PARENTING STYLES: THEIR IMPACT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADOLESCENT RESILIENCY

by Ellen Neiley Ritter

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University February, 2005

UMI Number: 3161747

Copyright 2005 by Ritter, Ellen Neiley All rights reserved.

UMI Microform 3161747 Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

 Ellen Neiley Ritter, 2005

Abstract This paper sets forth the rationale, supporting literature, and methodologies utilized in a dissertation study designed to determine if there is an association between the development of resiliency and parenting styles. Utilizing Baumrinds typologies of authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative styles of parenting, this study examined the frequency of each parental style within two populations adolescents exhibiting high levels of resilience and those found to have low levels of resilience, based on scores on the Individual Protective Factors Index. Results from the study established that parenting style is associated with the development of resiliency and further found that an authoritative parenting style is associated with high levels of resiliency while authoritarian and permissive parenting styles were most often associated with those participants with low resiliency. It is hoped that the results from this study will not only add to the knowledge base of information on these two dimensions, but may also suggest possible avenues that could be pursued to encourage the development of resiliency.

Acknowledgements Donnes prose No man is an island, entire of itself seems especially true as one travels the Ph.D. path. While I received the prize at the end of this journey, I couldnt have done it without the support of many others. My mentor, Dr. Malcolm Gray, for his guidance and for at times knowing me better than I knew myself and giving me the space to figure it out; The members of my committee whose knowledge, support, and input made this a pleasurable journey; The administration of the school district for their willingness to allow me to conduct the study, the fabulous high school teachers who opened up their classrooms, and to the participants, who were willing to share themselves; Generations of remarkably resilient women in our family who have inspired and loved me; My friends for their support, and for serving as a wonderful distraction on days when this all seemed too much, and for their patience when I called just to bounce one more idea around; Our families, and especially my sister, for the positive encouragement and understanding; My parents, for their support, always believing in me and helping me to become resilient; My two sons, for their patience and support along this journey. I love you. And finally, to my husband, John, for the many nights sitting for hours at the table discussing my fears, ideas, dreams, and statistics. I thank you all!

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements Table of Contents List of Tables (if tables used) CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Introduction Background of the Study Statement of the Problem Significance Nature of Study Assumptions and Limitations Organization of the Remainder of the Study CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Resiliency Parenting Styles Impact on Development Summary CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY Purpose of the Study Research Design Target Population

iii iv vi 1 1 2 5 6 7 7 13 14 14 25 30 42 43 43 43 44

iv

Procedures Instruments Statistical Analysis Expected Findings CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Population and Group Data Hypothesis Testing Conclusions CHAPTER 5: RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Results for Tertile Split Groups Results for Median Split Groups Discussion Limitations and Areas for Future Research Implications Conclusion REFERENCES APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX B: INDIVIDUAL PROTECTIVE FACTORS INDEX APPENDIX C: PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE

45 46 50 51 53 53 57 63 64 64 66 67 69 71 74 75 84 85 88

List of Tables

Table 1: Mean and Range of Scores on the IPFI for Population, High and Low Resiliency Groups Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of Population, High and Low Resiliency Groups Table 3: Parenting Styles for Population, High and Low Resiliency Groups Table 4: Frequency of Parenting Styles for Median Groups Table 5: Observed Frequency and Percentage of Authoritative and Non-authoritative Parenting Styles with High and Low Resiliency Groups Table 6: Observed Frequency and Percentage of Authoritative and Non-authoritative Parenting Styles with Median Groups

54

55

57 59 61

62

vi

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Research has consistently shown that one of the most potent influences on the psychological and behavioral well-being of adolescents is the type of parenting they experience (Fletcher, Steinberg, & Sellers, 1999, p. 599). An individuals psychological and social adjustment in large part reflects the quality of family relationships during childhood and adolescence. Research suggests that it is not so much a specific parenting practice, but the pattern of parenting and family climate which best predicts a childs well-being (Darling, 1999). Family life [can] shape and encourage childrens social nature . . . [their] abilities, values, beliefs, self-esteem and character develop within a family context . . . it is within the family unit that most adolescents establish their individuality (Jaffe, 1998, p. 219). Families can also be a risk. Adolescents who grow up in chronically distressed families are likely to develop serious social and emotional problems (Jaffe, 1998, p. 232), impacting the adolescents ability to cope with stress, to regulate emotions, to form nurturing relationships, to achieve academically, to develop a sense of security, trust and self-esteem (Thurman & Widestrom, 1990). There is no question that a large number of adolescents are exposed to risks, and that this exposure, during the crucial time when they are developing at such a rapid pace, physically, cognitively, socially, sexually, and psychologically, can have a lasting impact on their future as adults. Yet, not all individuals who are exposed to such risks appear to be vulnerable to their influence. Their development does not become sidetracked or halted and they enter adulthood able to restore or maintain internal or external equilibrium under significant threat by means of

Parenting Styles & Resiliency human activities including thought and action (Smith & Carlson, 1997, p. 233). Such individuals are considered to be resilient, those who against long odds, succeed.

Background of the Study Resiliency The first generation of resiliency studies focused on the identification of risks, those conditions that increase ones vulnerability to negative or undesirable outcomes . . . that can compromise health, well-being, or social performance (Murray & Brody, 1999, p. 462). The results of such efforts established a consistent relationship between exposure to risks and the development of psychological and behavioral problems . . . including depression, anxiety, suicide attempts, antisocial behavior, and health problems (Smith & Carlson, 1997, p. 31). While all children are exposed to stresses as a natural part of life, problems arise because such stresses or risks often co-occur and that is strongly related to rising risk for poor outcomes on multiple indicators of development, including psychosocial competence, psychopathology, and health (Masten, 2001, p. 228). Werner & Smiths (1977, 1982) longitudinal study of children on the island of Kauai, one of the largest undertakings during this period, found that being exposed to 4 or more of the identified risks would severely impact the individuals ability to cope successfully in later life. Werner (1982) defined four categories of risk: genetic predispositions or congenital defects; prenatal deprivation; pathological family problems; and sociocultural environmental factors. Approximately one out of every five youth in Werners cohort developed serious coping problems at some time during the second decade of their lives some due to major biological

Parenting Styles & Resiliency insults that prevented adequate development, many more because of the poverty of their homes or because a persistently disorganized family environment prevented normal integration (Werner & Smith, 1982, p. 27). Nonresilient children have been found to have lower mental health scores than those who are resilient (Stewart, Reid & Mangham, 1997). More than onethird of the children in Werners (1982) study required the help of outside services, 10% of the high-risk adolescents in the study exhibited mental health problems, and another 15% exhibited delinquency problems. At the same time, one-third of the high-risk children grew up to be resilient, competent young adults who loved well, worked well, and played well (Werner & Smith, 1982, p. 108), individuals who were somehow able to muster the resources to overcome the exposure to maltreatment and stressors in their past. The second generation of resiliency research shifted from the deficit model towards a

focus on strengths. According to Sheldon and King (2001) normal functioning of human beings cannot be accounted for within purely negative (or problem-focused) frames of reference (p. 216). This type of rotten-to-the-core view is only a theory. . . . More plausible is the dual aspect theory that the strengths and the virtues are just as basic to human nature as the negative traits (Seligman, Linley, Joseph, & Boniwell, 2003, p. 127). This generation of resiliency research suggests that by studying positive human traits, science will learn how to buffer against and better prevent mental [illnesses and] will learn how to build the qualities that help individuals and communities not just endure and survive, but also flourish (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 12). Studies therefore focused on defining those internal and external factors that allowed these high-risk individuals to develop into successful adults, attempting to identify the protective factors and prevention efforts that enhance resiliency.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Protective factors, defined as those influences that modify, ameliorate, or alter a

persons response to some environmental hazard that predisposes one to a maladaptive outcome (Smith & Carlson, 1997, p. 234) appear to serve as buffers that allow resilient individuals to maintain a sense of balance and self even in the face of adversity. According to Artz, Nicholson, Halsall and Lanke (2001), protective factors can diminish or protect against the impact of stressful situations, interrupt or reverse a downward developmental spiral, promote the development of personal strengths that are incompatible with deviant behaviors (p. 5) and allow opportunities for personal growth. They are characteristics in an individuals world that mitigate against the development of psychopathology despite the existence of risk factors (Grossman, et al., 1992, p. 530). Research has established numerous protective factors which have been closely correlated with resiliency, including the individuals personal attributes, selfconcepts, family dynamics, and environmental support systems. Parenting Styles Societys conceptualizations about childhood, and therefore its views of the roles and rules of parenting, have changed significantly, more as a reflection of the values and culture of the times than empirically established facts. While Freud was the first to examine the impact of parents on a childs psychological development it was Adlers examination of the impact of the family atmosphere on a young childs development which gave rise to the first identification of parenting styles. According to Adler, children whose parents pampered or neglected them often failed to develop healthy self-concepts or social interest, resulting in their inability to live fulfilling lives. Adler advocated a democratic parenting style, characterized by mutual respect, equality and encouragement as the optimal child rearing approach.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Adlers concepts and concerns about parenting were not widely adopted in the United States, where concepts about parenting were shifting from the view that parenting entailed taming the childs will through unquestioned parental authority to a permissive child-centered focus epitomized by the works of Dr. Spock. As part of a longitudinal study of the effects of family socialization patterns, Diane Baumrinds examination of some of the myths associated with such permissive styles lead to the development of the empirical identification of three

parenting styles which have been widely employed in and supported by parenting studies for the past thirty years. Interestingly, the protypes developed by Baumrind, and utilized in this study, bear a striking similarity to those developed by Adler 50 years earlier permissive, authoritarian, and democratic or authoritative parenting.

Statement of the Problem This research addresses a gap in current literature by examining the concept of resilience and the relationship that exists between parenting style and the development of resiliency in adolescents. This exploratory study attempts to answer a number of questions. Is there a relationship between the type of parenting one receives and the development of resiliency in adolescents? What type of parenting style enhances the development of this important human strength? And conversely, what parenting style may restrict or inhibit the development of resiliency? Answering these questions not only will establish the association between these variables but may also provide reconfirmation of the importance of parenting education and working with the family.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Hypotheses Based upon a solid empirical foundation which establishes strong relationships between parenting styles and the development of many of the traits or individual protective factors that have been associated with resiliency, this study hypothesized that there is a significant association between parenting styles and the development of resiliency in adolescents. It is expected that there will be significant differences between the three parenting styles and their effect on the development of resiliency. It is hypothesized that an authoritative parenting style, characterized by a balance between autonomy and control, with healthy boundaries that foster warmth, and realistic expectations, will be most strongly associated with the development of

high levels of resiliency in the adolescent participants. It is also hypothesized that permissive and authoritarian parenting styles will more often be associated with those participants who exhibited low levels of resiliency.

Significance While most studies on resiliency discuss the importance of the family as a potential protective factor or as one of the potentialrisk s , there is little research which specifically addresses whether parenting style increases the opportunity for an adolescent to become resilient or whether one parenting style might be more effective at enhancing this important strength than the others. Establishing an association between Baumrinds parenting style protypes and resilient adolescents will expand the fields current understanding of how to build on a clients ability to persist in the face of obstacles and to proceed positively with life events (Greene, 2002, p. 2). Identification of the power of parents as capable of encouraging the development of the strengths

Parenting Styles & Resiliency their children will need against lifes risk may provide the impetuous needed to increase preventative parenting programs.

Nature of Study This causal-comparative study examines the association between authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative parenting styles and the development of resiliency in late adolescent males and females in a large suburban Midwest high school. Simple causalcomparative designs are appropriate when at least one variable is categorical, when random assignment is not possible, and when the scientist does not have direct control of independent variables because their manifestations have already occurred . . . [and] inferences about relations among variables are made, without direct intervention, from concomitant variation of independent and dependent variables (Johnson, 2000, p. 6), all of which are applicable to this study.

Assumptions and Limitations As a causal-comparative research project, this study proposed to describe, examine, and determine possible reasons for ex post facto conditions. While such a design is assumed to be appropriate given the focus of this study, this type of research is not without limitations which must be addressed, including operationally defining the independent variable, issues with randomization and potential selection bias, as well as other threats to both internal and external validity.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Operationalization of Variables Definitions of resiliency abound without onespecific set of criteria established on what allows an individual to be able to succeed or bounce back in the face of stressors. While some suggest that resiliency operates only in the context of high risk situations, this study is based on the assumption that the dimensions associated with resiliency are present even in non-risk

situations. Contrary to the view that to identify resiliency, two judgments are required: first, that there has been a significant threat to the individual, typically indexed by high-risk status . . .; and second, that the quality of adaptation or development is good (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998, p. 206), this study employs the theoretical perception of resiliency as a dynamic interaction between environmental factors, individual traits, and protective factors, all of which play a role in individuals everyday experiences and their dealing with the joys, challenges, and hardships of life (Klohnen, 1996, p. 1068). Such a process-oriented definition not only emphasizes the capacities of individuals to rise above or resist adversity at a given point in time, but also brings attention to the inter-relations among individuals, families and communities across time (Artz et al, 2001, p. 6). It is further assumed that the hypothesized association between parenting style and the development of those dimensions or protective factors which have been identified as being associated with resiliency are not only applicable to high risk families, but that the influences of this relationship impact the development of all children. To that end, there was an assumption that the measurement instrument utilized to determine the levels of individual resilience was well suited for this study since it reflects not only previous research findings on the dimensions associated with resiliency but also the underlying concepts of resiliency employed in this study. The Individual Protective Factors

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Index [IPFI] was developed based on an extensive review of resiliency research and strives to

incorporate a majority of the individual protective factors that have been correlated with resilient individuals. Therefore, it was assumed that results from this instrument provide an adequate means of classifying participants on their level of resiliency. A similar assumption was employed with the use of Buris Parental Authority Questionnaires [PAQ], which were developed to correspond with one of the most predominant typologies of parenting style. Baumrinds three established styles, while supported by extensive research, do not necessarily represent the only means of categorizing parenting styles and as typically occurs with any compartmentalization of such factors, they may not reflect minute differences between the categories which might be relevant. At the same time, given the wide range of previous research which has established not only the soundness of these typologies but also the relationship that such styles have on the development of many of the dimensions associated with resiliency, it is assumed that utilization of this tool is appropriate given the objectives of this study and provides a valid, supported means for exploring this variable. While the PAQ involves determining the adolescents perceptions of their parents style of parenting, but does not include any collaborating documentation from the parents, this appears to be justified given the finding that parental self-reports tend to exaggerate parental acceptance . . . and have been criticized as unreliable (Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992, p. 1270). Therefore, it is assumed that participants perceptions of their parents style will provide an adequate assessment for this study. This study also assumes that the variables measured are best evaluated categorically and that such scales of measurement comply with the studys exploratory objectives, the underlying

Parenting Styles & Resiliency theories, as well as the instruments being used. Previous research on resiliency has not been based on those who were a little bit resilient but rather on those who exhibited such strength when exposed to stressors. Likewise, Baumrinds parenting typologies were established as mutually exclusive categories that reflect the predominant parenting practices and values.

