THE INFLUENCE OF PARENTING STYLE AND ETHNICITY
ON ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY AND ACADEMIC
PERFORMANCE
A Senior Honors Thesis
by
MEGAN CHANDLLER
Submitted to the Office of Honors Programs
& Academic Scholarships
Texas A&M University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements of the
UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE
RESEARCH FELLOWS
April 2006
Major: Psychology
THE INFLUENCE OF PARENTING STYLE AND ETHNICITY
ON ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY AND ACADEMIC
PERFORMANCE
A Senior Honors Thesis
by
MEGAN CHANDLER
Submitted to the Office of Honors Programs
& Academic Scholarships
Texas A&M University
In partial fulfillment for the designation of
UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE
RESEARCH FELLOWS
Approved as to style and content by:
______________________________
______________________________
Robert W. Heffer
(Fellows Advisor)
Edward A. Funkhouser
(Executive Director)
April 2006
Major: Psychology
iii
ABSTRACT
The influence of parenting style and ethnicity on academic self-efficacy and
academic performance (April 2006)
Megan Chandler
Department of Psychology
Texas A&M University
Fellows Advisor: Robert W. Heffer PhD
Department of Psychology
Baumrind (1971) developed one of the two major traditions of Parental Acceptance/
Rejection Theory, in which she categorizes parenting styles into authoritarian,
authoritative, and permissive categories. Research indicates that culture, ethnicity and
socioeconomic status influence a family’s tendency toward a particular parenting style.
This study investigated how different parenting styles experienced, as reported by
university students, relate to students’ academic self-efficacy. We hypothesized that
student-report of an authoritative parenting style would be associated with self-report of
higher academic self-efficacy and relatively higher academic performance. Unlike
previous studies assessing the relations between parenting style and academic self-
iv
efficacy, which have used samples of children and adolescents, this sample consisted of
university students in developmental transition in independent living. In addition, we
explored the extent to which ethnicity and family variables would be related to studentreported parenting style, achievement, and self-efficacy. We sampled students (n=264)
enrolled in introduction to psychology courses at Texas A&M University. Participants
received 1 course grade credit for their participation. Students’ typically were older
adolescents/young adults (M=19.27 years, SD=1.52) and most were in their first and
second year of college (M=1.63 year). All participants completed a packet of
questionnaires in counterbalanced order. A Demographic Questionnaire was used to
gather data on gender, age, ethnicity, year in college, study skills habits, GPA, and
family description. The Parental Authority Questionnaire was used to measure
Baumrind’s parental prototypes as reported to have been experienced by the students.
The Self Efficacy and Study Skills Questionnaire was used to obtain self-report of
academic self-efficacy. Analyses indicated that academic self-efficacy was significantly
positively correlated with GPA. Also, as hypothesized, academic self-efficacy was
significantly positively correlated with authoritative parenting style. Based on regression
analyses, authoritative parenting style and academic self-efficacy were significant
v
predictors of academic performance, after controlling for gender. In an increasingly
complex and rapidly changing world, college academic success is an important aspect of
human development. Identifying and understanding family background variables that
contribute positively to college achievement and academic self-efficacy yield
suggestions for navigating the crucial transition from adolescence to young adulthood.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was part of a larger research project conducted by clinical psychology
graduate student, Earl Turner, and his faculty advisor, Robert Heffer, Ph.D which is
studying at how differences in parenting styles and ethnicity influence academic
motivation. It was only through the help and support provided by the TAMU
Pediatric/Clinical Child Research Team that I was able to complete my research. My
research project was also largely enabled by the funding provided Office of Honors
Programs and Scholarships. I would like to extend my thanks to everyone who
encouraged and advised me through this process.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………….. iii
ACKNOLEDGEMENT
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………..… vii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………… ix
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………......... 1
METHOD……….………………………………..…………………... 10
RESULTS…………………………………………………………….. 15
DISCUSSION………………………………………………………... 19
REFERENCES……………………………………………………….. 27
APPENDIX A……………………………………………………….
30
Demographic Questionnaire
APPENDIX B………………………………………………………...
32
Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ)
APPENDIX C………………………………………………………...
