Effect of Home Environment On Personality

EFFECT OF HOME ENVIRONMENT ON PERSONALITY AND
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS OF GRADE 12 IN

RAWALPINDI DIVISION
By
AZRA PARVEEN
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In Education
To
FACULTY OF ADVANCED INTEGRATED STUDIES AND RESEARCH
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MODERN LANGUAGES, ISLAMABAD

December 2007
Azra Parveen, 2007
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MODERN LANGUAGES

FACULTY OF ADVANCE INTEGRATED STUDIES
DISSERTATION AND DEFENSE APPROVAL FORM

The undersigned certify that they have read the following thesis, examined the defense, are satisfied with the
overall exam performance, and recommend the thesis to the Faculty of Advanced Integrated Studies & Research
for acceptance:
Thesis/Dissertation Title: Effect of Home Environment on Personality and Academic Achievement of

Students of Grade 12 in Rawalpindi Division
Submitted By:
Azra Parveen
Registration
#:104-Ph.D/Edn/2003
Name of student
Doctor of Philosophy in Education

Degree Name in full(e.g Master of philosophy, Doctor of Philosophy)
Education
Name of Discipline
(Dr. Tayyab Alam Bukhari)

Name of Research Supervisor
___________________________
Signature of Research Supervisor
(Dr. Shazra Munawar)
____________________________
Name of Dean (FAISR)
Signature of Dean
(Brig. ( R) Dr. Aziz Ahmed Khan)

Name of Rector
____________________________
Signature of Rector
_________________________
Date
ii
ABSTRACT
The aim of the study was to examine the effect of home environment on the academic
achievement and personality of students. Home environment has been identified as being an
important contributing factor in childs educational development. Very few researches have dealt
with this dimension of education in Pakistan. The population of the study comprised 8533
Intermediate science male and female students of grade 12, who appeared in the Intermediate
examination (part 1)2006, taken by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education
Rawalpindi. The sample of the study included 724 students, 410 were female and 314 were male.
Three research instruments were used for data collection. To determine the personality of
students a Five Factor personality inventory developed by Dr. Tom Buchanan (2001) was used.
The intra-familial environment as perceived by students was measured by using the Index of
Family Relations (IFR). Researcher translated these instruments into Urdu and used them after
pilot testing. A Demographic Variable Information Performa, developed by the researcher, was
used to collect information relating to the demographic variables of the study. The information
about the achievement was collected from the Result Gazette of the Board of Intermediate and
Secondary Education Rawalpindi.
Seventy null hypotheses were tested to find the effect of home environment, socio economic
status, family relations, gender, parental education, income of the family, family size, birth order
of the student and type of the family on students personality and achievement. Data was
analyzed by using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and t-test. It was concluded from the study
that with the exception of birth order and family type, all the independent variables of the study
had a significant effect on the academic achievement of students. However students personality
was partially influenced by these variables.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
DISSERTATION AND DEFENCE APPROVAL FORM ii

ABSTRACT...iii
TABLE OF CONTENTSiv
LIST OF TABLES...v
LIST OF APPENDICESxviii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTxix
1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Statement of the study ................................................................................................................. 5
Significance of the study ............................................................................................................. 5
Objectives of the study ................................................................................................................ 7
Hypotheses of the study .............................................................................................................. 7
Delimitations of the study ..........................................................................................................13
Theoretical Framework of the study ...........................................................................................14
Methodology of the Study ..........................................................................................................17
Definition of terms .....................................................................................................................15
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Home Environment .....................................................................................................................18
Personality ...................................................................................................................................27
The Five-Factor Model of personality........................................................................................ 37
Different Approaches to Personality ........................................................................................ 43
Researches relating to the variables of the study........................................................................41
PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY

Population of the study:..............................................................................................................75
Sample of the study ....................................................................................................................75
iv
Research Instruments: .....................................................................................................................77

Collection of Data ............................................................................................................................80
Scoring Procedure ............................................................................................................................80
Analysis of Data ................................................................................................................................86
4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Descriptive Information .....................................................................................................................87
Testing of Null Hypothesis .................................................................................................................91
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION AND RECOMENDATIONS

Summary ..........................................................................................................................................221
Findings............................................................................................................................................222
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................228
Discussions........................................................................................................................................230
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................242
References .........................................................................................................................................238
Appendixes....266
LIST OF TABLES
Table ...........
Page
Table # 1- Names of male colleges and number of respondents76
Table # 2- Names of female colleges and number of respondents .. 77
3.
Table # 3- Number of statements in each subscale of IPIP Peronanlity

