We have been working very hard since 2009 to facilitate in your learning Read More. We can't keep up without your support. Donate Now.

www.bit.ly/vucodes

+ Link For Assignments, GDBs & Online Quizzes Solution

www.bit.ly/papersvu

+ Link For Past Papers, Solved MCQs, Short Notes & More

Introduction
Psychological development of children depends on the way parents interact with them. Though every parent wishes to provide the best at home they may not be giving the best to their children as no fool proof method of bringing up children has been invented. This is because no two children are alike. There are more differences between children than is ordinarily believed. More over, culture, society, gender of the child and a host of other factors interact with the upbringing of children. Parenting style can effect the child’ personality in different ways. (Dr. Krishna Prasad Sreedhar, 2003).
Parenting comprises all the tasks involved in raising a child to an independent adult. Parenting begins even before the child is born or adopted and may last until the death of the parent or child. Parenting is a part of the relationship within a family.
Parenting involves physical and social aspects.
· Physical care
· Reliably providing shelter, furniture, medical care, physical safety, and food.
· Social development and emotional support
· Love, entertainment, physical touch
· Social skills, etiquette
· Moral and spiritual development
· Norms and contributions to the child’s religion
Parenting Style
 
 
Nancy Darling said, parenting is a complex acting that includes many specific behaviors that work individually and together to influence child outcome. (Nancy Darling, 1993).
Development psychologists have been interested in how parents influence the development of children’s social and instrumental competence since at least the 1920s. One of the most robust approaches to this area is the study of what has been called “parenting style”.
 
 
Parenting theories
 
 
There are probably as many theories about being a parent as there are types of child.
James Dobson, like many authors from the 1970s, and ‘80s, believes that there are three broad stands of parenting style. The authoritarian (where children’s whishes are not consulted and parents expect them to do as they’re told without discussion), the authoritative (where there is discussion, parents and children listern to each other, and parents offer firm guidelines and boundaries, but with flexibility) and the permissive (where child do as they like and parents don’t take much notice). He proposes that the authoritative ground is the most healthy, and research shows that the most unhappy teens and adults come from extremely permissive homes. He does stress that parents must give unconditional love, and that this is probably the most important factor in children’s lives. Parents must tell children (repeatedly) how important they are to them, never compare them negatively with others, never call them rude, never suggest that they are less important.
Kevin Leman, another American writer, is also firm believer in loving guidance, but stresses most of all the use of natural and logical consequences with corporal punishment only as a last resort, on rare occasions. He claims that parents should not protect children from the consequence of their actions.
Ross Campbell, a parenting author, does not really focus on discipline. According to him, most problems occur because of a child’s repressed anger, because their parents are not succeeding in expressing their love for their children. His theory of ‘emotional tanks’was the one, most helpful when children were smaller. When a child starts becoming aggressive or un co-operative, Ross Campbell suggests that child’s ‘tank’ is probably low, needs to be filled before anything can be done about practical problems.
Ross Campbell and James Dobson both believed that in healthy families, there was mutual respect i.e. parents and children listened to each other. There was discussion about all issues. Parents are needed to express unconditional love and should give clear boundaries to young children. (Parenting theories, 2000).
Most researchers who attempt to describe broad parental milieu rely on Diana Baumrind’s concept of parenting style. The construct of parenting style is used to capture normal variations in parents’ attempts to control and socialize their children (Baumrind, 1991). Two points are critical in understanding this definition. First, parenting style typology Baumrind developed should not be understood to include deviant parenting, such as might be observed in abusive or neglectful homes. Second, Baumrind assumes that normal parenting revolves around issues of control. Although parents may differ in how they try to control or socialize their children, it is assumed that the primary role of all parents is to influence, teach and control their children.
Parenting style captures two important elements of parenting: parental responsiveness and parental demanding ness (Maccoby and Martin, 1983). Parental responsiveness (also referred to as parental warmth or supportiveness) refers to “the extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation and self-assertion by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s special needs and demands” (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). Parental demanding ness (also referred to as behavioral control) refers to “the claims parents make on children to become integrated into the family whole, by their maturity demands, supervision, disciplinary efforts and willingness to confront the child who disobeys” (Baumrind, 1991, pp. 61-62).
Categorizing parents according to whether they are high or low on parental demanding ness and responsiveness creates a typology of parenting styles: authoritarian, authoritative and permissive (Maccoby and Martin, 1983). Each of these parenting styles reflects different naturally occurring patterns of parental values, practices, and behaviors (Baumrind, 1991) and distinct balance of responsiveness and demanding ness.


+ http://bit.ly/vucodes (Link for Assignments, GDBs & Online Quizzes Solution)

+ http://bit.ly/papersvu (Link for Past Papers, Solved MCQs, Short Notes & More)

+ Click Here to Search (Looking For something at vustudents.ning.com?)

