (Time 1) | 429 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.0) | 50.6 | S | SWLS | S | SFI | L | Pub |
| I | AIS | ||||||||
| Shek (1998c) [89], China (Time 2) | 378 | Range 13–17 (M = 14.0) | ns | S | SWLS | S | SFI | L | Pub |
| I | AIS | ||||||||
| Shek (1999) [181], China (Time 1) | 429 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.0) | 51.0 | S | SWLS | P/S | SFI | L | Pub |
| Shek (1999) [181], China (Time 2) | 378 | Range 13–17 (M = 14.0) | ns | S | SWLS | P/S | SFI | L | Pub |
| Shek (2002b) [182], China | 1519 | Range 11–18 | ns | S | SWLS | S | FAI | C | Pub |
| Shek (2002c) [134], China | 361 | Range 12–16 (M = 14.0) | 66.4 | S | SWLS | S | SFI FAD FAI | C | Pub |
| Shek (2002d) [177], China | 229 | Range 12–16 | 53.3 | S | SWLS | S | PPAR | D | Pub |
| Shek (2004) [202], China | 228 | Range 12–16 | 46.5 | S | SWLS | S | FAI | D | Pub |
| Shek (2005) [24], China (Time 1) | 229 | Range 12–16 | 46.7 | S | SWLS | S | FAI | L | Pub |
| Shek (2005) [24], China (Time 2) | 199 | Range 13–17 | ns | S | SWLS | S | FAI | L | Pub |
| Shek & Liang (2018) [43], China | 3328 | Range 12–18 (M = 12.59) | 51.7 | S | SWLS | S | FAI | L | Pub |
| Shek & Liu (2014) [22], China (Time 1) | 4106 | Range 14–15 (M = 14.65) | 53.2 | S | SWLS | S | FAI | L | Pub |
| Shek & Liu (2014) [22], China (Time 2) | 2667 | Range 17–18 | ns | S | SWLS | S | FAI | L | Pub |
| Shek et al. (2001) [130], China | 1519 | Range 11–18 (M = 13.5) | 49.9 | S | SWLS | S | PPAR | C | Pub |
| Syanti & Rahmania (2019) [187], Indonesia | 118 | Range 12–19 | 44.0 | S | SWBS | S | FAD | C | Un |
| Tang et al. (2021) [183], China | 1060 | Range 13–16 (M = 14.6) | ns | S | CHI | S | BFFQ | C | Pub * |
| Uusitalo-Malmivaara (2012) [195], Finland | 737 | Range 11–12 (M = 12.10) | 49.2 | S | SHS | S | FRS | C | Pub |
| Uusitalo-Malmivaara & Lehto (2013) [196], Finland | 737 | Range 11–12 (M = 12.10) | 49.2 | S | SHS | S | FRS | C | Pub |
| Wang et al. (2019) [203], China | 2229 | Range 9–17 (M = 11.46) | 52.0 | S | PANAS PWI-SC SWLS | S | FAPGARI | C | Pub |
| Willroth et al. (2021) [197], United States (Time 1) | 674 | Range 14–16 (M = 14.75) | ns | S | OLS | S | PCRQ | L | Pub |
| Zhou et al. (2018) [184], China | 1656 | Range 16–19 (M = 15.8) | 44.39 | S | HS + MSLSS | S | FAD | C | Pub |
Note. Happiness method: S = self-report questionnaire. Happiness measure: BSW/Y = Berne Questionnaire of Subjective Well-Being/Youth form; CHI = Chinese Happiness Inventory; HS = Happiness Scale; LSI = Life Satisfaction Indicator; LSS = Life Satisfaction Scale; MSLSS = Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale; OHI = Oxford Happiness Inventory; OLS = Overall Life Satisfaction; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Scale; SHS = Subjective Happiness Scale; SLSS = Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale; SWBS = Subjective Well-Being Scale; SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale. Family Method: I = interview assessments; P/S = parent and self-report; S = self-report. Family measure: AIS = Adolescent Interview Schedule; BASC = Behavior Assessment System for Children-Self-Report-Adolescent Form; BFFQ = Brief Family Function Questionnaire; FAD = Family Assessment Device; FAI = Family Assessment Instrument; FAPGARI = Family APGAR Index; FDM II = Family Dynamics Measure; F/MIS = Father/Mother Involvement Scale; FOS = Family-of-Origin Scale; FRS = Family Relationship Scale; FRQ = Family Relationship Quality; ISCWeB = International Survey of Children’s Well-Being; MSLSS = Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale; PCRQ = Parent-Child Relationship Quality; PIS = Parent Involvement Scale; PPAR = Perceived Parent–Adolescent Relationship; RFMQ = Relationship with Father/Mother Questionnaire; SFI = Self-Report Family Instrument. Research design: C = cross-sectional; D = derived from a longitudinal study (one wave of a longitudinal study); L = longitudinal; N = cross-national. Publication status: Pub = published; Un = not published; * = additional data retrieved from authors. ns = not specified.
3.4. Parental Differences
Parent gender was a central factor in studies investigating the association between happiness and family functioning in children and adolescents (n = 17) (Table 3). One study revealed that perceived family competence was associated with family members’ perceptions of parental dyadic qualities and individual functioning [131]. In particular, regardless of the informant (i.e., father, mother, and child), child satisfaction correlated negatively with family dysfunction [181]. No differences emerged between parents and children regarding the impact of family conflict [129] and family satisfaction on children’s happiness [169]. Finally, one study indicated no significant differences between parents and children in the association between children’s happiness and family functioning (i.e., cohesion, adaptability, communication, and family satisfaction) [27].
While the investigated studies highlighted differences between mothers and fathers, the results were contradictory and heterogeneous. Some studies reported that maternal understanding was closely related to adolescent life satisfaction [145] and overall adolescent satisfaction [200]. Adolescents with a positive relationship with their mother showed greater happiness than those with a poor mother–child relationship; however, this association was not significant for the father–child relationship [43].
Other research found that the father–child relationship was more closely correlated with indicators of adolescents’ happiness than the mother–child relationship [12,73,129]. Furthermore, the perceived father–adolescent relationship (but not the mother–adolescent relationship) correlated positively with children’s happiness [177]. For instance, Zhao et al. (2015) showed that children’s life satisfaction correlated positively with father–child cohesion, but not mother–child cohesion [178]. Although the involvement of both the father and the mother contributed significantly and independently to children’s happiness, the involvement of the father had a more substantial effect than the involvement of the mother [201].
Children’s and adolescents’ life satisfaction was positively correlated with parent–child relationship qualities [91]. The father–adolescent relationship correlated positively with positive affect and life satisfaction, while the mother–adolescent relationship correlated positively with life satisfaction and only weakly with positive affect [12]. However, one study showed that only the perceived father–adolescent relationship correlated positively with children’s life satisfaction [177].
Age and gender differences emerged in mother–child and father–child communication. Adolescents were significantly more satisfied with their communication with their mother than their communication with their father [30]. One study showed that girls reported greater openness with their mother and boys with their father [140]. Boys reported fewer problems and more open communication with their father, relative to girls [138], while no gender differences emerged in their communication with their mother [30]. Regarding age differences, early adolescents (i.e., aged 12–13 years) reported more positive open communication with their mother and their father relative to mid-adolescents (i.e., aged 14–16 years). In addition, communication problems with both parents increased with age. Overall, adolescents were generally satisfied with their communication with their parents (particularly their mother), and early adolescents were more positive about their communication with their parents compared to mid-adolescents [30].
Table 3.
Sample Characteristics and Methods of Assessment of the Reviewed Studies Investigating the Parental Differences (n = 17).
Table 3.
