Advertisement

Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 761–766 | Cite as

Support for Autonomy at School Predicts Immigrant Adolescents’ Psychological Well-being

  • Fabio Alivernini
  • Elisa CavicchioloEmail author
  • Sara Manganelli
  • Andrea Chirico
  • Fabio Lucidi
Original Paper

Abstract

We investigated the relationship between teacher support at school intended to promote students’ autonomy and immigrant adolescents’ psychological well-being. A structural equation model was tested on 3130 immigrant adolescents who attended a representative sample of 654 Italian high schools. Gender, socioeconomic status, previous school achievement and immigrant generation were included in the analysis as control variables. Results showed that when teachers are perceived as adopting an approach that is supportive of autonomy, immigrant adolescents report significantly higher levels of psychological well-being. Gender appears to be the most relevant background factor, with girls being more at risk than boys as regards mental health. Overall, our findings suggest that interventions of enacted support by teachers at school that aim to foster students’ autonomy would be an effective approach for protecting against mental illness in immigrant adolescents.

Keywords

Psychological well-being Mental health Teacher autonomy support Background factors Immigrant adolescents 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Alivernini F, Manganelli S. The classmates social isolation questionnaire (CSIQ): an initial validation. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2016;13:264–74.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2016.1152174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alivernini F, et al. Measuring bullying and victimization among immigrant and native primary school students: evidence from Italy. J Psychoeduc Assess. 2017;13:073428291773289.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282917732890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Strohmeier D, et al. Intrapersonal and interpersonal risk factors for peer victimization in immigrant youth in Finland. Dev Psychol. 2011;47(1):248–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    du Plooy DR, et al. Predictors of flourishing and psychological distress among migrants to australia: a dual continuum approach. J Happiness Stud. 2018;0(0):0–0.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9961-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rogers-Sirin L, et al. Acculturation, acculturative stress, and cultural mismatch and their influences on immigrant children and adolescents’ well-being: In: Dimitrova R et al., eds. Advances in immigrant family research. Global perspectives on well-being in immigrant families. New York: Springer; 2014: 11–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9129-3_2.
  6. 6.
    du Plooy DR, et al. The effect of social support on psychological flourishing and distress among migrants in Australia. J Immigr Minor Health. 2018;0(0):0–0.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-018-0745-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Plaza SH, et al. Social support interventions in migrant populations. Br J Social Work. 2005;36(7):1151–69.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hogan BE, et al. Social support interventions: do they work? Clin Psychol Rev. 2002;22(3):381–440.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(01)00102-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dalmasso P, et al. Being a young migrant in Italy: the effect of perceived social support in adolescence. J Immigr Minor Health. 2017;0(0):0–0.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-017-0671-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ministry of Education, Universities and Research. (2018). Gli alunni con cittadinanza non italiana. A.S. 2016/2017 [Students without Italian citizenship. National Report 2016/2017], Ufficio Statistica e studi 2018. http://www.miur.gov.it/documents/20182/0/FOCUS+16-17_Studenti+non+italiani/be4e2dc4-d81d-4621-9e5a-848f1f8609b3?version=1.0. Accessed 1 June 2018.
  11. 11.
    Clark CL, Watson D. Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. J Abnorm Psychol. 1991;100(3):316–36.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.100.3.316.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cauley B, et al. Teaching behavior and positive and negative affect in high school students: does students’ race. Matter? School Mental Health. 2017;9(4):334–46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-017-9219-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fergusson D, Woodward L. Mental health, educational, and social role outcomes of adolescents with depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002;59(3):225–31.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.59.3.225.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stewart SM, et al. Symptom patterns in depression and ‘‘subthreshold’’ depression among adolescents in Hong Kong and the United States. J Cross Cult Psychol. 2002;33(6):559–76.  https://doi.org/10.1177/022022102238269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brieant A, et al. Positive and negative affect and adolescent adjustment: moderation effects of prefrontal functioning. J Res Adolesc. 2018;28:40–55.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12339.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reeve J. Autonomy-supportive teaching: what it is, how to do it. In: Liu W et al, editors. Building autonomous learners. Singapore: Springer; 2016. pp. 129–52.