+ Click Here To Join (Our facebook study Group)


Views: 810

Replies to This Discussion

Authoritarian parents are highly demanding and directive, but not responsive.
 
 
Characteristics: “They are obedience and status – oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation” (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). These parents provide well-ordered and structured environments with clearly stated rules. Authoritarian parents can be divided into two types:
1- Non authoritarian – directive.
2- Authoritarian – directive.
1- Non authoritarian – directive: who are directive, but not intrusive in their use of power.
2- Authoritarian: who are highly intrusive.
 
 
Consequences for children: Parenting style has been found to predict child well-being in the domains of social competence, academic performance, psychosocial development and problem behavior. Consequences of authoritarian parenting style for children are as follow:
· Children and adolescents from authoritarian families are high in demanding ness, but low in responsiveness.
· Tend to perform moderately well in school.
· Be uninvolved in problem behavior.
· Have poorer social skills, lower self-esteem, and higher level of depression.
· Anxious, withdrawn, and unhappy position.
· Not likely to engage in antisocial activities. (Diana Baumrind, 1967)
 
 
Authoritative parenting style
 
 
Authoritative parents are both demanding and responsive. They direct the child’s activities but in a rational issue-oriented way. Parents encourages verbal give and take.
 
 
Characteristics: “They monitor and impart clear standards for their child’s conduct. They are not restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive. They want their children to be socially responsible and self-regulated as well as cooperative.” (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62).
 
 
Consequences for children: Children and adolescents whose parents are authoritative rate themselves and are rated by objective measures as more socially and instrumentally competent than those whose parents are non authoritative. (Baumrind, 1991; Weiss and Schwarz, 1996; Miller et al., 1993).
· Lively and happy disposition.
· Self-confident about ability to master tasks.
· Well developed emotion regulation
· Developed social skills
· Less rigid about gender-typed traits (exp: sensitivity in boys and independence in girls). (Diana Baumrind, 1996)
 
 
Permissive parenting style
 
 
They are also referred to as “nondirective” are more responsive than they are demanding. They behave in an acceptant and affirmative manner towards the child’s impulses, desires and actions.
 
 
Characteristics: “They are nontraditional and lenient, do not require mature behavior, allow considerable self-regulation, and avoid confrontation” (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62).
 
 
Consequence for children: Children and adolescents from permissive homes (high in responsiveness, low in demanding ness) are more likely to be involved in problem behavior.
· Perform less well in school
· Higher self-esteem, better social skills and lower levels of depression.
· Poor emotion regulation
· Low persistence to challenging tasks antisocial behaviors. (Diana Baumrind, 19967)
Relationship between child rearing patterns and developmental outcomes in middle childhood and adolescence
Child-rearing pattern
Childhood
Adolescence
Authoritative
High cognitive and social competencies
High self-esteem, excellent social skills, strong moral / pro-social concern high academic achievement.
Authoritarian
Average cognitive and social competencies
Average academic performance and social skills, more conforming than adolescents of permissive parents.
Permissive
Low cognitive and social competencies
Poor self-control and academic performance; more drug use than adolescents of authoritative or authoritarian parents.
(Baumrind, 1977;1991; Steinberg et al., 1994.)
According to Denis Boyd, parents are often at opposite ends of the spectrum in their styles of parenting. One may be authoritarian or strict and the other easy going. These style differences can cause trouble when different ideas are presented to one another. Sometimes there are power struggles, with one trying to win over the other.
Infact, the end result of one (or the other parent) winning the debates would likely be a “skewed” joint parenting style. In other words, if authoritarian wins, the style could be too rigid and demanding. If the easygoing spouse is victorious, the style might end up to loose and ill defined. (Denis Boyol, 2005)
Self identity
 
 
Across an individual’s lifespan there exist certain tasks which must be accomplished in order for that individual to attain a level of healthy functioning. One of these tasks, which begins in adolescence, and continues into adulthood, is the establishment of an identity or an “individualized definition of self.” (J. Schamacher, C. 1994).
The early adolescent years are a time of rapid change physically socially and emotionally. It is the beginning from childhood to adulthood. (Child development, 1994)
Adolescence is the term we use to describe the period between childhood and adulthood. This transitional period is generally considered to last from age 13 to 19 although theories may vary a few years on either side of this range. (Adolescence, 2004)
 
 
Adolescent development
 
 
During adolescence, children develop the ability to: comprehend abstract content, such as higher mathematic concepts, and develop moral philosophies.
Adolescence is characterized by dramatic physical change moving the individual from childhood into physical maturity. Early, prepubescent changes are noted with the appearance of secondary sexual characteristics. Both boys and girls undergo radical physical changes – boys somewhat late than girls.
 