Inventory....77
4.
Table # 4 Classification of subjects on the basis of family relations............................ 81
5.
Table # 5 Scoring procedure for parental education.................................................... 82
6.
Table # 6 Scoring procedure for family income ........................................................... 82
7.
Table # 7 Classification of subjects on the basis of socio economic scores ................. 83
8.
Table # 8 Relative weight % of every variable to determine home environment ........ 85
9.
Table # 9 Classification of subjects on the basis of home environment ....................... 85
10.
Table # 10 Classification of subjects on the basis of family size ................................. 84
11.
Table # 11 Distribution of subjects by home environment........................................... 87
12.
Table #12 Distribution of subjects by socioeconomic status........................................ 88
13.
Table #13 Distribution of subjects by gender ............................................................... 88
14.
Table # 14 Distribution of subjects by family size ....................................................... 89
15.
Table # 15 Distribution of subjects by birth order 89
16.
Table # 16 Distribution of subjects by family type90
17.
Table # 17 Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment on students

achievement. .............................................................................................................. 91
18.
Table # 17aUnivariate Analysis of Variance for effect of home environment on

studentsachievement .............................................................................................. 92
19.
Table # 17b
LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple comparisons regarding
homeenvironment on students achievement.93
20.
Table
18
Descriptive
statistics
for
effect
of
home
environment
on
studentspersonality ................................................................................................... 94
21.
Table # 18a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of home environment
onstudents personality ..94

22.
Table# 18b LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding home environment
on students personality. ............................................................................................ 95
23.
Table # 19 Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment on openness
factor
of students personality.............................................................................................. 96
24.
Table # 19a Univariate
Analysis of Variance for effect of home environment
onopenness factor of students personality ................................................................ 96

25.
Table # 20 Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment on emotional stability

factor of students personality ................................................................................... 98
26.
Table # 20a
onemotional stability factor of students personality.98

27.
Table:
20b
LSD
POST
HOC
Test
of
Multiple
Comparisons
regarding
homeenvironment on emotional stability factor of students personality.................. 99

28.
Table # 21 Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment on extroversion factor

of students personality............................................................................................ 100
29.
Table # 21a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of home environment

onextroversion factor of students personality ........................................................ 100
30.
Table:
21b
LSD
POST
HOC
Test
of
Multiple
Comparisons
regarding
homeenvironment on extroversion factor of students personality..101

31.
Table # 22 Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment onconscientiousness

factor of students personality ................................................................................. 102
32.
Table # 22a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of home environment on

conscientiousness factor of students personality .................................................... 102
vii
33.
Table
#22b
LSD
POST
HOC
Test
of
Multiple
Comparisons
regarding
homeenvironment on conscientiousness factor of students personality ................. 103

34.
Table # 23
Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment on
agreeablenessfactor of students personality ........................................................... 104

35.
Table # 23a
onagreeableness factor of students personality ...................................................... 104

36.
Table #23b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding home
environment on agreeableness factor of students personality ................................ 105
37.
Table # 24 Descriptive statistics for effect of socioeconomic status on

38.
Table # 24a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of socioeconomic status

onstudents achievement...107
39.
Table # 24b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding socioeconomic
status on students achievement. ............................................................................. 108
40.
Table # 25
Descriptive statistics for effect of socioeconomic status on students
personality ............................................................................................................... 109

41.

onstudents personality ............................................................................................ 109
42.
Table: 25b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding socioeconomic
status on students personality. ................................................................................ 110
43.
Table # 26 Descriptive statistics for effect of socioeconomic status on opennessfactor

44.

onopenness factor of students personality .............................................................. 111
45.
Table # 27 Descriptive statistics for effect of socioeconomic status on

emotionalstability factor of students personality.................................................... 112
viii
46.
Table # 27a
Analysis of Variance for effect of socioeconomic status on

47.
Table # 28
Descriptive statistics for effect of socioeconomic status on
extroversionfactor of students personality ............................................................. 114

48.

49.
status on extroversion factor of students personality. ............................................ 115
50.
Table # 29
Descriptive statistics for effect of socioeconomic status
onconscientiousness factor of students personality ................................................ 116

51.
Table # 29a Univariate
Analysis of Variance for effect of socioeconomic status

52.
status on conscientiousness factor of students personality. .................................... 117
53.
Table # 30 Descriptive statistics for effect of socioeconomic status on agreeableness

54.

55.
Table # 31 Descriptive statistics for effect of family relations on students achievement

................................................................................................................................. 120
56.
Table # 31a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family relations on students
achievement ............................................................................................................. 120
57.
Table: 31b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple comparisons regarding family relations
on students achievement. ....................................................................................... 121
58.
Table # 32 Descriptive statistics for effect of family relations on students

personality122
ix
59.
personality ............................................................................................................... 122
60.
Table: 32b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding family relations
on students personality. .......................................................................................... 123
61.
Table # 33 Descriptive statistics for effect of family relations on openness factor

ofstudents personality............................................................................................. 124
62.
Table # 33a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family relations onopenness
63.
Table # 34 Descriptive statistics for effect of family relations on emotional stability

64.
Table # 34a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family relations on
emotional stability factor of students personality................................................... 125

65.
Table: 34b
LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding family
relation on emotional stability factor of students personality. ............................... 126

66.
Table # 35 Descriptive statistics for effect of family relations on extroversionfactor of

students personality ................................................................................................ 127
67.
Table # 35a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family relations

onextroversion factor of students personality.127
68.
Table: 35b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple comparisons regarding family relations
on extroversion factor of students personality. ...................................................... 128
69.
Table # 36 Descriptive statistics for effect of family relations on conscientiousness

70.
Table # 36a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family relations on

71.
Table: 36b
LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding
familyrelations on conscientiousness factor of students personality...................... 130
72.
Table # 37 Descriptive statistics for effect of family relations on agreeableness factor

73.
Table # 37a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family relations on
agreeableness factor of students personality .......................................................... 131

74.
Table: 37b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding family relations
on agreeableness factor of students personality. .................................................... 132
75.
Table # 38 t -test for effect of gender on achievement ............................................. 133
76.
Table # 39 t- test for effect of gender on students personality. ................................ 134
77.
Table # 40
78.
Table # 41 t -test for effect of gender on the emotional stability factor of students
t- test for effect of gender on openness factor of students personality 135
personality. .............................................................................................................. 136

79.
Table # 42
t- test for effect of gender on the extroversion factor of students
personality. .............................................................................................................. 137

80.
Table # 43
t-test for effect of gender on the conscientiousness factor of students
personality. .............................................................................................................. 138

81.
Table # 44
t-test for effect of gender on the agreeableness factor of students
personality. .............................................................................................................. 139

82.
Table
45
Descriptive
statistics
for
effect
of
fathers
education
on

83.
Table # 45a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of fathers education on

students achievement ............................................................................................. 141
84.
Table #
45b
LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding
fatherseducation on students achievement. ........................................................... 142

85.
Table # 46 Descriptive statistics for effect of fathers education on students

personality ............................................................................................................... 143
xi
86.

students personality. ............................................................................................... 144
87.
Table # 47
Descriptive statistics for effect of fathers education on openness factor

88.
Table # 47a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of fathers education
onopenness factor of students personality. ............................................................. 146

89.
Table # 48 Descriptive statistics for effect of fathers education on emotional stability

90.
Table # 48a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of fathers education on
Emotional stability factor of students personality .................................................. 148

91.
Table # 49 Descriptive statistics for effect of fathers education on extroversion factor

92.
Table #49a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of fathers education on

extroversion factor of students personality ............................................................ 150
93.
Table: 49b
LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple comparison regarding fatherseducation
on extroversion factor of students personality. .................................................... 151

94.
Table # 50 Descriptive statistics for effect of fathers education on Conscientiousness

95.
Table # 50a
conscientiousness factor of students personality. ................................................... 154

96.
Table # 51 Descriptive statistics for effect of fathers education on agreeablenessfactor

97.
Table # 51a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of fathers education

98.
Table # 51b LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding effect offathers
education on agreeableness factor of their personality ............................................ 157
xii
99.
Table # 52
Descriptive statistics for effect of mothers education on

100.
Table # 52a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of mothers education

onstudents achievement ......................................................................................... 159
101.
Table: 52b LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding mothers education
on students achievement ....................................................................................... 160
102.
Table # 53
studentspersonality ................................................................................................. 162

103.

104.
Table # 53b
LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple comparison regarding
motherseducation on students personality. ........................................................... 164

105.
Table # 54
Descriptive statistics for effect of mothers education on opennessfactor

106.

onopenness factor of students personality .............................................................. 166
107.
Table: 54b LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple comparisons regarding motherseducation
on openness factor of students personality. ............................................................ 167
108.
Table # 55

109.

onemotional stability factor of students personality............................................... 169
110.
Table # 56
Descriptive statistics for effect of mothers education on extroversion

111.

xiii
112.
Table # 56b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple comparisons regarding

motherseducation on extroversion factor of students personality ........................ 172
113.
Table # 57
conscientiousness factor of students personality ..173

114.
Table # 57a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of mothers education

115.
Table # 58 Descriptive statistics for effect of mothers education on agreeableness

116.

117.
Table # 58b
LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding mothers
education on agreeableness factor of students personality .................................... 177

118.
Table # 59
Descriptive statistics for effect of familys income on students
achievement ............................................................................................................. 178

119.
Table # 59a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of familys income on

120.
Table # 59b
LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding familys income
on students achievement ........................................................................................ 180

121.
Table # 60
personality ............................................................................................................... 181

122.
Table # 60a

123.
Table: 60b
LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple comparisons regarding familysincome
on students personality ........................................................................................... 183

124.
Table # 61
Descriptive statistics for effect of familys income on openness factor of
xiv
125.
Table # 61a
openness factor of students personality .................................................................. 185

126.
Table # 62
Descriptive statistics for effect of familys income on emotional stability

127.
Table # 62a
emotional stability factor of students personality................................................... 187

128.
Table # 63
Descriptive statistics for effect of familys income on extroversion factor

129.
Table # 63a

130.
Table # 63b
LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding family Income
on extroversion factor of students personality. ...................................................... 190

131.
Table # 64
Descriptive statistics for effect of familys income on conscientiousness

132.
Table # 64a

133.
Table # 64b
LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding familys
income on conscientiousness factor of students personality .................................. 192