Sample Characteristics and Methods of Assessment of the Reviewed Studies Investigating the Parental Differences (n = 17).
| Child Characteristics | Happiness Measure | Family Measure | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author (Year), Country | N | Age | % Male | Method | Measure | Method | Measure | Res. Design | Pub |
| Ben-Zur (2003) [12], Israel | 112 | Range 15–19 (M = 17.06) | 48.0 | S | LSS PANAS | P/S | RFMQ | C | Pub |
| Cava et al. (2014) [140], Spain | 1795 | Range 11–18 (M = 14.2) | 52.0 | S | SWLS | S | PACS | C | Pub |
| Flouri & Buchanan (2003) [201], United Kingdom | 2722 | Range 14–18 (M = 14.2) | 41.3 | S | HS | S | F/MIS | C | Pub |
| Ingelmo & Litago (2018) [145], Spain | 1409 | Range 11–18 (M = 14.4) | 49.6 | S | CL | S | SWFR | C | Pub |
| Jackson et al. (1998) [30], Holland | 660 | Range 13–15 (M = 13.5) | 46.4 | S | ABS CL | S | PACS | C | Pub |
| Jiménez et al. (2009) [138], Spain | 565 | Range 11–18 (M = 13.6) | 51.0 | S | SWLS | S | PACS | C | Pub |
| Ljubetić & Reić Ercegovac (2020) [73], Croatia | 101 | Range 10–17 (M = 15.4) | 31.7 | S | GQA | S | QFIS | C | Pub |
| Newland et al. (2019) [91], 14 countries | 25,906 | Range 9–14 (M = 11.4) | 47.8 | S | SLSS + OLS | S | FRQ | N | Pub |
| Rask et al. (2003) [200], Finland | 239 | Range 12–17 (M = 14.0) | 49.0 | S | BSW/Y | P/S | FDM II | C | Pub |
| Schnettler et al. (2017) [169], Chile | 300 | Range 10–17 (M = 13.2) | 51.0 | S | SWLS | P/S | SWFaL | C | Pub |
| Shek (1997c) [131], China | 429 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.0) | 50.6 | S | SWLS | P/S | F/MACS | D | Pub |
| Shek (1998b) [129], China (Time 1) | 429 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.0) | 50.6 | S | SWLS | P/S | F/MACS | L | Pub |
| Shek (1998b) [129], China (Time 2) | 378 | Range 13–17 (M = 14.0) | ns | S | SWLS | P/S | F/MACS | L | Pub |
| Shek (1999) [181], China (Time 1) | 429 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.0) | 51.0 | S | SWLS | P/S | SFI | L | Pub |
| Shek (1999) [181], China (Time 2) | 378 | Range 13–17 (M = 14.0) | ns | S | SWLS | P/S | SFI | L | Pub |
| Shek (2002d) [177], China | 229 | Range 12–16 | 53.3 | S | SWLS | S | F/MACS PPAR | D | Pub |
| Shek & Liang (2018) [43], China | 3328 | Range 12–18 (M = 12.6) | 51.7 | S | SWLS | S | FAI | L | Pub |
| Verrastro et al. (2020) [27], Italy | 1549 | Range 7–14 (M = 11.1) | 47.0 | G | HFS | S | FACES IV | C | Pub |
| S | PHS | ||||||||
| Zhao et al. (2015) [178], China (father migrating group) | 145 | Range 10–17 (M = 13.9) | 60.0 | S | SWLS | S | FACES II | C | Pub |
| Zhao et al. (2015) [178], China (two-parent migrating group) | 96 | Range 10–17 (M = 13.9) | 55.2 | S | SWLS | S | FACES II | C | Pub |
Note. Happiness method: G = graphical assessment; S = self-report questionnaire. Happiness measure: ABS = Affect Balance Scale; BSW/Y = Berne Questionnaire of Subjective Well-Being/Youth form; CL = Cantril Ladder; GQA = General Questionnaire for Adolescents; HFS = Happiness Face Scale; HS = Happiness Scale; LSS = Life Satisfaction Scale; OLS = Overall Life Satisfaction; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Scale; PHS = Piers-Harris Children’s Concept Scale 2; SLSS = Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale; SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale. Family Method: P/S = parent and self-report; S = self-report. Family measures: F/MACS = Father/Mother–Adolescent Conflict Scale; FAI = Family Assessment Instrument; FDM II = Family Dynamics Measure; F/MIS = Father/Mother Involvement Scale; FRQ = Family Relationship Quality; PACS = Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale; PPAR = Perceived Parent–Adolescent Relationship; QFIS = Quality of Family Interaction Scale; RFMQ = Relationship with Father/Mother Questionnaire; SFI = Self-Report Family Instrument; SWFaL = Satisfaction with Family Life; SWFR = Satisfaction with Family Relationships. Source of information (info). Research design: C = cross-sectional; D = derived from a longitudinal study (one wave of a longitudinal study); L = longitudinal; N = cross-national. Publication status: Pub = published. ns = not specified.
3.5. Longitudinal Studies and Predictions of Happiness over Time
Finally, the last theme (n = 13) highlighted the relevance of assessing the relation between happiness and family functioning longitudinally (Table 4). Some of the studies showed that children’s and adolescents’ life satisfaction correlated with family functioning and parental relationships over time [22,24,43,89,180,181,199]. In particular, one longitudinal study suggested that the relation between adolescents’ perceived family functioning and their psychological happiness was bidirectional [24].
Generally, the results showed that adolescent psychological happiness at Time 1 was related to perceived family functioning at Time 2. Therefore, children’s life satisfaction predicted children’s family functioning over time [181]. Moreover, the longitudinal linkage between family functioning and adolescent adjustment was stronger for adolescent girls than for adolescent boys [24]. At the same time, some studies revealed that adolescents with more poorly perceived family functioning at Time 1 (i.e., negative family environment) had poorer life satisfaction at Time 2 [22,89,180]. Notably, a negative family atmosphere, more significant family dysfunction, and more parent–adolescent conflict predicted a negative trend in adolescents’ happiness over time [89]. Overall, youth with a more positive family environment in middle adolescence (i.e., aged 14–16 years) reported higher levels of happiness during late adolescence (i.e., aged 17–18 years) [197].
Regarding the different dimensions of family functioning, studies found that family cohesion, but not perceived family adaptability, significantly predicted changes in adolescents’ happiness over time [110]. Family cohesion and open communication with parents at Time 1 positively correlated with happiness at Time 2 [175,176]. Furthermore, increased family cohesion was associated with increased life satisfaction and positive affection [110], which may have promoted happiness over time [175]. Studies also showed that parent–adolescent conflict predicted changes in adolescents’ psychological happiness over time. Thus, more significant parent–adolescent conflict at Time 1 tended to be associated with lower adolescent life satisfaction at Time 2 [89,129,181]. One study showed that children’s life satisfaction and family cohesion remained significantly related, despite gradually deteriorating during early and middle adolescence (i.e., aged 13–15 years). Youth from more cohesive families often had higher life satisfaction when they entered middle school [117], while pre-adolescents who reported higher life satisfaction at the beginning of middle school (i.e., aged 11 years) tended to experience a slower decline in family cohesion during adolescence.
Table 4.
Sample Characteristics and Methods of Assessment of the Longitudinal Studies (n = 13).
| Child Characteristics | Happiness Measure | Family Measure | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author (Year), Country | N | Age | % Male | Method | Measure | Method | Measure | Res. Design | Pub |
| Gao & Potwarka (2021) [110], China | 675 | Range 12–15 | 47.3 | S | SLSS PANAS | S | FACES II | L | Pub |
| Huebner et al. (2000) [199], United States (Time 1) | 321 | Range 14–18 (M = 16.14) | 35.0 | S | SLSS | S | BASC | L | Pub |
| Huebner et al. (2000) [199], United States (Time 2) | 99 | Range 14–18 | 34.5 | S | SLSS | S | BASC | L | Pub |
| Jhang (2021) [175], China (Time 1) | 1273 | Range 12–15 (M = 13.55) | 49.0 | S | SWLS | S | FACES III | L | Pub |
| Jhang (2021) [175], China (Time 2) | 1028 | Range 14–17 | ns | S | SWLS | S | FACES III | L | Pub |
| Jiménez et al. (2014) [176], Spain (Time 1) | 1319 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.5) | 46.0 | S | SWLS | S | PACS | L | Pub |
| Jiménez et al. (2014) [176], Spain (Time 2) | 554 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.7) | 46.0 | S | SWLS | S | PACS | L | Pub |
| Lin & Yi (2019) [117], China | 2690 | Range 13–17 (M = 13.3) | 51.2 | S | LS | S | FACES III | L | Pub |
| Shek (1998a) [180], China (Time 1) | 429 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.0) | 50.6 | S | SWLS | P/S | SFI | L | Pub |
| Shek (1998a) [180], China (Time 2) | 378 | Range 13–17 (M = 14.0) | ns | S | SWLS | P/S | SFI | L | Pub |
| Shek (1998b) [129], China (Time 1) | 429 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.0) | 50.6 | S | SWLS | P/S | F/MACS | L | Pub |
| Shek (1998b) [129], China (Time 2) | 378 | Range 13–17 (M = 14.0) | ns | S | SWLS | P/S | F/MACS | L | Pub |
| Shek (1998c) [89], China (Time 1) | 429 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.0) | 50.6 | S | SWLS | S | F/MACS SFI | L | Pub |
| I | AIS | ||||||||
| Shek (1998c) [89], China (Time 2) | 378 | Range 13–17 (M = 14.0) | ns | S | SWLS | S | F/MACS SFI | L | Pub |
| I | AIS | ||||||||
| Shek (1999) [181], China (Time 1) | 429 | Range 12–16 (M = 13.0) | 51.0 | S | SWLS | P/S | SFI | L | Pub |
| Shek (1999) [181], China (Time 2) | 378 | Range 13–17 (M = 14.0) | ns | S | SWLS | P/S | SFI | L | Pub |
| Shek (2005) [24], China (Time 1) | 229 | Range 12–16 | 46.7 | S | SWLS | S | FAI | L | Pub |
| Shek (2005) [24], China (Time 2) | 199 | Range 13–17 | ns | S | SWLS | S | FAI | L | Pub |
| Shek & Liang (2018) [43], China | 3328 | Range 12–18 (M = 12.59) | 51.7 | S | SWLS | S | FAI | L | Pub |
| Shek & Liu (2014) [22], China (Time 1) | 4106 | Range 14–15 (M = 14.65) | 53.2 | S | SWLS | S | FAI | L | Pub |
| Shek & Liu (2014) [22], China (Time 2) | 2667 | Range 17–18 | ns | S | SWLS | S | FAI | L | Pub |
| Willroth et al. (2021) [197], United States (Time 1) | 674 | Range 14–16 (M = 14.75) | ns | S | OLS | S | PCRQ | L | Pub |
Note. Happiness method: S = self-report questionnaire. Happiness measures: LS = Life Satisfaction; OLS = Overall Life Satisfaction; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Scale; SLSS = Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale; SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale. Family Method: I = interview assessments; P/S = parent and self-report; S = self-report. Family measures: AIS = Adolescent Interview Schedule; BASC = Behavior Assessment System for Children-Self-Report-Adolescent Form; FACES = Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales; F/MACS = Father/Mother–Adolescent Conflict Scale; FAI = Family Assessment Instrument; PACS = Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale; PCRQ = Parent-Child Relationship Quality; SFI = Self-Report Family Instrument. Source of information (info). Research design: L = longitudinal. Publication status: Pub = published. ns = not specified.