 
Behaviour: The sudden and rapid physical changes that adolescents experience typically lend this period of development to be one of self-consciousness, sensitivity and concern over one’s own body changes and comparisons between oneself and peers. Unnecessary anxieties may arise if both boys and girls are nor properly informed. During adolescence, it is appropriate for youngsters to have a need to separate from their parent and establish their own identity. As adolescents pull away form parents in search for their own identity, the peer group takes on a special significance. It may become a “safe” heaven in which the adolescent can test new ideas and compare his or her own physical and psychological growth. If adolescents appear to be isolated from peers, disinterested in school work or sports; psychological evaluation may be necessary. Many adolescents are at increased risk for depression and potential suicide due to pressures and conflicts that may arise within families of origin, school or social organizations, and intimate relationships. (Adolescent development, 2004)
 
 
Developmental changes in relationship with self: One of the fundamental tasks of adolescence is to achieve a sense of personal identity and a secure sense of self. As an adolescent gains comfort with, and acceptance of a more mature physical body, learns to use his/her own judgment, learns to make decisions independently, and addresses his/her own problem, he/she begins to develop a concept of himself/herself as an individual, and thus an identity.
During adolescence, teens become more thoughtful about who they are and who they want to be. They notice differences in the way they act and they way they think they should act. Once teens start thinking about their actions and characteristics, they are confronted with how they judge themselves. (Relationship Development, 2003)
 
 
Adolescence: A struggle for Identity: During World War II, Erik H. Erikson coined a phrase that stuck—identity crisis. He used it to describe the disorientation of shell-shocked soldiers who could not remember their names. Through the years, this phrase has become a useful tool to describe the struggle of growing up.
Achieving a sense of identity is the major developmental task of teenagers. Like a stunned soldier in a state of confusion, sooner or later, young people are hit with a bomb that is more powerful than dynamite—puberty. Somewhere between childhood and maturity their bodies kick into overdrive and fuel changes at an alarming rate. With this acceleration of physical and emotional growth, they become strangers to themselves. Under attack by an arsenal of fiery hormones, the bewildered young person beings to ask, “Who am I?”
While achievement of a meaningful answer to this question is a lifelong pursuit, it is the burning challenge of adolescence. According to Erikson, having an identity—knowing who you are—gives adolescents a sense of control that allows them to navigate through the rest of life.
Without identities, awkward adolescents carry a “how’m-I-doing?” attitude that is always focused on their concern about impressions they are making on others. Without self-identities they will be or do whatever they think others want. They will flounder from one way of acting to another, never able to step outside of a preoccupation with their own performance and genuinely ask others, “How are you doing?” Erikson calls this miserable state “identity diffusion.”
The successful formation of self-identity follows a typical pattern. Teens identify with people they admire. Whether in real life or through magazines and TV, they emulate the characteristics of people they want to be like. By the end of adolescence, if all goes as it should, these identifications merge into a single identity that incorporates and alters previous identifications to a unique and coherent whole.
The quest for identity is scary. Somewhere between twelve and twenty years of age adolescents are forced to choose once and for all what their identity is to be. It is a formidable task. Uncertain which of their mixed emotions are really their true feelings, they are pushed to make up their minds. Their confusion is complicated further when they begin to guess what others, whose opinions they care about, want them to be.
 
 
Four fundamental views of the self: The subjective self is the adolescent’s private view of how she sees herself to be. Although this self-view has been heavily influenced by parents and has been hammered out in interactions with peers, it is still her own assessment.
The objective self is what others see when they view the adolescent. It is the person others think the teen is.
The social self is the adolescent’s perception of herself as she thinks others see her. It is what she thinks she looks like to others.
The ideal self is the adolescent’s concept of who she would like to become, her ultimate goal.
For adolescents who never achieve an integrated identity, “all the world’s a stage.” In their adult years they will play the part of human beings who change roles to please whoever happens to be watching. Their clothes, their language, their thoughts, and their feelings are all a part of the script. Their purpose will be to receive approval from those they hope to impress. Life will become a charade, and players will never enjoy the security of personal identity or experience the strength that comes from a sense of self-worth.
 
 
How adolescents search for identity: Young people look for identity in uncounted ways. In this section, seven common paths are examined: family relations, status symbols, “grown-up” behavior, rebellion, others’ opinions, idols and cliquish exclusion.
 