Self-Efficacy and Study Skills Questionnaire (SESS)
36
viii
CURRICULUM VITA…………………………………………….…. 39
ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
Page
1
Table 1 Baumrind’s Parenting Styles….……………………….... 3
2
Table 2 Sample Demographic Characteristics…………………… 12
3
Table 3 Bivariate Correlations Among Study Variables.………... 16
4
Table 4 Authoritative Parenting Style Scores……..……………... 18
1
INTRODUCTION
In today’s society many self-proclaimed experts profess to know how best to
raise children and adolescents. Some of these experts have authored a myriad of books
and have appeared on numerous television shows devoted to improving parents’ skills
and attitudes. Throughout the history of the United States, parenting trends have shifted
and changed as different models have been popularized and advocated by “experts” and
media. This vacillation of a common understanding as to what are “good” or
“appropriate” parenting methods is intriguing. In fact, certain parenting tactics have
been empirically shown to impact multiple areas of a child’s life, both while living in the
parent’s household and in later developmental periods (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman,
Roberts & Fraleigh, 1987; Buri, 1991).
In addition to being of interest to the general public, parenting styles of child
rearing has captured the attention of many psychologists. For example, Baumrind
(1971) developed one of the two major traditions of the Parental Acceptance/Rejection
Theory. She categorized parenting styles into three main categories: authoritative,
authoritarian, and permissive (refer to Table 1 for a summary).
2
Parenting Styles
Authoritarian style is one in which the parent “values obedience and favors
punitive forceful measures to curb” (Baumrind, 1966, p. 890) the child’s actions that
s/he deems inappropriate. An authoritarian parent discourages autonomy of the child as
well as development of verbal give and take. Many times, the authoritarian parent sets
his/her standard for the child based on “an absolute standard, theologically motivated
and formulated by a higher authority” ( Baumrind, 1966, p.890).
The permissive parenting style, on the other hand, is characterized by acting in a
“nonpunitive acceptant manner toward [a] child’s impulses, desires and actions”
(Baumrind, 1966, p. 889). A child is encouraged to be independent and to regulate
his/her own activities and behavior. A strong trend of permissive parenting style arose
during the late 1940’s and 1950’s, largely initiated by Dr. Benjamin Spock’s book on
parenting Baby and Child Care. Spock’s book advocated little structure and restriction
in children’s lives, letting them decide for themselves almost everything, including when
to be fed, weaned and toilet-trained (Baumrind, 1966).
The third parenting style in Baumrind’s conceptualization is authoritative. An
athoritative parent regulates his/her child’s behavior, unlike the permissive parent, by
3
creating and clearly communicating a set of guidelines. However, unlike the
authoritarian parent and authoritative parent “encourages verbal give and take”
(Baumrind, 1966, p. 891) in which the child and parent can hear and consider each
other’s opinions. An authoritative parent also responds clearly and consistently to the
child’s needs and actions. (Hall & Bracken, 1996). High levels of warmth and
involvement also characterize authoritative parenting style. A child’s autonomy is
encouraged, provided the child’s actions fall within the rules and guidelines set by
authorities.
Table 1. Baumrind’s Parenting Styles
Parenting Style
Description
Authoritarian
Highly directive, high levels of punitiveness,
autonomy is discouraged
Authoritative
High levels of nurturance, verbal give and
take and autonomy are encouraged, rules and
guidelines are to be abided by
Permissive
Nonpunitive, autonomy and self-direction
are encouraged, few demands are made
4
Parenting Styles and Culture
Researchers have also found that families from different cultures, ethnic
backgrounds, and socioeconomic levels have different tendencies toward exhibiting
certain parenting styles. A study expanding Baumrind’s conceptualization to a
population of adolescents found that Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans and African
Americans scored higher on authoritarian parenting style than Caucasians (Dornbusch,
et, al, 1987). Hall and Bracken (1996) have also found different parenting style trends
between Caucasians and African Americans. In this study, students completed a
Parental Authority Questionnaire to report perceptions of their mothers’ parenting
styles. The study found 41.1% of African American students classified an authoritarian
parenting style, versus 18.2% by Caucasian students. Some researchers argue that this
difference arises because the influence of authoritative parenting styles is not the same
across cultures (Hill, 1995).
A recent study revealed that a shift in parenting style may be more influenced by
ecological factors than identification with a parent’s native culture (Varela, SanchezSosa, Riveros, Vernberg, Mitchell, Mashcunkashey, 2004). U.S.-born Mexican
American (born in the United States) and Mexican immigrants to the United States were
5
found to be more authoritarian in their parenting style than Mexican parents, suggesting
that the “ethnic minority status” is more influential than the Mexican descent families’
attempts to identify with their culture.
Bronfrenbrenner (2000) developed a bioecological model that includes several
spheres of influence on child’s development. The family is the principle arena where
human development takes place, but other external settings also affect the family. The
first of these spheres is the mesosystem, which are external environments where the
child’s development can and does take place. A child’s development within the family
affects his/her success in these outside environments and vice versa. An example
provided by Bronfenbrenner is the external environment of a child’s school, which is so
interrelated with the family that what happens at home affects the child’s performance at
school (and vice versa).