4. Discussion
A total of 124 studies were systematically reviewed to identify relevant dimensions of family functioning associated with children’s and adolescents’ happiness. Four themes emerged from a review of these studies: (1) family dimensions and happiness; (2) global family functioning (i.e., family functioning and family relationships), environmental variables and happiness; (3) parental differences; (4) longitudinal studies.
Regarding the first theme, 91 studies examined the relationship between family dimensions (i.e., family cohesion and adaptability, family satisfaction and communication, and family conflict) and children’s and adolescents’ happiness. The results highlighted that family cohesion significantly predicted changes in happiness, life satisfaction, and positive affect over time [77,113,117,175]. In other words, increased family cohesion and adaptability were associated with higher levels of happiness in children and adolescents [20,110,122]. Thus, positive family dimensions may contribute directly to children’s and adolescents’ sense of happiness, contentment, and general life satisfaction [111,121].
Furthermore, in both boys and girls, positive communication with the mother and the father and high family satisfaction were directly associated with increased happiness [25,138,170,174]. The possibility to express oneself freely at home (i.e., to speak openly about any subject) was associated with greater life satisfaction for adolescents [114]. Adolescents who communicated effectively with their families probably felt that they could share their points of view and feelings openly and sincerely with their parents, and they may have interpreted this communication as a sign of parental support, trust, and closeness [30,140]. This may be especially true for girls, for whom the influence of family communication on happiness was slightly greater [27,171], possibly due to gender differences in cultural norms and socialization. Different parental socialization styles based on child gender [204] may also explain why communication tends to be more open between mothers and daughters and between fathers and sons [140].
On the other hand, communication problems and higher levels of family conflict were associated with lower happiness for children and adolescents [126,128,139]. When communication was open and trouble-free, children and adolescents were more likely to report satisfaction with their families, positive affect, and low levels of conflict, relative to children and adolescents who reported less communication with parents [30]. This finding suggests that family relationships which are perceived to be good may help children and adolescents develop feelings of freedom, love, and happiness [172], underlining that family dimensions play an essential role in influencing children’s and adolescents’ happiness [46].
As regards the second theme, 39 studies examined the association between global family functioning (i.e., family functioning and family relationships), family environment variables, and children’s and adolescents’ happiness. Specifically, a more positive perception of family functioning was related to better emotional well-being in children and adolescents [184,185,191,203]. Furthermore, regardless of the cultural background, children’s family relationships influenced their levels of happiness [1,196] more significantly than any other variable. Bad parent–child relationships were usually accompanied by lower levels of family satisfaction and happiness [145]. Thus, feeling happy at home may contribute to both boys’ and girls’ happiness [174].
The reported studies provided support for the association between global family functioning and happiness during adolescence, even though adolescents consolidate new social relationships with friends and partners during this developmental period [36]. The family is the context in which the first emotional relationships develop, and where children learn to respect and establish positive relationships of love and respect for others [194]. Parents in a well-functioning family can provide emotional support to children, allowing them to express their emotions. A warm and open family communicates happiness to children [185], giving them a sense of security, emotional connection, and trust [178].
A subtheme of environmental factors associated with happiness concerned differences in sociodemographic variables. Some family factors predicted individual differences in happiness and life satisfaction during adolescence. In particular, more positive family environments were associated with greater happiness [191,197]. Furthermore, the findings supported both stability and change in perceived levels, and the relevance of certain life satisfaction domains, among children and adolescents. Young people who perceived a higher quality parent–child relationship had elevated and stable life satisfaction from middle adolescence (i.e., aged 14–16 years) to late adolescence (i.e., aged 17–18 years) [197].
Other studies found that young people’s life satisfaction was negatively correlated with age in all global and life (i.e., family satisfaction) domains [48,146]. The decrease in happiness levels during this period suggests that pre-adolescence may be a stressful phase of development, during which cognitive, physical, and emotional changes strongly influence young people’s overall sense of happiness [27]; family members may play an essential role in accompanying them through these changes. In particular, the decline in both family cohesion and happiness during early and middle adolescence (i.e., aged 12–16 years) may be explained by both the multiple challenges that adolescents face and the more significant conflict that they tend to experience with parents, which tend to result in less participation in family activities; this may reduce adolescents’ perceived family cohesion and life satisfaction [117].
Regarding the third theme identified, 17 studies explored parental gender differences in the association between happiness and family functioning. The selected studies produced contradictory results: a single study reported that a positive mother–child relationship, but not a father–child relationship, was associated with greater happiness in children [43]. However, six studies found significant correlations with the father–child relationship and not the mother–child relationship [12,73,129,177,178,201]. These results suggest that relationships with both mothers and fathers are relevant to children’s and adolescents’ happiness.
However, the reviewed studies found that the father–child relationship was more closely related to indicators of happiness in adolescents than the mother–child relationship [12,73,129]. Indeed, the father–child relationship, father–child cohesion, and father–child conflict predicted children’s life satisfaction, while no equivalent associations were found for the mother [129,177,178]. These results suggest that the effect of father–child proximity on children’s and adolescents’ development is not related to mother–child proximity [178].
However, these studies, which suggest that fathers have the most significant impact on children’s and adolescents’ well-being, contradict the literature showing that mothers tend to be more significant in determining child developmental outcomes. While fathers tend to spend less time with children relative to mothers [205], they may be more committed and dedicated to children when they do spend time together, focusing on the specific situation at hand. Children may perceive their father’s behavior as an essential aspect of their relationship that increases their happiness over the long term [73]. Future studies should investigate the differences between mothers and fathers and the different perspectives between parents and children, to better understand these aspects.
Finally, the last theme that emerged (13 studies) highlighted the importance of evaluating the relation between happiness and family functioning over time, from a predictive perspective. Several studies showed that, regardless of the informant (i.e., father, mother, or child) and the sequence of data collection (i.e., simultaneously vs. longitudinally), children’s happiness was correlated with family functioning [89,181]. The results of both the simultaneous and longitudinal studies consistently showed that the cognitive component of happiness (i.e., life satisfaction) was significantly associated with family functioning and family relationships [22,43,199]. In addition, the longitudinal studies suggested that the relation between perceived family functioning and adolescents’ happiness may be bidirectional [24]; therefore, it is not possible to confirm a univocal causal link between these factors.
Regarding subdimensions of family functioning, studies found that family cohesion [110,175], family communication [176], and parent–adolescent conflict [89,129] significantly predicted changes in adolescent happiness over time: more significant parent–adolescent conflict at Time 1 tended to be associated with a decline in adolescent life satisfaction at Time 2 [89], and greater family cohesion and open communication with parents tended to be associated with increased life satisfaction over time [117,176]. Also, concerning family conflict, the data showed that the relation between parent–adolescent conflict and adolescent emotional well-being could be bidirectional [89]. Future studies should further investigate the causal links between individual and family variables.
In conclusion, the findings of this study suggest that family dimensions may influence the affective and cognitive components of children’s and adolescents’ happiness [30,46,77,110,111,112,124,125,135]. In particular, the reviewed findings demonstrate the significance of family bonds and support for adolescents, indicating that, when family members provide help, affection, and understanding, children and adolescents experience multiple benefits that undoubtedly affect their development of positive psychological experiences [145,200].
Limitations and Strengths of the Studies, and Future Research Directions
Despite increasing research interest in the relation between happiness and family functioning (as evidenced by the growing number of publications in recent years), the investigated studies suffered from some methodological limitations. First, the use of self-report measures may have exposed the research to social desirability bias. Future studies should employ a multi-informant and multi-method methodology combining qualitative measures (i.e., structured or semi-structured interviews and observational measures) or multi-informant questionnaires (i.e., parent and teacher reports) with self-reports. Second, the use of cross-sectional designs did not enable causal links to be drawn between variables. Thus, future studies should implement longitudinal procedures to better understand the factors that contribute to the happiness of children and adolescents. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of the samples (with respect to, e.g., geographical scope, size, and age range) limit the generalizability of the results.
The lack of a coherent theoretical model to define the construct of happiness represents a significant gap in the literature. This may explain the variety in both measurement tools and operationalizations of the construct in the investigated studies. Compounding this, some of the investigated studies did not clearly define happiness, positive affect, or life satisfaction. Therefore, future research should explicitly make the psychological construct operational. Additionally, future research should explore the association between attachment styles and children’s and adolescents’ happiness during development.
A further limitation of the present research is the possibility that methodological biases may have affected the study selection, due to the arbitrariness of the constructs and the interpretation of the reviewers. However, two independent evaluators excluded all articles that deviated from a precise definition of happiness or that analyzed family factors other than family functioning. Thus, attempts were made to target the constructs of interest.
A future research direction might be to examine overall effect sizes, which were not addressed in the present study. Moreover, as the present work focused on the relation between happiness and family functioning in non-clinical samples, an equivalent analysis in clinical samples may provide important new insights. Finally, the present review suggests the relevance of the father–child relationship, father–child cohesion, and father–child conflict in predicting children’s and adolescents’ happiness. Future research should further investigate the differences between fathers and mothers, using multi-informant and mixed-methods procedures and a longitudinal approach.
However, the present work also has significant strengths, including compliance with a rigorous systematic review protocol with clearly-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Indeed, a careful research strategy carried out by two independent evaluators was employed to acquire all relevant articles. Another strength is the high reviewer reliability during the screening process, reflecting a transparent selection methodology. Uniquely, the review represents the first study to synthesize the literature on happiness in the family context during development, filling a significant gap in the literature pertaining to the possible impact of family functioning on children’s and adolescents’ happiness. Finally, the review identified heterogeneous measurements of happiness and family functioning during development, suggesting that future studies should develop a more standardized approach to obtain more consistent results.
5. Conclusions
The present review included studies that investigated the relationship between family functioning and happiness. The reviewed studies found a positive relation between happiness and family functioning in different cultures and age groups. Thus, family factors seem to play an essential role in increasing or diminishing the happiness of children and adolescents. However, many aspects remained largely unexplored, and more research is needed to determine how family variables (and particularly family functioning) affect children’s and adolescents’ happiness. Finally, more longitudinal studies are required to test causal relationships. Increased evidence of the potential direction of causality of these variables would extend our knowledge of happiness, as it is currently unclear whether family variables affect levels of happiness, positive affect, and life satisfaction, and whether these relationships are bidirectional.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.B., F.I. and J.P. methodology, R.B., F.I. and J.P; validation, R.B., F.I. and J.P., formal analysis, R.B., F.I. and J.P; investigation, F.I.; resources, R.B., F.I. and J.P.; data curation, R.B., F.I. and J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, F.I.; writing—review and editing, R.B., F.I. and J.P.; supervision, R.B. and J.P.; project administration, R.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Articles and data will be made available to the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Note: References [1,3,7,12,18,20,21,22,24,25,27,28,29,30,33,35,36,37,38,42,43,44,46,71,73,77,89,90,91,101,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203] are the studies included in the systematic review.
- Gómez, D.O.; Aznar, F.C.; Inzunza, J.A. Family, school, and Neighbourhood microsystems influence on children’s life satisfaction in Chile. Child Indic. Res. 2019, 12, 1915–1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baiocco, R.; Verrastro, V.; Fontanesi, L.; Ferrara, M.P.; Pistella, J. The contributions of self-esteem, loneliness, and friendship to children’s happiness: The roles of gender and age. Child Indic. Res. 2019, 12, 1413–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, N.; Huebner, E.S. A cross-cultural study of the levels and correlates of life satisfaction among adolescents. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2005, 36, 444–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holder, M.D.; Klassen, A. Temperament and happiness in children. J. Happiness Stud. 2010, 11, 419–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamp Dush, C.M.; Taylor, M.G.; Kroeger, R.A. Marital happiness and psychological well-being across the life course. Fam. Relat. 2008, 57, 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Diener, E.; Lucas, R.E.; Oishi, S. Advances and open questions in the science of subjective well-being. Collabra Psychol. 2018, 4, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leto, I.V.; Petrenko, E.N.; Slobodskaya, H.R. Life satisfaction in Russian primary schoolchildren: Links with personality and family environment. J. Happiness Stud. 2019, 20, 1893–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greco, C.; Ison, M. What makes you happy? Appreciating the reasons that bring happiness to Argentine children living in vulnerable social contexts. J. Lat./Lat. Am. Stud. 2014, 6, 4–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maftei, A.; Holman, A.C.; Cârlig, E.R. Does your child think you’re happy? Exploring the associations between children’s happiness and parenting styles. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2020, 115, 105074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vera, E.; Thakral, C.; Gonzales, R.; Morgan, M.; Conner, W.; Caskey, E.; Bauer, A.; Mattera, L.A.; Clark, S.; Bena, K.; et al. Subjective well-being in urban adolescents of color. Cult. Divers. Ethn. Minor. Psychol. 2008, 14, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diener, E.; Scollon, C.N.; Lucas, R.E. The evolving concept of subjective well-being: The multifaceted nature of happiness. In Assessing Well-Being: The Collected Works of Ed Diener; Diener, E., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 67–100. [Google Scholar]
- Ben-Zur, H. Happy adolescents: The link between subjective well-being, internal resources, and parental factors. J. Youth Adolesc. 2003, 32, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frisch, M.B.; Cornell, J.; Villanueva, M.; Retzlaff, P.J. Clinical validation of the Quality of Life Inventory. A measure of life satisfaction for use in treatment planning and outcome assessment. Psychol. Assess. 1992, 4, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leung, J.T.; Shek, D.T.; Li, L. Mother–child discrepancy in perceived family functioning and adolescent developmental outcomes in families experiencing economic disadvantage in Hong Kong. J. Youth Adolesc. 2016, 45, 2036–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Olson, D.H. Circumplex Model of Marital and Family System. J. Fam. Ther. 2000, 22, 144–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, N.B.; Bishop, D.S.; Levin, S. The McMaster model of family functioning. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 1978, 4, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, X.; Xu, J.; Sun, L.; Zhang, J. Family functioning: Theory, influencing factors, and its relationship with adolescent social adjustment. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2004, 12, 544–553. [Google Scholar]
- Chui, W.H.; Wong, M.Y. Avoiding disappointment or fulfilling expectation: A study of gender, academic achievement, and family functioning among Hong Kong adolescents. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2017, 26, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, M.L.; Blanton, P. Predictors of family functioning among clergy and spouses: Influences of social context and perceptions of work-related stressors. J. Child Fam. Stud. 1998, 7, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, X.; Zhuo, R.; Li, G. Migration patterns, family functioning, and life satisfaction among migrant children in China: A mediation model. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 22, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schnettler, B.; Miranda-Zapata, E.; Grunert, K.G.; Grønhøj, A.; Jiménez, P.; Lobos, G.; Orellana, L.; Hueche, C. Satisfaction with life, family and food in adolescents: Exploring moderating roles of family-related factors. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 41, 802–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shek, D.T.; Liu, T.T. Life satisfaction in junior secondary school students in Hong Kong: A 3-year longitudinal study. Soc. Indic. Res. 2014, 117, 777–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, N.; Baldwin, L.; Bishop, D. The McMaster Family Assessment Device. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 1983, 9, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shek, D.T. A longitudinal study of perceived family functioning and adolescent adjustment in Chinese adolescents with economic disadvantage. J. Fam. Issues 2005, 26, 518–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennefield, Z. School and family correlates of positive affect in a nationally representative sample of US adolescents. Child Adolesc. Soc. Work J. 2018, 35, 541–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holder, M.D.; Coleman, B. The contribution of social relationships to children’s happiness. J. Happiness Stud. 2009, 10, 329–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verrastro, V.; Ritella, G.; Saladino, V.; Pistella, J.; Baiocco, R.; Fontanesi, L. Personal and family correlates to happiness amongst Italian children and preadolescents. Int. J. Emot. Educ. 2020, 12, 48–64. [Google Scholar]