 
Through family relations: Adolescents’ families have significant impact on identity formation. To assert individuality and move out of childhood, teenagers will wean themselves from their protecting parents. But individuality may also be found in reaction to the identities of one’s brothers and sisters. If the first child, for example, decides to be a serious intellectual, the second may seek individuality in becoming a jokester. Seeing these places already taken, the third child may choose to be an athlete.
In some cases, when young people feel they possess no distinctive talents, they may rebel by separating themselves from the “white sheep”. They may become delinquent or prodigals and gain identity by causing trouble (E.H. Erikson, 1968)
For John Locks, the nature of self-identity is that it is continuous across time, and to remain uninterrupted it must be beholden to a psychological process, rather than a material or immaterial substance. “A thinking intelligent being that has reason and reflection and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking think in different times and places”. (Locke, 448).
Freud Postulated that underlying psychological forces in a person’s unconscious mind, latent and repressed by the conscious mind, serve to determine a person’s behavior. This takes place in the relations between the Id, the instinctive and pleasure seeking impulses of unconscious, and the Ego, the reasoning and social center of conscious mind, in which the, latter tries to subdue the former so that unacceptable memories do not arrive in the conscious mind (Freud, 295) forgetting, or amnesia, is a central fact of Freud’s concept of self-identity, a function of the Ego in its repression of Id. (Freud, 295)
As part of the international self-identity research project, a study explored sources of identity among Turkish adolescents. The interview sample consisted of three male and three female high school students in Ankara, Turkey. The results indicated that social, familial, personal, physical, and moral-ethical dimensions contributed to adolescents’ definitions of self, but to different degrees. Social and familial dimensions were very influential and were used as reference points for defining self in other areas. Physical and personal aspects of identity were also apparent, but were not as salient as social and familial dimensions. Patriotism and religion played a role in moral-ethical identity. Overall, self-identity influenced emotional state, cognitive and behavioral functioning, and social relations to a significant degree.
Erikson (1968) and others have noted the importance of self-identity. Context, such as the cultural and social environment, greatly influences identity development. During adolescence, the complexity of this process increases, and not all are successful in achieving positive outcomes. For example, according to Miller (1987) some adolescents develop false self (or “masked view of self”) because they simply copy others’ behaviors.
Ishiyama (1989) provides a useful framework for investigating self-identity. According to Ishiyama, identity is multidimensional, involving social, physical, familial, personal, and moral-ethical elements. However, these dimensions should not be considered mutually exclusive. A problem in one realm may cause disturbances elsewhere.
Adolescents often experience stress and disorientation in the process of identity formation, which may affect their sense of self-worth. It is therefore important for parents, teachers, counselor, and others to understand the sources of self-identity among adolescents. The role of others highlights the importance of contact in self-identity formation. From the interactional perspective of communication (Fisher 1983), the meanings of things are the products of social interaction (Blumer, 1969, Cooley, 1924; Manis and Meltzer, 1972; Mead, 1934; Shibutani, 1961). Not only are the meanings of things—chairs, flags, behaviors, national anthems—products of social interaction, but we ourselves are the products of social interaction. Our self-identities are the products of social interaction.
Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1924) coined the term the “looking-glass self”. He argued that just as we use a mirror to gain an estimation of our physical appearance, so we use the response of others as a mirror to gain a social estimation of ourselves. We use the responses of others to form images of ourselves.
Employing another graphic term for the phenomenon is Harvey Stacks Sullivan (1953) and his notion of “reflected self-appraisal.” According to Sullivan, it is through interaction with others that we learn about ourselves. Each exchange provides us with cues about how others see us, and this in turn, shapes our view of ourselves. We do not, however, simply see ourselves as others see us.
A significant note about Cooley’s concept of the looking-glass self is the element of uncertainty inherent in those reflecting self-images. We cannot know for sure what the other thinks of us; we are not privy to the private thoughts or inner workings of the other’s mind. To account for this, Cooley stressed “imputed sentiments,” or imagination. We use our imagination to try to see ourselves as others see us. Hence, in terms of reflected images, “we see ourselves as we think others se us” (Rosenberg and Kaplan, 1982, p. 174). Mead (1934) advanced Cooley’s theory by introducing the notion of perspective-taking. In order to see ourselves as others see us, we try to take the other’s perspective.
The role of the other in self-definition is also apparent in Leon Festinger’s (1954) social comparison theory. Festinger suggested that people have a constant need to evaluate their abilities and test the validity of their opinions. However, because few “objective tests” exists, people use others to compare themselves with. For example, a student might assess her performance by comparing her test scores with others in the class.
The importance of contact is heightened when we look closer at the concept of identity. “Identity,” says White (1950) “refers to the self or the person one feels oneself to be”. Erikson (1968) stresses the relational aspect, “the sense of the reality of the self within the social reality. Identity is the accrued confidence that one’s ability to maintain inner sameness and continuity is matched by the sameness and continuity of one’s meaning for others” (Erikson, 1950).
 
