Copyright 1998 by The Gerontological Society of America
Journal of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES
1998, Vol. 53B, No. 5, S249-S257
Perceived Self-Efficacy and Grandparenting
Valarie King1 and Glen H. Elder, Jr.2
'Departments of Sociology and Human Development, and Population Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University,
department of Sociology and Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Objectives. This study identifies grandparents who feel efficacious in their role and the consequences of such beliefs
for actual involvement with an adolescent grandchild.
Methods. The sample of 883 grandparents comes from two related studies of rural families, the Iowa Youth and
Families Project and the Iowa Single Parent Project. Our research questions are answered by testing a series of bivariate and multivariate regression models.
Results. Results show much variability in perceptions of being able to influence one's grandchild. Church attendance, knowledge of one's own grandparents, a farm history, a strong grandparent-parent bond, proximity, and having
fewer grandchildren emerged as significant predictors of grandparents' perceptions of efficacy. Grandparents with
strong self-efficacious beliefs play an active role in the lives of their grandchildren.
Discussion. With an increasing number of grandparents taking responsibilities for their grandchildren, a greater understanding of the experiences and resources that enhance their sense of personal efficacy in this role warrants priority
in generational studies.
W
ITH increasing longevity and good health, grandparents can play a more important role in the lives of
children and adolescents than was possible in previous generations. Most children today grow up surrounded by contact with active grandparents (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1986;
Uhlenberg & Kirby, in press). The potential importance of
grandparents has also been underscored by recent family
and societal changes, such as the prevalence of divorce in
the parent generation. This event prompts grandparents to
take on new family roles (Seltzer, 1994, and citations
therein). They may step in to comfort their grandchildren or to provide social support to the parent as he or
she goes through the emotional trauma of divorce. Others
may help out by providing day care for their grandchild
or have grandchildren and the custodial parent move into
their home. Similarly, teenage childbearing may prompt
grandparents to take on more parentlike roles with grandchildren (Burton, 1990). In more extreme cases, grandparents become primary caregivers for grandchildren, often in
response to drug problems in the parent generation (Minkler & Roe, 1993).
Little is known, however, about grandparents' motivations to become involved in grandchildren's lives. More
grandparents are available today, but not all are actively involved with their grandchildren. It is likely that grandparents take a more active role when they believe they can
have some influence and make a difference in the lives of
their grandchildren. We address this issue by examining the
correlates of perceived efficacy in the grandparent role—
factors that identify grandparents who believe they can influence their grandchildren. We also examine the link between feelings of efficacy and actual involvement with
grandchildren.
Perceived Self-Efficacy and Grandparenting
Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one's effectiveness in dealing with prospective tasks or situations that
often contain many ambiguous, unpredictable, and stressful
elements (Bandura, 1982, 1995, 1997). It is not concerned
with the skills one has but rather with judgments of what
one can do with whatever skills one possesses (Bandura,
1986). People with similar skills can vary greatly in their
perceptions of efficacy.
These perceptions affect how people think, feel, motivate themselves, and behave (Bandura, 1993). The beliefs
shape the courses people's lives take by influencing the
types of activities and environments they choose to pursue.
These choices lead people to cultivate different competencies, interests, and social networks (Bandura, 1995).
People with perceived efficacy approach difficult tasks
as challenges to be mastered, fostering intrinsic interest and
social engagement. They establish challenging goals and
maintain strong commitments to them, even in the face of
difficulties. By contrast, people who lack a sense of efficacy shy away from difficult tasks that they view as personal threats. They have low aspirations and weak commitments to the goals they choose to pursue. They are more
likely to give up quickly in the face of difficulties (Bandura, 1987, 1993, 1995).
Self-efficacy develops out of early interactions between
an individual and the environment. The quality of this interaction and the opportunities it provides for engaging in efficacious action promote such beliefs throughout the life
course (Gecas, 1989). Bandura (1982, 1986) views efficacious beliefs as a product of different sources of efficacyrelevant information. Mastery experiences, the most important source, serve as demonstrations of capability: Success
S249
S250
KING AND ELDER
elevates efficacy appraisals, whereas repeated failures lower
them. Vicarious experiences through seeing others perform
successfully can raise aspirations of personal efficacy in observers, suggesting that they too can master comparable
tasks. Verbal persuasion from others that one possesses certain capabilities, and inferences that individuals make about
their capabilities from physiological or emotional states, can
also play a role.
Numerous studies have linked perceived self-efficacy
and a variety of outcome behaviors. For example, perceived
self-efficacy is related to goal setting and goal commitment,
academic achievement, career choice and development, social activism, community satisfaction, and athletic attainments. It is also linked to a variety of health-promoting and
health-impairing behaviors as well as coping behavior, depression, pain tolerance, stress reactions, physical stamina,
self-regulation of addictive behavior, and postcoronary recovery (Bandura, 1986, 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and
citations therein; Gecas, 1989).
However, less is known about the role of perceived efficacy as it affects family relationships, and we are unaware of
any studies dealing with perceived self-efficacy and grandparenting. Studies that examine perceptions of parental
efficacy show that parents with efficacious beliefs are resourceful in promoting their children's competencies and
well-being (Elder, Eccles, Ardelt, & Lord, 1995; Teti &
Gelfand, 1991). In dangerous neighborhoods, they seek out
protective youth organizations and involve their children in
religious activities.
What about grandparents? With an increasing number of
grandparents assuming responsibilities for their grandchildren, a greater understanding of the experiences and resources that enhance their sense of personal efficacy in this
role warrants greater priority in studies of the generations.
Is there much variability in perceptions of grandparent selfefficacy? Which grandparents are most likely to feel efficacious? And are grandparents who feel efficacious more active and resourceful with their grandchildren? These are the
main questions pursued in this study. No prior research, to
our knowledge, has examined them.
Factors identified as important correlates of grandparent
involvement more generally (Elder & King, in press; King
& Elder, 1995, and citations therein) are relevant to efficacious beliefs. Many of these factors reflect resources grandparents may have that could promote opportunities for engaging in efficacious action with grandchildren; they are
likely to foster the kind of success and mastery experiences
that raise efficacy appraisals. For example, we hypothesize
that younger and healthier grandparents are more likely to
feel they can influence their grandchildren than older grandparents or those in poor health. Better educated grandparents, who may have more resources, and grandmothers,
who tend to be more involved with grandchildren than
grandfathers, are also hypothesized to feel more efficacious
than less educated grandparents and grandfathers.
A large number of rural families in our sample are embedded in a farming culture that promotes interaction between grandparents and grandchildren. This network suggests that farm grandparents will feel more influential than
their nonfarm counterparts. The support and empowerment
of connections in a religious community identifies grandparents who are members as more likely to feel efficacious.
In addition, knowledge of one's own grandparents during
childhood and the example they present favor adult involvement in the grandparent role (King & Elder, 1997). We hypothesize that vicarious experiences of this kind will also
predict feelings of efficacy in a grandparent. Successful
modeling experiences strengthen self-efficacy. Efficacy appraisals are often based on similarity to models, and competent models teach effective strategies for dealing with challenging situations. People also rely more heavily on models
when they have had little prior experience on which to base
evaluations of their personal competence (Bandura, 1982,
1986, 1987). Knowing about one's own grandparents, therefore, is likely to provide such modeling experiences.
Finally, characteristics of the families are likely to influence feelings of efficacy. We hypothesize that grandparents
will feel more influential when they live closer to their
grandchild, when the grandchild lives in an intact family,
when the grandparent has a good relationship with the adult
parent, when the grandparent has fewer grandchildren
among whom to divide attention, and when the grandparent
is from the maternal lineage (based on the closer tie between daughters and their parents in comparison to sons).
Such conditions facilitate grandparent-grandchild ties more
generally (Elder & King, in press), and are likely to facilitate feelings of efficacy as well. The gender of the grandchild is also considered.
Based on self-efficacy theory, we hypothesize that individuals who feel efficacious as a grandparent will play a
larger and more active role in the lives of their grandchildren than grandparents who feel they have little influence.
Although we expect judgments of self-efficacy to be related
to behavior, a number of factors can affect the strength of
this relationship. Social environments such as physical distance, poor health, or strained relations with adult children
may place "constraints" on what people do or may aid them
to behave optimally. Similarly, individuals may lack the resources or equipment needed to perform the behavior (Bandura, 1982, 1986, 1997). Thus, in assessing the association
of perceptions of grandparent efficacy with current involvement with grandchildren, it is important to control for mediating factors that may help account for this relationship,
namely likely correlates of efficacious beliefs (i.e., personal
qualities of the grandparent, sociocultural factors, and family factors).
In addition, we consider potential moderating influences—factors that might alter the association between feelings of efficacy as a grandparent and involvement with a
grandchild. Under what conditions do we find the strongest
and weakest links between efficacious beliefs and involvement with grandchildren? Based on prior research, three potential moderating influences would seem to be particularly
important: gender of the grandparent, parental divorce, and
distance. Are feelings of efficacy as a grandparent more important in promoting involvement with grandchildren for
grandmothers or grandfathers, or is the process the same?
Previous research has found various aspects of grandparenthood to differ significantly for grandmothers and grandfathers. The most common differences revolve around the
PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY AND GRANDPARENTING
types of activities and roles grandparents play with their
grandchildren, as well as different styles of grandparenting
(Elder & King, in press; Russell, 1986; Thomas, 1989).
We also compare youth from intact and divorced families. Divorce in the parent generation can hinder grandparent-grandchild relations (Hagestad, 1985; Johnson, 1985)
and may thus interfere with the link between perceived efficacy and involvement. If a parent blocks access to a grandchild in their "gatekeeper" role, then contact will be limited
regardless of a grandparent's perceived efficacy. On the
other hand, in some divorced families, grandparents may
be prompted to become more involved (Chase-Lansdale,
Brooks-Gunn, & Zamsky, 1994) and those who do might
be those who feel most efficacious.
Distance is the final conditional influence that warrants
consideration (King & Elder, 1997). Strong feelings of
grandparent efficacy may only promote involvement when
the grandparent lives in close proximity to the grandchild, a
condition that makes it easier to become involved. If a
grandparent lives very far away, involvement might be
correspondingly lower because of constraints imposed by
distance. On the other hand, higher levels of perceived efficacy might distinguish between grandparents' levels of involvement. High levels of perceived efficacy may signal the
extra effort required of grandparents to be involved in the
lives of grandchildren who live far away. Most grandparents who live nearby are apt to be involved regardless of
their perceived efficacy in the grandparent role because
contact under these circumstances is more expected and requires less effort.
METHODS
Data
The sample comes from two related longitudinal studies
of White rural families, the Iowa Youth and Families Project (IYFP) and the Iowa Single Parent Project (ISPP). The
IYFP, a study of families living in north central Iowa, began
in 1989 with 451 two-parent households that included one
focal child in the 7th grade and a near sibling. The families
have been interviewed annually. Prior to the third wave of
data collection, when the focal children in the IYFP were in
the 9th grade, the ISPP was begun with 207 households.
Each household was headed by a single mother who was
permanently separated from her husband within the past
two years, and included a 9th grade focal child and a near
sibling. Just over half of the original ISPP sample (n = 109)
was selected for reinterview in subsequent years. By 1994,
data were still being collected from 516 focal children (413
in IYFP and 103 in ISPP) who were then in the 12th grade
(see Conger & Elder, 1994, and Simons, 1996, for more detailed descriptions of the data collection process).
Information was collected directly from the grandparents
in these families in 1994 through a telephone interview and
mailed-out questionnaire. The parents were informed about
the grandparent project and its rationale, with emphasis on
the potential influence of grandparents in the lives of young
people. They were encouraged to sign permission forms
that would enable the research staff to contact their parents
(parents refused in 181 cases, prompted mainly by the real-
S251
ization that the grandparents were too impaired to participate). A total of 897 grandparents participated in the phone
interviews (58 grandparents refused; response rate = 79%).
After the phone interviews were completed, a questionnaire
was mailed to everyone in the interview sample; 694 returned the questionnaires. Each family could have up to
four grandparents in the study, although each grandparent
within a family reported on the same focal grandchild.
Grandparents who completed the phone interviews are
included in these analyses. Because there were a large number of nonrespondents on church attendance (n = 26) and
knowledge of own grandparents (n = 243), dummy variables indicating the missing cases were created and included in the regression models, instead of deleting these
individuals. This procedure prevents further curtailment of
the sample size by allowing for the inclusion of the missing
cases while correcting for any bias introduced from having
missing information. The large number of missing cases for
exposure to grandparents reflects the fact that this variable
was measured in the grandparent questionnaire, which had
a lower completion rate (all other variables are from the
phone interviews). Fourteen cases were deleted because of
missing data on one or more of the other independent variables (to keep ns consistent across models), resulting in a
final sample of 883 grandparents in these three-generation
families. The actual sample sizes for the regression analyses to follow fluctuate slightly (876-883) because of missing data (average missing = 3 cases) for the grandparent involvement measures.
Sample attrition is always a concern in longitudinal studies. Using information gathered in the first wave of data
collection, the families who continued to participate in the
study were compared to those who dropped out on a variety
of measures. The only consistent difference to emerge was
that parents in families who continued to participate had
completed, on average, one extra year of schooling, compared with parents who left the study. It is unlikely that the
results reported here would be affected by such a minor
difference.
In order to assess possible sample selection biases introduced by limiting the sample to grandparents who participated in the phone interviews, we compared these grandparents to those grandparents known to be alive in 1994 but
who did not participate in the phone interviews. Using parent and adolescent reports about the grandparents (which
were asked regardless of whether the grandparent was in
the study), the two groups were compared on several key
factors where differences were expected to exist. Not surprisingly, grandparents in the study were rated by parents to
be in significantly better health than nonparticipants. The
grandchildren gave higher ratings of closeness to those
grandparents who participated as wel|. No differences were
found for whether the grandparents jived alone or for the
proximity of grandparents to their grandchildren. These
findings indicate that grandparents who are more connected
to their families are somewhat overrepresented.
The grandparents in the study range in age from 51 to 92,
with an average age of 69. Slightly more than half had
raised their children on a farm. One quarter of the grandparents never graduated from high school. Half terminated
S252
KING AND ELDER
their education upon high school graduation, and another
quarter attended at least some college (see Table 1).
These data are unique in the sense that they are the only
source of information we have found on grandparents' perceptions of self-efficacy with regard to having influence
over their grandchildren. We examined perceptions of selfefficacy in several domains because areas of influence and
effectiveness could vary among the grandparents. In addition, this data set includes measures of current grandparent
involvement that extend beyond the more typical items of
contact and relationship quality. This allowed us to test
whether perceptions of self-efficacy influence grandparent
involvement generally or only in specific situations. Finally
the data set includes a wide variety of measures on the personal, cultural, and background characteristics of the grandparents and their families, also rare in studies of this type,
that allowed us to examine the correlates of high perceptions of efficacy as a grandparent.
Table 1. Measures Used in the Analysis (approximate n - 883)
Variables
Coding
Means (SD)
Predictors of Perceived Self-Efficacy
Personal Qualities of the Grandparent
High school graduate
Beyond high school
Age
Subjective health
Grandmother
Sociocultural Factors
Farming history
Church attendance
Knowledge of own grandparents
Family Factors
Miles distant
Intact family
Grandparent-parent bond
Maternal lineage
Number of grandchildren
Grandson
.49
.26
69.40 (6.53)
2.98 (.80)
.63
.55
3.60
(.78)
.60
(.31)
59.86 (85.76)
.81
3.69 (.55)
.59
9.51 (4.64)
.49
Highest grade completed by grandparent was high school. 1 = yes, 0 = no.
Grandparent went beyond high school. 1 = yes, 0 = no.
Age of the grandparent in years.
Grandparent's assessment of his or her own health in general. 1 = poor, 4 = excellent.
1 = grandmother, 0 = grandfather.
1 = grandparent raised children on a farm, 0 = nonfarm.
Frequency of attendance at services or listening to religious broadcasts on TV or the
radio. 1 = never, 4 = once a week or more. A dummy variable for those missing
(n = 26) on this variable was also created (1 = missing; 0 = not missing).
Average of 5 dichotomous items (0 = no, 1 = yes; alpha = .65) measuring sources
from which they learned about any of their own grandparents (photos, storytelling,
family heirlooms, family reunions, relatives named after them).
A dummy variable for those missing (n = 243) on this variable was also created
(1 = missing; 0 = not missing)
Number of miles grandparent lives from parent's household, capped at 250 or more.
1 = grandchild lives in an intact family, 0 = grandchild lives in a divorced family.
Divorced families include all of the grandparents in the ISPP sample as well as
43 grandparents from the IYFP sample whose grandchildren were members of families
that experienced a divorce by 1994.
Quality of the relationship with the parent. 1 = poor, 4 = excellent.
1 = maternal grandparent, 0 = paternal grandparent.
Total number of grandchildren the grandparent has, capped at 20 or more.
1 = focal child is a grandson, 0 = focal child is a granddaughter.
Measures of the Grandparent-Grandchild Relationship
Contact
3.39 (1.19)
Past 6 months: seen grandchild face to face. 1 = not at all, 6 = daily.
Relationship quality
3.42
Average of 3 items (alpha = .81): a. current relationship (1 = poor, 4 = excellent);
b. closeness (1 = not at all or not very, 4 = very close); c. grandchild makes you feel
appreciated, loved, cared for (1 = not at all, 4 = a lot).
Activities
5.35 (1.89)
Sum of 3 items. Past 12 months: a. attend grandchild event such as a play, sports
competition, or musical event; b. do activities with grandchild in the community such
as going to a museum, sports events, or shopping; c. work on project with grandchild
such as repairs, farm tasks, or things around the house. 1 = no, 3 = yes, more than once.
Friend
2.25
(.63)
How often grandparent is a companion and friend to the grandchild. 1 = never, 3 = often.
Mentor
1.94
(.48)
Average of 4 items (alpha = .70). How often: a. give advice to grandchild; b. serve
as a source of wisdom and experience for grandchild; c. serve as a source of family
traditions, stories, and history; d. talk about your childhood. 1 = never, 3 = often.
Know grandchild well
3.32
(.65)
(.67)
How well grandparent knows the grandchild. 1 = not well at all, 4 = very well.
Financial support
.55
How often grandparent helps grandchild financially. 0 = never, 1 = sometimes or often.
Discuss problems
.24
Past 12 months: have discussed grandchild's personal problems. 0 = no, 1 = yes.
Discuss child's future
.49
In past year: have discussed grandchild's plans for the future. 0 = no, 1 = yes.
PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY AND GRANDPARENTING
Measures
Perceived self-efficacy.—Self-efficacious beliefs can vary
across different domains of functioning. Individuals may
judge themselves relatively efficacious in domains in which
they have cultivated their competencies but inefficacious in
domains comprising activities that are beyond their capabilities. Some individuals may feel highly efficacious across a
wide range of domains of functioning while others may feel
inefficacious in most domains (Bandura, 1991). Thus, as
Bandura (1986, 1991) argues, it is unrealistic to expect an
all-purpose omnibus test of perceived self-efficacy to predict with much accuracy how people will function in different domains. Measures of self-percepts must be tailored to
the domain of functioning being examined rather than in
terms of a global disposition.
In measuring perceptions of grandparent efficacy, we
employ a set of items which directly assess the grandparent's perception of influence over the focal grandchild in
several areas. Grandparents were presented with six situations involving prosocial and problem behavior where
"grandparents may or may not have influence over their
grandchildren," and they were asked how much they
thought they could help the focal grandchild "avoid drug
use," "avoid drinking alcohol," "understand and share your
values," "avoid getting involved with the wrong crowd of
friends," "develop his or her talents," and "get good
grades." Responses for each included 1 = not at all, 2 =
somewhat, and 3 = a great deal.
A scale was created by taking the average of the six
items (alpha = .83, M = 1.99, SD = .50). Although each of
the individual items had missing cases (average missing =
27 cases), we used the average of the available items, creating a score for all 883 grandparents. Among those grandparents with missing data (13%), most were only missing
on one or two of the six items, and the items are all significantly intercorrelated (.32—.81, with an average r = .44).
Predictors of self-efficacy beliefs.—A variety of influences on perceived self-efficacy are examined. These measures are described in Table 1. First are personal qualities of
the grandparents including their education, age, health, and
gender. Sociocultural factors include whether the grandparent is embedded within a farm culture and/or involved in
religious activities. We also examine the influence of having knowledge about one's own grandparents by learning
about them through aspects of family history and culture.
Finally, we examine characteristics of family dynamics including distance, whether the grandchild lives in an intact
or divorced family, quality of the grandparent-parent bond,
lineage (maternal or paternal), number of grandchildren the
grandparent has, and the gender of the focal grandchild.
Grandparent involvement with a focal grandchild.—A
variety of different dimensions of the grandparent-grandchild relationship are examined, from the more general and
common measures of contact and relationship quality to
more specific and less frequently examined measures of involvement such as discussing the grandchild's future with
him or her. Other domains considered include participation
S253
in activities, provision of financial support, discussing personal problems, perception of knowing the grandchild, and
playing the roles of mentor and friend. These measures are
modestly correlated (ranging from r = .10 to r = .57; average r = .31), suggesting that grandparents are involved with
their grandchildren in multiple ways and that for some
grandparents, their involvement extends across many of
these domains (King & Elder, 1997).
Analytic Strategy
We begin by examining the frequency and variability of
the grandparents on individual items that make up the index
of perceived efficacy. The correlates of perceived efficacy
are then examined in a regression framework. Next, we examine the association between feelings of efficacy as a
grandparent and involvement with grandchildren through
bivariate and multivariate regression models. Along with
the index of grandparent perceptions of efficacy, the predictors of this orientation are included as controls in the multivariate models. In addition to their hypothesized link to
perceived efficacy, these predictors have been found to be
associated with grandparent involvement in prior research
(Elder & King, in press; King & Elder, 1997). The final
phase of the analysis considers three potential moderating
influences: grandparent gender, parental divorce, and distance. We examine each of these moderating factors in turn
by adding an interaction term (between perceived efficacy
and the moderator variable) to each of the models predicting grandparent involvement before and after adding additional controls.
Because the present study is limited to cross-sectional
data, the issue of causality remains untested. The efficacious beliefs of grandparents may be expressed in their
grandparent involvement, and the latter could increase feelings of self-efficacy. Other studies have examined the
causal contribution of perceived self-efficacy in different
domains of motivation and functioning. In many cases longitudinal, experimental designs are employed with perceived self-efficacy systematically varied. Results of diverse causal tests show that self-efficacy beliefs contribute
significantly to human motivation and attainments. This evidence lends broad support to the notion that perceived selfefficacy operates as a potent mechanism in human agency
(Bandura, 1986,1987,1995,1997; Gecas, 1989).
RESULTS
Variability in Perceived Efficacy
Table 2 illustrates that the efficacious beliefs of grandparents vary sharply. Many' grandparents believe they have
no influence, others believe they have some, and still others
believe they have a great deal. The individual items are significantly correlated, but there is also variability among
them. About one third of the grandparents perceive a great
deal of influence in helping their grandchild avoid drugs
and alcohol and in helping them to understand their values.
Only one in ten felt their influence was as strong in helping
their grandchild get good grades or develop their talents.
These domains may be viewed as more dependent on the
innate abilities of the grandchild. More than 40 percent of
S254
KING AND ELDER
Table 2. Grandparent Perceived Influence Over Focal Grandchild in Several Domains (average n = 856)
Not at all
Somewhat
A great deal
Avoid Drugs
Avoid Alcohol
Share Values
Avoid Wrong Crowd
Develop Talents
Good Grades
21.3%
38.8
39.9
24.5%
42.0
33.6
7.3%
58.4
34.3
30.9%
52.0
17.0
27.1%
59.2
13.2
41.0%
50.7
8.3
grandparents claimed they had no influence at all over their
grandchild's grades.
Predictors of Perceived Efficacy
Who are the grandparents with the strongest efficacy beliefs, who perceive they have much influence over their
grandchild? Table 3 reports bivariate and multivariate results that predict the efficacy scores of the grandparents.
The personal qualities of the grandparent make very little
difference. Neither education, age, nor gender distinguishes
feelings of efficacy as a grandparent. Grandparents in better
health feel more efficacious, but this difference becomes
nonsignificant after other factors are taken into account.
Sociocultural factors are more important. Grandparents
with ties to farming, who attend church often, and who possess a sense of history concerning their own grandparents
perceive themselves as significantly more efficacious in
their role than elderly individuals who lack such ties.
Certain characteristics of the family are also correlated
with the development of perceived efficacy in the grandparent role. The strongest influence (multivariate 3 = .23) in
the model is the quality of the grandparent-parent bond.
Grandparents who are not getting along well with their
adult child feel they have less influence over their grandchild. The middle generation plays the role of gatekeeper
for relations between grandparents and their grandchildren.
Distance also hinders the development of efficacious beliefs, as does having a greater number of grandchildren.
Grandparents perceive greater levels of efficacy in intact
family systems, but this difference becomes insignificant
when other factors are taken into account. Grandparents
with divorced children can feel efficacious if other positive
influences exist (e.g., if the grandparent gets along with the
parent and lives nearby). Differences between maternal and
paternal grandparents are very weak, although maternal
grandparents have a slight edge in terms of an efficacious
outlook. The grandchild's gender makes no difference.
As an additional step to the analysis, we tested multivariate models in relation to each of the perceived efficacy
items individually (tables not shown; all tables referred to
and not shown in this article are available from the first
author upon request). Given the significant correlations
among the individual items, major differences were not expected between the results across the individual item models and those for the overall scale. Nevertheless, we wanted
to check this expectation, particularly for items that had
lower intercorrelations.
Generally, the significant predictors of the perceived efficacy scale also appear for the individual items. But a few
differences are worth noting. Compared to the grandparents
of granddaughters, grandparents of grandsons were significantly more likely to believe they were influential in help-
Table 3. Predictors of Grandparent Perceived Self-Efficacy:
Regression Coefficients in Standardized Form (n = 883)
Bivariate (}
Multivariate P
Personal Qualities of Grandparent
High school graduate
Beyond high school
Age
Subjective health
Grandmother
.04
.06
.02
.09**
.05
Sociocultural Factors
Farm history
Church attendance
Knowledge of own grandparents
.11**
.19**
.15**
.09*
.13**
.13**
-.11**
.08*
.27**
.05
-.09**
.03
-.09**
.05
.23**
.06+
-.09**
.03
Family Factors
Miles distant
Intact family
Grandparent-parent bond
Maternal lineage
Number of grandchildren
Grandson
R2
-.04
-.01
-.02
.05
.04
.14
Note: Model included dummy variables for missing cases on church attendance and exposure to grandparents (not shown).