Another external environment that affects the family and the development of the
child is labeled the exosystem by Bronfenbrenner because it is “external to the
developing person” (p. 723). This realm of influence is the environment that affects the
child’s parents, and is often not accessible by the child, as might be the case with the
6
parents’ work or friends. Despite their inaccessibility by the child, exosystems in a
family affect the way the parents interact with their child.
Baumrind concluded “authoritative control can achieve responsible conformity
with group standards without loss of individual autonomy or self-assertiveness” (1966,
p. 905). From Baumrind’s conceptualization, many other researchers have investigated
how different parenting styles influence various aspects of children’s lives, including
how these styles relate to academic self-efficacy and performance. Although the effects
of parenting styles have shown to be inconsistent across cultures, “research has
consistently found significant positive relationships between authoritative parenting and
adolescent academic achievement” (Ingoldsby, Schvaneveldt, Supple & Bush, 2003,
p.142). Dornbusch et al. (1987) also found that authoritarian and permissive parenting
styles were associated with report of lower grades and that authoritative parenting style
was associated with report of higher grades.
Academic Self-Efficacy and Performance
A family environment created by a particular parenting style can significantly
influence a child’s general sense of self-efficacy. Bradley and Caldwell (1995)
suggested that “the environment stimulates and encourages (or discourages) specific
7
behaviors” that are influenced by “intrapersonal factors, such as the child’s efficacy
cognitions” (Bradley & Corwyn , 2001). Self-efficacy is “the belief in one’s capabilities
to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given attainments”
(Bandura, 1997). Ingoldsby, et al. (2003) concluded that “greater parental punitiveness
and permissiveness negatively predicted self-efficacy” (p. 139). Self-efficacy has shown
to be influential in the actions and success of individuals in many different areas,
including overcoming fears, success in the workplace, hard life transitions, and academic
performance (Bandura, 1986; Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001). Self-efficacy is also “task
specific” (Jackson, 2002); therefore, academic self-efficacy is the “self-evaluation of
one’s ability and/or chances for success in the academic environment” (Robbins, Lauver,
Le, Davis, Langley, & Carlstrom, 2004, p. 267). Hackett and Betz (1989) found the task
specific mathematic self-efficacy maintained a strong positive correlation with
mathematic performance, and also one’s willingness to attempt mathematical courses.
Researchers have recently broadened their study of academic self-efficacy to
include the study of college students. For example, Robbins et al. (2004) studied the
validity of typical college success predictors (i.e., high school GPA, SAT, and ACT
scores) as well as non-typical predictors such as psychosocial variables, including
8
academic self-efficacy, general self-concept, academic motivation, financial support and
size of the institutions. Academic self-efficacy had the highest correlation (r =.496) as a
predictor of GPA, a common measure for academic success. (Robbins et al., 2004).
Parajes (1996) found academic self-efficacy to be a strong predictor of academic
performance in college students with positive correlations ranging from r =.49 to r =.71.
Chemers, Hu, and Garcia (2001) also found academic self-efficacy to be a significant
predictor of academic performance and expectations. As students’ academic
expectations and self-efficacy increased, they were more likely to “show higher
performance” (Chemers et al. 2001, p. 61). These results remained true after researchers
controlled for possible effects of high previous high school GPA (Chemers et al. 2001).
Given the importance of academic success in college to the lives of older
adolescents/young adults, and given the evidence that academic self-efficacy is closely
linked to academic achievement, it is critical to understand the relationship of precollege family characteristics to the development of academic self-efficacy. The adage
that “success breeds success” may prove to be particularly applicable because parents
who value academic success may raise offspring with similar attitudes. Likewise,
students who enjoy initial academic success may become more confident in their
9
abilities and therefore be more likely to produce further academic and occupational
successes. In contrast, cultural, ethnic, or family patterns that do not emphasize
academic achievement may be shown to produce students with under-developed
academic self-efficacy.
Objective
This study investigated how different parenting styles experienced, as reported
by university students, related to students’ academic self-efficacy, “the self-evaluation of
one’s ability and/or chances for success in the academic environment” (Robbins et al.,
2004) and self-reported academic performance. I hypothesized that university students
who reported that their parents demonstrated an authoritative parenting style would have
higher academic self-efficacy and higher GPA, relative to student-reported permissive or
authoritarian parenting style. Unlike previous studies assessing the relations among
parenting style and academic self-efficacy, which have used samples of children and
adolescents, I sampled college students. In addition, I explored the extent to which
ethnicity and family variables were related to parenting style, student achievement, and
student self-efficacy.
