THE INFLUENCE OF PARENTING STYLE AND ETHNICITY ON ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

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:

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

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:

April 2006 Major: Psychology

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-

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 student-

reported 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 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 contributepositively to college achievement and academic self-efficacy yield suggestions for navigating the crucial transition from adolescence to young adulthood.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis 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

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……….

Demographic Questionnaire 30 APPENDIX B………

Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) 32 APPENDIX C………

Self-Efficacy and Study Skills Questionnaire (SESS) 36 CURRICULUM VITA……….… 39

LIST OF TABLES

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

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 theparent’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)

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/hedeems 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/herstandard 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

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

autonomy is discouraged

take and autonomy are encouraged, rules andguidelines are to be abided by

are encouraged, few demands are made

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, Sanchez-Sosa, Riveros, Vernberg, Mitchell, Mashcunkashey, 2004) U.S.-born Mexican American(born in the United States) and Mexican immigrants to the United States were 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 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 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 academicperformance (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 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 pre-

college 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

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 havehigher academic self-efficacy and higher GPA, relative to student-reported permissive orauthoritarian 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

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 (>

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 chi-squareanalysis 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

Table 2 Sample Demographic Characteristics (N=264)

Table 2 continued

Mother’s Education Level

High school graduate 43 16.3

Some college/technical school 59 22.3

Father’s Education Level

High school graduate 32 12.1

Some college/technical school 45 17.0

turned in, they were informed regarding procedures for confirming course credit for theirparticipation 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

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)

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

Permissive Parenting

Academic Self-Efficacy

Ethnicity Hours

Study

Mother’s Education Authoritarian