+p<.10;*p<.05;**p<.01.
ing their grandchild avoid involvement with the wrong
crowd of friends (multivariate p =.10, p < .01) and in helping them get good grades (multivariate 3 =.08, p < .05).
Because boys are more likely to be involved in delinquency
and generally perform less well than girls in school, perhaps these are two areas where grandparents believe they
can make a difference because they have a greater opportunity to do so.
In addition, the negative influence of distance was stronger
for items concerned with feeling effective in helping grandchildren avoid negative behaviors (wrong crowd, drugs, alcohol) than other items (values, talents, grades). This result
suggests that more frequent contact may be necessary to feel
effective in minimizing such negative outcomes.
The Perceived Efficacy and Involvement of Grandparents
Grandparents who feel efficacious in their role believe
they have more influence over their grandchild, but are they
active in grandparenting? The answer is yes. Table 4 reports
the results of regression models predicting grandparent involvement with grandchildren in several domains by perceptions of grandparent self-efficacy. Individuals who feel
more efficacious as a grandparent have significantly more
contact with their grandchild and report higher levels of relationship quality compared to grandparents who feel less
efficacious. Higher levels of perceived efficacy are also pos-
PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY AND GRAND PARENTING
Table 4. Grandparent Involvement With Grandchildren Predicted
by Grandparent Perceived Self-Efficacy: Regression Coefficients
in Standardized Form/Odds Ratios" (average n = 880)
Measures of
Grandparent
Involvement
OLS Models
Contact
Relationship quality
Activities
Friend
Mentor
Know grandchild well
Logistic Models
Financial Support1
Discuss Problems'
Discuss Child's Future'
Perceived
Self-Efficacy
Bivariate
Perceived
Self-Efficacy"
Multivariate
3
P
.25**
.53**
.34**
.43**
.53**
.40**
Odds Ratio
2.17**
2.47**
2.28**
.15**
.43**
.25**
.35**
.47**
.32**
Odds Ratio
2.02**
2.37**
2.07**
'The last three measures are dichotomous, and odds ratios from a logistic regression model are reported in place of standardized OLS coefficients.
b
Net of controls for the grandparent's education, age, health, gender,
farm history, church attendance, knowledge of own grandparents, miles
distant, intact family, grandparent-parent bond, lineage, number of grandchildren, and gender of the grandchild.
**p<.01.
itively associated with participation in activities with a
grandchild, playing the role of friend and mentor, perceptions of knowing one's grandchild well, the provision of
financial support, and the likelihood of discussing the grandchild's problems and plans for the future.
The link between grandparent perceived efficacy and levels of involvement with grandchildren remains strong even
with statistical controls. Most of the control variables predict perceived efficacy, but they explain only a small part of
the association between perceived efficacy and involvement. Furthermore, these control variables are significantly
related to levels of grandparent involvement, and the addition of perceived efficacy to the model has only a modest
weakening effect (table not shown). Both perceptions of efficacy and the background/family characteristics of the
grandparent have largely independent, direct effects on levels of involvement with grandchildren.
One limitation of these models is that the measures of
perceived efficacy and of grandparent involvement come
from the same source, the grandparent, leading to the problem of shared method variance. Grandparent reports were
used for measures of involvement because they were questioned on a great variety of involvement domains. However, data are available from the grandchildren (1994 questionnaires) on two aspects of grandparent involvement:
contact and closeness of the relationship.
The contact measure is a single item identical to the contact measure available from the grandparent interview. The
closeness measure is a scale created from five items tapping
the quality of the relationship (happiness with the relationship, closeness to the grandparent compared to other grandchildren, how often the grandparent helps them, how much
the grandparent makes them feel loved, and how much they
can depend on the grandparent). We examined models similar to those in Table 4 using these two measures of grand-
S255
parent involvement based on grandchild reports, and our
conclusions remain the same. Grandparent perceptions of
self-efficacy are significantly related to both contact (bivariate p = .24, p < .01; multivariate fJ = .16, p < .01) and relationship closeness (bivariate P = .34, p < .01; multivariate
3 = .27, p < .01). The results for contact are almost identical to those based on the grandparent reports.
Moderating Influences
As noted, grandparents who feel efficacious in their role
are more likely to be involved with their grandchild in a variety of ways than grandparents who feel less efficacious.
This one factor alone explains up to 29% of the variance,
but clearly the link is not fully explained. There are some
grandparents who report a great deal of perceived influence
over their grandchild yet exhibit low levels of involvement
just as there are grandparents who are very involved in the
day-to-day lives of their grandchild but nevertheless exhibit
low levels of perceived efficacy. What accounts for some of
these patterns?
The potential moderating influences of gender, parental
divorce, and distance were examined by adding the appropriate interaction term to each of the models predicting
grandparent involvement (tables not shown). Gender of the
grandparent made no difference—the positive link between
perceived efficacy and involvement is similar for grandmothers and grandfathers.
Divorce in the parent generation also made little difference. Only one significant difference appeared. Perceived
efficacy as a grandparent is positively related to grandparent-grandchild relationship quality in both intact (multivariate b = .53, p < .01) and divorced families (multivariate
b = .80, p < .01), but the association is significantly larger
in families where a divorce has occurred. Thus, in divorced
families, levels of perceived efficacy were even more likely
to predict higher quality relationships. A quality relationship with grandchildren in divorced families may depend
more on the grandparent's initiatives.