10
METHOD
Participants
As shown in Table 2, 264 undergraduates enrolled in psychology courses at
Texas A&M University were recruited to participate in this study (male n=92, female
n=172). The sample consisted of Caucasian (n =179), African American (n=13),
Hispanic (n= 48), Asian American (n=14), Biracial (n=7), and Other (n=3) ethnic
classifications. Most students in the sample were in their first year of attending Texas
A&M University (M=1.63 SD= 1.09,). Participants’ age ranged from 17 to 30 years, but
most were 18- to 21-year-olds (M=19.27 years, SD=1.52).
According to the Texas A&M University Office of Institutional Studies and
Planning, 33,493 undergraduate students were enrolled in the 2006 Spring semester
(http://www.tamu.edu/oisp/ reports/ep/epsp2006.pdf). The demographic analysis of the
University population was nearly equally divided between males (50.95%) and females
(49.05%). Regarding ethnicity, percentages of the University’s undergraduate
population were as follows: Caucasian (80.36%), African American (2.68%), Hispanic
(11.09%), Asian American (3.60%), and Other (2.27%). The age distribution of the
undergraduate population was divided into several categories: less than 18 years old (>
11
0.0001%), 18-21 years old (55.93%), 22-25 years old (40.75%), 26-30 years old
(2.30%), 31-39 years old (0.68%) and over 40 years old (0.33%).
Three chi-square analyses were conducted to compare the study sample to the
current undergraduate student population of Texas A&M University. The first chisquare analysis showed no significant difference between the sample and population on
ethnicity (χ2 (1) = 8.04, p = .992). The second chi-square revealed a significant
difference between the sample’s and population’s age distribution (χ2 (1) = 124.00, p <
.001), with the sample being somewhat younger than the population. Since primarily
freshmen and sophomore students were sampled, participants were more representative
of the 18-21 year old category than the overall population at Texas A&M University.
The third chi-square revealed no significant difference between the groups in gender
distribution (χ2 (1) = .280, p = .597). In general, the study sample was representative of
the current University undergraduate population.
12
Table 2. Sample Demographic Characteristics (N=264)
_________________________________________________________________
Characteristic
n
%
_________________________________________________________________
Ethnicity
Caucasian
179
67.8
Hispanic
48
18.2
Asian American
African American
Biracial
Other
14
13
7
3
5.3
4.9
2.7
1.1
92
172
34.8
65.2
179
67.8
36
25
15
9
13.6
9.5
5.7
3.4
1
80
109
37
.38
30.4
41.4
14.1
18
6
6
3
1
1
1
6.8
2.3
2.3
1.1
.38
.38
.38
Gender
Male
Female
Year in School
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Other
Age in Years
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
30
13
Table 2 continued
Mother’s Education Level
Some high school
High school graduate
Some college/technical school
Associates degree
Bachelors degree
Masters degree
Doctoral degree
Father’s Education Level
Some high school
High school graduate
Some college/technical school
Associates degree
Bachelors degree
Masters degree
Doctoral degree
6
43
59
22
81
36
2.3
16.3
22.3
8.3
30.7
13.6
10
3.8
18
32
45
16
82
49
15
6.8
12.1
17.0
6.1
31.1
18.6
5.7
_________________________________________________________________
Procedure
Using the standard procedures of the Department of Psychology Subject Pool,
participants received 1 course credit for their participation. Participants read and signed
an informed consent form, which was stored separately from the measure packets. Data
collection was conducted in groups of 10 to 30 participants. After reading the
instructions (which were also given orally by a data collector), participants completed
the Demographic Questionnaire. Participants then completed the remaining measures
14
placed in packets in a counterbalanced order. When participants’ measure packets were
turned in, they were informed regarding procedures for confirming course credit for their
participation and were given a debriefing form. Participants completed the study in one
session. Each participant took approximately 30 to 60 minutes to complete the
questionnaires. This study was approved by the Texas A&M University Institutional
Review Board and was part of a larger study conducted in the Department of
Psychology.
Materials
Demographic Questionnaire. A demographic questionnaire was used to gather
data on gender, age, ethnicity, year in college, study skills habits, and GPA, and family
description (see Appendix A).
Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ). The PAQ (Buri, 1991) was used to
measure Baumrind's permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parental prototypes. As
shown in Appendix B, the PAQ consists of 30 items, rated on a Likert-scale from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for
the three PAQ subscales for this sample were authoritarian (α=.866), authoritative
(α=.805), and permissive (α=.764), indicating good reliability.
15
Self-Efficacy and Study Skills Questionnaire (SESS). The SESS was developed
by Gredler and Garavalia (1997; found in Self-Directed Behavior , 2002, Watson &
Tharp, pp. 50-52). As shown in Appendix C, the SESS consists of 32 items, rated on a
Likert scale from 1 (not well at all) to 5 (very well). Internal consistency (Cronbach’s
alpha) for the SESS scale for this sample was (α=.800), indicating good reliability.
RESULTS
Bivariate Correlational Analyses and Ethnicity Comparisons
As shown in Table 3, Pearson correlations were conducted to determine relations
among parenting style, academic self-efficacy, and academic performance. No
significant correlations emerged between authoritarian parenting style and academic
self-efficacy or academic performance. Analyses found that authoritative parenting style
significantly correlated with students’ GPA (r =.131, p < .05) and academic self-efficacy
(r =.160, p < .001). A significant negative correlation was also found between
permissive parenting style and students’ academic self-efficacy (r = - .152, p < .05). In
addition, authoritative parenting style significantly positively correlated with both
mother’s and father’s education level (r = .175, p < .001 and r =.205, p < .001,
respectively)
16
Academic self-efficacy also significantly correlated with variables other than
parenting style. For example, academic self-efficacy significantly positively correlated
with GPA (r = .252, p < .001) and the hours studied per week (r = .308, p < .001), as one
might expect. Based on the Demographic Questionnaire, students reported studying
from 1 to50 hours per week (M = 13.15, SD = 9.57). Correlational analyses indicated
that hours per week spent studying significantly positively correlated with student’s
academic self-efficacy (r =.308, p < .001). Academic self-efficacy also significantly
correlated with father’s education level (r = .210, < .001).
Table 3. Bivariate Correlations Among Study Variables
GPA
Authoritarian .068
Pare nting
Authoritative .131 a
Pare nting
Permissive
-.009
Pare nting
Academi c
.252 b
Self-Efficacy
Ethni city
-.008
Hours/week
Studi ed
Mother’s
Education
Father’s
Education
Note.
a
p < .05;
Authoritarian Authoritative Permissive
Pare nting
Pare nting
Pare nting
-
Aca demi c
Self-Efficacy
-
Ethni city
-
Hours
Study
-
Mother’s
Education
-
-.372
b
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.531
b
.133 a
-
-
-
-
-
.021
.160b
-.152 a
-
-
-
-
-.067
-.148 a
.069
-.046
-
-
-
.162 b
.013
.068
-.067
.308 b
< .0001
-
-
.280 b
-.041
.175 b
-.014
.086
-.119
-.107
-
.245 b
-.107
.205 b
-.117
.210 b
-.028
.084
.569 b
b
p < .01
Note. Ethnicity was coded in this study: African American = 1, Caucasian = 2, Hispanic = 3, Asian American = 4,
Biracial = 5, and Other = 6
17
Bivariate correlational analyses demonstrated that ethnicity did not significantly
associate with academic self-efficacy, authoritarian parenting style, or permissive
parenting style. Ethnicity, however, did significantly negatively correlate with
authoritative parenting style (r = - .148, p <.05).
As shown in Table 4, although students who identified as the Other ethnicity
category reported the highest mean score of authoritative parenting style, this group
consisted of only three students. The data for this small group was excluded from
analyses. Of the remaining ethnicity categories, Caucasian students reported the highest
mean score of authoritative parenting style (M=30.99, SD=3.83), followed by African
American students (M=29.00, SD=5.19), Hispanic students (M=28.81, SD=4.83), Asian
American students (M=28.50, SD=3.45), and Biracial students (M =28.43, SD=5.09).
A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to determine significant variance
in the report of authoritative parenting styles among ethnicities and revealed a significant
main effect of ethnicity on the report of authoritative parenting style (F(4, 255) =4.183,
p<.005). Scheffe post-hoc comparisons indicated that significant differences existed only
between Caucasians and Hispanic students (p =.034). No significant differences
18
emerged among other ethnicity groups.
Table 4. Authoritative Parenting Style Scores
Ethnicity
n
Mean
SD
African American
13
29.00 a,b
5.196
Caucasian
178
30.99 a
3.827
Hispanic
48
28.81 b
4.832
Asian American
14
28.50 b
3.458
Biracial
7
28.43
b
5.094
Other
3
31.50
.707
Note. Due to n=2, the Other category was not used in the group comparisons.