134.
Table # 65
Descriptive statistics for effect of familys income on agreeableness

135.
Table # 65a

136.
Table # 66
Descriptive statistics for effect of family size on students achievement
................................................................................................................................. 195
137.
Table # 66a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family size on students
achievement ............................................................................................................. 195
xv
138.
Table # 66b
LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding family size on
students achievement. ............................................................................................ 196

139.
Table # 67
Descriptive statistics for effect of family size on students personality
................................................................................................................................. 197
140.
Table # 67a
personality ............................................................................................................... 197

141.
Table # 68
Descriptive statistics for effect of family size on openness factor of

142.
Table # 68a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family size on openness

143.
Table # 68b
openness factor of students personality. ................................................................. 199

144.
Table # 69
Descriptive statistics for effect of family size on emotional stability

145.
Table # 69a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family size on emotional
stability factor of students personality ................................................................... 200

146.
Table # 70
Descriptive statistics for effect of family size on extroversion factor of

147.
Table # 70a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family size on

148.
Table # 71
Descriptive statistics for effect of family size on conscientiousness factor

149.
Table # 71a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family size

150.
Table # 72
Descriptive statistics for effect of family size on agreeableness factor of
xvi
151.
Table # 72a

152.
Table # 73
Descriptive statistics for effect of birth order on students achievement
................................................................................................................................. 206
153.
Table # 73a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of birth order on

154.
Table # 74
155.
Table # 74a
Descriptive statistics for effect of birth order on students personality 207

Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of birth order on students
Personality. .............................................................................................................. 207

156.
Table # 75
Descriptive statistics for effect of birth order on openness factor of

157.
Table # 75a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of birth order on openness

158.
Table # 76
Descriptive statistics for effect of birth order on emotional stability factor
of students achievement ......................................................................................... 209

159.
Table # 76a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of birth order on emotional
stability factor of students personality ................................................................... 209

160.
Table # 77
Descriptive statistics for effect of birth order on extroversion factor of

161.
Table # 77a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of birth order on extroversion

162.
Table # 78
Descriptive statistics for effect of birth order on conscientiousness Factor

163.
Table # 78a
xvii
164.
Table # 79
Descriptive statistics for effect of birth order on agreeableness factor of

165.
Table # 79a

166.
Table # 80 t-test for effect of family type on students achievement ...................... 214
167.
Table # 81 t- test for effect of family type on students personality......................... 215
168.
Table # 82
t- test for effect of family type on the openness factor of
studentspersonality ................................................................................................. 216

169.
Table # 83
t-test for effect of family type on emotional stability factor of personality.
................................................................................................................................. 217
170.
Table # 84
t-test for effect of family type on extroversion factor of students
personality. .............................................................................................................. 218

171.
Table # 85
t-test for effect of family type on conscientiousness factor of
personality. .............................................................................................................. 219

172.
Table # 86
t-test for effect of family type on agreeableness factor of personality. 220
xviii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
Page
Inventory of family relations
260
Personality Inventory
262
Demographic Information Performa
264
Urdu translation Index of Family Relations
265
Urdu translation of personality inventory
266
Urdu translation of DVIP Performa
268
List of Experts
269
Authentication and Validation of Translation
271
Authentication of Relative weight % of Home Environment
272
10
Authentication of Classification of Family Relations
274
11
List of Colleges and Numbers of Respondents
277
xix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher offers all her gratitude to ALMIGHTY ALLAH, who blessed her with
determination, courage and patience to complete this study.
The researcher is highly indebted to Dr. Tayyab Alam Bukhari for his encouragement,
support and professional guidance in completing this research.
The researcher extends her sincere and deepest thanks and respect to Dr. Allah Bukhsh,
for his insightful guidance, inspiration and encouragement.
The researcher is obliged to Dr. Saeeda Asadullah Khan, Ex. Dean AIS&R and Dr.
Shazra Munawer, Dean AIS & R, NUML, for their cooperation and encouragement.
No words can express the gratitude the researcher has for Dr. Mumtaz Akhter, whose
consistent encouragement and cooperation made this task possible.
The researchers special thanks are due to the experts for sparing their valuable time and
providing their expert opinion.
The researcher would like to offer her thanks to Mrs. Waseem Sikander, Mrs. Shahnaz
Farrukh and Ms Sidra Ashraf for their cooperation and encouragement.
The researcher wishes to express her appreciation and thanks to her parents, husband and
kids for their encouragement, patience and sacrifices, they had to make during the course of this
study.
The researchers thanks are due to all the Principals and teachers of selected colleges for
their assistance in data collection
Finally the researcher expresses her sincere thanks to her colleagues and friends, who
offered their assistance in one way or other for completing this study.
xx
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
During the past few decades home environment had been identified as being a
contributing factor in a childs educational, cognitive and affective development. Researchers
typically separate elements of the home environment into two major categories; social and
physical (Casey, Bradley, Nelson & Whaley, 1988; Wachs, 1989).
Crow and Crow (1965) describes that home is the primary societal unit. Family
relationships play an important role in an individuals life pattern from early childhood through
adulthood. Much of an individuals personality patterning originates at home. Not only does the
child inherit certain family potentialities, but during his developing years, his attitudes, beliefs,
ideals and overt behavior reflects the influences on him of home experiences.
Crow and Crow (1965) state that, the fulfillment of a childs basic psychological and
physical needs is the primary responsibility of his or her family. The degree of successful
adjustment achieved by the child in his family relationships depends on various factors of
influence. Of these, special attention is diverted towards traditional parental attitudes toward child
rearing (rigid versus permissive), emotional reactions of family members (emotionally stable
versus disturbed), and the socioeconomic status of the home (middle and upper versus lower
class).
Peck (1958) thinks that the child reared in a rigid home tends to be submissive but
resentful of restrictions on his freedom; the permissively reared child is likely to be aggressive
and outgoing. The child of emotionally stable parents can be expected to exhibit well-controlled
behavior reaction; the child of emotionally disturbed parents are of those who display inconsistent
attitudes toward him may become a confused or frustrated individual, reflecting in his own
behavior the personality defects to which he has been exposed. As a result of an eight year
longitudinal study of adolescent character development, he concluded that the personality
characteristics of the subjects of the study were significantly related to the emotional
relationships and the disciplinary patterns which they experienced in living with their parents.
Kundu (1989) concludes that, a close emotional relationship between parents and the
child affects the inculcation of effective emotional relationship. Rejection and broken homes in
the form of separation divorce, desertion, and death of a parent or denial of advantages of
privileges, punishment, threats and humiliation, poor socioeconomic conditions also affect the
social adjustment and behavior of the child.
Because of its pre-eminence the family probably has the greatest influence on a childs
future life than any other agent. All schools of thought, involved in the study of personality are in
agreement that child imitates his parents; his acquisition of pictures of social roles and his
tendency to act out in later relationship are all associated with his interaction with his parents.
This interaction lets us comprehend the resultant personality characteristics, if dealt with, in a
particular parents-behavior toward child rather than in a general theoretical way.
Family life, in other words, is a general morale pattern, including satisfaction of parents
with each other and with the home situation, but likely to involve also the inconsistency of
discipline, differing standards by parents, quarrels between parents, etc. As family is a strong
socializing agent, it becomes obvious that child takes on the roles of his family members i.e., the
parents in particular. When we say that child acquires roles from his family then, it is evident that
a low-morale home does not start him off on a favorable path.
Kagan et al. (1998) state that, parents also influence their children through their own
characteristics. Children come to conclusions about themselves, often incorrect, because they
assume that since they are biological offspring of their mother and father, they possess some of
the qualities that belong to their parents. This emotionally tinged belief is called identification,
and it is the basis for national pride, loyalty to ethnic and religious groups. Thus, if a parent is
perceived by her child as affectionate, just and talented, the child assumes that he or she, too,
probably possesses one or more of these desirable traits and as a result, feels more confident than
she has a right to given the evidence. By contrast, the child who perceives a parent who is
rejecting, and without talent, feels shame because he assumes that he probably is in possession of
some of these undesirable characteristics. Support for this claim is the fact that all children
become upset if someone criticizes their family. The anxiety or anger that follows such criticism
is strong because children assume, unconsciously, that criticism of their parents is also a criticism
of them
Kagan et al, (1998) describes that it is rare to find a belief that all societies, ancient and
modern share. No society claims that the familys influence on the child is without significance.
This degree of consensus implies that it might be a universal truth.
(NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1998) studied more than one thousand
children of United States from ten different cities who were raised at home and some attended
daycare centers for varied amounts of time. The main result was that the family had the most
important influence on the three-year-old childs personality and character.
Rathbum, Divirglio & Waldfogel (1958) describe that the power of parental behavior is
seen in the fact that some children who were orphaned and made homeless by war were able to
regain intellectual and social skills they failed to develop during their early privation if they were
adopted by nurturing families
Crow and Crow (1965) think that familys socioeconomic status can exert a powerful
influence on a young persons developing personality. Not only is the adolescent of an
economically underprivileged home denied many of the privileges and enriching experiences
enjoyed by upper- and middle-class children but his life values are affected by parental ambitions
for him.
Kohn (1959) conducted a study of the social class values of four families with children in
the fifth grade of public and parochial schools in Washington, D.C. In his conclusions Kohn
suggests that parents of all social classes have values that are related to their social class and
parents think that it is important for their children to develop traits of honesty, obedience, and
consideration for others. He found that working-class mothers indicated a deep appreciation for
such qualities as neatness and cleanliness. They rate high those qualities that make for
respectability. Middle-class parents are greatly concerned with values associated with internal
standards that govern individual relationships with people including one self. Happiness is high
on the value list for boys by middle-class mothers; working-class mothers rate honesty and
obedience before happiness for their sons and place happiness first for their daughters.
Swatantra (1971) on the basis of the findings contained in the individual case histories,
found the following factors to be the causes of aggression in children: (a) poor relations between
parents and children, parents inconsistency of behavior, nagging, ridiculing, beating, attitude of
domination, laissez-fair towards children results in aggressive behavior; (b) discord among
parents affecting the peace of mind of the children. Parental non-adjustments and emotional
outburst adversely affect childrens behavior; (c) her study shows that 68% of the cases showing
aggressive behavior came from families living from hand to mouth and the economically
depressed ones; (d)of the aggressive children studied, 40% are the first born, 32% the second
born, 12% the youngest born, and 16% the others. Almost all the aggressive children had bad
relations with their siblings, particularly their youngers; (e) 48% of the aggressive children came
of the parents who received education only up to different classes of primary school stage, or
quite illiterate.
As the above mentioned researches indicate the importance of home environment for
individuals development, the researcher, found it interesting to explore the influences of different
indices of home environment on students personality and academic achievement. Some
researches relating to the effects of familys income, socioeconomic status and parental
education, on students, had been conducted in Pakistan, but the researcher found very few
researches on family relations and structure of the family. Similarly the researcher could found no
research in Pakistan, finding the cause and effect relationship between the structure of the family
and students personality and achievement. The present research was aimed to throw light on the
effectiveness of these variables as well.
Statement of the study