 
Parenting style and self identity
 
 
Parenting style has great impact on child’s psychological development. A very important aspect is parenting style and its impact on child’s self identity development. This can be analyzed in the light of different psychological theories.
Freud (1936) saw parents as mainly responsible for child’s developmental outcome. According to Freudian theory developmental stages of child are much important for a perfect personality, because these years of development are mainly effected by different parenting style. In other words, parents are mainly responsible for child’s developmental outcome. During these years, child’s psychological development is buildup or under process. If this psychological development is not properly developed or effected by any specific parenting style then child’s emotions, attitude are not developed.
Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development (1963) placed more emphasis an the inner biological and additional societal factors impacting child’s growth and development than on the parental influences at all stages over the life span.
There are many recognized psychological issues that teens deal with during heir adolescent years. They most important tasks of adolescent is establishing an identity. Erikson founnd out that adolescents experience changes in their physical development. He emphasized the inner biological changes because these play an important role in the activating development of secondary sex characteristics due to high and low level of hormones and societal factors also effect the child’s growth.
Erikson although didn’t emphasize parental impact on child’s growth but from researches it is evident that parenting styles along with other social factors play an important role is self identity development.
Piaget and Inhelder’s (1967) researched children’s different stages of cognitive development. According to them parents need to understand how children think and reason at different ages in order to maximize the cognitive development of child. Piaget and Inhelder’s researched about child’s cognitive development. It is the ability to think about multiple options. At this stage, it’s a parent’s responsibly to improve their thinking processes through different skills, so that they have clear cut way of each and every thing and easily generate their view points. This thing will be helpful in achieving the self-identity.
Vggotsky’s (1978) work showed that social interactions between active, thinking children and their caregivers are key for a child’s development. His work showed that if the parents have no interactions with their child it means that they are not giving their child a proper living pattern. If child feels that their parents are loving, caring, and have a good skill of communication, it greatly effects the child development. If development buildup in such a sequence then child gets a true sense of self identity.
Parenting styles play crucial role in child's development. In the battle of nature vs nurture biggest nurture element is parenting. By identifying most influential parent style for identity development, crisis stage for adolescent can be adequately resolved.
In the present research natural group design has been used because in this research stimulus variable i.e., parenting style has been used which cannot be manipulated but only its level can be selected.In the natural group design researchers select the level of independent variable, (usually individuals differences or subjective variables) and look for systematic relationship between these independent variables and other aspect of behavior. Essentially the natural group design involves looking for correlation between subjective characteristics and their performance. So natural group design best suited the requirements of the present
The research is designed to check out two psychological variables which are parenting style and self identity.
Parenting style is a manner in which parents express their beliefs about how to be a good or bad parents and their action that is what they actually do in order to control the behaviour of their children and its been measured on three levels i.e. authoritarian, authoritative and permissive. It would be measured in term of Jody Pawel and Pam Dillon parenting style scale.
Self identity deals with questions about one’s self. The sense of identity consists roughly of those attributes that make a person unique as an individual and different from others. It is a way, a person see and define his/her self and it is being measured on five point scale.
Present research has aimed at evaluating gender differences regarding self identity development among adolescents. In addition effects of parenting styles on self identity development among adolescents are also evaluated. This has been done by making nine combinations of father sand mother parenting style. Main there parenting style on the basis of which combination were made, are as follow:
(i) authoritative (ii) authoritarian (iii) permissive
Present research has aimed at finding out the best suited parenting style for self identity development among adolescents in the light of our socio-cultural factors. Difference in social factors can attribute towards differences in self identity development.

Method
Participants
 
 
The total sample size consisted of 90 participants. Data was collected from government colleges. Sample consisted of both girls and boys. Proportion of both gender was equal. Sample was gathered on the basis of purpose convenient sampling technique.
In purposive continent sampling technique the investigator selects the element to be included in the sample on the basis of their special characteristics. The individuals selected are commonly those who are an expert, experienced and related to the purpose of study. In the present research as it was not possible to manipulate either independent or dependent variable, so purposive convenient sampling method has been used.
 
 
Instrument
 
 
For present study, two scales were used i.e.,
Parenting style scale
Self identity development scale
Parenting style scale: was developed by Jody Powel and Pam Dillon of the Dayton in 1998. Parenting style scale consisted of 11 questions each question had three options, each showing different style of parenting. This scale has sufficient reliability and validity. The highest score shows dominant parenting style. (Powel. J. and Dillon P 1998)
Personal identity scale: It was developed by Ochse and Plug in 1986. Personal identity scale consisted of 19 questions. Scoring method for self identity is as, first reverse the values that are assigned to items 1,2,4,8,9,12,13,14,15,16,17, and 18. The remaining items remain the same and then add the values for all 19 items. The average scores for this scale is between 56 and 58. Scores considerably higher than this average range indicate a particularly well developed sense of identity and lower scores indicate that the person is still progressing through the identity development stage. This scale has sufficient reliability and validity. (Oche, and Plug, 1986)
 
 
Procedure
 
 
In the present research two types of scales were used to estimate the parenting style impact on personal identity. For both scales the demographic information was collected. Instructions were also given to the respondent both verbally and in written form. Participants were assured that their identity would not be disclosed. They were asked to answer according to the given instructions. Questions were asked in an interview form. All the participants were accessed with the permission of their head of the department. After the collection of data it was quantitatively analyzed and discussed.
Results
For quantitative analysis of data regression analysis, and z-test have been used.
The statistical technique for finding the best fitting straight line for a set of data is called regression, and resulting strainght line is called the regression line.
Each of these lines can be defined by a linear equation of the form.
Y = bx + a
Z = scores
Regression line was find out through SPSS.
A z-score specifies the precise location of each x value within a distribution. The sign of the z-score (t or -) signifies whether the score is above the mean (positive) or below the mean (negative). The numerical value of the z-score specifies the distance from mean by counting the number of standard deviations between x and m.
The z-score formula:

Hypothesis No. 1
Parenting style will effect self-identity development among adolescents when both father and mother have authoritarian parenting style.
H0: m1 = m2 = m3
H1: At least one is different
Analysis
It was found that our p-value i.e. 0.0523 was greater than alpha value i.e. 0.05 so we have sufficient evidence to reject H1 .


Hypothesis No. 2
Parenting style will have effects on self identify development among adolescents when mother are authoritarian and fathers have authoritative parenting style.
H0: m1 = m2 = m3
H1: At least one is different.
Model
Unstandardized coefficients
Standardized coefficients
T
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1 (Constant)
83.904
25.400
3.303
.008
VAR00001
-5.456
3.221
-.496
-1.694
.121
VAR00002
-.519
2.425
-.063
-.214
.835
a. Dependent Variable: VAR00003
Analysis
It was found that P-value i.e. .270 was greater than alpha value i.e. 0.05. So we have sufficient evidence to rejected H1.


Hypothesis No. 3
Parenting style will have effect on self identity development among adolescent when mothers have authoritarian parenting style and fathers have permissive parenting style.
H0 : m1 = m2 = m3
H1: At least one is different.
Model
Unstandardized coefficients
Standardized coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1 (Constant)
3.438
22.081
.156
.879
VAR00001
1.228
3.215
.090
.382
.710
VAR00002
7.137
2.527
.662
2.824
.018
a. Dependent Variable: VAR00003
Analysis
It was found that out p-value i.e. .049 was less than alpha i.e. 0.05 so we have sufficient evidence to accept H1.


Hypothesis No.4
When mothers are authoritative and fathers are authoritarian parenting style.
H0 : m1 = m2 = m3
H1 : At least one is different.
Model
Unstandardized coefficients
Standardized coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1 (Constant)
131.529
56.144
2.343
.079
VAR00001
-1.588
6.479
-.091
-.245
.818
VAR00002
-13.059
7.097
-.680
-1.840
.140
a. Dependent Variable: VAR00003
Analysis
It was found that our p-value i.e. .293 was grater than alpha value 0.05. So we have sufficient evidence to reject H1.


Hypothesis No. 5
When mothers are authoritarian and fathers were also authoritative parenting style.
H0 : m1 = m2 = m3
H1 : At least one is different.
Model
Unstandardized coefficients
Standardized coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1 (Constant)
93.000
43.158
2.155
.084
VAR00001
-.500
5.487
-.035
-.091
.931
VAR00002
-7.500
5.487
-.523
-1.367
.230
a. Dependent Variable: VAR00003
Analysis
It was found that our p-value i.e. .452 was grater than our alpha value i.e., 0.05. So we have sufficient evidence to reject H1.


Hypothesis No. 6
When mothers are authoritative and fathers were fathers are also authoritative.
H0 : m1 = m2 = m3
H1 : At least one is different.
Model
Unstandardized coefficients
Standardized coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1 (Constant)
30.167
32.751
.921
.399
VAR00001
13.083
12.644
.947
1.035
.348
VAR00002
-9.667
9.084
-.974
-1.064
.336
a. Dependent Variable: VAR00003
Analysis
It was found that our p-value was i.e. .592 was grater than alpha value 0.05. So we have sufficient evidence to reject H1.


Hypothesis No. 7
When mothers are permissive and father are authoritarian parenting style.
H0 : m1 = m2 = m3
H1 : At least one is different.
Model
Unstandardized coefficients
Standardized coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1 (Constant)
78.391
23.700
3.308
.016
VAR00001
-2.870
4.013
-.292
-.715
.501
VAR00002
-3.261
4.257
-.313
-.766
.473
a. Dependent Variable: VAR00003
Analysis
It was found that our p-value i.e. .373 was grater than alpha value i.e., 0.05. So we have sufficient evidence to reject H1.


Hypothesis No. 8
When mothers are permissive and father are authoritative parenting style.
H0 : m1 = m2 = m3
H1 : At least one is different.
Model
Unstandardized coefficients
Standardized coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1 (Constant)
80.200
55.749
1.439
.193
VAR00001
-7.8000
9.109
-.337
-.856
.420
VAR00002
2.000
9.297
.085
.215
.836
a. Dependent Variable: VAR00003
Analysis
It was found that our p-value i.e. .699 was greater than alpha value i.e., 0.05. So we have sufficient evidence to reject H1.


Hypothesis No. 9
When mothers and father both are permissive parenting style.
H0 : m1 = m2 = m3
H1 : At least one is different.
Model
Unstandardized coefficients
Standardized coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1 (Constant)
23.229
52.366
.444
.673
VAR00001
.976
7.164
.056
.136
.896
VAR00002
3.060
3.404
.370
.899
.403
a. Dependent Variable: VAR00003
Analysis
It was found that our p-value i.e. .671 was grater than alpha value i.e., 0.05. So we have sufficient evidence to reject H1.


Hypothesis No. 10
Both boys and girls will have differences in the development of self identity.
H0 : m1 = m2
H1 : m1 ≠ m2
Variable
n
SD
Z
Girls
45
46.67
73.36
-1.997
Boys
45
49.96
48.82
X = 0.05
Cr. Value = ± 1.96
 
 
Analysis
The treatment with parenting style has a significant impact on score-z = -1.997, P<>


Discussion
Adolescents self identity development is greatly shaped by their parents parenting style. Parenting style is an important factor of identity formation, as it influence an adolescence ability and willingness to explore various options in life. However, some parenting styles are less consistent in helping a child in establishing self identity. Present research aimed at finding out the most effective parenting style for the development of self identity among adolescence with respect to our socio cultural factors. The three particular parenting style which have been considered in the present research are authoritarian, authoritative and permissive styles. These three distinct parenting styles have distinct outcomes regarding Child’s adolescent’s psychological development.
In present research nine combination of parenting styles were checked. The foremost combination was of parents who both had authoritarian parenting style. Authoritarian parenting style from western context involves strict rules and regulations for children. Results showed that this combination of parenting style did not significantly correlate with adolescent’s self identity development.
Second combination which was considered was from the houses where mothers were authoritarian and fathers had authoritative parenting style. Authoritative parenting style involves assertive and supportive disciplinary child raring practices. Results showed that there was no significant relationship between the combination of these parenting styles and adolescent’s development of self identity.
Third combination which was tested was from houses where mothers were authoritarian and fathers had permissive parenting style. Permissive parenting style involves non-directional and lenient rules implementation. Results showed significantly positive relationship which with this combination of parenting and self identity development among adolescents. Fourth parenting style combination consisted of authoritative mothers and authoritarian fathers. Results showed no significant relationship between this parenting style and self identity development.
Fifth combination was tested from houses where mothers and fathers both were authoritative. This parenting style involves demandingness. In western context, they want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, results showed that this combination of parenting style did not significantly correlate with adolescent’s self identity development. Sixth parenting style combination considered was from houses where the mothers were authoritative and father had permissive parenting style. Permissive parenting style involves non-directional and lenient rules. Results showed that this parenting style had no significant relationship with self identity development. Seventh parenting style combination was tested from houses where mothers were permissive and fathers were authoritarian. Authoritarian are highly directive but permissive were non-directed. Results showed that this combination of parenting style was not significantly correlated with adolescent’s self identity development. Eight parenting style combinations consisted of permissive mothers and authoritative, fathers. Results showed that this combinations had no significant relationship with adolescent’s self identity development. Ninth parenting style combinations consisted of mothers and fathers who both had permissive parenting style. Results showed that there was no significant relationship between this combination of parenting style and adolescent’s development of self identity.
Identity development provides adolescents with a kind of crisis in which they have to find a meaningful answer for the question of existence. Self identity development among adolescent generally follows a typical pattern. They identify themselves with people who are important to them. Parents influences a great deal toward self identity development. Their specific parenting styles provide their children with the values which they want them to internalized. In western context studies have revealed particular parenting styles which have been proved to be effective regarding self identity development, specifically authoritative parenting style has found to be very important in this respect. In our research results are not significant for all combination of parenting style. This difference in results can be attributed to different social cultural factors. The foremost aspect is a difference of parenting styles concepts as in our society the concept of authoritarian parents is different from western concept.
The love and involvement of parents demanded by our society from parents to children is different from western context. In west child is considered to be an individual having specific rights, who can exert his preferences and choices according to his own desires and parents who deny this are considered to be authoritative. In our society the child is treated from collectivism view point, where he is trained according to certain socio cultural obligations. In our society involvement level is supposed to be higher along with strict implication of rules. So the concept of authoritarian parenting style is different from western context that it involves the concept of training as well. In eastern context parents generally have the rights to makes choices for their children with the sense of involvements and concern for them. This particular combination of strictness and involvement is considered to be best one in our society. This difference in concept may have majorly lead to insignificant results.
The process of growing up is a passage from childhood, through adolescence into adulthood. Between adolescence and adulthood, there is supposed to be ‘ bridge ‘called the ‘ transitional passage.
This ‘ Transitional Passage ‘ gives birth to a person‘s true self-identity. The adolescent discovers who they are and who they are not. They begin to see themselves as separate from the parent. The begin to see themselves as separate from the parent. They begin to see themselves as ‘ different but equal ‘ to the parent.
But if this passage does not occur, a person gets stuck emotionally in either childhood or adolescence. Self-identity does not develop. There is not sense of self; no connection to self and no inside world exists.
The rate of self identity development among adolescence has found to be lower as compared to western adolescents. The reason behind this can be traced toward the basics of identity development. The adolescent internalizes the values of parents. This internalization of values leads the child to identity and realization of self. In our society the values which are presented to the child are contradictory in nature. The parents instruct the children for moral values but in the reality they compell them to follow their ego wishes on one hand the children are instructed to develop superego and its values but on the other hand they are encouraged to follow their impulses. These contradictory teachings hinder the smooth development of identity. In the same way the self identity of parents could not developed in their childhood.
Parents come in all different shapes, sizes, and colors. They come from a variety of backgrounds and traditions. Individuals learn how to parent from their own parents, from role models, and from society. Their experiences shape the way they relate to their children and the way they relate to the outside world.
The same social learning processes had hampered the parents identity development in their adolescence. Same contradictory messages are sent to adolescents from their parents and in this way the vicious circle continuous.
Present research also identified the gender difference in identity formation among adolescents. This difference can be attributed to autonomy versus attachment. Among males identity is focused on separation and autonomy whereas female identity is based on attachment. One reason the male identity development is more autonomy based is that boy’s primary caregiver is normally his mother. Therefore, to become more masculine, he is socialized to separate from his mother. This socialization of male to separation from his mother is subtle. Therefore, a boy is subtle told not to be dependent but to instead be autonomous and to be focus, on what they can achieve rather than being intimate. Due to this early independence as a child a young boy’s identity tends to revolve around achievements in activities in the outside world. As a results, a male may have a conflicted response to dependency and intimacy and instead define himself through his achievements. Whereas, for a young girl, it is okay to be dependent upon a mother. Therefore, a young girl is never encouraged to separate from her primary caregiver. This allow a female “to become more invested and more competent at forming intimate relationships”. As a result, many girls obtain their identity through attachment relationship or relationship with intimate parents.
The above mention finding have shown the existence of several differences regarding the parenting practices between western context our society. These findings suggest that while studying parenting styles social cultural factors should also be considered because these are important facts our lives. Further difference in the conceptions of parenting style have shown the need to develop the concepts which justified our social learning.
Limitations
Present research undergoes certain limitation.
1- Sample was collected from only government colleges.
2- Present research didn’t control some important variables like parent’s education, occupation child’s birth order etc.
3- Sample size was not very large.
Suggestion
Following suggestion can be given for further researcher.
1. Family system i.e. nuclear vs joint family should be considered.
2. Child’s birth order can be undertaken.
3. Working and non-working parents can be compared regarding their parenting style and impact on identity of their children.
4. Children should be selected from both public and private sector colleges.

RSS

Latest Activity

Profile Iconmahnoor omar, Maira Qurxam, Mr.Right and 24 more joined Virtual University of Pakistan
45 minutes ago
+M.Tariq Malik liked Virtual Educators Academy's discussion CS619 Final Projects (Python language) Discussions
1 hour ago
Hacker updated their profile
2 hours ago
Imtiaz Waqar added a discussion to the group STA630 Research Methods
4 hours ago
Imtiaz Waqar joined +M.Tariq Malik's group
4 hours ago
Muhammad Fawad Hassan joined +M.Tariq Malik's group
4 hours ago
Maria commented on +M.Tariq Malik's group EDU101 Foundations of Education
4 hours ago
+ Faisal + replied to shifa arshad's discussion CS605 Assignment No 02 Fall 2020 Solution / Discussion Due Date: 10-dec-2020 in the group CS605 Software Engineering-II
4 hours ago
Maria joined +M.Tariq Malik's group
4 hours ago
Maria and SafeerZaidi are now friends
4 hours ago
SafeerZaidi liked Maria's profile
4 hours ago
Tasha Malik posted a status
"Bio 201 Assignment # 2 Solution https://youtu.be/Gowjc67WZ4c"
5 hours ago
Maria liked +M.Tariq Malik's profile
6 hours ago
Maria left a comment for +M.Tariq Malik
6 hours ago
Blessings posted a status
"Kya khbr k ab wo khan rehta hai...........................Khush rhe yar jhan rehta hai"
7 hours ago
SafeerZaidi liked +M.Tariq Malik's group PAK301 Pakistan Studies
7 hours ago
Virtual Educators Academy posted a discussion
7 hours ago
Virtual Educators Academy updated their profile
7 hours ago
☆ Tina Solangi ☆ updated their profile
8 hours ago
Humaira Khadim replied to +M.Tariq Malik's discussion PSY404 Abnormal Psychology Assignment 01 Fall 2020 Solution / Discussion in the group PSY404 Abnormal Psychology
8 hours ago

© 2020   Created by +M.Tariq Malik.   Powered by

Promote Us  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service

.