Note. Means with different superscript letters differ at the p <.05 level, based on Scheffe
post hoc comparisons.
Regression Analyses
To determine the extent to which academic self-efficacy and authoritative
parenting style served as predictors of academic performance, as measured by studentreported GPA, regression analyses were conducted. In these analyses, gender was
19
controlled for because females constituted 65.2% of the sample. Authoritative parenting
style and academic self-efficacy were chosen as variables due to their significant
bivariate correlations with academic performance (r=.131, p < .05; and r = .252, p <
.001, respectively). Authoritative parenting style and academic self-efficacy, serving
together in a model, were significant predictors of academic performance (R2 =.079,
Adjusted R2 =.068, F=.368, p < .001), after controlling for gender. However, only
academic self-efficacy contributed to the significant prediction in this model, =.220,
t(3)=3.474, p =.001, whereas authoritative parenting style did not, =.094, t(3) =1.543, p
=.124. In contrast, when simple linear regression analyses were conducted, each
individual predictor variable was a significant predictor of academic performance, with
authoritative parenting style (R2 =.028, F=4.810, p < .01) and academic self-efficacy (R2
=.070, F=9.751, p < .001).
DISCUSSION
The results support the hypotheses of this study and the results of previous
research that parenting style does influence the academic self-efficacy and academic
performance of parents’ offspring. In contrast to previous research, this study sampled
college students who are transitioning to young adult life. Similar to previous research,
20
authoritative parenting style was found to be significantly related to higher academic
performance and academic self-efficacy. Students who reported being raised under an
authoritative parenting style reported higher GPAs and higher on academic self-efficacy,
which also was positively correlated with students’ GPA.
The current study also found that report of permissive parenting style was
significantly related to lower academic self-efficacy. parenting style and lower academic
performance and academic self-efficacy. The current study, however, did not identify
study variables significantly correlated with authoritarian parenting style. This lack of
correlating variables may derive from the relatively small number of participants who
were members of ethnic minority groups. Previous research suggests ethnic minority
groups more typically exhibit an authoritarian parenting style compared to Caucasian
parents.
In addition, parents’ education level was associated with parenting style, such
that the higher the parents’ reported education level, the more likely the student reported
an authoritative parenting style. This may be the result of variations in learning
opportunities or world views of parents from differing education backgrounds. For
example, more highly educated parents may have the opportunity to take parenting
21
classes or seek out information that steers them toward an authoritative parenting style
compared to other styles.
Report of higher academic self-efficacy, as hypothesized, was significantly
correlated with report of a higher GPA. These results support the idea that the more a
student believes she/he is capable of achieving in the academic arena, the more likely
she/he is to actual succeed academically. This may prove to be a cycle of ever-improving
performance in that the more a student succeeds, the more confidant he/she will become
of future success. Also, report of a higher amount of time spent each week studying was
significantly correlated with academic self-efficacy. Of course when students study
more, they are more likely to be confident in their knowledge of the material and,
therefore, more confident in their academic success. However, when students spend
little time studying, they are more likely to doubt their grasp of the material.
Academic self-efficacy was significantly correlated with father’s education level,
although (interestingly), it was not correlated with the mother’s education level. These
results may suggest differential influence of fathers and mothers on academic selfefficacy. In family structures, the father may have more influence with his encouraging
expectations to bolster a student’s academic self-efficacy than the mother since the
22
mother is often viewed more in the nurturing role. However, both parents’ education
level was significantly correlated with academic performance, which suggests that both
parents’ previous achievement in the academic arena encourages higher performance of
a student.
The results of this study demonstrate that parents’ influence plays a vital role in
an older adolescent/young adult’s academic life even during a time of transition to life
away from home. Although university students venture out on their own, previous
experiences with their parents continue to affect the students’ success in the academic
arena. For example, students who viewed that their parents encouraged the development
of discussion skills and autonomy, while providing a set of boundaries to work within
(i.e., authoritative parenting style), demonstrated a higher probability for academic
achievement. These students not only tend to report higher GPA’s, but also tend to have
a higher confidence in their success. In contrast, students were less confident in their
academic abilities if they reported that their parents encouraged the student’s autonomy,
worried about the student’s happiness, and provided few boundaries for the student (i.e.,
permissive parenting style).