10

Therefore, in keeping with the theoretical foundations, analysis within this study will be based on nominal or categorical data, examining those participants who exhibit high levels of resilience and those whose scores on the IPFI show low levels of resilience and their parents, based upon the parenting style category receiving the highest score. Threats to Internal Validity This study assessed and quantified participants resiliency and perceptions of parenting style based upon single measurements taken during one day. One of the limitations of such an approach is that it provides only a frozen snapshot, a single reflection of dynamic processes that may be impacted due to what has happened during the current day or recent past and may not accurately reflect those dimensions being measured by this study. At the same time, it is assumed that many of the standard threats to the internal validity of this research are not applicable. Historical threats, maturational, and mortality threats are not relevant given the fact that this study does not include more than one measurement period and so such threats are highly unlikely to occur or impact findings. Additionally, each participant completed the questionnaires only one time, so familiarity with the instruments and performance which is based upon past performance should not threaten this studys internal validity.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Randomization, Selection Bias, and Threats to External Validity

11

Probably the greatest threat to both internal and external validity in this and other studies is related to participant selection and the ability to generalize ones findings. While the majority of participants in this study demographically resemble the population used in the development of Baumrinds typologies of parenting style and therefore Buris Parental Authority Questionnaire, both of which were based on middle-class Caucasian families of European decent in the United States (Darling, 1999), it is important to remember that the findings may have very different implications in the light of [different] culture[s] (Jaffe, 1999, p. 235) or with other populations. While Baumrinds studies were based upon intact, two-parent families, this study does not limit participants only to these families. The population of this study may be somewhat skewed as a result of the requirement that parental consent was requested as well as that of the participants. It has been suggested that families who tend to be dysfunction are often more reluctant to allow their children to participate in studies such as this and may result in sampling biases that over-represent well-functioning teenagers and families (Steinberg, et al., 1992, p. 1268). Additionally, since students bore the responsibility of taking the consent packets home for signatures and returning it on a specified date, there may be differences between those who returned the forms and those who did not, thereby potentially skewing the data. This study was designed to analyze two groups which were established based on the independent variable, resiliency, as reflected by scores on the IPFI, with groups being established once the range for said scores were determined. Since these groups will be differentiated based on the measured levels of resiliency and therefore not on random assignment, it is imperative to

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

12

examine and compare the two groups to identify other extraneous variables which might account for the differences between the two groups. Nonparametric Statistics While some contend that nonparametric statistics are not as powerful as their parametric counterparts, nonparametric statistics are a viable and increasingly common way for researcher to test relationships among variables when the necessary conditions or assumptions required for parametric statistics are not met (Fitzgerald, Dimitrov, & Rumrill, 2001, p. 291). Both measurement instruments in this study are based on Likert scales and such data are not appropriate for analysis by classical techniques because the numbers are comparable only in terms of relative magnitude, not actual magnitude (Gibbons, 1993, p. 1). Additionally, for data obtained from using a Likert scale any assumption of a normal distribution cannot possibly be justified (Gibbons, 1993, p. 2) nor can a normal distribution be assumed when the groups are not randomly assigned, as in this study. Therefore, it is assumed that this study not only met the requirements for use of such statistical methods but that nonparametric statistics provided a valid means of addressing the research questions in this study. Tests such as the Chi-square test of independence provides a means of mak[ing] warranted inferences, based on probability theory, about the nature of relationships between variables in a population of interest based on relationships between these variables that are observed in the sample (Fitzgerald, et al., 2001, p. 288).

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Organization Chapter Two provides an overview of the research findings on both resiliency and parental styles, with particular attention given to those dimensions which have been associated with the development and manifestation of resiliency that are impacted by the parent-child relationship.

13

Chapter Three provides details about the methodology utilized in this study, including the psychometric properties of the assessment instruments, the selection of participants, the steps necessary to ensure the confidentiality and rights of all participants, as well as the statistical analysis performed. Chapter Four provides the data obtained during September and October, 2004, while Chapter Five discusses the significance of this studys findings, limitations and areas of future research. The Appendixes include copies of the two assessment instruments and the demographic data form used in this study.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Resiliency Palmer (1997) identified four degrees or types of resilience: anomic survival, regenerative resilience, adaptive resilience, and flourishing resilience, categories based on the degree to which particular competencies are developed and used consistently by the individual (p. 202). Anomic survival refers to those individuals who rarely use constructive coping strategies and whose energy is expended just to ensure their safety and survival. There is little predictability in these individuals lives, which are often in a constant state of crisis and disruption. Individuals who exhibit regenerative resilience have some periods of stability, interrupted by numerous crises. Since these individuals have developed some form of constructive coping strategies, they are able to utilize their energy to foster learning and insight into themselves during stable periods. Adaptive resilience is characterized by sustained periods of stability and balance, and these individuals view those periods with disruptions as a chance to reassemble and move towards growth. They are capable of implementing competencies and coping strategies and establishing a relationship of reciprocity between environmental and personal resources, thereby allowing them to utilize their energy to develop their philosophical selves. They have a positive self-regard and a personal sense of wholeness (Palmer, 1997, p. 203). Flourishing resilience allows individual to experience extended periods of stability or balance necessary for sustained growth. These individuals cognitive and coping strategies stem from an integrated and internalized set of skills, and their energy is effectively expended in maintaining coherence in their lives, based on an enduring sense of their own philosophical self.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

15

They view life as meaningful and manageable, similar to Maslows or Adlers concept of a selfactualized individual. What accounts for these individual differences in the manifestation of resilience? There is no simple answer, no single theory or definition of resiliency, and resilience is still loosely enough defined to cover a multitude of virtues and cause an array of arguments (Butler, 1997, p. 25). Some conceptualize resiliency as an innate trait giving its possessors the ability to thrive, mature, and increase competence in the face of adverse circumstances (Sullivan, 2001, p. 35), while others view it as developmental adaptation, as a social phenomena, or even as a quintessentially U.S. concept (Rigsby, 1994, p. 85) a reflection of the Horatio Alger myths and protestant work ethic prevalent in a culture whose commitment to a value that everyone should strive for achievement predominates. Others struggle with the task of delineating what constitutes positive adaptation. Should it be construed as . . . adequate versus excellent functioning, between surviving and thriving . . . between competence and absence of maladjustment . . . ? (Ryff & Singer, 2003, p. 19) that we label resiliency. The following provides an overview of the concepts of and findings on resiliency and the commonalities which exist. Resiliency as a Biological Imperative or Trait Some researchers theorize that what is labeled resiliency is really an innate capacity or biological imperative that unfolds naturally in the presence of certain [and despite other] environmental characteristics (Benard, 1995, p. 1). An individuals susceptibility to adverse experiences may derive from personal characteristics that have an important constitutional component (Rutter, 1993, p. 629). Under this view of a personality trait, resilience is seen as a

Parenting Styles & Resiliency component of the self that enables successes in the face of adversity, and may either be

16

consumed or, paradoxically, reinforced by adversity (Bartelt, 1994, p. 98). According to Benard (1995), this capacity allows the individual to develop social competence, problem-solving skills, autonomy, and a sense of purpose, all of which have been identified as important dimensions of resiliency. Temperament. One example of such a trait is an individuals temperament, which influence[s] how people respond in particular stress or challenge circumstances . . . and how people appraise their circumstances (Rutter, 1993, p. 629). Significant associations have been found between temperamental features and psychiatric disorders, and between temperament and other peoples response to the child (Rutter, 1981, p. 339). In reviewing common attributes among children later found to be resilient, Werner and Smith (1982) found that temperament, evidenced by early signs of sociability, was predictive of resilience. These individuals were described as active, cuddly, responsive, and capable of eliciting a great deal of attention, resulting in a stronger bond of attachment (primarily with the mother) than children who were more vulnerable to the impact of risks. Resilient children exhibited a higher level of competence in all areas of development compared with their non-resilient peers, including cognitive and language abilities, and social competence and had evolved coping patterns that combine[d] the ability to provide their own structure with the ability to ask for support when needed (Werner & Smith, 1982, p. 68). By the time these individuals were 18 years of age, they were found to be more responsible, had a strong internalized set of values, and a stronger need for achievement than even peers raised in more advantageous circumstances. There was also a high correlation with

Parenting Styles & Resiliency the ability to regulate impulses, to delay gratification and to maintain a future orientation (Werner & Smith, 1982, p. 93). These adolescents also seemed to be more androgynous,

17

integrating the positive traits of both male and female stereotypes into their sense of themselves and their behaviors (Werner & Smith, 1982). Resilient males were described as being socially perceptive, appreciative, nurturant, and gentle, traits often ascribed to the feminine stereotype. Resilient females, on the other hand, were considered to be more assertive, independent, poised, self-assured and they thrived in situations where independent efforts and thinking were rewarded and where autonomy and originality were valued (Werner & Smith, 1982, p. 90). Self-esteem. Self-esteem is another personality trait which has been found to be important in the development of resiliency. Defined as the degree to which people perceive themselves to be significant and worthy (Gardner & Pierce, 1998), self-esteem provides a current assessment of the self which tends to be stable over time. Individuals with high levels of self-esteem place credence and trust in their reactions and conclusions . . . to follow their own judgments, . . . [have] less difficulty in forming friendships . . . [and] their lack of self-consciousness and their lack of preoccupation with personal problems permits them to present their idea in a full and forthright fashion . . . (Maccoby, 1980, p. 277). Other personality traits which distinguish resilient children from those who become overwhelmed by the impact of risks include an active, evocative approach to problem - solving, enabling them to negotiate an array of emotionally hazardous experiences; . . . an optimistic view of their experiences even in the midst of suffering; an ability to maintain a positive vision of a meaningful life; an ability to be alert and autonomous; a tendency to seek novel experiences; and a proactive perspective (Rak & Patterson, 1996, p. 372). Resilient children in later life exhibited

Parenting Styles & Resiliency higher levels of intellectual competence, had a lower incidence of risk for school failure, or the development of mental health problems (Werner & Smith, 1982). Resiliency as Developmental Adaptation At the same time, Aspinwall and Stauginer (2003) caution that the trait approach to resiliency may represent only one type of human strength . . . [but does not] consider the underlying process or dynamics, nor do they focus on the interplay between dispositions and particular situations (p. 12). Those who consider resiliency from an developmental adaptation viewpoint stress that resiliency should not be viewed as a fixed attribute but as vulnerabilities or protective mechanisms that modify the individuals response to risk . . . Protection does not reside in the psychological chemistry of the moment but in the ways in which people deal with life changes and in what they do about their stressful or disadvantageous circumstances (Winfield, 1994, p. 3).

18

Resiliency therefore is conceptualized as a process of adaptation, a function of the individuals unique strengths, capacities, vulnerabilities and goodness of fit with the demands and opportunities of the environment (Felsman & Vallant, as cited in Greene & Conrad, 2001, p. 50). Within this framework, resiliency then can be understood as a transactional process through which a child draws on internal and external resources in seeking to master stagesalient tasks (Wyman et al., 1999, p. 646). Viewing resiliency as the other end of a continuum from psychopathology, with both focus[ing] of variations in adaptation within a developmental perspective . . . each is judged on the basis of normative patterns of development in normative environmental contexts (Masten, 1994, p. 3). According to Masten (1994), the major ingredients of adaptation include the (a) competence or psychological functioning of the individual . . .; (b) nature of the adversities faced; (c) individual and social assets and risks; (d)

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

19

individual characteristics that function as vulnerabilities or protective factors; (e) environmental liabilities or protective factors; and (f) context for adaptation (p. 5). According to this view of resiliency, those assets associated with resiliency are also those associated with competence in normal development. Resilient children do not appear to possess mysterious or unique qualities; rather, they have retained or secured important resources representing protective systems in human development (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998, p. 215). Self-efficacy and Locus of Control. Self-efficacy or a subjective belief in ones control is a necessary condition for personal well-being throughout life . . . [and is] a good predictor of successful learning . . . health and recovery from illness happiness in old age; and coping with many other types of life problems in life like depression (Flammer, 1995, p. 83). Self-efficacy is based on a larger domain of perceptions such as personal ability, skills, knowledge, previous task experience, and complexity of the tasks to be performed, as well as on the states of affective and psycho-motor reactions (e.g. positive or negative emotions, stress, fatigue) (Stadjkovic & Luthans, 1998, p. 7). An individuals attributional style influences how he responds to life events (Rutter, 1981, p. 344) and predicts a wide range of adaptive life behaviors including coping behavior, resignation in the face of failure, and achievement strivings (Holahan & Moos, 1985, p. 739). Self-efficacy impacts not only the individuals willingness to attempt the task because of a conviction that the outcome will be successful, and how much effort the individual will put into accomplishing the task, but also how long the individual will continue to exert such effort in the face of adverse obstacles or stressful situations. A resilient child has some sense of mastery of his own life, and if he gets frustrated by a mistake, he still feels he can learn from the mistake (Sullivan, 2001, p. 36). An individuals

Parenting Styles & Resiliency feelings of self-efficacy depend, to some extent, on the perception that they have an ability to

20

control events in their own lives, and that their behavior can impact the outcome of such events. Individuals who believe that they have such abilities are also said to have an internal locus of control, an attribute that is closely correlated with resiliency. Resilience may be fostered by steps that make it more likely that people will feel in control of their lives and become effective in shaping what happens to them (Rutter, 1993, p. 628). Individuals with an external sense of control are more likely to attribute the outcome of events to forces outside of their control, a result of luck, fate, etc., often leading to a stronger sense of helplessness. Females are more likely to adopt an attributional style of learned helplessness, which could perhaps explain, in part, why depression is more prevalent in women (Rutter, 1981, p. 344). Bandura et al. (2001) suggest that the decline which is often perceived in the self-efficacy of preadolescent and adolescent females might have its origins in sex-differentiated patterns of feedback from adults. One example is the parents gender-linked beliefs about their childrens capabilities, resulting in differentiated expectations and treatments and that these beliefs are based more on cultural stereotypes than the students actual abilities and past performances (Bandura et al., 2001). Social Competence. Social competence, the social, emotional and cognitive skills and behaviors that children need for successful social adaptation (Welsh & Bierman, 1998, p.1), has also been associated with resiliency. Skills important for the development of social competence include positive peer interactions, a high degree of social responsiveness and sensitivity, intelligence, empathy, [and] a sense of humor (Winfield, 1994, p.2), as well as the capacity to inhibit egocentric, impulsive, or negative social behaviors . . . and to read complex social