In contrast to the above results, distance is a notable
moderating influence. Of the nine multivariate models of
grandparent involvement, the interaction between perceived
efficacy and distance was significant or approached significance in six of them: for contact (p < .01), relationship
quality (p < .10), activities (p < .05), friend (p < .10), mentor (p < .01), and discussion of child's future (p < .10). In
all cases, the influence of perceived efficacy on involvement with a grandchild is stronger as distance is reduced.
The magnitude of these differences is illustrated in Table
5, which contrasts the effect of efficacious beliefs on grandparent involvement for grandparents who live within 10
miles of their grandchild and that of grandparents who live
100 miles or more from their grandchild (for those measures
of involvement where differences existed). Unstandardized
regression coefficients are reported because they are most
appropriate when making comparisons between models.
Higher levels of perceived efficacy promote greater involvement, even for grandparents who live 100 miles or
more from their grandchild. However, the link is stronger for
grandparents who live within 10 miles of their grandchild.
Not surprisingly, one of the largest differences occurs for
S256
KING AND ELDER
Table 5. Moderating Influence of Distance on the Relationship
Between the Perceived Self-Efficacy and Involvement
of Grandparents, Unstandardized Regression
Coefficients for Selected Models
Perceived Self-Efficacy"
of Grandparents Who:
Measures of
Grandparent
Involvement
Contact
Relationship quality
Activities
Friend
Mentor
Discuss child's future"
Live Nearby
(within 10 miles)
n = 395
Live Far Away
(100 miles or more)
n = 203
.55**
.62**
1.02**
.46**
53 **
1.34**
.04
.52**
.82**
.37**
.33**
.27
"Net of controls for the grandparent's education, age, health, gender,
farm history, church attendance, knowledge of own grandparents, intact
family, grandparent-parent bond, lineage, number of grandchildren, and
gender of the grandchild.
b
Unstandardized logistic regression coefficients are reported in place of
OLS coefficients because this measure is a dichotomy.
**p<.01.
contact. Because levels of contact are so strongly influenced
by distance, perceptions of efficacy have a small role to play
in situations of great distance. Both grandparents who feel
efficacious in their role and those who do not are hampered
in their efforts at face-to-face contact, given large distances.
One potential limitation of this type of data is non-independence. There are up to four grandparents in the same
family reporting on levels of involvement with the same
focal grandchild. To correct for the problem of non-independence, the models in Tables 3, 4, and 5 were reanalyzed
using hierarchical linear modeling procedures (Proc Mixed
in SAS) to separate out the two variance components: an
individual variance and a family variance. This procedure
adjusts the standard errors in the model to take into account
that there are multiple respondents per family. Results revealed these adjustments to be extremely minor. The substantive conclusions remain unchanged (tables not shown).
DISCUSSION
Grandparents vary greatly when it comes to the belief
that they make a difference in the lives of their grandchildren. Some grandparents, for example, report that they
have a great deal of influence in helping a grandchild avoid
drug use, whereas others claim they have no influence at
all. Grandparents who feel most efficacious are those who
get along best with their adult child. Grandparents who feel
efficacious in their role are also characterized by their
greater church attendance, ties to farming, and knowledge
about their own grandparents. Distance and having many
grandchildren hinders feelings of efficacy. Personal qualities of the grandparent, such as their education, age, and
gender, make little difference for efficacious beliefs. Although significant in the bivariate case, the effect of grandparent health is nonsignificant when other factors are controlled. However, the effect of health may be understated in
these results because grandparents in the very poorest
health were underrepresented in our sample.
Grandparents who feel efficacious take a more active
role in the lives of their grandchildren, from reporting more
frequent contact and higher quality relationships to being
more likely to provide financial support and to discuss a
grandchild's plans for the future with him or her. The association between the perceived efficacy and involvement of
grandparents extends across a variety of domains. It remains strong even after controls for attributes of the grandparents and their families are taken into account. This finding supports Bandura's premise (1986) that perceived
self-efficacy is an important determinant of performance
that operates partially independent of underlying skills.
Both skills and efficacious beliefs in the ability to make use
of those skills are necessary for competent functioning.
The link between efficacious beliefs and grandparent involvement is strong regardless of distance, the grandparent's gender, or whether the grandchild lives in an intact or
divorced family. However, compared with grandparents
who live far away, the connection is stronger for grandparents who live close to their grandchild. It is easier for
grandparents who feel efficacious to be involved with their
grandchild when they live nearby. Nevertheless, grandparents who feel efficacious find ways to be involved in their
grandchild's life even when obstacles stand in the way.
Consistent with Bandura's (1993) theory, "those who have
a firm belief in their efficacy, through ingenuity and perseverance, figure out ways of exercising some control, even
in environments containing limited opportunities and many
constraints" (p. 125).
Future research can extend our understanding in several
ways. First, a longitudinal design that enables analysis of
perceived efficacy over the life course is important. It is unknown whether beliefs of grandparent self-efficacy are stable over time. It may be the case, for example, that grandparents feel they have more influence when grandchildren
are younger compared to when they are older and more
subject to external influences outside the family, such as
peers. A longitudinal design would also permit the analysis
of how changes in efficacy are linked to changes in involvement. It seems likely that perceived efficacy and involvement are reciprocally related, a premise consistent
with Bandura's view that the relationship between self-efficacy and performance is best conceptualized as bidirectional (Teti & Gelfand, 1991). That is, efficacious beliefs
promote grandparent involvement, and such involvement
may further promote feelings of efficacy. Similarly, other
changes may affect levels of perceived efficacy and its link
to involvement. For example, perceptions of efficacy may
change in response to a grandparent moving closer or farther away from a grandchild.