This study found that academic self-efficacy, or one’s belief in his/her success in
23
the academic arena, was a predictor of academic performance. This may, in fact, prove
to be important information to consider as some in our society question the validity of
standardized testing as one indicator of future success or failure. Standardized aptitude
or achievement testing is often faulted for testing only certain types of knowledge and
for predicting relative success for only the first year of college-level work. When added
to information from standardized testing, the construct of academic self-efficacy may
prove to be a useful predictor of academic success in that it may project beyond the first
year of higher education as an important attitudinal variable. Unlike typical test score
predictors for college success, academic self-efficacy is based not only on what a student
already knows or her/his capacity for learning, but also on a student’s self-confidence in
an academic setting. Although a student’s academic self-perception may fluctuate over
time, a student is more likely to succeed when he/she feels confident in personal success
from the beginning. This success, once achieved through tenacious application of effort,
increases a student’s academic self-efficacy which, in turn, aids in her/his future
academic success.
An authoritative parenting style was found to be a valid predictor of a student’s
academic performance. This finding may encourage the development of parenting
24
information that encourages and teaches the relative benefits of an authoritative
parenting style. This study suggested that not only did an authoritative parenting style
(as perceived by an older adolescent/young adult) encourage the development of
independence, self-control, and understanding of rules, it also aided in a student’s
success in college.
Although hypotheses regarding ethnicity were exploratory and, therefore, have
limited generalizability at present, several points from this study may be emphasized.
The only significant difference of among ethnicity groups was that authoritative
parenting style was more likely Caucasian families than in Hispanic families. This
significant difference may support the idea that different parenting styles are more
typical in families from differing ethnicities. Of note, however, is Hispanic participants
represented the largest of non-Caucasian ethnicity groups and the only minority category
containing over 30 members. A more thorough sampling of students from other ethnic
minority groups may have provided different results.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
Several limitations of this study must be noted. The primary limitation was the
small number of ethnic minority participants in the sample. This may have contributed to
25
the lack of significant correlations found for authoritarian parenting style due to the fact
that previous research has found this parenting style more typical in different ethnic
minority groups. Another limitation was the pool from which participants were drawn.
Although the study ostensibly measured results for college students in general, the study
sample consisted of introductory psychology students. This small group may be less
diverse than (and therefore unrepresentative of) the university as a whole. However,
comparisons of the study sample to the current University population indicated that this
sample was generally representative of undergraduates at Texas A&M University.
This study was the first to ask these research questions in a college sample and
was designed to initiate further investigations. As such, the measures used, although
demonstrating strong psychometric properties, were screening instruments to gather only
the perspective of the college participants. More in-depth information from multiple
sources (e.g., parents, University records) over the years in college would enhance future
studies on this topic. For example, future research might include a scale of parental
warmth in addition to the PAQ and future studies might review a student’s social support
group, newly from in the first semesters and perhaps changing over years in college. As
students move away from their parents’ direct influence into the college community,
26
they develop new social support groups, often with people whom they have never known
before. It may prove valuable to compare the impact of this new form of social support
with the impact of the continuing influences of parents.
Conclusions
These results are especially timely, in that American society is becoming
increasingly dependent on “knowledge work” at the same time America is falling behind
the rest of the world in producing competitive knowledge workers. These results may be
applicable in the development of parenting education programs as well as general
education systems that encourage an authoritative governing style. As shown by this
study, authoritative parenting style has a positive influence on college student’s
academic success and self-efficacy. It follows, perhaps, that encouraging teachers to use
a similar authoritative style would have similar effects. Academic self-efficacy might be
fostered by providing and maintaining a set of parameters for acceptable behavior and
expected accomplishments in the classroom while encouraging students’ individuality,
creative thinking, and open discussion. This environment would, in turn, aid in successes
in academic performance, which increases the student’s academic self-efficacy.
27
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child
Development, 37(4), 887-907.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology,
4(1, Pt.2), 1-103.
Bradley, R. H. &Caldwell, B. M. (1995). Caregiving and the relation of child growth and
development : Describing proximal aspects of caregiving systems.
Developmental Review, 15(1), 38-85.
Bradley, R. H. & Corwyn, R. F. (2001). Home environment and behavioral development
during early adolescence the mediating and moderating roles of self-efficacy
beliefs. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 47, 165-187.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development:
Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-742.
Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment,
57(1), 110-119.
28
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L. & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year
college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93(1), 55-64.
Dornbusch, S.M., Ritter, P.L., Leiderman, P.H., Roberts, D. F., Fraleigh, M. J. (1987).
The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child
Development. 58(5), 1244-1257.
Gredler, M., & Garavalia, L. S. (1997). Self-Efficacy and Study Skills Questionnaire. As
cited in : Watson, D. L., & Tharp, R. G. (Eds.). (2002). Self-Directed Behavior,
50-52.