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

21

situations (Welsh & Bierman, 1998, p.1) and to maintain control over emotions, and to be in a positive frame of mind (Winfield, 1994, p. 20). The ability to recognize and adapt to the requirements of an immediate social setting in order to avoid harm, the ability to make important decisions, even if the decision may be risky, and the ability to reprocess negative events in a way that will make them more acceptable or congruent with ones view (Jew, Green & Kroger, 1999, p. 76 77) were three other characteristics which have been identified as being important in adaptation and in resilience. Finally, the ability to seek help, an adaptive function . . . rather than an indicator of dependence, immaturity, passivity, or even incompetence . . . a sign of motivation that the child is actively seeking human resources to increase his or her chances of success (Winfield, 1994, p.21), was also characteristic of resilient individuals and important for adaptation. Resilience from an Ecological Perspective Given the fact that resilience occurs in the context of person-environmental interaction and the circumstances that influence resilience are embedded in family, school, neighborhood, and the larger community, resilience can be understood from an ecological perspective (Greene, 2002, p. 17). Resilience is turning out to be an interactive and systemic phenomenon, the product of a complex relationship of inner strengths and outer help. Resilience is not only an individual matter. It is the outward and visible sign of a web of relationships and experiences that teach people mastery, doggedness, love, moral courage, and help (Butler, 1997, p. 25 -26). From the micro level, the individuals day-to-day encounters, to the macro systems, which encompass the overarching societal systems, such as cultural and societal attitudes (Bronfenbrenner, as cited in Greene, 2002, p. 18), each level can serve as a risk or as a protective

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

22

factor in the life on the individual. While this study examines the interactions of only two system levels the individual and the family there is little question that other systems exert an influence on individual development and that each young person brings his or her own characteristics . . . [which] interact with different ecologies (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 81). Macro-level issues such as poverty, inequality, unemployment, inadequate education, violent neighborhoods, and minority status have all been found to have an adverse impact on the individuals health and development (Jack, 2000). Among the constellations of interrelated social hazards . . . childhood poverty is the most consistent predictor of dysfunction . . . ineffective or uncaring parenting is a second . . . [followed by] maltreatment (Doll and Lyon, 1998, p. 351). Rak and Patterson (1996) noted that perfectly healthy children can become at risk because of poverty, family discord, violence and abuse, substance abuse, numerous siblings, parental mental illness, or parents with minimal education, all of which disrupt the caregiving process as parents become less able to provide either the structure or the love that are so important to the development of self-esteem and diligence (p. 368). Benard (1995) found that the development of critical consciousness, a reflective awareness of the structures of oppression (be it from an alcoholic parent, an insensitive school, or a racist society) and creating strategies for overcoming them (p. 2) are key factors in the development of resiliency. And yet, as resiliency research has shown, an individuals response to such stresses and adversity depends as much upon the characteristics of the important context in which children develop (e.g. family, school, community) as upon the characteristics of the children themselves (Doll & Lyon, 1998, p. 352).

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Resilience is the ability to thrive, mature, and increase competence in the face of adverse circumstances. Further, the adverse circumstances may be chronic and consistent or severe and infrequent. To thrive, mature and increase competence, a person must draw upon all of his or her resources: biological, psychological, and environmental (Sullivan, 2001, p. 35). Social Support. Resilient youth appear to place themselves in healthier contexts,

23

generating opportunities for successes or raising the odds of connecting with prosocial mentors in a manner consistent with the concept of niche seeking (Masten, 2001, p. 233). Such individuals are especially adept at actively recruiting surrogate parents (Smith & Carlson, 1997, p. 236) and these extrafamilial relationships may alter or even reverse expected negative outcomes and enable individuals to circumvent life stressors and manifest resilience despite risks (Bernard, 1994, p. 2), by providing a charismatic adult with whom the individual could identify and from whom they gathered strength (Sullivan, 2001, p. 36). Such social support systems have been found to be associated with positive influences on families, parents, and children (Jack, 2000, p. 706). Criss, Petit, Bates, Dodge and Lapps (2002) study of adolescents found that positive peer relationships can serve as a protective factor for at-risk children . . . [as they] moderate the link between family diversity and childrens subsequent externalizing behavior (p. 231). This may be especially true for females because girls friendships tend to be characterized by more affection, validation, and support compared with boys friendships (Criss et al., 2002, p. 1221), which are based primarily on shared activity and competition . . . that appears to continue to some extent into adulthood (Robinson, 1995, p. 270 271). At the same time, Criss et al. (2002) note that the overall level of peer acceptance may be especially important as a protective factor for at-risk boys (p. 1221). In a study of the interaction between family and peer

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

24

relationships on childrens well-being, Gauze, Bukowski, Aquan-Assee, & Sippola (1996) found that adolescents who were unable to obtain support, closeness, encouragement, and affection in their families were often able to obtain those provisions through their peer relationships. As was stated previously, the family system can serve as a risk or as a protective factor in a childs development. Variables reflecting competence and quality of parenting are the most sensitive predictors of resilience (Wyman, et al., 1999, p. 655). When teens feel connected to their families, and when parents are involved in their childrens lives, teens are protected (Blum and Rinehart, 1997, p. 15). Much of an adolescents psychological and social adjustment reflects the quality of family relationships during childhood and adolescence . . . Adolescents who grow up in chronically distressed families are likely to develop serious social and emotional problems (Jaffe, 1998, p. 232), impacting the adolescents ability to cope with stress, to regulate emotions, to form nurturing relationships, or to develop a sense of security, trust and self-esteem or self-identity (Thurman & Widestrom, 1990). High levels of exposure to family conflict are also likely to moderate childrens responses to other experiences and encounters (Bradley & Corwyn, 2000, p. 395). Wyman et al. (1999) found that parents of resilient children had more appropriate developmental expectations, empathy for childrens needs, and the view that parents should maintain a consistent caregiving role (p. 655). Parents of resilient children also reported more nurturing involvement with their children, greater consistency in and use of more authoritative discipline practices, as well as more positive expectations for their childrens futures (Wyman et al., 1999). Of the 3 clusters of protective factors, Cowen & Work (1988) found that a warm, supportive family environment was as important as personal disposition and positive peer

Parenting Styles & Resiliency relationships. The following provides an overview of parenting styles and the impact that parenting specifically has on those personal dimensions that have been associated with resiliency.

25

Parenting Styles During the past three decades, researchers have examined the impact of different approaches to parenting, establishing a remarkably consistent pattern of the type of parenting conducive to the successful socialization of children into the dominant culture of the United States (Darling & Steinberg, 1993, p. 487). While theoretical orientation strongly influenced the dimensions once considered most relevant in the parent-child relationship, extensive research suggests that a unified understanding which incorporates the psychodynamic emphasis on emotional components, and the behavioral-social learning models emphasis on parenting practices or behaviors may more accurately reflect the characteristics most vital to this relationship. According to Darling and Steinberg (1993), parenting styles are best conceptualized as a constellation of attitudes toward the child that are communicated to the child, and that, taken together, create an emotional climate in which the parents behaviors are expressed (p. 487). Parenting styles moderate the influence of parenting practices on the childs development in at least two ways: by transforming the nature of the parent-child interactions . . . and by influencing the childs personality, especially the childs openness to parental influence (Darling & Steinberg, 1993, p. 493). Baumrinds empirically based typologies of parenting styles primarily focus on the dimensions of responsiveness and demandingness of the parents. Parental responsiveness, the

Parenting Styles & Resiliency extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation, and self-assertion by

26

being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to childrens special needs and demands (Baumrind, 1996, p. 408), incorporates a variety of facets, including parental warmth and empathy, reciprocity, person-centered communication patterns, and attachment. Parental demandingness refers to claims that parents make on children to become integrated into the family and community, by their maturity expectations, supervision, disciplinary efforts, and willingness to confront a disputative child (Baumrind, 1996, p. 409). Given the finding that a difference in the level of one these two dimensions correlated with differences in the level of the other, Baumrind was able to identify three parenting styles which seem to be prevalent in U.S. families. Not only do these protyped styles differ in how these parents approached raising their children, but also are reflected in the outcome of the childs development across a variety of dimensions. Authoritarian Parenting Style According to Baumrind (1996), in families categorized as authoritarian, parents shape, control and evaluate the behavior and attitudes of the child in accordance with a set of standards of conduct, usually an absolute standard . . . [which] values obedience as a virtue and favors punitive, forceful measures to curb self-will (p. 890). Aside from demanding strict adherence to rules and parental authority, thereby restricting the childs autonomy, such parent-child relationships are said to lack warmth and give and take, expecting children to comply with their [parental] demands without discussion . . . [children] are not allowed to express their opinions and there is little opportunity to think about situations or employ reasoning (Knight, et al., 2000, p. 231). Such parents conceive [of] nurturance either as the opposite of authority and therefore as indulgences . . . or they identify authority with nurturance. [The authoritarian parenting style]

Parenting Styles & Resiliency does not allow for the idea of nurture and authority as coexisting harmoniously (Mansager &

27

Volk, 2004, p. 284). Authoritarian parents have been found to be high in psychological control, attempts that intrude into the psychological and emotional life of the child . . . through use of parenting practices such as guilt induction, withdrawal of love, or shaming (Darling, 1999, p. 2). Hetherington and Blechman (1996) found that parents use of rejecting and coercive rather than supportive and assertive means to control their childrens behavior . . . [was] a critical factor in the development of depression and antisocial behavior in adolescents (p. 55). Such families have rigid boundaries, expressed both emotionally (i.e. parental support, bidirectional communication and interactions) and psychologically (i.e. parental acceptance or rejection and discipline strategies) toward children (Hickman, Barthmolmae, & McKenry, 2000, p. 42). According to structural family therapy, boundaries are a necessary part of the family structure as they (1) ensure that the different functions of the family are carried out, (2) develop the components of each family members self as they carry out their respective functions . . . and (3) maintain each members separateness while emphasizing their belongingness to the family system (Kemenoff, Jachimczyk & Fussner, 1999, p. 112). Rigid boundaries, asare characteristic of an authoritarian parenting style, results in the subsystems of the family being separate and distinct . . . autonomy may be maintained, but nurturance, involvement, and the easy exchange of affection with one another are typically missing (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2000, p. 201). Permissive Parenting Style Unlike authoritarian families, whose subsystems boundaries are rigid and impermeable, families classified as permissive often have boundaries which are diffuse, with a high rate of

Parenting Styles & Resiliency permeability, blurring the lines between the subsystems. A permissive parenting style is characteristic of parents who place few, if any demands on their children, allowing children complete freedom to make life decisions without referring to parents for advice . . .

28

Communication [in such families] has a tendency to be nonexistent or minimal (Hickman et al., 2000, p. 42). Such parents often do not view themselves as being responsible for shaping or altering [their childrens] ongoing or future behavior . . . [instead] allowing the child to regulate his own activities as much as possible, avoid[ing] the exercise of control and does not encourage him to obey externally defined standards (Baumrind, 1966, p. 889). Permissive parents tend to show their ambivalence about discipline by alternating praise and punishment (Neal, 2001, p. 2). Given the blurred boundaries within these families, children run the risk of becoming too involved with their parents, and in the process failing to develop independent thinking . . . or to learn the necessary skills for developing relationships outside of the family (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2000, p. 201). Authoritative Parenting Style According to Baumrind (1996), the authoritative parenting style rejects both extremes of the authoritarian-permissive (or conservative-liberal) polarity, representing instead an integration of opposing unbalanced childrearing positions (p. 406). Authoritative or democratic parents are warm, firm and involved, three key ingredients of competent parenting, . . . sensitive to their adolescent childrens changing needs; . . . set realistic standards, set clear rules . . . [and] are not permissive (Jaffe, 1998, p. 233). Such parents direct the childs activities but in a rational, issue-oriented way . . . encourag[ing] verbal give and take . . . us[ing] reasoning as well as power to achieve her objectives (Baumrind, 1966, p. 891). They remain receptive to the childs views

Parenting Styles & Resiliency but take responsibility for firmly guiding the childs actions, emphasizing reasoning, communication, and rational discussion in interactions that are friendly as well as tutorial and disciplinary (Baumrind, 1996, p. 410). Authoritative parenting is not just a balance between

29

authority and nurture. It adds still another dimension: encouragement of the child (Mansager & Volk, 2004, p. 290). As responsive caregivers, authoritative parents are attuned to their childs needs [which] helps the child to master early stage-salient developmental tasks and on that base to build more differentiated, complex capacities needed to master significant environmental challenges (Wyman et al., 1999, p. 656). Such parents are self-confident about their abilities, give the child considerable freedom within reasonable limits (Vander Zanden, 1977, p. 226), and display warmth, love and affection toward children and are democratic in that they participate in bidirectional communication exchanges (Hickman et al., 2000, p. 42). Families characterized by authoritative parenting have clearly defined boundaries between the different subsystems that allow the family to maintain separateness and at the same time emphasize belongingness to the overall family system . . . enhanc[ing] the familys overall well-being by providing support . . . while simultaneously encouraging independence (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2000, p. 201). While such parents are clear about boundaries and consequences . . . this clarity means paradoxically that the parent does not have to be constantly aware of and worried about the childs behavior (Mansager & Volk, 2004, p. 288). According to Goldenberg and Goldenberg (2000), clear boundaries give each member a sense of I-ness along with a group sense of we or us (p. 202), an important component as children grow and begin to develop autonomy. Regardless of their family configuration or economic

Parenting Styles & Resiliency circumstances, adolescents benefit from stable and supportive family climate (Jaffe, 1998, p. 219).

30

Impact on Development Parents behavior towards their adolescent children influences the well-being of those children as they move into adulthood (Aquilino & Supple, 2001, p 303), impacting many dimensions of personal competence and self concept. The following presents a review of findings on the impact of parenting style of the development of many of the dimensions associated with adolescent resiliency. Self-esteem Engels, Finkenauer, Meeus, & Dekovic (2001) found that the level of parental attachment was significantly related to feelings of self-esteem. Adolescents who had strong parental attachment exhibited higher levels of self-esteem and lower levels of depression in part due to the finding that such relationships during adolescence seems to ease feelings of distress and overexcitability (Koon, 1997, p. 475). Individuals with higher levels of self-esteem place credence and trust in their reactions and conclusions . . . to follow their own judgments, . . . [have] less difficulty in forming friendships . . . [and] their lack of self-consciousness and their lack of preoccupation with personal problems permits them to present their idea in a full and forthright fashion . . . (Maccoby, 1980, p. 277). According to Koon (1997), such secure attachments instill the positive self-image in which a person feels good about him or herself in a

Parenting Styles & Resiliency variety of adjustment areas including body image, vocational/educational goals and social relationships (p. 471).

31

Buri, Loruselle, Misikanis and Mueller (1988) found that parenting style and the varying levels of parental authority can positively or negatively impact adolescent self-esteem. While 89% of those with authoritative parents exhibited high self-esteem, 84% of participants whose parents were authoritarian fell into the low-esteem group (Buri et al., 1988). According to Jaffe (1998), overprotection or neglectful parenting qualities, the use of punitive discipline, and conditional acceptance have all been associated with negative self-esteem. Strage (1998) found that an authoritative parenting style was most often correlated with the development of selfconfidence and a positive sense of self, and that the impact of this relationship continued after adolescents moved out of the family home. Supportive child rearing, parental affection, and healthy family relationships all foretell positive self-esteem during adolescence (Jaffe, 1998, p. 198). Klein & OBryant (1996) found that there was a negative relationship between authoritarian parenting styles and the development of an individuals sense of global self-worth and other self-perception domains, while there is a significant positive relationship between authoritative parenting and the development of these self-perceptions. In fact, nearly all studies have demonstrated a significant relationship between parenting style and self-esteem, irrespective of the measures used, the age of the participants, or the culture of the group (Furnham & Cheng, 2000, p. 465). Other parenting practices associated with the development of positive self-esteem included positive regard, validating adolescents feelings, valuing achievement, and unconditional acceptance (Jaffe, 1998). Additionally, for females, their development of self-esteem may be more dependent upon the parental authority exercised in the

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

32

home (especially authoritative parenting by both parents) than in the development of self-esteem in males (Buri et al, 1988, p. 281). Nielsen and Methas (1994) examination of the impact of parental support, autonomy granting, and discipline behaviors on the self-esteem of clinical and nonclinical adolescents provides additional support for the role of parental support in the development of resiliency. For nonclinical adolescents, results indicated that there is a stronger positive relationship between parental support and autonomy granting and self-esteem for females than for males. This protection is especially strong with parents who avoid the use of guilt induction and manipulation or love withdrawal as a means of parental control (Nielsen & Metha, 1994, p. 540), with daughters showing the greatest amount of self-esteem across most dimensions. For nonclinical males, parental autonomy granting appeared to only impact Self-Esteem Comparative Worth and no relationship was established between parental discipline and selfesteem in either population studies. Additionally, Nielsen and Metha (1994) found that there was no correlation between parental behaviors and self-esteem for adolescents in the clinical sample. Low self-esteem has also been associated with conformity, drug abuse, delinquency, depression and suicidal thoughts (Jaffe, 1998, p. 195) in adolescence. Autonomy and Self-control In western societies, achieving individuation or autonomy is one of the critical psychosocial developmental tasks of adolescence, and numerous studies have found that parenting styles can inhibit or encourage adolescent movement (Aquilino & Supple, 2001, p. 290) towards this goal. According to Steinberg (as cited in Pardeck & Pardeck, 1990), autonomy involves three interrelated dimensions: emotional autonomy, behavioral autonomy or the ability

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

33

to make independent decisions . . .; and value autonomy the development of a set of principles about what is right and wrong (p. 312). Allen, Hauser, Bell & OConnor (1994) found that exhibition of autonomous-relatedness in family interactions was strongly related to both concurrent ego development and self-esteem . . . parents facilitate the adolescents exploration of differences . . . [and] well-functioning adolescents reciprocate . . . establishing autonomy without sacrificing relatedness (p. 190). As Robinson (1995) suggests instead of conceptualizing individuation during adolescence as a process of detachment . . . [it] is best facilitated by family relationships providing a separateness necessary for adolescents to develop their own points of view and the connectedness, or secure base, from which adolescents can explore the world around them (p. 273). Werner and Smith (1982) noted that positive maternal interactions resulted in feelings of secure attachment between the parent and child, allowing the child to feel independent and trusting as they began to explore their world, and develop a strong sense of autonomy and individuation during adolescence (Jaffe, 1999). Such children do not experience the anxiety and fear associated with strict, repressive parenting or the indecision and uncertainty associated with unstructured, permissive parenting (Vander Zanden, 1997, p. 227). Research has found that adolescents who develop autonomy within the context of a warm, supportive relationship with their parents scored higher on measures of identity, role-taking skill, ego development, and ability to take responsibility for their own decisions (Aquilino & Supple, 2001, 291). This sense of autonomy seems to carry over into the future and adolescents accustomed to a warm, emotional, and caring environment associated with open communication may have an advantage when making the transition into a college environment as they achieved greater mastery and selfregulation of their environment (Hickman, 2001, p. 48).

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Self-Efficacy and Locus of Control Self-efficacy, defined as the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes (Bandura, 1977, p. 191), develops as an individual interacts

34

with the environment and is introduced to various opportunities to succeed at a variety of tasks. Parental aspirations have been positively linked with adolescents feelings of self-efficacy, especially in the areas of academic, social, and self-regulatory self-efficacy. As Bandura (2001) noted, family structures affect behavior largely through their impact on peoples aspirations, sense of efficacy, personal standards, affective states, and other self-regulatory influences (p. 15). The development of self-efficacy is based, in large part, on the types of enabling experiences parents provide . . . childrens appraisals of their capabilities are partly shaped by the efficacy appraisals of others (Bandura, 1997, p. 169). Parents who are overly protective can constrain development of their childrens capabilities, whereas more secure parents are quick to acknowledge and encourage their childrens growing capabilities (Bandura, 1997, p. 169). According to Jerusalem and Schwarzer (as cited in Schneewind, 1995), 16% of the variance in generalized efficacy of males and 12% of the variance in females was predicted by the childrens perceived parental behaviors (p. 125). The parental behaviors which best predicted the development of self-efficacy differed for sons and daughters. For males, a close, warm relationship with the father and a somewhat demanding and task-oriented, albeit nonrejecting, relationship with their mothers developed higher confidence and self-efficacy (Schneewind, 1995, p. 125). The reverse seemed to be true for daughters. Those who felt more pressure from their fathers, in terms of achievement, and whose mothers tended to rely on

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

35

psychological influence . . . appealing to the daughters sympathy (Schneewind, 1995, p. 125) were most likely to develop strong self-efficacy in adolescence and adulthood. Parental warmth and consistency have also been found to be associated with adolescents having internal perceptions of control, whereas inconsistent or lax discipline were significantly correlated with [childrens] perceptions of unknown and external control for success (Morton & Mann, 1998, p. 485). Positive correlations have been found between the development of an internal locus of control and parental protectiveness, affection, and approval (Flammer, 1995). Children raised by permissive parents have been found to have little self-control, self-reliance, or maturity, much like children who are classified as ambivalently attached (Neal, 2000). Of the three parenting protypes, the least self-reliant, explorative, and self-controlled children were those with permissive parents (Vanden Zander, 1997, p. 227). Academic Performance/Competence According to Dornbusch et al. (1987), the link between parenting style and academic competence is related to five processes: (1) verbal interaction between mother and children; (2) expectations of parents for achievement; (3) positive affective relationships between parents and children; (4) parental beliefs and attributions about the child; and (5) discipline and control strategies (p. 1244). Baumrinds research on preschool age children found that parental styles had a strong influence on childrens cognitive abilities or agency and that the level of impact varied depending upon the childs gender. Children from authoritative families were found to have the highest level of cognitive agency, with young girls from such families rating even higher than boys and this gender difference appears to be maintained in all 3 categories of parenting styles (Maccoby, 1980). An authoritative parenting styles has also been found to be

Parenting Styles & Resiliency associated with increases in a number of attitudinal and behavioral indicators of academic

36

competence including: a stronger work orientation, greater engagement in classroom activities, higher educational aspirations, more positive feelings about school, greater time spent on homework, more positive academic self-conceptions, and lower levels of school misconduct (Steinberg, et al., 1992, p. 1266 1267). Roberts & Steinberg (1999) found that adolescents who experienced a high level of autonomy granting and parental involvement also showed high levels of academic competence, with autonomy granting promoting a desire to achieve and the faith that they will succeed . . . [while at the same time] shield[ing] teens from anxiety and depression (p. 583). Melby and Congers (1996) longitudinal study of parental behaviors lends additional support for the positive correlation between academic performance and parental involvement or management practices. Practices including monitoring, problem-solving, positive reinforcement, and open communication, similar to those found in authoritative parenting (Melby & Conger, 1996), facilitated the development of an effective parent-child relationship and adolescent academic competence. Students raised in authoritative home environments demonstrated greater levels of academic competence and adjustment (Hickman et al., 2000, p. 42). On the other hand, families with authoritarian or permissive parenting tended to have students who did less well in high school (Dornbusch, Ritter, Herbert, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987, p. 1256). Bovejas (1998) examination of parenting styles with urban high school students also found that those raised by parents who were authoritative did better in school than adolescents from authoritarian or permissive homes (p. 110.), a difference which is attributed to the fact that highly authoritarian or permissive parenting styles contribute[d] to a student having

Parenting Styles & Resiliency faulty learning styles and the lack of opportunity to acquire effective studying strategies (Boveja, 1998, p. 110). Most school-related conflicts between parents and high school youth

37

was related to demanding (authoritarian) or not enough expectations (permissive) (Hickman et al., 2000, p. 42) parenting styles. Families characterized as having high levels of conflictcoercive control predicted more problem behaviors and lower school performance (Aquilino & Supple, 2001, p. 298). Additionally, parents who are rejecting or inconsistent in their parenting often raise adolescents who have school problems . . . problems in self-regulation and poor adjustment (Jaffe, 1998, p. 233). Strage (1998) found that authoritarian, nagging, or enmeshed families predicted a general concern about the future, low levels of self-regulated learning, and more difficulties for the adolescent. Social Competence Social competence includes the successful acquisition of the cognitive, emotional, and relationship skills that allow adolescents to work effectively and cooperatively with others, understanding and taking into consideration the perspective of others (Englund, Levy, Hyson, & Sroufe, 2000, p. 1062), vital skills during this developmental period when peer and group membership have increasing importance. Attachment theory suggests that secure attachments facilitate social adjustment because it allows adolescents to maintain positive models of themselves and others and to freely explore their physical and social environment (Soucy & Larose, 2000, p. 127). Secure attachments are often characterized as including positive affect, support for autonomy, and emotional support, all of which have been found to be associated with adaptive functioning and fostering individual growth (Kenny & Donaldson, 1991). The secure attachment associated with authoritative parenting style has been positively correlated with the

Parenting Styles & Resiliency development of social competence, allowing children to become well-adjusted, have positive self-concepts (Jaffe, 1999, p. 233). These securely attached individuals scored higher on

38

variables such as warmth, feelings of security and healthy independence which were predictive of a persons intimacy abilities (Neal, 2001, p. 3). Kenny and Donaldson (1991) found this to be especially true of late adolescent females. Women who reported themselves as more attached to their parents also reported higher levels of social competence and psychological wellbeing (p. 484). Neal (2001) found that children raised by authoritarian parents were often described much like those who display characteristics of avoidant attachment angry, aggressive, isolated, with a poor sense of themselves. The absence of parental warmth associated with punitive parenting foretells social skills deficits and low self-esteem (Jaffe, 1999, p. 233). Such individuals often tend to be discontented, withdrawn, and distrustful (Vander Zanden, 1997, p. 227), have poorer social skills, and in personal relationships, such children either become defiant or susceptible to peer pressure (Darling, 1999). While many attachment theories focus on the mother-child relationship, Rice, Cunningham and Young (1997) found that the father-child relationship may have a greater influence on socialization, especially with adolescent males. For females, attachment relationships with both parents predicted social competence, a significant predictor of emotional well-being (Rice, Cunnningham & Young, 1997, p. 96). Bell, Avery, Jenkins, Feld, & Schonock (1985) found that while there was no evidence that closeness to mother, father, or siblings differentially affects the social skills and peer relationships (p. 118) of late adolescents, close parent-child relationships were correlated with satisfying peer relationships.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Defining supportive parental behaviors as affection, praise, companionship and love, Aquilino and Supple (2001) found that such behaviors positively predict elements of social competence, including higher self-esteem, autonomy and academic achievement (p. 292).

39

Adolescents raised in supportive family environments also exhibit less shyness (Moos & Moos, 1983). Lamborn, et al. (1991) found that adolescents raised in authoritative homes exhibited significantly higher levels of social development than adolescents raised under other parenting styles. At the same time, findings indicate that teens from indulgent or permissive families scored higher on social competence than those from authoritarian homes, while those from authoritarian homes scored higher on obedience and were less likely to be involved in risky or delinquent behavior (Lamborn et al., 1991). Their findings also indicate that gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic factors did not impact the influences of different parenting styles. Secure parent-child attachment may provide a framework in which adolescents feel safe and more secure to develop, with trial and error, social skills within the family and within peer settings (Engels, et al., 2001, p. 429). Social skills such as negotiating, giving and taking support, and giving feedback are all necessary for the initiation and maintenance of warm, satisfying, and reciprocal relationships with friends and romantic partners . . .[and] for young peoples emotional adjustment (Engels et al., 2001, p. 430). As stated previously, positive peer relationships are considered to be a protective factor in resilient adolescents. Koesten, Miller and Hummert (2001) identified two family communication patterns related to the development of social competence. Person-centered communication, similar to that found in authoritative parenting, recognizes the intentions, feelings and perspectives of others (Koesten, et al., 2001, p. 14) and enhances not only an adolescent

Parenting Styles & Resiliency females social competence but also her ability to stand her ground with peers, especially in terms of risk behaviors. On the other hand, position-centered communication, which is based

40

more on rules or norms, limited these young womens ability to assert their individuality within the family system . . . obtain guidance at a critical time in her life . . . [or develop] the selfefficacy that was necessary to successfully stay in control of their decisions, especially when it came to risk behaviors (Koesten et al., p. 23 - 24) or development of social competence. Gauze et al. (1996) found that adolescents raised in cohesive and adaptable families had higher levels of perceived social competence and feelings of self-worth and were able to demonstrate adequate levels of adjustment regardless of the quality and level of reciprocity in their friendship relationships (p. 2213). Such supportive families served as a buffer between problems in the friendship domain and childrens feelings of well-being (Gauze et al., 1996, p. 2215). Hostile parenting, including responding to adolescents through yelling, threatening, or physical reprimands has been found to be disruptive to adolescents socialization and attachment with their parents (Melby & Conger, 1996). Since the communication patterns of highly demanding, inconsistent, or punitive families is often characterized by escalation and conflict . . . [these] children generalize the aggressive and oppositional behavior that they have learned at home to their interactions with peers [and] other children often reject them (Welsh & Bierman, 1998, p. 7). According to Jaffe (1998) a history of antisocial behavior begins with lax, inappropriate, or inconsistent discipline during early childhood . . . conduct-problem children learn from their tumultuous family life an obnoxious, aggressive behavior style that spills over into their peer relationships (p. 505). Prosocial Behavior

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Adlers theory that social interest or prosocial behavior was the essence of a healthy individual and that the development of such an altruistic, community-oriented focus was the result of democratic parenting. According to current conceptualizations, voluntarily helping others due to concern, empathy, and sympathy is based on an internalized set of norms which often become part of the individuals self-concepts. Individuals with principles concerning

41

helping are likely to engage in behaviors to primarily benefit others in need (Carlo & Randall, 2002, p. 33). Eisenberg et al. (1989) found that the dispositional indices of social evaluation concerns, sympathy, perspective taking, and altruistic norms tended to be positively related to helping (p. 62), suggesting an altruistic personality. Bar-Tal, Nadler, and Blechman (1980) suggest that supportive parenting is essential in learning consideration for others; it serves as an example for the child as to how to attend to the needs of others . . . [as is] perceived parental demands for high standards and autonomy (p. 164). Other child rearing practices were also linked to the development of social responsibility in adolescents including clear standards, the use of inductions, and sensitivity to the childs perspective (Eisenberg, 1991, p. 849) and encouraging children to reason autonomously about moral problems . . . and learn how to think independently (Baumrind, 1996, p. 406), all of which are characteristic of authoritative parenting. Knight et al. (2000) also found that an authoritative parenting style was associated with the development of connected knowing or empathy, taking the perspective of and attempting to understand others (p. 237), an important component in prosocial behavior. On the other hand, many studies on adolescent delinquency have established a strong link between parenting practices and the development of antisocial behavior. Barber (1996) found that parenting characterized by high levels of psychological control, those which inhibits or

Parenting Styles & Resiliency intrudes upon psychological development through manipulation and exploitation . . . negative

42

affect-laden expressions and criticism . . . and excessive personal control (p. 3297) was strongly associated with the development of adolescent problem behaviors. Patterson and StouthamerLoeber (1984) found that the family management practice of monitoring account for two-and-ahalf times as much variance [in antisocial behaviors] as did any other measure of parent skill (p. 1304). According to Patterson and Stouthamer-Loeber (1984), parents of delinquents are indifferent trackers of their sons whereabouts . . . this omission constitutes an operational definition for what is meant by the unattached parent (p. 1305). While problem-solving and reinforcement skills were not found to be related to delinquent behavior, they did correlate strongly with prosocial behavior.