Students cognitive and affective development is the major aim of education, thus
understanding of factors that affect students academic achievement and personality development
is necessary, hence, the problem to be investigated in this study was effect of home environment
on personality and academic achievement of students of grade 12 in Rawalpindi Division.
Significance of the study

Since the emergence of modern research methodologies in the field of education it has
always been a matter of interest and importance to identify the factors that affect students
personality and achievement. During different periods of history emphasis continued to change
and shift from one aspect to the other and in this regard various factors have been identified
during the last few decades. Literature review suggests that home environment is an important
area of study in educational psychology. During the past several decades home environment has
been identified as being a contributing factor in childs educational development. The home
environment and family process provide a network of social, physical, and intellectual forces,
which affect the students learning.
Verna & Campbell (1999) state that different learning environment is created by families
from different socioeconomic classes that affect the childs academic achievement. The family
process includes, supportive atmosphere, supervising homework, providing supplementary
reading materials, and providing tutor, and if possible facility of computer
Powell (1963) concludes that many of the values, attitudes, and interests that are part of an
individuals adult behavior had their beginnings and indeed were often fully crystallized through
the early influences of home and family. Family experiences have far reaching implications for
adolescents lives outside the family- in relationship with peers, teachers, and other adults, in
school performance; and in eventual occupational choice and degree of success. The emotional
atmosphere of the family, the way in which parents train their children and the opportunities and
demands family life presents for normal development are present from early life, continue their
influence in adolescence and shape the future course of adolescents lives.
Education includes the influences deliberately planned, chosen and employed by the
community for the welfare of its coming generations. The purpose is to modify the behavior of
the child and to shape his personality in a desirable way.
This study by exploring the factors which influence the students academic achievement and
personality development will help the teachers, parent, administrators, curriculum planners and
policy makers to coordinate in an effective way so that our students can have a sound personality
and better academic achievement after completing their formal education.
Objectives of the study

1. To find out the effect of home environment on students personality
2. To find out the effect of socioeconomic status on students personality.
3. To find out the effect of family relations on students personality.
4. To find out the effect of gender on students personality.
5. To find out the effect of parents education on students personality.
6. To find out the effect of familys income on students personality.
7. To find out the effect of family size on students personality.
8. To find out the effect of birth order on students personality.
9. To find out the effect of family type on students personality.
10 To find out the effect of home environment on students academic
achievement
11 To find out the effect of socioeconomic status on students academic achievement.
12 To find out the effect of family relations on students academic achievement.
13 To find out the effect of gender on students academic achievement.
14 To find out the effect of parents education on students academic achievement.
15 To find out the effect of familys income on students academic achievement.
16 To find out the effect of family size on students academic achievement.
17 To find out the effect of birth order on students academic achievement.
18 To find out the effect of family type on students academic achievement.
Hypotheses of the study

Following Null hypotheses were formulated to achieve the objectives of the study:
H01.
There is no significant effect of home environment on students
achievement.
H02.
There is no significant effect of home environment on the personality of

students.
H03
There is no significant effect of home environment on the openness

factor of students personality.
H04.
There is no significant effect of home environment on the emotional

stability factor of students personality
H05.
There is no significant effect of home environment on the extroversion factor of

students personality.
H06.
There is no significant effect of home environment on the conscientiousness

H07.
There is no significant effect of home environment on the agreeableness factor of

H08.
There is no significant effect of parents socioeconomic status on students

achievement.
H09.
There is no significant effect of parents socioeconomic status on the personality

of students.
H010.
There is no significant effect of parents socioeconomic status on the openness

H011.
There is no significant effect of parents socioeconomic status on the emotional

stability factor of students personality.
H012.
There is no significant effect of parents socioeconomic status on the

extroversion factor of students personality.
H013.

conscientiousness factor of students personality.
H014.

agreeableness factor of students personality.
H015.
There is no significant effect of family relations on students achievement.
H016.
There is no significant effect of family relations on students personality.
H017.
There is no significant effect of family relations on openness factor of students

personality.
H018.
There is no significant effect of family relations on emotional stability factor of

H019.
There is no significant effect of family relations on extroversion factor of

H020.
There is no significant effect of family relations on conscientiousness factor of

H021.
There is no significant effect of family relations on agreeableness factor of

H022.
There is no significant effect of gender on students achievement.
H023.
There is no significant effect of gender on students personality.
H024.
There is no significant effect of gender on openness factor of students

personality.
H025.
There is no significant effect of gender on emotional stability factor of students

personality.
H026.
There is no significant effect of gender on extroversion factor of students

personality.
H027.
There is no significant effect of gender on conscientiousness factor of students

personality.
H028.
There is no significant effect of gender on agreeableness factor of students

personality.
H029.
There is no significant effect of fathers education on students achievement.
H030.
There is no significant effect of fathers education on students personality.
H031.
There is no significant effect of fathers education on openness factor of students

personality.
H032.
There is no significant effect of fathers education on emotional stability factor of

H033.
There is no significant effect of fathers education on extroversion factor of

H034.
There is no significant effect of fathers education on conscientiousness factor of

H035.
There is no significant effect of fathers education on agreeableness factor of

H036.
There is no significant effect of mothers education on students achievement.
H037.
There is no significant effect of mothers education on students personality.
H038.
There is no significant effect of mothers education on openness factor of

H039.
There is no significant effect of mothers education on emotional stability factor

of students personality.
H040.
There is no significant effect of mothers education on extroversion factor of

10
H041.
There is no significant effect of mothers education on conscientiousness factor

H042.
There is no significant effect of mothers education on agreeableness factor of

H043.
There is no significant effect of the income of the family on the achievement of

students.
H044.
There is no significant effect of the income of the family on students personality.
H045.
There is no significant effect of the income of the family on openness factor of

H046.
There is no significant effect of the income of the family on emotional stability

factor of factor of students personality.
H047
There is no significant effect of the income of the family on extroversion factor

H048.
There is no significant effect of the income of the family on conscientiousness

H049.
There is no significant effect of the income of the family on agreeableness factor

H050.
There is no significant effect of family size on student's achievement.
H051.
There is no significant effect of family size on student's personality.
H052.
There is no significant effect of family size on openness factor of student's

personality.
H053.
There is no significant effect of family size on emotional stability factor of

student's personality.
11
H054.
There is no significant effect of family size on extraversion factor of student's

personality.
H055.
There is no significant effect of family size on conscientiousness factor of

H056.
There is no significant effect of family size on agreeableness factor of student's

personality.
H057.
There is no significant effect of birth order on students achievement.
H058.
There is no significant effect of birth order on student's personality.
H059.
There is no significant effect of birth order on openness factor of student's

personality.
H060.
There is no significant effect of birth order on emotional stability factor of

H061.
There is no significant effect of birth order on extroversion factor of student's

personality.
H062.
There is no significant effect of birth order on conscientiousness factor of

H063.
There is no significant effect of birth order on agreeableness factor of student's

personality.
H064.
There is no significant effect of family type on students achievement
H065.
There is no significant effect of family type on student's personality.
H066.
There is no significant effect of family type on openness factor of student's

personality.
H067.
There is no significant effect of family type on emotional stability factor of

12
H068.
There is no significant effect of family type on extroversion factor of student's

personality.
H069.
There is no significant effect of family type on conscientiousness factor of

H070.
There is no significant effect of family type on agreeableness factor of student's

personality.
Delimitations of the study

1. The present study was delimited to the students of grade 12 only.
2. The present study was delimited to the science students only.
3. The present study was delimited to the students of those government colleges which were
affiliated with the Board of Intermediated and Secondary Education Rawalpindi.
13
Theoretical Framework of the study
Family Relations
Personality
(1) Relations Among

husband & wife
(2) Relations
among
siblings
(3) Relations
among
children & parents
Socioeconomic Status
Family
Home
Environment
(1) Parents education

(2) Income of the family
(3) Material possessions
Size of the family
Birth Order
Achievements
Family Type
14
Methodology of the study

Population
Population of the study includes students of F.sc from Govt. colleges of Rawalpindi division,
who appeared in the intermediate examination (part 1) 2006, at the Board of Intermediate and
Sample
Sample of the study comprise 724 students of F.sc part 11 from different colleges of Rawalpindi
division.
Sampling technique
Cluster sampling technique was used for the selection of the sample of the study.
Instruments used
For the measurement of personality a Five Factor Personality Inventory was used. To measure the
family relationships, the Index of Family Relations developed by Hudson(1982) was used. A
demographic variable information performa was used to collect information about other variables
of the study.
Tabulation of Data
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-test were used to test the hypotheses of the study.
Definition of terms
Family
Clausen (1966) says that the family, has a definable composition and a reasonably stable
organization of joint activities, role relationships and definite values and goals
15
Types of Families
The families fall in to the following categories
1. Nuclear family
2. Extended family
Nuclear Family; The nuclear family is the family with a single married couple along with their
children
Extended Family; It is understood to be a family in which three generations (grandparents,
parents & children) live within the same house hold. An extended family therefore consists of
parents, grand parents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters and some times cousins living together as a
unit.
Socioeconomic Status
(Orr & Dinur,1995; Adler et al.1994; Ornstein & Levin, 1993).describe that
socioeconomic status refers to the familys socioeconomic state; parents education, fathers
occupations, income and housing value, servant facility, transport and material facilities at home.
American Academy of Pediatrics states that, socio economic status is a complex concept
consisting of two aspects; one aspect includes resources, such as education, income and wealth
and the other includes status or rank, a function of relative position in a hierarchy, such as social
class.
Personality
.Hall & Lindzey (1991) state that personality may be defined in terms of attributes or
qualities, that are highly typical of an individual and is an important part of the overall impression
created on others.
16
Five Factor Model of Personality