Hacket, G., Betz, N. E. (1989). An Exploration of the mathematics selfefficacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 20(3), 261-273.
Hall, W. N. & Bracken, B. A. (1996) Relationship between maternal parenting styles and
African American and White adolescents’ interpersonal relationships. School
Psychology International, 17, 253-267.
29
Hill, N. E. (1995). The relationship between family environment and parenting style: A
preliminary study of African American families. Journal of Black Psychology,
21(4), 408-423.
Ingoldby, B., Schvaneveldt, B., Supple, A. & Bush, K. (2003). The relationship between
parenting and behaviors and adolescent achievement and self-efficacy in Chile
and Ecuador. Marriage and Family Review, 35(3), 139-159.
Jackson, J. W. (2002). Enhancing self-efficacy and learning performance. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 70(3), 243-254.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66, 543-578.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do
psychosocial and study skill factors predicts college outcomes? A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261-288.
Varela, R. E., Vernberg, E. M., Sanchez-Sosa, J. J., Riveros, A., Mitchell, M., &
Mashunkashey, J. (2004). Parenting style of Mexican, Mexican American, and
Caucasian-Non-Hispanic families: Social context and cultural influences.
Journal of Family Psychology, 18(4), 651-657.
30
Appendix A
31
32
Appendix B
33
34
35
36
Appendix C
37
38
39
Megan M. Chandler
megalb2@tamu.edu
HOME ADDRESS
LOCAL ADDRESS
3403 Mesa Drive
Flower Mound, TX 75022
214.587.6538
800 Val Verde
College Station, TX 77845
214.587.6538
EDUCATION
The University of Akron, Akron, OH
M.A. / Ph.D. Program: Industrial/Organizational Psychology… Starting July 2006
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Bachelor of Science: Psychology, Magna Cum Laude ....................................Expected May 2006
Four-Year Participant in the academic merit University Honors Program
GPA: 3.916 in major (psychology), 3.738 cumulative, 3.891 last 60 hours
University Undergraduate Research Fellow .................................................................. 2005-2006
This research experience, culminating in a senior honors thesis, is the most prestigious
independent study opportunity available to undergraduates at Texas A&M University.
Honors Thesis: The Influence of Parenting Style and Ethnicity on Students Academic
Self-efficacy and Performance
RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
University Undergraduate Research Fellow .............................................. 2005-2006
Advisor: Robert Heffer, Ph.D.

Collected data from over 250 study participants.

Entered and analyzed data using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
40


Presented material to audiences of a wide knowledge base.
Met weekly with faculty/graduate student research group
Research Assistant .......................................................................................... Fall 2004
Advisor: Tobyn Kyte, M.S. (Charles Samuelson, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor)

Studied how goals influence creativity and productivity.

Developed set of practice ratings for the study.

Performed data entry for the study.
Research Assistant ....................................................................................... Spring 2005
Advisor: Robert Heffer, Ph.D.

Performed data entry for study of how ethnicity influences academic motivation; and
attitudes toward children with chronic illness.

Collected data for study of how ethnicity influences academic motivation.
ORGANIZATIONS
Underwood Hall Counsel........................................................................................... 2002-2004


Public Relations Director ..................................................................................... (2002-2003)
RHA Delegate ...................................................................................................... (2003-2004)
Residence Hall Association ....................................................................................... 2002-2004


RHA Delegate ..................................................................................................... (2003-2004)
Programs Committee ........................................................................................... (2003-2004)
LANGUAGES
English Proficient in reading, writing, and speaking English as a primary language.
Spanish Proficient in reading, writing, and speaking Spanish as a secondary language.
41
EMPLOYMENT
Training and Exercising Horses ............................................................................ 2002-2005
Twelve Stone Farms
HONORS AND AWARDS
TAMU Dean’s Honor Role




Fall 2002
Spring 2004
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
TAMU Anonymous $500 per Semester Scholarship ....................................... 2003-2005
Distinguished Student (GPA: 3.5-3.75)

Fall 2003

Spring 2005
Golden Key International Honors Society .................................................. 2004-2006
National Society of Collegiate Scholars....................................................... 2004-2006
The National Dean’s List .................................................................................................... 2004
Barnes and Noble Book Scholarship ..................................................................... 2004-2005
TAMU University Honors ......................................................................................... May 2006
TAMU Foundation Honors ...................................................................................... May 2006
TAMU College of Liberal Arts Honors ................................................................ May 2006