Summary Substantial findings support the contention that parenting style within a family has a significant impact upon many of the personality traits or dimensions which have also been associated with resiliency. This study continues to build on that understanding by examining these two areas of interest to determine whether there is a relationship between parenting style and resiliency and then examine which parenting style is most often associated with the development of resiliency.

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

Purpose of the Study The objective of this study was to determine whether there was an association between parenting style and the development of resiliency in adolescents. Having established such a relationship, this study examined which type of parenting style authoritarian, permissive, or authoritative was associated with high and low levels of resiliency. Not only will these examinations expand the basis of knowledge in both areas of study, but being able to establish the role of parenting in the development of resiliency may also provide direction on potential avenues of intervention and prevention for those students who are currently struggling in schools, in society, and within themselves.

Research Design This research compares two groups of participants those who are found to have a high level of resiliency and those who exhibit low levels of resilience, as measured by the Individual Protective Factors Index, examining the differences between these two groups in terms of the dependent variable, parenting styles. Once the questionnaires were collected and scored, total resiliency scores were then arranged from lowest to highest, and the median and percentiles for the data for the population, high and low resiliency groups were established. Tertile split procedures were utilized to determine the two resiliency groups. Based on previous studies, the use of tertile splits was considered to be methodologically appropriate since such a procedure will help to ensure that participants represented qualitatively different levels of

Parenting Styles & Resiliency resiliency (Buri, et al., 1988; Fletcher, Steinberg & Sellers, 1999). Those participants whose

44

scores fall within the first tertile will be deemed to represent those participants who exhibit low resiliency, while those who scores are within the upper third of the range were deemed to represent the high resiliency group. Since a tertile split procedure allows the researcher to be more confident that the groups actually represent different types [of resiliency] (thereby strengthening the studys internal validity), the procedure eliminates from the analysis a large number of average students [in terms of their levels of resiliency] (thereby weakening the studys external validity) (Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts & Dornbusch, 1994, p. 759). Therefore, in order to ensure that the use of a tertile classification system does not skew the results of the study, results will also be analyzed using a median split.

Target Population The participants for this study were drawn from the junior and senior classes of a large suburban high school in the Midwest, with participants ranging between the ages of 16 and 18. This age group was chosen because the effects of earlier risk factors as well as the buffering effects of protective factors are most readily seen during adolescence (Grossman, et al., 1992, p. 531). Based on 2000 census data for the community, 94.65% of the population of 22,439 were White, 1.5% were African American, 2.8% were of Asian decent, and 3% were of two or more races. According to a 2002 study conducted with the school district by Search Institute, the demographic characteristics of student population approximate those of the community at large. Search Institutes Developmental Assets profile of the district (2002) found that the average

Parenting Styles & Resiliency student was found to have 22.1 of the 40 external and internal measured assets necessary for health and well-being. Of interest to this study, 73% of the participating high school students cited family support as an asset, 53% indicated they felt that had clear family boundaries, 24%

45

said their parents were involved in their schooling, and 21% classified their communication with their family as positive (Search Institute, 2002).

Procedures Working with the administration of the districts high school, appropriate upperclassmen courses were identified and teachers of these courses, as well as other randomly chosen classes, were contacted about the study. A short presentation explaining the purpose of the study, research procedures being used, potential risks and benefits for participation, as well as ethical issues including confidentiality and the right to withdrawal at any time, were made to each of the ten participating classes. Each student was then provided with a take-home packet containing a letter to the parents and two copies of a parental consent and participant assent forms, written to correspond with IRB requirements. Those students who returned both signed consent forms on the designated day were provided with a survey packet. Completion of the survey took less than 20 minutes and each student was given the opportunity to discuss any questions or concerns they had about the study when they turned in the completed packet. Consent forms, which contain not only participant names but also those of their parents, were securely stored in a locked filing cabinet whose access is only available to the researcher and will be shredded and discarded once the study is completed. While the only type of identification on the survey is an assigned number, ensuring protection of confidentiality, these

Parenting Styles & Resiliency forms are also secured within a locked cabinet, to be appropriately discarded at the end of the study.

46

Instruments Participants were asked to thoroughly complete a demographic data form and 3 questionnaires, with instructions for each located at the beginning of the instrument. Students were asked not to put their names or any other identifying information on any of the forms as all identification and analysis of the data will be based on numbers assigned on each questionnaire packet, in order to ensure confidentiality. Demographic Data Form A demographic form was developed to collect information on participants age, gender, grade in school, estimated grade point average [GPA], parents martial status, adult figure[s] with whom the participant lives, as well as a question about which parent has been most actively involved in the parenting and discipline within the family (See Appendix A). The information obtained about the participants GPA provide an appropriate measureof current school performance, with self-reported grades giv[ing] a close approximation to the distribution of grades on the transcript (Dornbusch et al. 1987, p. 1248), providing supporting information on the students academic competence. Since causal-comparative studies attempt to determine whether the dependent variable, parenting styles, caused the effect on the independent variable, differences in the level of resiliency, being able to rule out potential extraneous variables is important for establishing the

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

47

internal validity of the study. Therefore, since this study hypothesizes that parenting style will be found to be the main factor in the differences between the two resiliency groups, information from the demographic form provides an opportunity to determine if other differences between the two groups can be identified in an attempt to eliminate alternative explanations for the observed relationship. Individual Protective Factors Index [IPFI] The IPFI, developed by Springer and Phillips (1997) in association with EMT, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, and the Office of Community Service in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is 4-point Likert - type scale designed to measure ten protective factors which have been found to be associated with resiliency. The Social Bonding domain, which measures the degree to which youth feel satisfied with and engaged in social institutions, includes statements on pro-social norms (I like to see other people happy.), schools (Finishing high school is important) and family bonding (I can tell my parents the way I feel about things.). The results of the family subgroup also provides a means of collaborating the results of the parenting style questionnaires, providing a look at the level of cohesion participants feel with their parents. Personal competence includes four domains: selfconcept (I like the way I act.), self-control (I get mad easily. ) , self-efficacy (Other people decide what happens to me.), and positive outlook (I think I will have a nice family when I get older.), examining areas of personal development and the individuals ability to function autonomously and effectively, all of which have also been found to be important in resiliency. The third domain measured by the IPFI is social competence, another identified attribute of resilient individuals. This domain examines 3 protective factors, assertiveness (If I disagree

Parenting Styles & Resiliency with a friend I can tell them), confidence (I will always have friends.), and cooperation (Being part of a team is fun.). Each of the 10 subgroups consists of an average of 6.1

48

questions. Raw scores will be obtained for each of the ten protective factor subgroups, as well as a total resiliency score, with higher scores indicating greater resiliency (Springer & Phillips, 1997) (See Appendix B). Permission to utilize the IPFI scale was obtained from a representative of EMT. The original IPFI, developed through a pilot study of 642 youths between the ages of 10 and 16, contained one additional section of 10 questions pertaining to alcohol and drug use. This section will be removed from the questionnaire since such risk behaviors are not addressed in this study and such modification will not impact scoring since scores for this section are not included in the scoring system to determine resiliency (Springer & Phillips, 1997). The IPFI was validated in a nationwide study with 2,416 adolescents at 15 sites, resulting in alpha coefficients ranging between .46 and .65 for each of the 10 subgroups, and an alpha coefficient of .93 for the instrument as a whole (Springer & Phillip, 1997; Constantine, Benard, & Diaz, 1999). While coefficients of two areas (prosocial norms and assertiveness, .48 and .46 respectively) were below standard acceptable levels, the IPFI was designed, and is being used in this study as an evaluation tool and not for diagnostic purposes.Therefore, it was determined that the range of alpha coefficients for subscales indicates adequate inter-item consistency (Springer & Phillips, 1997, p. 3). For the purposes of this study, the IPFIs use is primarily to establish the populations for the two groups to be compared, those students who are found to scorehigh on the total resiliency scale and those whose scores indicate a low level of resiliency. As was discussed previously, a

Parenting Styles & Resiliency tertile split procedure was deemed to be an appropriate method for determining which participants best represented the two levels of resiliency with this population. Parental Authority Questionnaire Mother and Father According to Steinberg et al. (1992) adolescents are able to act as knowledgeable informants about parental behaviors . . . [and in fact] childrens perceptions are as important influences on their development as are parents actual behavior (p. 1270). Buris (1991)

49

Parental Authority Questionnaires contain 30-item Likert-type questions designed to measure an adolescents perceptions of parental authority and disciplinary practices, with one version pertaining to perceptions about the fathers parenting style and one for the mothers parenting style. Each instrument includes ten statements designed to measure each of the three parenting styles: authoritarian parents who favor forceful discipline, and rules; permissive parents, those who place few restrictions or expectations on their childrens behavior; and an authoritative parenting style, which refers to parents who consistently stress appropriate expectations and rules in a democratic process which allows input and flexibility. Development of the items for each subcategory of this readily available test was based on a panel of 21 professionals, with agreement reached by at least 20 of the 21 judges on the appropriateness of the subscales, indicating strong conceptual consistency and content validity (Touliatos, Perlmutter, & Holden, 2001; Buri, 1991). Examples of statements for each subgroup include: Whenever my mother told me to do something as I was growing up, she expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions (authoritarian); My mother did not view herself as responsible for directing and guiding my behavior as I was growing up (permissive) and As I was growing up, I knew what my mother expected of me in my family, but I also felt

Parenting Styles & Resiliency free to discus those expectations with my mother when I felt that they were unreasonable (authoritative). (See Appendix C.) The PAQ has been found to be a psychometrically sound and valid measure of Baumrinds parental authority protypes (Buri, 1991, p. 110). The PAQ was developed and normed using 108 high school students and 171 college students, the majority of which were from white, middle class, intact families (Touliatos, Perlmutter & Holden, 2001). The three

50

subscales have been shown to have good internal consistency, with Cronbach coefficient ranging from .74 to .87 (Corcoran & Fischer, 2000, p. 420), with test-retest reliabilities ranging from .77 to .92 (Buri, 1991). Discriminant validity and criterion related validity were established in subsequent studies (Buri, 1991) and correlations with the Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale found that the PAQ does not appear to be vulnerable to social desirability response biases (Buri, 1991, p. 117). In keeping with Baumrind and Buris conceptualization of parenting styles, the classification of data from the PAQ is based on a typological approach, with parents assigned to a specific category based on the parenting category with the highest score determining the individuals parenting style. Such a process not only reflects an interest in examining the specific theoretical framework set forth by Baumrind . . . [which is] a theory about types, not about specific parenting practices (Steinberg, et al., 1994, p. 758) but also provides a more accurate picture of the dynamics within the family than a combined parenting style.

Statistical Analysis Given the fact that the level of measurement for both independent and dependent variables in this study are nominal and that the distribution of the population cannot be assumed

Parenting Styles & Resiliency to be normal, this study utilizes nonparametric statistical methods in the analysis of the data. According to Fitzgerald et al. (2001), the Chi-square test of independence was appropriate for use in this study to measure the relationship between the two nominal variables. The minimum level of significance throughout this study will be set at .01.

51

Expected Findings Given the multitude of research which establishes a relationship between parenting style and the development of the dimensions associated with resiliency, it is expected that initial analysis will show that there is a significant relationship between parenting style and resiliency and that there will be a significant difference between the three parenting styles and their effect on the development of resiliency. It is expected that in the high level resiliency group, the occurrence of an authoritative style will be significantly greater than those of permissive and authoritarian parenting styles, therefore inferring that such a parenting style is most likely to be associated with the development of high levels of resiliency in the adolescent participants. Conversely, it is expected that permissive and authoritarian parenting styles will more often be found with those participants who have low levels of resiliency and that the permissive parenting style will be more strongly associated with low levels of resiliency than either of the other two parenting styles. While this study acknowledges that there is not only one avenue for the development of resiliency, by examining association between parenting style and the development of resiliency, this study provides a missing link, pulling together these two theoretical concepts and

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

52

establishing not only the important effect that parenting can have on adolescents but also providing direction to preventative enhancement efforts which may make a significant difference helping adolescents deal with lifes stresses.

CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

To better understand the dynamics which encourage the development of resiliency in adolescents, this study examined the parenting received by students who exhibited high and low levels of Total Resiliency. Not only was an association between parenting style and the development of resiliency hypothesized to exist but it was also hypothesized that an authoritative parenting style would more frequently be associated with higher resiliency than either the authoritarian or the permissive parenting style. The following chapter provides the results of the study, based on data obtained in one Midwestern high school. Survey packets were provided to those students who had returned signed parental consent and participant assent forms following a brief presentation on the purpose and ethical considerations of the study. A total of 170 consent packets were distributed to students, with 104 students completing the survey, a response rate of 62.9%. Of those responses received, 6 surveys were eliminated for being incomplete and 4 for not meeting the specific criteria established in the study pertaining to grade level. Data obtained from scoring the remaining 94 surveys were then entered into a spreadsheet in accordance with a coding system developed by the investigator.

Population and Group Data In order to establish the groups representing the high and low extremes on the resiliency continuum for this sample, participants scores on the IPFI (See Table 1) were calculated for each of the ten protective factor categories, with the Total Resiliency score based on the sum of these subcategories. Participants were then rank-ordered from highest to lowest, and a tertile split

Parenting Styles & Resiliency procedure was implemented, with those participants in the upper third determined to represent

54

the High Resiliency group, and those in the lowest third the Low Resiliency group. As might be expected given the scoring system of the IPFI, participants in the high resiliency group scored higher on all ten of the protective factors than those in the low resiliency group and the population as a whole.

Table 1 Mean and Range of Scores on the IPFI for the Population, High and Low Resiliency Groups Population (N = 94) Variable Total Resiliency Education Family Prosocial Self Concept Self-Control Positive Outlook Self-Esteem Assertiveness Confidence Cooperation 147 242 (M= 192.4) 201 242 (M = 210.5) 13 - 26 (M= 19.9) 12 - 26 (M= 17.7) 15 - 23 (M=19.5) 12 - 26 (M = 19.8) 10 23 (M = 18.1) 14 26 (M = 20.6) 15 28 (M = 23.3) 13 27 (M = 18.7) 12 24 (M = 20.3) 6 24 (M = 20.0) 17 - 26 (M = 21.2) 15 - 26 (M = 19.65) 16 - 23 (M = 20.97) 17 26 (M = 20.71) 16 23 (M = 19.3) 18 26 (M = 21.74) 19 28 (M = 24.1) 15 27 (M = 20.2) 17 24 (M = 21.61) 17 24 (M = 21.03) 147 187 (M = 173.7) 13 - 22 (M = 18.0) 12 - 19 (M = 15.4) 15 - 21 (M = 18.0) 12 20 (M = 16.81) 10 21 (M = 15.16) 14 23 (M = 17.55) 15 26 (M = 20.7) 13 21 (M = 16.9) 12 22 (M = 17.7) 6 23 (M = 17.2) High Resiliency (N= 31) Low Resiliency (N=31)

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

55

Grade point averages [GPA] also mirrored this trend. Mean GPA for the population was 3.329, 3.44 for those in the high resiliency group, and 3.15 for those in the low resiliency group.

Table 2 Demographic Characteristics of Population, High and Low Resiliency Groups Population (N = 94) High Resiliency (N= 31) Low Resiliency (N=31) ____

Gender Male Female Grade 11th 12th Marital Status Married, together Married, living apart Divorced Divorced, remarried

43 (45.7%) 51 (47.9%)

13 18

(41.9%) (58.1%)

15 16

(48.4%) (51.6%)

49 (52.1%) 45 (47.9%)

22 9

(70.9%) (29.1%)

18 13

(58.1%) (41.9%)

84 (89.4%) 2 (2.1%) 5 (5.3%) 3 (3.2%)

26 (83.9%) 1 (3.2%) 2 (6.5%) 2 (6.5%)

30 (96.7%) 0 0 1 (3.2%)

While the established tertile groups were the primary focus of the study, analysis in this study was also conducted and will be presented based on using a median split to establish the higher and lower resiliency groups for the entire population to address concerns about the impact

Parenting Styles & Resiliency of eliminating one third of participants via the tertile split. Table 2 provides an overview of the

56

characteristics of the population, as well as the high and low resiliency groups on gender, grade, and parents marital status. Extraneous Variables In order to rule out possible alternative explanations for obtained results, bivariate analysis was conducted on two variables which had been identified as possible moderating variables, participants gender and parental martial status. Gender. Frequency data on participants gender was cross-tabulated with datafor the high and low level resiliency groups, indicating that there was no significant association X2(1, N=62) = 0.260, p < 1 between gender and the levels of resiliency with these two groups. Gender was also found to be statistically insignificant X2(1, N = 94) = 2.1, p < .20 for the groups based on the median split. Therefore, it was concluded that participants gender would not confound the results of additional analysis. Parents Martial Status. Results from the bivariate analysis of marital status also found the distribution was not statistically significant for the two resiliency groups X2(3, N = 62) = 3.619, p < 1, nor for the median groups X2(3, N = 94) = 5.76, p < .20, leading to the conclusion that parents marital status did not appear to have an influence on the outcomes analyzed in this study. Parenting Styles Since participants completed the PAQ for both their mother and fathers parenting styles, the data reflects the category of each parents style of parenting, as opposed to one combined

Parenting Styles & Resiliency score for each family (See Table 3.). It was determined that such an approach would provide a more clear representation of the familys parenting dynamics.

57

Table 3 Parenting Styles for the Population, High and Low Resiliency Groups Population (N = 94) High Resiliency (N= 31) Low Resiliency (N=31) ____

Parenting Style Authoritative/Authoritative Authoritative/Authoritarian Authoritative/Permissive Authoritarian/Authoritarian Authoritarian/Permissive Permissive/Permissive 49 (52.1%) 19 (20.2%) 3 (3.19%) 14 (14.8%) 6 (6.38%) 3 (3.19%) 21 (67.7%) 6 (19.4%) 0 4 (12.9%) 0 0 8 (25.8%) 6 (19.4%) 1 (3.2%) 8 (25.8%) 5 (16.1%) 3 (9.67%)

Hypotheses Testing The objective of this causal-comparative study was to test the level of support for two hypotheses. It was hypothesized that there was a significant association between parenting style and the development of resiliency in adolescents. Additionally, if such a relationship was established, it was hypothesized that an authoritative parenting style would be more frequently

Parenting Styles & Resiliency associated with the development of higher levels of resiliency than either an authoritarian or a permissive parenting style. A preliminary examination of the frequency and percentile data (See Table 3) suggests that differences exist between the parenting styles of those in the established high and low resiliency groups. The largest difference between these two groups occurred in those families with two authoritative parents. The majority (67.7%) of those in the high resiliency group had two authoritative parents, while just over one-fourth of those in the low resiliency group were

58

found to have such parenting styles. Also of note are group differences in the dispersion patterns of families in which one or more parents were determined to be permissive. While not a single high resiliency participant had a permissive parent, 3.2% of those in the low resiliency group had one authoritative and one permissive parent, 16.1% had one authoritarian and one permissive parent, and almost 10% of these low resiliency families were found to have two permissive parents. While the amount of covariation between the median groups were not as large as those established by the tertile split (See Table 4), as would be expected with the inclusion of those participants whose resiliency scores fall closer to the median, the dispersion pattern observed with the tertile groups continued. Almost one-fourth more participants in the higher resiliency group were found to come from families with two authoritative parents than participants in the lower resiliency group. Other median group differences of note include that almost 10% more of the participants in the lower resiliency group had authoritarian/authoritarian parents, 8.5% more had authoritarian/permissive parents, and 6.4% more participants in the lower resiliency group had 2 permissive parents than those in the higher resiliency group. Such patterns of covariation

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

59

suggest that there may be an association between the type of parenting style and the development of resiliency.

Table 4 Observed Frequency of Parenting Styles for Median Groups Higher Resiliency Parenting Style Authoritative/Authoritative Authoritative/Authoritarian Authoritative/Permissive Authoritarian/Authoritarian Authoritarian/Permissive Permissive/Permissive 30 10 1 5 1 0 (63.8%) (21.3%) (2.1%) (10.6%) (2.1%) 19 9 2 9 5 3 (40.4%) (19.1%) (4.3%) (19.1%) (10.6%) (6.4%) Lower Resiliency

In order to determine whether such group differences were statistically significant, data for the high and low resiliency groups were cross-tabulated with the six possible parenting style combinations to provide a means of testing the null hypothesis that there is no association between these two variables. While chi-square tests are often used to determine statistically significant associations, the low frequencies in some parenting style categories fails to meet the criteria for cell expectations. Therefore, the Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test, available through StatXact (Cytel, 2003) was used to analyze the data. Results of this test indicate that there appears to be statistically significant support for rejecting the null hypothesis. For the groups

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

60

established through the tertile split, the exact probability was determined to be Pr( X2 > 15.576) = .0026, providing support for rejection of the null hypothesis. Statistical support was not established for the higher and lower resiliency groups. The exact probability for the groups established using the median split was calculated as Pr( X2 > 0.145) = .0774. Given the findings that there appears to be a significant association between parenting styles and the development of resiliency within the tertile split groups, additional analysis was conducted to test the second hypothesis of the study, that authoritative parenting would be more closely associated the development of resiliency than either authoritarian or permissive parenting styles. Based on Fletcher et al.s (1999) finding that there was no significant difference between adolescents from homes with two authoritative parents and adolescents with only one authoritative parent (p. 605), data analysis was conducted by cross-tabulating resiliency groupings with those families with one or two authoritative parents and those families in which neither parent was determined to be authoritative. Table 5 provides observed parenting style frequencies and percentiles for those groups established through the tertile split. Again, patterns of covariation continue to be evident. Almost 40% more of the high resiliency parents were determined to fall within the authoritative categories than those in the low resiliency group, while 38.7% more of the low resiliency group fell within the nonauthoritative categories than parents of high resiliency participants. Calculation of the Pearsons chi-square test indicated that X2(1, N=62) = 10.629, p < .001, providing support that the null hypothesis of no difference between the types of parenting style associated with the development of different levels of resiliency, should be rejected.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

61

Incorporating Yates correction for continuity resulted in X2 (1, N=62) = 8.931, p < .0028, with the results continuing to be significant. Since a chi-square test provides only an approximation of the effect or association of one variable upon the other, Fishers Exact Test was also conducted to provide additional confirmation that the distribution for the tertile groups was significant, resulting in a probability of .001 for exactly this table, and p(O>=E) = .0011, with the mid p-value calculated as .0007.

Table 5 Observed Frequency and Percentage of Authoritative and Non-authoritative Parenting with High and Low Resiliency Groups High Resiliency Parenting Style Authoritative Non-Authoritative Total 27 (87.9%) 4 (12.9%) 31 15 (48.4%) 16 (51.6%) 31 42 20 62 Low Resiliency Marginal Totals

While previous analysis indicated that the differences between the median groups were statistically insignificant, analysis using the collapsed parenting categories was conducted for these groups given the previous observed covariance between the two groups. Table 6 provides frequency and percentiles for the median groups. One-fourth more of the families with higher resiliency students were found to have at least one authoritative parent than families of lower resiliency participants. Supporting previously established patterns of covariance, 25% more of

Parenting Styles & Resiliency the lower resiliency families were found to come from families without an authoritative parenting style than participants in the higher resiliency category.

62

Table 6 Observed Frequency and Percentage of Authoritative and Non-authoritative Parenting Styles with Median Groups Higher Resiliency Parenting Style Authoritative Non-Authoritative Total 42 (89.4%) 5 (10.6%) 47 30 (63.8%) 17 (36.2%) 47 72 22 94 Lower Resiliency Marginal Totals

Based on observed and expected frequencies, chi square analysis indicated that X2(1, N=94) = 8.545, p <.0035, and with the Yates correction for continuity, X2(1, N=94) = 7.181, p < .0074, indicating again that there is support for rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no association between authoritative and non-authoritative parenting styles and the development of resiliency for the median groups. Fishers exact test provided additional confirmation of the datas statistical significance, with a p-value of .0026 for this exact table, a mid p-value of .002, and the probability of the same or a stronger association was found to be .0033.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Conclusion The majority of the results from this data indicate that there is statistically significant support for the hypothesis that parenting style does have an impact on the development of resiliency, especially for those individuals in the tertile groups. Additionally, the data provides

63

support for the hypothesis that an authoritative parenting style is more frequently associated with the development of resiliency than either an authoritarian or permissive parenting style. The impact of these findings and areas warranting additional study will be discussed in Chapter 5.

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The objective of this study was to determine whether there was an association between the type of parenting an individual received and the development of resiliency, the ability to thrive, mature, and increase competence (Sullivan, 2001, p. 35). Additionally, given the previous research on outcomes for each of the parenting styles, this study hoped to establish which parenting style was more often associated with the development of resiliency. Based on the results obtained with adolescents from one Midwest school district, the following provides an overview of the studys findings, possible avenues for future research, as well as the clinical and policy implications that such findings may have.

Results for the Tertile Split Groups This study was designed to examine whether there were significant differences between two groups established using a tertile split, those students determined to exhibit high levels of resiliency and participants whose scores indicated a low level of resiliency. Those in the high resiliency group were found to score higher on all ten of the protective factors considered to be components of resiliency than those in the population and those in the low resiliency group. Members of the high resiliency group had a stronger sense of self-efficacy and indicated a higher commitment to their educational pursuits, confirmed by their higher GPAs. They were more confident, had a higher self-concept and self-esteem, and had more self-control than participants in the population or within the low resiliency group. Additionally, those in the high resiliency group scored higher in the domains associated with social competence, including assertiveness,

Parenting Styles & Resiliency cooperation, and confidence, as well as exhibiting stronger pro-social values. Such findings support previous research on the attributes necessary to be a resilient individual. In contrast, those participants in the low resiliency group scored lower on each of the attributes than the population or high resiliency group, providing support for the assumption that these groups would effectively represent the extremes of the resiliency continuum for this population. While differences between the two groups in terms of participants gender and parents

65

marital status were determined not to be significant moderating influences, there were significant differences between the styles of parenting received by those in the high and low resiliency groups. As was hypothesized, the majority of individuals in the high resiliency group had at least one authoritative parent (88%) and in fact, 84% of participants in this group had both parents who were determined to be authoritative. The remaining four families within this group (13%) had 2 authoritarian parents. There were no participants in the high resiliency group whose parents were permissive. In contrast, only one-fourth of the families in the low resiliency group had 2 authoritative parents, and less than half of these families had one authoritative parent. The frequency of authoritarian and permissive parenting styles was greater with those individuals deemed to be in the low resiliency group, providing additional support for the hypothesis of differences between outcomes for the different parenting styles. Research has shown that families with authoritarian or permissive parenting also tended to have children who do less well in high school (Boveja, 1998; Dornbusch, et al., 1987), had less self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), less perceptions of selfcontrol (Morton & Mann, 1998), and lower self-esteem, placing these individuals more at risk when dealing with lifes adversities. Such findings were supported by the results of this study.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

66

Therefore, based on the findings of this study, it was concluded that there does appear to be an association between the type of parenting style and the development of resiliency in adolescents. Additionally, the hypothesis that an authoritative parenting style is most often associated with the development of resiliency was also supported in this study, as was the finding that authoritarian and permissive parenting styles were more frequently associated with those participants who exhibited low levels of resiliency. The findings of this study are consistent with previous research on the impact which parenting styles have on the development of many of the protective factors associated with resiliency.

Results for Median Split Groups Since a tertile split procedure was utilized to establish the two resiliency groups, effectively eliminating data from one-third of total participants, groups established through a median split procedure were also analyzed to ensure that relevant data was not over looked. It bears repeating that such groups, designated as higher and lower levels of resiliency, do not necessarily represent the continuum extremes of resiliency, instead providing analysis of the study population in its entirety. As would be expected, differences between the higher and lower resiliency groups were not as pronounced as those established using a tertile split group. While the patterns of covariation of parenting styles between the two groups continued to be present, these differences were not found to be significant when examining all possible combinations of parenting styles. Statistically significant differences were established when the parenting categories were reduced to authoritative and non-authoritative (either permissive, authoritarian, or a combination of these

Parenting Styles & Resiliency two parenting styles), with the vast majority (87.9%) of families in the higher resiliency group determined to have at least one authoritative parent, as compared with 48% of the parents of those in the lower resiliency group. Conversely, more than half of the parents of participants with lower resiliency were found to be non-authoritative, while less than 13% of those in the higher resiliency group had non-authoritative parents. Again, these dispersion patterns provide support for the hypothesis that authoritative parenting style is most often associated with those individuals who were determined to have higher levels of resilience and that authoritarian and permissive parenting styles are more frequently associated with lower levels of development of this important collection of attributes and abilities.