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-630-0_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reeve J. Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educ Psychol. 2009;44(3):159–75.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903028990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Niemiec CP, Ryan RM. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom. School Field 2009. 2009;7(2):133–44.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yu C, et al. Teacher autonomy support reduces adolescent anxiety and depression: an 18-month longitudinal study. J Adolesc. 2016;49:115–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.03.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Petegem K, et al. The influence of student characteristics and interpersonal teacher behaviour in the classroom on student’s wellbeing. Soc Indic Res. 2007;85(2):279–91.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9093-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bradley RH, Corwyn RF. Socioeconomic status and child development. Annu Rev Psychol. 2002;53(1):371–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Flook L. Gender differences in adolescents’ daily interpersonal events and well-being. Child Dev. 2011;82(2):454–61.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01521.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alivernini F, et al. The use of self-regulated cognitive strategies across students with different immigrant backgrounds and gender. J Psychoeduc Assess. 2018;51:073428291878507–13.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282918785072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alivernini F, et al. Immigrant background and gender differences in primary students’ motivations toward studying. J Educ Res. 2018;111(5):603–11.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1349073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cunningham S, et al. Health of foreign-born people in the United States: a review. Health Place. 2008;14(4):623–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Institute for the Evaluation of the Education System. Rilevazioni nazionali degli apprendimenti 2014–2015 [National Evalutation of Learning] 2015. Author. https://invalsi-areaprove.cineca.it/docs/attach/035_Rapporto_Prove_INVALSI_2015.pdf.
  27. 27.
    Tian L, et al. Development and validation of the brief adolescents’ subjective well-being in school scale (BASWBSS). Soc Indic Res. 2014;120(2):615–34.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0603-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whitley AM, et al. Can students be too happy in school? The optimal level of school satisfaction. Appl Res Qual Life. 2012;7(4):337–50.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-012-9167-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Laurent J, et al. A measure of positive and negative affect for children: scale development and initial validation. Psychol Assess. 1999;11(3):326–38.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.11.3.326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Organisation for economic co-operation and development: PISA 2012 technical report. Programme for international student assessment, organisation for economic co-operation and development publishing; 2014. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA-2012-technical-report-final.pdf.
  31. 31.
    Alivernini F, et al.: Dalla povertà educativa alla valutazione del successo scolastico: concetti, indicatori e strumenti validati a livello nazionale. ECPS 2017;1(15):1–32.  https://doi.org/10.7358/ecps-2017-015-aliv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Williams GC, Deci EL. Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: a test of self-determination theory. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;70(4):767–79.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user’s guide. 8th ed. Los Angeles: Author; 1998–2017.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hu L, Bentler PM. Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6:1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schreiber JB, et al. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res. 2006;99(6):323–37.  https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chaplin TM, Aldao A. Gender differences in emotion expression in children: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2013;139(4):735–65.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030737.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Crawford JR, Henry JD. The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol 2004: 43(3): 245–265.  https://doi.org/10.1348/0144665031752934.
  38. 38.
    Roeser RW. To cultivate the positive: Introduction to the special issue on schooling and mental health issues. J Sch Psychol. 2001;39(2):99–110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00061-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Reeve J, Cheon HS. An intervention-based program of research on teachers’ motivating styles. In: Karabenick S, Urdan TC, editors. Advances in motivation and achievement. Vol. 18. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing; 2014. pp. 297–343.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Alivernini F, et al. The last shall be the first: competencies, equity and the power of resilience in the Italian school system. Learn Individ Differ. 2016;51:19–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute for the Evaluation of the Education System (INVALSI)RomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Developmental and Social PsychologySapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations