**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). Tables 1–4 present detailed characteristics of each of the reviewed articles, including the study design, participants, and tools.

The articles were categorized according to four emergen<sup>t</sup> 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 Tables 1–4 (according to theme), and the significant findings within these four themes are synthesized in Sections 3.2–3.5.

#### 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 [77,110–112]. 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 [7,28,44,115–120]. 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 [33,46,89,114,127–130], 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 [142–144], 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 [36,37,71,147–150]. Furthermore, family life satisfaction was positively associated with children's positive affect [148,151–153] and happiness [38,126], from the perspectives of both children [1,154–167] 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 [170–173]. 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.** *Cont.*



**Table 1.** *Cont.*

**Table 1.** *Cont.*


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=notspecified.

#### *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 [18,24,134,136,174,179–184], 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 [12,90,91,188–197]. 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).

Wang et al. (2019) [203], China  2229 Range 9–17

(*M* = 11.46)

**Child Characteristics Happiness Measure Family Measure Author (Year), Country** *N* **Age % Male Method Measure Method Measure Res. Design 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

#### **Table 2.** *Cont.*

52.0

 S PANAS

PWI-SC

S

 FAPGARI  C  Pub

SWLS

**Table 2.** *Cont.*


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).


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).


**Table 4.** *Cont.*

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.