67

Discussion While the strength of the support for the hypotheses was somewhat surprising, especially when comparing the parenting styles present for the tertile groups, significant previous research provided strong support for these assumptions. When one examines the findings on resilient individuals, the characteristics of those individuals who were able to succeed against all odds have many commonalities with those individuals who are raised in a home with one or more authoritative parents. As was presented in Chapter 2, individuals raised by authoritative parents had higher self-esteem (Buri, et al., 1998), academic competence (Hickman et al., 2000), social competence (Lamborn et al,. 1991), all characteristics of individuals with a high level of resiliency in this and other studies.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

68

Citing the centrality of family involvement in the day-to-day life of young adolescents Grossman, et al. (1992) found that adolescent perceptions of family cohesion and of the quality of their communications with their parents were strongly correlated with their current adaptation (p. 546). Such family cohesion, the degree to which family members view themselves as being emotionally close or distant from each other (Bray, 1995, p. 474), is most often associated with those families in which members display warm affective ties, while at the same time maintaining parental/child boundaries characterized by a balance between control and independence, as is found in those families with an authoritative parenting style. These secure familial attachments have also been found to be crucial to the development of resiliency (Cowen & Work, 1988). In this study, individuals in the high resiliency group scored significantly higher compared with those in the low resiliency group and the population as a whole on the family domain of the IPFI, which addresses issues such as whether an individual enjoyed talking and doing things with their family to whether they felt their family had disappointed or shamed them. Overall, individuals within the high resiliency rated their relationships with their families positively, indicating not only a sense of cohesion but also acceptance. Aydin and Oztutuncu (2001) determined that such a cohesive family environment was associated with greater psychological adjustment . . . [and] thus, positive supportive interpersonal relations within the family seem to play a preventive role (p. 3), especially with adolescents. On the other hand, scores on the family domain for those in the low resiliency group were not only lower than those of the high resiliency group but were also lower than the population in general, with many of these participants indicating that they felt their parents expected too much

Parenting Styles & Resiliency of them or that they did not enjoy interacting with their families. Such lack of cohesion may

69

result from the rigid boundaries and lack of warmth found in authoritarian families, or from the lack of communication and involvement in permissive families, the two parenting styles most often found in the low resiliency group within this study. Previous research has established that adolescents whose families were characterized as being less cohesive experienced a higher incidence of depression, behavioral and emotional problems, negative thoughts, lower self esteem or self-confidence, and higher levels of anxiety (Aydin & Oztutuncu, 2001). The results of this study provide support for the hypotheses that the type of parenting that one receives can have an impact on the development of resiliency. For this population, an authoritative parenting style was most often associated with the development of high levels of the protective factors associated with resiliency, while permissive and authoritarian parenting styles were more often associated with those individuals who had not developed high levels of these protective factors, those who had lower resiliency.

Limitations and Areas for Future Research As was addressed in Chapter One, one of the limitations of this study was the homogenous demographics of the participant population. While the study population closely resembled those used to norm the instruments used, participants in this study do not necessarily resemble the typical family in the United States and therefore caution must be used when generalizing the findings. The vast majority of individuals in this population were from Caucasian, middle to upper class families with two married parents, living in an affluent suburban community which places a strong emphasis on educating its youth. The growing

Parenting Styles & Resiliency diversity of families and the complexity of contemporary life call for caution in generalizing from normative samples that represent only a narrow band on the wide spectrum of families (Walsh, 1998, p. 18). Therefore, before generalizing these findings to other populations, additional research should be conducted in a variety of environments to determine whether the trends noted in this study continue to be significant for other populations. Another weakness of this study was the difficulty in obtaining sufficient data on

70

adolescents who evaluated their parents as being permissive, limiting the ability to fully analyze differences between each of the three parenting styles. As was stated previously, none of the participants in the high resiliency group indicated that their parents style was permissive. While such a finding provides support for the hypotheses of this study, experiences conducting the study raised some questions about whether this observation was more of a reflection of the adolescent quest for autonomy than a reflection that parents within this one school district are more involved or stricter than the assumed average. During the administration of the PAQ, statements which indicated a permissive parenting style such as My mother feels that most problems in society would be solved if parents would not restrict their childrens activities, decisions, and desires as they are growing up elicited snickers and comments from a few participants such as I wish or whose parents would do that? None of the other category statements contained within the PAQ caused such a reaction, therefore raising a question about both the applicability of the statements for adolescents and whether other dynamics might be impacting students responses. At the same time, participants perceptions of their parents lack of permissiveness did not lead to an inordinate number of participants scoring their parents as authoritarian, the other extreme on the parenting style continuum. Future research might address

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

71

this issue by surveying both parents and children, or bringing in an observer to provide additional data on actual parenting style practices.

Implications In spite of the limitations of this study, its findings expand the theoretical understanding of both resiliency and parenting styles, establishing an association between the two. This study joins a myriad of others which support the crucial role that parenting can have in the development of children, serving as a protective factor or as a risk factor which may in fact hinder these childrens ability to develop the skills needed to deal with lifes stresses. Across the board the message seems fairly clear the type of parenting that a child receives matters and based on this and past research, an authoritative parenting style is most often associated with the development of strengths including resiliency. Yet, in an era when family values are touted by those in office as being a primary focus, and concerns about rising health care costs abound, there are few programs which focus exclusively on disseminating this information to those who matter the most, future as well as current parents. There are parenting programs which are available or mandated for those whose children are at high risk for substance abuses, juvenile delinquency, etc. but most of these programs have an emphasis on illness . . . rather [than] on the enhancement of well-being (Weissberg, Kumpfer, & Seligman, 2003, p. 427). In an ideal world, the prevention of psychological disorders would take precedence over their treatment (Peterson, 2002, p. 1). While there is real merit to such programs, since many of the precursors of serious adolescent problems can be reduced or eliminated through early intervention to improve

Parenting Styles & Resiliency parenting and family system dynamics (Kumpfer & Alvarado, 2003, p. 458), one of the assertions of this study was to demonstrate that the impact of parenting can be relevant even in

72

those who are not in a crisis and that ineffective parenting may have serious implications for all individuals, families, health care systems, and societies. Resiliency is not reserved only for heroic individuals but rather is an umbrella concept which incorporates numerous traits and protective factors which help all individuals to cope with and overcome life stresses and adversities. Parenting plays an important role in the development of these attributes. Making a true to commitment to families, allocating funds and services to programs which provide parent education and family skills training to all individuals who have had babies, and family support programs available to all families who want or need it, may be a first step in not only eliminating later costs associated with juvenile delinquency, mental illness, etc. but also provide future generations with increased opportunities to be resilient. Along these same lines, it is important to make note of the clinical implications of this studys findings for those who work with children and adolescents. Externalizing behavior disorders . . . are the largest single source of referral to . . . mental health settings, constituting one third to one half of all referrals (Prevatt, 2004, p. 471) for children and adolescents. Since family focused prevention efforts have a greater impact than strategies that focus only on parents or on children (Weissberg, Kumpfer & Seligman, 2003, p. 429), addressing these issues through a family-oriented therapeutic approach instead of an individual approach, may prove to be more effective. While only 10% of family therapists currently implement programs specifically focused on family-strengthening (Kumpfer & Alvarado, 2003), such therapeutic approaches may not only address the presenting issues but allow families to become proactive in

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

73

helping with the task of raising resilient adults. The establishment of parental management skills such as consistent expectations, guidance, and rules, as well as established consequences for behavior and supervision, will help to foster resiliency in children (Smith & Carlson, 1997). While the focus of this study is on the association between parenting styles and the development of resiliency, it should be noted that extrafamilial relationships, school districts, and communities have also been shown to enhance the development of resiliency. It may be as simple as finding one or two islands of competence at which the child can succeed and thus derive a measure of self-confidence; . . . encourage a kid to master something even if he stinks at school a sport, music, someplace he can go where he is of value. This can build a pocket of resilience (Sullivan, 2001, p. 37). Students who participated in activities sponsored by community-based programs displayed . . . more certainty of graduating from high school, increased sense of personal control, heightened academic self-concept, and increased efforts to achieve future goals (Winfield, 1994, p. 9). Positive mentors or role models outside of the family also seem to serve as a strong protective factor in the development of resilient children. One of the most common was a favorite teacher who was not just an instructor . . . but also a confidant and positive role model for personal identification (Bernard, 1995, p. 2). Encouraging these relationships by providing opportunities for adolescents to become involved in and interact with community members will provide benefits not only for the adolescent but for the community as a whole. While positive relationships with teachers, mentors, or peers have been shown to be protective factors, given the findings of this study, families should still be considered the first line of defense. A society committed to family values means valuing the family and making a

Parenting Styles & Resiliency commitment to provide all parents with the knowledge, tools, and support necessary to encourage the development of resiliency in their children.

74

Conclusion Life at times is filled with stress, risks, and adversity which have the potential to sidetrack an individuals development into a happy, healthy adult. What appears to determine the difference between those who continue on successfully and those who do not is resiliency. Given the significant outcome difference that resiliency can make, this study was designed to establish whether there was an association between the type of parenting an individual receives and the development of this important strength. Based upon the findings with one group of adolescents, this study not only found an association between parenting styles and the development of resiliency but was also able to clearly show that an authoritative parenting style was more often associated with the development of high levels of resiliency than either of the other two parenting styles. It is hoped that such findings may provide the impetuses for additional research on the role of parenting and resiliency, leading to the enhancement of services which aid families as they deal with lifes stresses.

REFERENCES Allen, J.P., Hauser, S.T., Bell, K.L. & OConnor, T.G. (1994). Longitudinal assessment of autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family interactions as predictors of adolescent ego development and self-esteem. Child Development, 65, 179 194. Aquilino, W.S. & Supple, A.J. (2001). Long-term effects of parenting practices during adolescence on well-being outcomes in young adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 22 (3) 289 308. Artz, S., Nicholson, D, Halsall, E. & Larke, S. (2001). A review of the literature o assessment, risk, resiliency, and need. Prepared for the National Crime Prevention Centre, Department of Justice, Victoria, B.C. University of Victoria. Aspinwall, L.G. & Staudinger, U.M. (2003) A Psychology of Human Strengths. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Aydin, B. and Oztutuncu, F. (2001). Examination of adolescents negative thoughts, depressive mood, and family environment. Adolescence, 29 37. Bandura A., (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191 - 215. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. Bandura, A., Barberanelli, C., Caprara, G.V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-Efficacy Beliefs as Shapers of Childrens Aspirations and Career Trajectories. Child Development, 72, 187206. Barber, B.K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296 3319. Bar-Tar, D., Nadler, A. & Blechman, N. (1980). The relationship between Israeli childrens helping behavior and their perceptions of parents socialization practices. The Journal of Social Psychology, 111, 159 167. Bartelt, D.W. (1994). On resilience: Questions of validity. In M.C. Wang & E.W. Gordons Educational Resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and prospects. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 97 109.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on children. Child Development, 37 (2), 887 907. Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting Styles and Adolescent Development. In R.M. Lerner, A.C. Petersen & J. Brooks-Gunn Encyclopedia of Adolescence. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 746 - 758. Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45 (4). Benard, B., (1995). Fostering Resilience in Children. Eric Digest, ED386327.

76

Blum, R. and Rinehart, P. (1007). Reducing the Risk: Connections that make a difference in the lives of youth. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Division of General Pediatrics, Adolescent Health. Boveja, M.E. (1998). Parenting styles and adolescents learning strategies in the urban community. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 26, 110 120. Buri, J. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 110 199. Buri, J.R., Louiselle, P.A., Misukanis, T.M., & Mueller, R.A. (1988). Effects of parental authoritarianism and authoritative on self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 271 282. Butler, K. (1997). The anatomy of resilience. Psychotherapy Networker, 22 31. Carlo, G. & Randall, B.A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behavior for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 31 45. Cohen, R.J. and Swerdlik, M.E. (1999). Psychological Testing and Assessment. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Constantine, N., Benard, B. & Diaz, M. (1999). Measuring protective factors and resilience traits in youth. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, New Orleans, LA. Corcoran, K. & Fischer, J. (2000). Measures for Clinical Practice: A sourcebook. 3rd Ed, Vol. 1. New York: The Free Press. Criss, M.M., Petit, G.S., Bates, J.E., Dodge, K.A., & Lapp, A.L. (2002). Family adversity, positive peer relationships, and childrens externalizing behavior: A longitudinal perspective on risk and resilience. Child Development, 73, 1220 - 1237.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Darling, N. (1999). Parenting style and its correlates. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Id. ED427896). Retrieved on November 13, 2003, from http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed427896.html. Darling, N. & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting styles as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113 487 496.

77

Doll, B. & Lyon, M.A. (1998). Risk and resilience: Implications for the delivery of educational and mental health services in schools. School Psychology Review, 27, 348 362. Dornbusch, S.M., Ritter, P.L., Leiderman, P.H., Roberts, D.F., & Fraleigh, M.J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performances. Child Development, 58, 1244 1257. Eisenberg, N. (1991). Prosocial Development in Adolescence. In R.M. Lerner, A.C. Petersen & J. Brooks-Gunn Encyclopedia of Adolescence. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 845 853. Eisenberg, N., Miller, P.A., Schailer, M., Fabes, R.A., Fultz, J., Shell, R., & Shea, C.L. (1989). The role of sympathy and altruistic personality traits in helping: A reexamination. Journal of Personality, 57 41 67. Engles, R.C.M.E., Finkenauer, C., Meeus, W., & Dekovic, M. (2001). Parental attachment and adolescents emotional adjustment: The associations with social skills and relational competence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 428 439. Englund, M.M., Levy, A.K., Hyson, D.M., and Sroufe, L.A. (2000). Adolescent social competence: Effectiveness in a group setting. Child Development, 71, 1049 1073. Flammer, A. (1995). Developmental analysis of control beliefs. In A. Banduras Self - efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Fletcher, A.C., Steinberg, L. and Sellers, E.B. (1999). Adolescents well-being as a function of perceived interparental consistency. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 599 610. Fitzgerald, S., Dimitrov, D., and Rumrill, P. (2001). The basics of nonparametric statistics. Work, 16, 287 292. Furnham, A. & Cheng, H. (2000). Perceived parental behavior, self esteem and happiness. Society of Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiol, 35, 463 470. Gardner, D.G. & Pierce, J.L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context: an empirical examination. Group & Organizational Management, 23.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Gauze, C., Bukowski, W.M., Aquan-Assee, J., & Sippola, L.K. (1996). Interactions between family environment and friendship and associations with self-perceived well-being during early adolescence. Child Development, 67, 2201 2216. Gibbons, J.D. (1993). Nonparametric Statistics: An Introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