- Raboteg-Šarić, Z.; Brajša-Žganec, A.; Šakić, M. Life satisfaction in adolescents: The effects of perceived family economic status, self-esteem and quality of family and peer relationships. Društvena Istraživanja Časopis Za Opća Društvena Pitanja 2009, 18, 547–564. [Google Scholar]
- Huebner, E.S. Correlates of life satisfaction in children. Sch. Psychol. Q. 1991, 6, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, S.; Bijstra, J.; Oostra, L.; Bosma, H. Adolescents’ perceptions of communication with parents relative to specific aspects of relationships with parents and personal development. J. Adolesc. 1998, 21, 305–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, H.L.; Olson, D.H. Parent-adolescent communication and the circumplex model. Child Dev. 1985, 56, 438–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro, D.; Montserrat, C.; Malo, S.; Gonzàlez, M.; Casas, F.; Crous, G. Subjective well-being: What do adolescents say? Child Fam. Soc. Work 2017, 22, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradley, R.; Corwyn, R. Life satisfaction among European American, African American, Chinese American, Mexican American, and Dominican American adolescents. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2004, 28, 385–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huebner, E.S. Further validation of the Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale: The independence of satisfaction and affect ratings. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 1991, 9, 363–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcantara, S.C.; González-Carrasco, M.; Montserrat, C.; Viñas, F.; Casas, F.; Abreu, D.P. Peer violence in the school environment and its relationship with subjective well-being and perceived social support among children and adolescents in Northeastern Brazil. J. Happiness Stud. 2017, 18, 1507–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernal, A.C.A.L.; Arocena, F.A.L.; Ceballos, J.C.M. Bienestar subjetivo y satisfacción con la vida de familia en adolescentes mexicanos de bachillerato. Psicol. Iberoam. 2011, 19, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vera, E.M.; Moallem, B.I.; Vacek, K.R.; Blackmon, S.K.; Coyle, L.D.; Gomez, K.L.; Lamp, K.; Langrehr, K.J.; Luginbuhl, P.; Mull, M.K.; et al. Gender differences in contextual predictors of urban, early adolescents’ subjective well-being. J. Multicult. Couns. Dev. 2012, 40, 174–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veronese, G.; Castiglioni, M.; Barola, G.; Said, M. Living in the shadow of occupation: Life satisfaction and positive emotion as protective factors in a group of Palestinian school children. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2012, 34, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabolova, K.; Birdsey, N.; Stuart-Hamilton, I.; Cousins, A.L. A cross-cultural exploration of children’s perceptions of well-being: Understanding protective and risk factors. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2020, 110, 104771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bronfenbrenner, U. The Ecology of Human Development. Experiments by Nature and Design; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- López-Pérez, B.; Fernández-Castilla, B. Children’s and adolescents’ conceptions of happiness at school and its relation with their own happiness and their academic performance. J. Happiness Stud. 2018, 19, 1811–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rees, G. Family structure and children’s subjective well-being: A comparative analysis in eight European countries. Enfance 2017, 1, 13–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shek, D.T.; Liang, L.Y. Psychosocial factors influencing individual well-being in Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong: A six-year longitudinal study. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2018, 13, 561–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Song, J.; Ma, C.; Gu, C.; Zuo, B. What matters most to the left-behind children’s life satisfaction and school engagement: Parent or grandparent? J. Child Fam. Stud. 2018, 27, 2481–2490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diener, E.; Seligman, M.E. Very happy people. Psychol. Sci. 2002, 13, 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shek, D.T. Family environment and adolescent psychological well-being, school adjustment, and problem behavior: A pioneer study in a Chinese context. J. Genet. Psychol. 1997, 158, 113–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paradis, A.D.; Reinherz, H.Z.; Giaconia, R.M.; Beardslee, W.R.; Ward, K.; Fitzmaurice, G.M. Long-term impact of family arguments and physical violence on adult functioning at age 30 years: Findings from the Simmons Longitudinal Study. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2009, 48, 290–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldbeck, L.; Schmitz, T.G.; Besier, T.; Herschbach, P.; Henrich, G. Life satisfaction decreases during adolescence. Qual. Life Res. 2007, 16, 969–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilman, R.; Huebner, S. A review of life satisfaction research with children and adolescents. Sch. Psychol. Q. 2003, 18, 192–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A.; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Piers, E.V.; Herzberg, D.S. Piers-Harris 2. Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale, 2nd ed.; Western Psychological Services (WPS): Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Lyubomirsky, S.; Sheldon, K.M.; Schkade, D. Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2005, 9, 111–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lu, L. “Cultural fit”: Individual and societal discrepancies in values, beliefs, and subjective well-being. J. Soc. Psychol. 2006, 146, 203–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argyle, M. The Psychology of Happiness, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Fordyce, M.W. A review of research on the happiness measures: A sixty second index of happiness and mental health. Soc. Indic. Res. 1988, 20, 355–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdel-Khalek, A.M. Measuring happiness with a single-item scale. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2006, 34, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, A.; Converse, P.E.; Rogers, W.L. The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satisfactions; Russell Sage: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Russell, J.A. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychol. Rev. 2003, 110, 145–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, D.; Clark, L.A.; Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 1063–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heuchert, J.P.; McNair, D.M. Profile of Mood States (POMS-2), 2nd ed.; Multi-Health Systems: North Tonawanda, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Segabinazi, J.D.; Zortea, M.; Zanon, C.; Bandeira, D.R.; Giacomoni, C.H.; Hutz, C.S. Escala de afetos positivos e negativos para adolescentes: Adaptação, normatização e evidências de validade. Avaliação Psicol. 2012, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Bradburn, N.M. The Structure of Psychological Well-Being; Aldine: Chicago, IL, USA, 1969. [Google Scholar]
- Curran, S.L.; Andrykowski, M.A.; Studts, J.L. Short form of the profile of mood states (POMS-SF): Psychometric information. Psychol. Assess. 1995, 7, 80–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorr, M.; McNair, D.M. The Profile of Mood States Manual; Educational and Industrial Testing Service: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Cummins, R.A.; Lau, A.L.D. Personal Well-Being Index—School Children (PWI-SC) (English) Manual; Deakin University, School of Psychology: Melbourne, AU, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Grob, A.; Lüthi, R.; Kaiser, F.G.; Flammer, A. Berner Fragebogen zum Wohlbefinden Jugendlicher (BFW) [The Bern Subjective Well-Being Questionnaire for Adolescents (BFW)]. Diagnostica 1991, 37, 66–75. [Google Scholar]
- Diener, E.D.; Emmons, R.A.; Larsen, R.J.; Griffin, S. The satisfaction with life scale. J. Personal. Assess. 1985, 49, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cantril, H. The Pattern of Human Concerns; Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
- Olson, D.H.; Barnes, H.L. Quality of Life, Adolescent Form; Family Social Science, University of Minnesota: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Huebner, E.S. Preliminary development and validation of a multidimensional life satisfaction scale for children. Psychol. Assess. 1994, 6, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seligson, J.L.; Huebner, E.S.; Valois, R.F. Preliminary validation of the brief multidimensional students’ life satisfaction scale (BMSLSS). Soc. Indic. Res. 2003, 61, 121–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrews, F.M.; Robinson, J.P. Measures of subjective well-being. In Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes; Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., Wrightsman, L.S., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1991; pp. 61–114. [Google Scholar]
- Ljubetić, M.; Reić Ercegovac, I. The relationship between mindful parenting, cognitive parental awareness, and the subjective well-being of adolescents. Metod. Ogl. 2020, 27, 103–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Topp, C.W.; Østergaard, S.D.; Søndergaard, S.; Bech, P. The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychother. Psychosom. 2015, 84, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grob, A. Subjective well-being and significant life-events across the life span. Swiss J. Psychol. 1995, 54, 3–18. [Google Scholar]
- Anguas, A. Identificación y validación del significado del bienestar subjetivo en México: Fundamentos para el desarrollo de un instrumento de medición. Interam. J. Psychol. 2001, 35, 163–183. [Google Scholar]
- Yun, Y.; Choi, J. A child’s family relationship and emotional well-being through self-regulated learning in South Korea. Can. J. Fam. Youth 2018, 10, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shek, D.T. Assessment of family functioning in Chinese adolescents: The Chinese Family Assessment Instrument. In International Perspectives on Child and Adolescent Mental Health; Singh, N.N., Ollendick, T.H., Singh, A.N., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 297–316. [Google Scholar]
- Beavers, W.R.; Hampson, R.B. Successful Families: Assessment and Intervention; Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Reynolds, C.R.; Kamphaus, R.W. Manual for the Behavioral Assessment System for Children; American Guidance Service: Circle Pines, MN, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Ellonen, N.; Kääriäinen, J.; Salmi, V.; Sariola, H. Lasten ja Nuorten Väkivaltakokemukset [The Experiences of Violence among Children and Young People]; Police College of Finland: Tampere, Finland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Dinisman, T.; Rees, G. Findings from the First Wave of Data Collection; Children’s Worlds: International Survey of Children’s Well-Being (ISCWeB); Jacobs Foundation: Zürich, Switzerland, 2014; Available online: http://www.isciweb.org (accessed on 23 September 2022).
- Ren, Y.; Lin, M.P.; Liu, Y.H.; Zhang, X.; Wu, J.Y.W.; Hu, W.H.; Xu, S.; You, J. The mediating role of coping strategy in the association between family functioning and nonsuicidal self-injury among Taiwanese adolescents. J. Clin. Psychol. 2018, 74, 1246–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smilkstein, G. The family APGAR: A proposal for a family function test and its use by physicians. J. Fam. Pract. 1978, 6, 1231–1239. [Google Scholar]
- Barnhill, L.R. Healthy family systems. Fam. Coord. 1979, 28, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hovestadt, A.J.; Anderson, W.T.; Piercy, F.P.; Cochran, S.W.; Fine, M. A family of-origin scale. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 1985, 11, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flouri, E.; Buchanan, A. Life satisfaction in teenage boys: The moderating role of father involvement and bullying. Aggress. Behav. 2002, 28, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayseless, O.; Wiseman, H.; Hai, I. Adolescents’ relationships with father, mother, and same-gender friend. J. Adolesc. Res. 1998, 13, 101–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shek, D.T. A longitudinal study of the relations of family factors to adolescent psychological symptoms, coping resources, school behavior, and substance abuse. Int. J. Adolesc. Med. Health 1998, 10, 155–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lawler, M.J.; Choi, C.; Yoo, J.; Lee, J.; Roh, S.; Newland, L.A.; Giger, J.Y.; Sudhagoni, R.; Brockevelt, B.L.; Lee, B.J. Children’s subjective well-being in rural communities of South Korea and the United States. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2018, 85, 158–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newland, L.A.; Giger, J.T.; Lawler, M.J.; Roh, S.; Brockevelt, B.L.; Schweinle, A. Multilevel analysis of child and adolescent subjective well-being across 14 countries: Child-and country-level predictors. Child Dev. 2019, 90, 395–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Olson, D.H.; Portner, J.; Lavee, Y. FACES II Manual; University of Minnesota at St Paul, Department of Family Social Science: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Olson, D.H. Circumplex model VII: Validation studies and FACES III. Fam. Process 1986, 25, 337–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baiocco, R.; Cacioppo, M.; Laghi, F.; Tafà, M. Factorial and construct validity of FACES IV among Italian adolescents. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2013, 22, 962–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olson, D.H. FACES IV and the circumplex model: Validation study. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 2011, 37, 64–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bloom, B.L. A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning. Fam. Process 1985, 24, 225–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fok, C.C.T.; Allen, J.; Henry, D.; Team, P.A. The Brief Family Relationship Scale: A brief measure of the relationship dimension in family functioning. Assessment 2014, 21, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cooper, J.E.; Holman, J.; Braithwaite, V.A. Self-esteem and family cohesion: The child’s perspective and adjustment. J. Marriage Fam. 1983, 45, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Search Institute. User Guide for the Attitudes & Behaviors Survey. 2016. Available online: https://www.search-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/AB-Survey-User-Guide-1.pdf (accessed on 23 September 2022).
- Segabinazi, J.D.; Giacomoni, C.H.; Dias, A.C.G.; Teixeira, M.A.P.; Moraes, D.A.D.O. Desenvolvimento e validação preliminar de uma escala multidimensional de satisfação de vida para adolescentes. Psicol. Teor. E Pesqui. 2010, 26, 653–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Casas, F.; Bello, A.; González, M.; Aligué, M. Children’s subjective well-being measured using a composite index: What impacts Spanish first-year secondary education students’ subjective well-being? Child Indic. Res. 2013, 6, 433–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zabriskie, R.B.; McCormick, B.P. Parent and child perspectives of family leisure involvement and satisfaction with family life. J. Leis. Res. 2003, 35, 163–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barraca, J.; Yarto, L.L.; Olea, J. Psychometric properties of a new family life satisfaction scale. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2000, 16, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cummins, R.A.; Eckersley, R.; Pallant, J.; Van Vugt, J.; Misajon, R. Developing a national index of subjective well-being: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Soc. Indic. Res. 2003, 64, 159–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vulić-Prtorić, A. Skala kvalitete obiteljskih interakcija-KOBI. U: A. Proroković i sur.(Ur.). Zbir. Psihol. Skala I Upitnika 2004, 2, 24–33. [Google Scholar]
- Robin, A.L.; Foster, S.L. Negotiating Parent-Adolescent Conflict; Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, R.M.; Choe, J.; Kim, G.; Ngo, V. Construction of the Asian American Family Conflicts Scale. J. Couns. Psychol. 2000, 47, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reynolds, B.M.; Robles, T.F.; Repetti, R.L. Measurement reactivity and fatigue effects in daily diary research with families. Dev. Psychol. 2016, 52, 442–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furman, W.; Buhrmester, D. Methods and measures: The network of relationships inventory: Behavioral systems version. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2009, 33, 470–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, M.; Potwarka, L. Investigating the role of family travel and family functioning in promoting Chinese adolescents’ subjective well-being. J. Leis. Res. 2021, 52, 487–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamama, L.; Arazi, Y. Aggressive behaviour in at-risk children: Contribution of subjective well-being and family cohesion. Child Fam. Soc. Work 2012, 17, 284–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lietz, P.; Dix, K.L.; Tarabashkina, L.; O’Grady, E.; Ahmed, S.K. Family fun: A vital ingredient of early adolescents having a good life. J. Fam. Stud. 2020, 26, 459–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fosco, G.M.; Lydon-Staley, D.M. Implications of family cohesion and conflict for adolescent mood and well-being: Examining within-and between-family processes on a daily timescale. Fam. Process 2020, 59, 1672–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Estévez López, E.; Jiménez Gutiérrez, T.I.; Moreno Ruiz, D. Aggressive behavior in adolescence as a predictor of personal, family, and school adjustment problems. Psicothema 2018, 30, 66–73. [Google Scholar]
- Braithwaite, V.; Devine, C. Life satisfaction and adjustment of children of alcoholics: The effects of parental drinking, family disorganization and survival roles. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 1993, 32, 417–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dost-Gözkan, A. The gratification of psychological needs and well-being among turkish adolescents: An examination of direct and indirect links. J. Res. Adolesc. 2021, 31, 52–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, W.H.; Yi, C.C. The effect of family cohesion and life satisfaction during adolescence on later adolescent outcomes: A prospective study. Youth Soc. 2019, 51, 680–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manzi, C.; Vignoles, V.L.; Regalia, C.; Scabini, E. Cohesion and enmeshment revisited: Differentiation, identity, and well-being in two European cultures. J. Marriage Fam. 2006, 68, 673–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merkaš, M.; Brajša-Žganec, A. Children with different levels of hope: Are there differences in their self-esteem, life satisfaction, social support, and family cohesion? Child Indic. Res. 2011, 4, 499–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, X.; Tian, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Xie, X.; Heath, M.A.; Zhou, Z. Psychological development and educational problems of left-behind children in rural China. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2015, 36, 227–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salewski, C. Illness representations in families with a chronically ill adolescent: Differences between family members and impact on patients’ outcome variables. J. Health Psychol. 2003, 8, 587–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mallette, J.K.; O’Neal, C.W.; Winkelman Richardson, E.; Mancini, J.A. When fathers are involved: Examining relational and psychosocial health among military families. Fam. Process 2021, 60, 602–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rhatigan, K.J. The Relationships between Family Functioning, Adolescent Delinquent Behavior, and Life Satisfaction in Single- and Dual-Career Families. Ph.D. Dissertation, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Silva, K.; Ford, C.A.; Miller, V.A. Daily parent–teen conflict and parent and adolescent well-being: The moderating role of daily and person-level warmth. J. Youth Adolesc. 2020, 49, 1601–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.T.; Henry, D.A.; Del Toro, J.; Scanlon, C.L.; Schall, J.D. COVID-19 employment status, dyadic family relationships, and child psychological well-being. J. Adolesc. Health 2021, 69, 705–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khurana, N. Adolescent Life Satisfaction in Relation to Stress Coping Parental Bonding and Family Conflict. Ph.D. Dissertation, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Cruz, A.; Piña-Watson, B. Family Conflict & Latina/o Youth Depressive Symptoms, Hopelessness, Suicidality, & Life Satisfaction: An Examination of Gender Role Values; Research Posters; Texas Tech University: Lubbock, TX, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Rodríguez-Rivas, M.; Varela, J.J.; González, C.; Chuecas, M.J. The Role of Family Support and Conflict as Predictors of Cyberbullying and Subjective Well-Being during the COVID-19 Period for Chilean Adolescents. Heliyon 2021, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shek, D.T. A longitudinal study of the relations between parent-adolescent conflict and adolescent psychological well-being. J. Genet. Psychol. 1998, 159, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shek, D.T.; Tsoi, K.W.; Lau, P.S.; Tsang, S.K.; Lam, M.C.; Lam, C.M. Psychological well-being, school adjustment and problem behavior in Chinese adolescents: Do parental qualities matter? Int. J. Adolesc. Med. Health 2001, 13, 231–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shek, D.T. The relation of parent-adolescent conflict to adolescent psychological well-being, school adjustment, and problem behavior. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 1997, 25, 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bahrassa, N.F.; Syed, M.; Su, J.; Lee, R.M. Family conflict and academic performance of first-year Asian American undergraduates. Cult. Divers. Ethn. Minor. Psychol. 2011, 17, 415–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koster, N.; de Maat, D.A.; Schreur, M.; van Aken, M.A. How borderline personality characteristics affect adolescents’ life satisfaction: The role of rejection sensitivity and social relations. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2018, 15, 594–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shek, D.T. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Family Awareness Scale. J. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 142, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moore, G.F.; Cox, R.; Evans, R.E.; Hallingberg, B.; Hawkins, J.; Littlecott, H.J.; Long, S.J.; Murphy, S. School, peer and family relationships and adolescent substance use, subjective well-being and mental health symptoms in Wales: A cross sectional study. Child Indic. Res. 2018, 11, 1951–1965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cacioppo, M.; Pace, U.; Zappulla, C. Parental psychological control, quality of family context and life satisfaction among Italian adolescents. Child Indic. Res. 2013, 6, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, H.S.; Koo, H.Y.; Schepp, K.G. Predictors of suicidal ideation for adolescents by gender. J. Korean Acad. Nurs. 2005, 35, 1433–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jiménez, T.I.; Musitu, G.; Ramos, M.J.; Murgui, S. Community involvement and victimization at school: An analysis through family, personal and social adjustment. J. Community Psychol. 2009, 37, 959–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrascosa, L.; Cava, M.J.; Buelga, S. Perfil psicosocial de adolescentes españoles agresores y víctimas de violencia de pareja. Univ. Psychol. 2018, 17, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cava, M.J.; Buelga, S.; Musitu, G. Parental communication and life satisfaction in adolescence. Span. J. Psychol. 2014, 17, E98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soares, A.S.; Pais-Ribeiro, J.L.; Silva, I. Developmental assets predictors of life satisfaction in adolescents. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caycho-Rodríguez, T.; Ventura-León, J.; Barboza-Palomino, M.; Reyes-Bossio, M.; Gallegos, W.L.A.; Cadena, C.H.G.; Cabrera-Orosco, I.; Ayala, J.; Morgado-Gallardo, K.; Cahua, J.C.H. Validez e invarianza factorial de una medida breve de Satisfacción con la Vida Familiar. Univ. Psychol. 2018, 17, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, S.; Main, G. Comparing child subjective well-being in South Korea and the UK: Testing an ecological systems approach. Child Indic. Res. 2017, 10, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sastre, M.T.M.; Ferrière, G. Family decline and the subjective well-being of adolescents. Soc. Indic. Res. 2000, 49, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingelmo, R.M.G.; Litago, J.D.U. Satisfacción vital y relaciones familiares y con iguales en la adolescencia/Life satisfaction and family relationships and with peers in adolescence. Cauriensia. Rev. Anu. Cienc. Eclesiásticas 2018, 13, 243–258. [Google Scholar]
- Park, N. Life satisfaction among Korean children and youth: A developmental perspective. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2005, 26, 209–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bedin, L.M.; Sarriera, J.C. A comparative study of the subjective well-being of parents and adolescents considering gender, age and social class. Soc. Indic. Res. 2015, 120, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Froh, J.J.; Yurkewicz, C.; Kashdan, T.B. Gratitude and subjective well-being in early adolescence: Examining gender differences. J. Adolesc. 2009, 32, 633–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomez, K.L. Family Satisfaction, Ethnic Identity, and Subjective Well-Being among Urban Youth. Ph.D. Dissertation, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Seligson, J.L.; Huebner, E.S.; Valois, R.F. An investigation of a brief life satisfaction scale with elementary school children. Soc. Indic. Res. 2005, 73, 355–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakalım, O.; Taşdelen-Karçkay, A. Positive and negative affect as predictors of family life satisfaction. J. Hum. Sci. 2015, 12, 1330–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galarce Muñoz, M.I.; Pérez-Salas, C.P.; Sirlopú, D. Análisis comparativo de la participación escolar y bienestar subjetivo en estudiantes con y sin discapacidad en Chile. Psykhe 2020, 29, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil da Silva, D.; Dell’Aglio, D. Avaliação do bem-estar subjetivo em adolescentes: Relações com sexo e faixa etária. Análise Psicológica 2018, 36, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casas, F.; Sarriera, J.C.; Alfaro, J.; González, M.; Bedin, L.; Abs, D.; Figuer, C.; Valdenegro, B. Reconsidering life domains that contribute to subjective well-being among adolescents with data from three countries. J. Happiness Stud. 2015, 16, 491–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Da Costa, M.P.; Neto, F. Psychometric evaluation of the Portuguese satisfaction with family life scale. Meas. Instrum. Soc. Sci. 2019, 1, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ercegovac, I.R.; Maglica, T.; Ljubetić, M. The relationship between self-esteem, self-efficacy, family and life satisfaction, loneliness and academic achievement during adolescence. Croat. J. Educ. 2021, 23, 65–83. [Google Scholar]
- Irmak, S.; Kuruüzüm, A. Turkish validity examination of the multidimensional students’ life satisfaction scale. Soc. Indic. Res. 2009, 92, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno-Maldonado, C.; Jiménez-Iglesias, A.; Camacho, I.; Rivera, F.; Moreno, C.; Matos, M.G. Factors associated with life satisfaction of adolescents living with employed and unemployed parents in Spain and Portugal: A person focused approach. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2020, 110, 104740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Migliorini, L.; Tassara, T.; Rania, N. A Study of Subjective Well-Being and Life Satisfaction in Italy: How are Children doing at 8 years of Age? Child Indic. Res. 2019, 12, 49–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schnettler, B.; Grunert, K.G.; Lobos, G.; Miranda-Zapata, E.; Denegri, M.; Hueche, C. Maternal food-related practices, quality of diet, and well-being: Profiles of Chilean mother-adolescent dyads. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2018, 50, 776–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schnettler, B.; Miranda, H.; Miranda-Zapata, E.; Lobos, G.; Denegri, M.; Lapo, M.; Ares, G.; Hueche, C. Diet quality and satisfaction with different domains of life in single-and dual-headed households: Comparing mother-adolescent dyads. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2018, 89, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schnettler, B.; Miranda-Zapata, E.; Grunert, K.G.; Lobos, G.; Denegri, M.; Hueche, C. Weight fluctuation and diet concern negatively affect food-related life satisfaction in Chilean male and female adolescents. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schnettler, B.; Miranda-Zapata, E.; Lobos, G.; Saracostti, M.; Denegri, M.; Lapo, M.; Hueche, C. The mediating role of family and food-related life satisfaction in the relationships between family support, parent work-life balance, and adolescent life satisfaction in dual-earner families. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schnettler, B.; Grunert, K.G.; Lobos, G.; Miranda-Zapata, E.; Denegri, M.; Hueche, C. Exploring relationships between family food behaviour and well-being in single-headed and dual-headed households with adolescent children. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 40, 585–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schnettler, B.; Grunert, K.G.; Orellana, L.; Miranda, H.; Lobos, G.; Miranda-Zapata, E.; Lapo, M.; Hueche, C. The diverging patterns of life satisfaction between families: A latent profile analysis in dual-earner parents with adolescents. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 41, 7240–7257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, L.; Zhang, J.; Huebner, E.S. Preliminary validation of the brief multidimensional students’ life satisfaction scale (BMSLSS) among Chinese elementary school students. Child Indic. Res. 2015, 8, 907–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, M.; Huebner, E.S. Early adolescents’ personality and life satisfaction: A closer look at global vs. domain-specific satisfaction. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2015, 83, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casas, F.; Figuer, C.; González, M.; Malo, S.; Alsinet, C.; Subarroca, S. The well-being of 12-to 16-year-old adolescents and their parents: Results from 1999 to 2003 Spanish samples. Soc. Indic. Res. 2007, 83, 87–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schnettler, B.; Lobos, G.; Miranda-Zapata, E.; Denegri, M.; Ares, G.; Hueche, C. Diet quality and satisfaction with life, family life, and food-related life across families: A cross-sectional pilot study with mother-father-adolescent triads. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gross-Manos, D.; Shimoni, E.; Ben-Arieh, A. Subjective well-being measures tested with 12-year-olds in Israel. Child Indic. Res. 2015, 8, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaye-Tzadok, A.; Kim, S.S.; Main, G. Children’s subjective well-being in relation to gender—What can we learn from dissatisfied children? Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2017, 80, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orejudo, S.; Balaguer, Á.; Osorio, A.; de la Rosa, P.A.; Lopez-del Burgo, C. Activities and relationships with parents as key ecological assets that encourage personal positive youth development. J. Community Psychol. 2021, 50, 896–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taşdelen-Karçkay, A. Family Life Satisfaction Scale—Turkish version: Psychometric evaluation. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2016, 44, 631–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Carrasco, M.; Casas, F.; Viñas, F.; Malo, S.; Gras, M.E.; Bedin, L. What leads subjective well-being to change throughout adolescence? An exploration of potential factors. Child Indic. Res. 2017, 10, 33–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jhang, F.H. Negative life events and life satisfaction: Exploring the role of family cohesion and self-efficacy among economically disadvantaged adolescents. J. Happiness Stud. 2021, 22, 2177–2195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiménez, T.I.; Estévez, E.; Murgui, S. Ambiente comunitario y actitud hacia la autoridad: Relaciones con la calidad de las relaciones familiares y con la agresión hacia los iguales en adolescentes. An. De Psicol./Ann. Psychol. 2014, 30, 1086–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shek, D.T. The relation of parental qualities to psychological well-being, school adjustment, and problem behavior in Chinese adolescents with economic disadvantage. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 2002, 30, 215–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.; Liu, X.; Wang, M. Parent–child cohesion, friend companionship and left-behind children’s emotional adaptation in rural China. Child Abus. Negl. 2015, 48, 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shek, D.T. The relation of family functioning to adolescent psychological well-being, school adjustment, and problem behavior. J. Genet. Psychol. 1997, 158, 467–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shek, D.T. A longitudinal study of Hong Kong adolescents’ and parents’ perceptions of family functioning and well-being. J. Genet. Psychol. 1998, 159, 389–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shek, D.T. Individual and dyadic predictors of family functioning in a Chinese context. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 1999, 27, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shek, D.T. Family functioning and psychological well-being, school adjustment, and problem behavior in Chinese adolescents with and without economic disadvantage. J. Genet. Psychol. 2002, 163, 497–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, W.C.; Lin, M.P.; You, J.; Wu, J.Y.W.; Chen, K.C. Prevalence and psychosocial risk factors of nonsuicidal self-injury among adolescents during the COVID-19 outbreak. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, J.; Fang, H.U.; Jing, W.U.; Zou, Z.Y.; Wang, Y.X.; Peng, H.C.; Vermund, S.H.; Hu, Y.F.; Ma, Y.H. Subjective well-being and family functioning among adolescents left behind by migrating parents in Jiangxi Province, China. Biomed. Environ. Sci. 2018, 31, 382–388. [Google Scholar]
- Sari, E.P.; Dahlia, W. Family functioning and subjective well-being among adolescents. Malays. Online J. Psychol. Couns. 2018, 5, 43–51. [Google Scholar]
- Heaven, P.; Searight, H.R.; Chastain, J.; Skitka, L.J. The relationship between perceived family health and personality functioning among Australian adolescents. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 1996, 24, 358–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syanti, W.R.; Rahmania, A.M. Does family functioning has correlation with Subjective Well-being? A study among Adolescent in Coastal Surabaya. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Psychology, Malang City, East Java, Indonesia, 6–7 September 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Gilman, R.; Huebner, E.S. Characteristics of adolescents who report very high life satisfaction. J. Youth Adolesc. 2006, 35, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawler, M.J.; Newland, L.A.; Giger, J.T.; Roh, S. Ecological, relationship-based model of 12-year-old children’s subjective well-being in the United States and ten other countries. J. Soc. Res. Policy 2015, 6, 57–70. [Google Scholar]
- Lawler, M.J.; Newland, L.A.; Giger, J.T.; Roh, S.; Brockevelt, B.L. Ecological, relationship-based model of children’s subjective well-being: Perspectives of 10-year-old children in the United States and 10 other countries. Child Indic. Res. 2017, 10, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nevin, S.; Carr, A.; Shevlin, M.; Dooley, B.; Breaden, C. Factors related to well-being in Irish adolescents. Ir. J. Psychol. 2005, 26, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Newland, L.A.; Giger, J.T.; Lawler, M.J.; Carr, E.R.; Dykstra, E.A.; Roh, S. Subjective well-being for children in a rural community. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 2014, 40, 642–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newland, L.A.; Lawler, M.J.; Giger, J.T.; Roh, S.; Carr, E.R. Predictors of children’s subjective well-being in rural communities of the United States. Child Indic. Res. 2015, 8, 177–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarriera, J.C.; Casas, F.; dos Santos, B.R.; Bedin, L.M.; Gonzàlez, M. Subjective well-being and personal relationships in childhood: Comparison of Brazilian and Spanish children. Interpersona Int. J. Pers. Relatsh. 2018, 12, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Uusitalo-Malmivaara, L. Global and school-related happiness in Finnish children. J. Happiness Stud. 2012, 13, 601–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uusitalo-Malmivaara, L.; Lehto, J.E. Social factors explaining children’s subjective happiness and depressive symptoms. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 111, 603–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willroth, E.C.; Atherton, O.E.; Robins, R.W. Life satisfaction trajectories during adolescence and the transition to young adulthood: Findings from a longitudinal study of Mexican-origin youth. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2021, 120, 192–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Goswami, H. Social relationships and children’s subjective well-being. Soc. Indic. Res. 2012, 107, 575–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huebner, E.S.; Funk III, B.A.; Gilman, R. Cross-sectional and longitudinal psychosocial correlates of adolescent life satisfaction reports. Can. J. Sch. Psychol. 2000, 16, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rask, K.; Åstedt-Kurki, P.; Paavilainen, E.; Laippala, P. Adolescent subjective well-being and family dynamics. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 2003, 17, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Flouri, E.; Buchanan, A. The role of father involvement and mother involvement in adolescents’ psychological well-being. Br. J. Soc. Work 2003, 33, 399–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shek, D.T. Psychological well-being, school adjustment, and problem behavior among Chinese adolescent boys from poor families: Does family functioning matter. In Adolescent Boys: Exploring Diverse Cultures of Boyhood; Way, N., Chu, J.Y., Eds.; New York University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 129–143. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Gu, S.; Ye, B.; Gao, J.; Wang, F.; Dai, J.; Fu, H. The effect of migration and the hukou registration system on psychosocial domains and family functioning of children in Shanghai, China. Int. Health 2019, 11 (Suppl. 1), 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garaigordobil, M.; Aliri, J. Parental socialization styles, parents’ educational level, and sexist attitudes in adolescence. Span. J. Psychol. 2012, 15, 592–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Altenburger, L.E.; Schoppe-Sullivan, S.J.; Kamp Dush, C.M. Associations between maternal gatekeeping and fathers’ parenting quality. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2018, 27, 2678–2689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
PRISMA flowchart of the study selection.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Izzo, F.; Baiocco, R.; Pistella, J. Children’s and Adolescents’ Happiness and Family Functioning: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16593. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416593
AMA Style
Izzo F, Baiocco R, Pistella J. Children’s and Adolescents’ Happiness and Family Functioning: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(24):16593. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416593
Chicago/Turabian StyleIzzo, Flavia, Roberto Baiocco, and Jessica Pistella. 2022. "Children’s and Adolescents’ Happiness and Family Functioning: A Systematic Literature Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 24: 16593. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416593
APA StyleIzzo, F., Baiocco, R., & Pistella, J. (2022). Children’s and Adolescents’ Happiness and Family Functioning: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24), 16593. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416593
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