It is also unknown to what degree grandparent perceptions of self-efficacy are based in reality. That is, would
grandchild reports of how much influence their grandparent
has in their life correlate highly with the grandparent's reported feelings of self-efficacy, indicating that grandchildren concur with their grandparents' assessment of influence? Another important consideration is the role of
grandchild characteristics in influencing grandparent perceptions of efficacy. A grandparent may feel more efficacious if the grandchild is well behaved and has a pleasant
PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY AND GRANDPARENTING
personality, but less so if the grandchild is difficult or engages in negative behaviors such as drug or alcohol use (assuming the grandparent is aware of such behaviors).
Finally, future research should consider other consequences of perceived grandparent efficacy for grandchildren and grandparents, beyond its association with levels of
involvement. For example, do children with grandparents
who feel efficacious in their role benefit in terms of wellbeing—are they indeed less likely to use drugs or alcohol,
or more likely to get better grades in school? Are grandparents who feel influential in the lives of their grandchildren
happier or healthier?
Previous research has documented the importance of efficacious beliefs for many domains of individual motivation
and functioning. The present study extends these findings
by showing that grandparenting is also influenced by efficacious beliefs. With an increasing number of grandparents
taking on responsibilities for their grandchildren, we need
to know more about the experiences and resources that enhance their sense of personal efficacy in this role. In this
study we identified factors that promote feelings of efficacy
as a grandparent and examined how such beliefs are related
to involvement with grandchildren. Given the dramatic social, demographic, and family changes of the past several
decades, a greater understanding of what motivates grandparents to become involved in their grandchildren's lives
has never been more crucial.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Support for this research has come from multiple sources including the
National Institute of Mental Health (MH00567, MH19734, MH43270,
MH48165, MH51361, MH57549), the National Institute on Drug Abuse
(DA05347), the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health (MCJ-109572), the
MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Adolescent Development among Youth in High-Risk Settings, and the Iowa Agriculture
and Home Economics Experiment Station (Project No. 3320). In addition,
Dr. King acknowledges current support as a Brookdale National Fellow.
A paper based on this research was presented at the 1997 annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in Toronto, Canada. We
thank Alan Booth and Dan Lichter for their helpful comments.
Address correspondence to Dr. Valarie King, Department of Sociology,
211 Oswald Tower, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA 16802-6207. E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1982). The self and mechanisms of agency. In J. Suls (Ed.),
Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (1986). Self-efficacy. In A. Bandura, Social foundations of
thought and action: A social cognitive theory (pp. 390-453). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1987). Perceived self-efficacy: Exercise of control through
self-belief. In J. P. Dauwalder, M. Perrez, & V. Hobi (Eds.), Controversial issues in behavior modification (pp. 27-59). Amsterdam: Swets &
Zeitlinger.
S257
Bandura, A. (1991). Self-efficacy mechanism in physiological activation
and health-promoting behavior. In J. Madden IV (Ed.), Neurobiology
of learning, emotion and affect (pp. 229-269). New York: Raven Press.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies
(pp. 1-45). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H.
Freeman.
Burton, L. M. (1990). Teenage childbearing as an alternative life-course
strategy in multigeneration Black families. Human Nature, 1, 123-143.
Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Zamsky, E. S. (1994). Young
African-American multigenerational families in poverty: Quality of
mothering and grandmothering. Child Development, 65, 373-393.
Cherlin, A. J., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (1986). The new American grandparent: A place in the family, a life apart. New York: Basic Books.
Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Families in troubled times:
Adapting to change in rural America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Elder, G. H., Jr., Eccles, J. S., Ardelt, M., & Lord, S. (1995). Inner-city
parents under economic pressure: Perspectives on the strategies of parenting. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 771-784.
Elder, G. H., Jr., & King, V. (in press). Wisdom of the ages. In G. H. Elder,
Jr., & R. D. Conger (Eds.), Leaving the land: Rural youth at century's
end. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of
Sociology, 75,291-316.
Hagestad, G. O. (1985). Continuity and connectedness. In V. L. Bengtson
& J. F. Robertson (Eds.), Grandparenthood (pp. 31-48). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Johnson, C. L. (1985). Grandparenting options in divorcing families: An
anthropological perspective. In V. L. Bengtson & J. F. Robertson
(Eds.), Grandparenthood (pp. 81-96). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
King, V., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1995). American children view their grandparents: Linked lives across three rural generations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 165-178.
King, V., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1997). The legacy of grandparenting: Childhood experiences with grandparents and current involvement with
grandchildren. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 848-859.
Minkler, M., & Roe K. M. (1993). Grandmothers as caregivers: Raising
children of the crack cocaine epidemic. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Russell, G. 1986. Grandfathers: Making up for lost opportunities. In R. A.
Lewis & R. E. Salt (Eds.), Men in families (pp. 233-259). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Seltzer, J. A. (1994). Consequences of marriage dissolution for children.
Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 235-266.
Simons, R. L. (1996). Understanding differences between divorced and intact families: Stress, interaction, and child outcome. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage
Teti, D. M., & Gelfand, D. M. (1991). Behavioral competence among
mothers of infants in the first year: The mediational role of maternal
self-efficacy. Child Development, 62, 918-929.
Thomas, J. L. (1989). Gender and perceptions of grandparenthood. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 29, 269-282.
Uhlenberg, P., & Kirby, J. B. (in press). Grandparenthood over time: Historical and demographic trends. In M. Szinovacz (Ed.), Handbook on
grandparenting. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Received April], 1997
Accepted April 28, 1998