78

Goldenberg, I. and Goldenberg, H. (2000). Family Therapy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Greene, R.R. (2002). (Ed.) Resiliency. An integrated approach to practice, policy, and research. Washington, DCL NASW Press. Greene, R.R. & Conrad, A.P. (2002). Basic Assumptions and Terms. In R.R. Greene (2002). (Ed.) Resiliency. An integrated approach to practice, policy, and research. Washington, DCL NASW Press. Grossman, F.K., Beinashowitz, J., Anderson, L., Sakurai, M., Finnin, L., & Flaherty, M. (1992). Risk and resilience in young adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 529 550. Gutbezahl, J. (1995). How negative expectancies and attitudes undermine females math confidence and performance: A review of the literature. ED Number ED 380 279. Available online: http://fix.org/jennyg/articles/litreview.html Hetherington, E.M. & Blechman, E.A. (1996). Stress, coping, and resiliency in children and families. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hickman, G.P., Bartholomae, S. & McKenry, P.C. (2000) Influence of parenting styles on the adjustment and academic achievement of traditional college freshman. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 41 52. Holahan, C.J. & Moos, R.H. (1985). Life stress and health: Personality, coping and family support in stress resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 739 747. Ivey, A.E., Ivey, M.B, and Simek-Morgan, L. (1980). Counseling and psychotherapy: A multicultural perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Jack, G. (2000). Ecological influences on parenting and child development. Journal of Social Work, 30, 703 720. Jaffe, M.L. (1998) Adolescence. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

79

Jew, C.L., Green, K.E., Kroger, J., (1999, July). Development and Validation of a Measure of Resiliency. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 32 (2), p. 75 90. Johnson, B. (2000). Its (beyond) time to drop the terms causal-comparative and correlational research in education. ITFORUM Paper #43. Accessed online on 2/22/04 from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper43/paper43.html. Kemenoff, S., Jachimczyk, J. & Fussner, A. (1999) Structural Family Therapy. In D.M. Lawson and F.F. Prevatt (eds.) Casebook in Family Therapy. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Wadsworth. Kenny, M.E. & Donaldson, G.A. (1991). Contributions of parental attachment and family structure to the social and psychological functioning of first-year college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 479 486. Kim, J. M. (2003). Structural Family Therapy and its implications for the Asian American Family. The Family Journal, 11, 389 392. Klein, H.A, & OBryant, K. (1996). Recalled parental authority style and self-perception in college men and women. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 157. 5 18. Klohnen, E.C. (1996). Conceptual analysis and measurement of the construct of ego-resiliency. Journal of Presonality and Social Psychology, 70, 1067 1079. Knight, K.H., Elfenbein, M.H., Capozzi, L., Eason, H., Bernardo, M.F., & Ferus, K.S. (2000). Relationship of connected and separate knowing of parental style and birth order. Sex Roles, 43, 229 240. Koesten, J., Miller, K.I., & Hummert, M.L. (2001). Family communication, self-efficacy, and white female adolescent risk behaviors. The Journal of Family Communication, 2, 7 27. Koon, J. O. (1997). Attachment to parents and peers in late adolescence and their relationship with self-image. Adolescence, 32, 471 483. Kumpfer, K.L. & Alvarado, R. (2003). Family-strengthening approaches for the prevention of youth problem behaviors. American Psychologist, 58, 457 -465. Lamborn, S.D., Mounts, N.S., Steinberg, L., Dornbusch (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049 1065. Maccoby, E. E., (1980). Social Development Psychological Growth and the Parent-Child Relationship. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

80

Mansager, E. & Volk, R. (2004). Parents Prism: Three Dimensions of Effective Parenting. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 60, 277 - 293 Masten, A.S. (1994). Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptation despite risk and adversity. In M.C. Wang & E.W. Gordons Educational Resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and prospects. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3 23. Masten, A.S. (2001). Ordinary Magic. Resilience Processes in Development. American Psychologist, 56 (3), 227 238. Masten, A.S. & Coatsworth, J.D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53 (2), 205 220. Melby, J.N. & Conger, R.D. (1996). Parental behaviors and adolescent academic performance: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6 (1), 113 137. Morton, T.L. & Mann, B.J. (1998) The relationship between parental controlling behavior and perceptions of control of preadolescent children and adolescents. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159, 477 491. Moos, R.H. & Moos, B.S. (1983). Adaptation and the quality of life in work and family settings. Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 158 169. Neal, J. (2001) The effects of parenting styles and childhood attachment patterns on intimate relationships. Journal of Instructional Psychology. Nielsen, D.M. & Metha, A. (1994). Parental behavior and adolescent self-esteem in clinical and nonclinical samples. Adolescence, 29, 525 543. Oskamp, S. & Schultz, P.W., (1998) Applied Social Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Palmer, N., (1997, August). Resilience in adult children of alcoholics: a nonpathological approach to social work practice. Health and Social Work, 22, 201-210. Parish, T.S. & McCluskey, J.J. (1992). The relationship between parenting styles and young adult self-concepts and evaluations of parents. Adolescence, 27, 915 -918. Pardeck, J.A. & Pardeck, J.T. (1990). Family factors related to adolescent autonomy. Adolescence, 25, 311 319.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

81

Patten, C. Barnett, T., Houlihan, D. (1991). Ethics in marital and family therapy: A review of the literature. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 171 175. Patterson, G.R. & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family management practices and delinquency. Child Development, 55, 1299 1307. Prevatt, F.F. (2003). The contribution of parenting practices in a risk and resiliency model of childrens adjustment. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 469 480. Rak, C., & Patterson, L., (1996) Promoting Resilience in At-Risk Children. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74 (4). Rice, K.G., Cunningham, T.J., & Young, M.B. (1997). Attachment to parents, social competence and emotional well-being: A comparison of black and white late adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 89 101. Rigsby, L.C. (1994). The Americanization of resilience: Deconstructing research practice. In M.C. Wang & E.W. Gordons Educational Resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and prospects. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 85 95. Roberts, M. & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 574 588. Robinson, N.S. (1995). Evaluating the nature of perceived support and its relations to perceived self-worth in adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 253 280. Rutter, M. (1981). Stress, coping and development: Some issues and some questions. Journal of Child Psychology, 22, 323 356. Rutter, M. (1993). Resilience: Some conceptual considerations. Journal of Adolescent Health, 626 - 634. Schneewind, K. A. (1995). Impact of family processes on control beliefs. In A. Banduras Selfefficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Search Institute (2002). Developmental Assets: A Profile of Your Youth. Executive Summary, Report Number 11878. Seligman, M.E.P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology. American Psychologist, 55, 5 14. Seligman, M.E.P., Linley, P. A., Joseph, S., & Boniwell, I. (2003). Positive psychology: Fundamental assumptions. The Psychologist, 16, 126 127.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency Sheldon, K.M. & King, L. (2001). Why positive psychology is necessary. American Psychologist, 56, 216 217. Smith, C., & Carlson, B.E., (1997, June). Stress, coping and resilience in children and youth. Social Service Review, 71 (2), p. 231 257.

82

Soucy, N. & Larose, S. (2000). Attachment and control in family and mentoring contexts as determinants of adolescent adjustment to college. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 125 143. Springer, J.F. & Phillips, J.L. (1997). Individual Protective Factors Index (IPFI): A measure of adolescent resiliency. Folsom, CA: EMT Associates, Inc. Stadjkovic, A.D. & Luthans, F. (1998). Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy: Going Beyond Traditional Motivational and Behavioral Approaches. Organizational Dynamics, 26 (4). Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S.D., Dornbusch, S.M., & Darling, N. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754 770. Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S.D., Dornbusch, S.M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266 1281. Stewart, M., Reid, G., & Mangham, C. (1997). Fostering Childrens Resilience. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 12, 21 29. Strage, A. A. (1998). Family context variables and the development of self-regulation in college students. Adolescence. Sullivan, R. (2001). What Makes a Child Resilient? Time Magazine, 157 (11), p. 35 38. Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B.F., & Holden, G.W. (2001). Handbook of family measurement techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Thurman, S.K. & Widestrom, A.H. (1990). Infant and young children with special needs. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co. Vander Zanden, J.W. (1997) Human Development. NY: The McGraw Companies, Inc. Walsh, F. (1998). Strengthening Family Resilience. NY: The Gilford Press.

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

83

Weisberg, R.P., Kumpfer, K.L., and Seligman, M.E.P. (2003). Prevention that works for children and youth. American Psychologist, 58, 425 432. Welsh, J.A. and Bierman, K.L. (1998). Social Competence. Gale Encyclopedia of Childhood and Adolescence. Retrieved online on May 22, 2001 at: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/g2602/0004/260200487/print/html Werner, E.E., & Smith, R.S., (1977). Kauais Children Come of Age. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii. Werner, E.E., & Smith, R.S., (1982). Vulnerable but Invincible. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co. Winfield, L. F., (1994). Developing Resilience in Urban Youths. North Central Regional Education Laboratorys Urban Education Monograph Series, 1 27. Wyman, P.A., Cowen, E.L., Work, W.C., Hoyt-Meyers, L., Magnus, K.B. and Fagen, D.B. (1999). Caregiving and Developmental factors differentiating young at-risk urban children showing resilient versus stress-affected outcomes. Child Development, 70, 645 659.

APPENDIX A DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Packet Number ___________________ Thank you so much for agreeing to be a part of this study. You are asked to complete each of the questionnaires in this packet. Please answer all of the questions in each section. There is no right or wrong answer so dont spend a lot of time on any one item. I am looking for your overall impression regarding each statement. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. All information that you provide will be kept entirely confidential. To help with that effort, you are being assigned a number and are asked not to put your name anywhere on these forms. Thank you again for participating!! Male ______ Female _______ Age: ________ Grade: __________

Your approximate GPA: _________ Parents Martial Status: ______ Single, never married ______ Married, living together ______ Married, living apart ______ Divorced ______ Divorced and remarried ______ Widowed ______ Other Please explain: _____________________________________________________ I live with (check all that apply): ______ Both parents ______ Mother only ______ Father only ______ Parent and Step-parent _____ Father/Stepmother _______ Mother/Stepfather ______ Other family member ______ Guardian ______ Other. Please explain: _____________________________________________________ Who would you say has been most involved in parenting you (setting expectations, discipline, supervising, supporting)? ______ Mother _____ Father _______ Both Other __________________

APPENDIX B INDIVIDUAL PROTECTIVE FACTOR INDEX Check YES! If you believe very strongly that the sentence is true for you, that it is the way you feel almost all of the time. Check yes if you sort of agree that the sentence is true for you, this it is the way you feel most of the time. Check no if you sort of believe the sentence is false for you, that you do not feel that way most of the time. Check NO! if you believe very strongly that the sentence is false, that you almost never feel this way.
1) I can tell my parents the way I feel about things. 2) I like to see other people happy 3) Sometimes you have to physically fight to get what you want. 4) I will probably die before I am thirty. 5) I will always have friends. 6) I like to help around the house. 7) I really want to graduate from college. 8) I like the way I act. 9) I get mad easily. 10) I get along well with other people. 11) Being part of a team is fun. 12) My family expects too much of me. 13) People usually like me. 14) Other people decide what happens to me. 15) I think I will have a nice family when I get older. 16) If I disagree with a friend, I can tell them. 17) Finishing high school is important. 18) Sometimes I am ashamed of my parents 19) I can be trusted. 20) I am afraid my life will be unhappy. . YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

21) I like being around people. 22) School is a waste of time. 23) It is important to think before you act. 24) Bad things happen to people like me. 25) Helping others makes me feel good. 26) My family has let me down. 27) Following the rules is stupid. 28) My life is all mixed up. 29) I do whatever I feel like doing. 30) If I have a reason, I will change my mind. 31) It is hard for me to make friends. 32) I try hard to do well in school. 33) I like to do things with my family. 34) Most people can be trusted. 35) I can do most things I try. 36) If I study hard, I will get better grades. 37) When I am mad, I yell at people. 38) I think I can have a nice house when I grow up. 39) If I dont understand something, I will ask for an explanation. 40) My friends respect me. 41) I always like to do my part. 42) It is more important to play fair than to win. 43) Sometimes I break things on purpose. 44) I will probably never have enough money. 45) I am often too embarrassed to ask questions. 46) I often feel lonely. 47) A lot of days I would rather not go to school. 48) There is some good in everybody. 49) When I try to be nice, people notice. 50) I hate being in front of a group. 51) It is important to do your part in helping at home. YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

86
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Parenting Styles & Resiliency

52) If you work hard, you will get what you want. 53) I would like to quit school as soon as I can. 54) I enjoy talking with my family. 55) Helping others is very satisfying. 56) I like the way I look. 57) If I feel like it, I hit people. 58) To make a good decision, it is important to think about what will happen afterwards 59) I often disappoint people. 60) I dont like most people. 61) I am responsible for what happens to me. YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no no no no no no no no

87
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

APPENDIX C PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE - MOTHER

Instructions: For each of the following statements, circle the number of the 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) that best describes how that statement applies to you and your mother. Try to read and think about each statement as it applies to you and your mother during your years of growing up at home. There are no right or wrong answers, so dont spend a lot of time on any one time. I am looking for your overall impression regarding each statement. Please be sure not to omit any items. 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither agree or disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

11.

12. 13.

While I was growing up my mother felt that in a well-run home the children should have their way in the family as often as the parents do. Even if her children didnt agree with her, my mother felt that it was for our own good if we were forced to conform to what she thought was right. Whenever my mother told me to do something as I was growing up, she expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions. As I was growing up, once family policy had been established, my mother discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family. My mother always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable. My mother always felt that what her children need is to be free to make up their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents might want. As I was growing up my mother did not allow me to question any decision she had made. As I was growing up my mother directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and discipline. My mother has always felt that more force should be used by parents in order to get their children to behave the way they are supposed to. As I was growing up my mother did not feel that I needed to obey rules and regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established them. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in my family, but I also felt free to discuss those expectations with my mother when I felt that they were unreasonable. My mother felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is boss in the family. As I was growing up my mother seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for my behavior.

12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345

Parenting Styles & Resiliency 14. Most of the time as I was growing up my mother did what the children in the family wanted when making family decisions. 15. As the children in my family were growing up, my mother consistently gave us direction and guidance in rational and objective ways. 16. As I was growing up my mother would get very upset if I tried to disagree with her. 17. My mother feels that most problems in society would be solved if parents would not restrict their childrens activities, decisions, and desires as they are growing up. 18. As I was growing up my mother let me know what behavior she expected of me, and if I didnt meet those expectations, she punished me. 19. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to decide most things for myself without a lot of direction from her. 20. As I was growing up my mother took the childrens opinions into consideration when making family decisions, but she would not decide for something simply because the children wanted it. 21. My mother did not view herself as responsible for directing and guiding my behavior as I was growing up. 22. My mother had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as I was growing up, but she was willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each of the individual children in the family. 23. My mother gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing up and she expected me to follow her direction, but she was always willing to listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me. 24. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and she generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do. 25. My mother has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we could get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their children when they dont do what they are supposed to as they are growing up. 26. As I was growing up my mother often told me exactly what she wanted me to do and how she expected me to do it. 27. As I was growing up my mother gave me clear direction for my behaviors and activities, but she was also understanding when I disagreed with her. 28. As I was growing up my mother did not direct the behaviors, activities, and desires of children in the family. 29. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in the family and she insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for her authority. 30. As I was growing up, if my mother made a decision in the family that hurt me, she was willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit if she had made a mistake.

89

12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345