(i) Openness: this factor indicates how creative, original and imaginative a person is.
(ii) Extroversion: this factor measures the extent to which an individual is sociable, active,
optimistic and fun loving
(iii) Conscientiousness: this state reflects how methodical, well organized and dutiful a person is
(iv) Emotional stability: it indicates ones capacity to remain calm and composed and being free
from traits which carry negative and emotional tone.
(v) Agreeableness: it indicates how helpful, trusting, kind and cooperative a person is
Achievement
Achievement refers to students academic achievement scores on Higher Secondary School part I
annual examination of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Rawalpindi.
17
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter presents the review of previous researches regarding the variables of present
study; family relations and personality, family relations and achievement, parents education and
personality, parents education and achievement, family size and achievement ,family size and
personality, birth order and personality and birth order and achievement, gender and achievement,
gender and personality, and achievement and personality. In the beginning, conceptual discussion
about the variables of home environment and personality is presented.
Home Environment
Parish, Dostal & Parish (1981) state that the environment of the home in which a child is
reared can advance or hinder wholesome personality adjustment. Family relationships also
determine in large measure the young persons developing attitudes toward home and family life.
Forsstrom-Cohen & Rosenboum (1985) describe that one of the most important influences upon
the adolescent is the emotional climate of the family. Some families evidence a prevailing mood
of gaiety, joy, optimism and happiness. Other families reflect a climate of fear, depression,
cynicism, and hostility, which has a negative effect on children
McMillan & Hiltonsmith (1982) think that.the happier the parents and the more positive
the home climate, the more beneficial is the effect on growing children The best adjusted children
are those who grow in happy homes where adolescents and parents spend pleasurable time
together
Noller and Victor (1991) think that the environment of a family is affected by how happy
the parents are with their relationship. A close, satisfying relationship between parents is
18
generally reflected in a warm and supportive family climate. Conflict between the parents is
likely to result in a generally unsatisfactory home environment. Fighting between parents is
clearly unpleasant for children, and in the long term, the consequences can be serious for them.
Emery & O Leary (1984) describe that conflict between parents is related to behavior problem in
children and adolescents. There is evidence of low self-esteem, poor school performance and
emotional problems in children from families high in conflict
Schaefer (1959) states that the structure of the family unit in combination with
personality characteristics of individual parents determine, in part, a familys approach to child
rearing. In fact, several decades of research support the continuing existence of two major
dimensions of parental behavior.The first, acceptance-rejection, focuses on the effects of parental
behavior that is either warm or hostile. A warm relationship helps children to be responsible and
self-controlled, while hostility tends to promote aggression.The second dimension, controlautonomy, focuses on how restrictive or permissive parents are in enforcing rules of behavior.
Parents who use strict control generally have children who are well-behaved but highly
dependent. those who are permissive tend to have sociable and assertive children who are high on
aggression.
Another view, not very different from this one, emerged from an extensive study by
Baumrind (1971) as cited by Fabes & Lynn (2000). She suggested following four common styles
of parenting:
i.) Authoritarian parenting: this type of parenting is charecterized by efforts by parents to
control judge and shape, the attitudes and behaviors of their children according to rigid standards
of conduct. These parents usually value obedience and favor harsh, forceful measures, including
physical punishment, to ensure that children comply with their rules. These parents discourage
verbal give and-take, believing that children should accept their word for what is right. Thus,
19
authoritarian parents are high in demandingness and low in responsiveness. These parents set
rules, and expect that children are to obey these rules because the parents say so. Preschoolers
from authoritarian homes have low levels of self-control and independence, and they tend to be
aggressive, anxious, and resistant to correction. (Baumrind 1971; Kochanska & Askan 1995).
ii) Permissive parenting: parents who practice permissive parenting make few demands on their
children. They are tolerant and accepting of their childrens impulses and desires. These parents
view themselves as resources to be used as their children wish rather than as agents responsible
for shaping or altering their childrens behavior. Permissive parents avoid the use of force to
accomplish their goals and thus are low in demandingness and high in responsiveness. Because
permissive parents are unable to set limits on the behavior of their children. preschoolers raised
by permissive parents resemble those from authoritarian homes. They tend to be relatively
immature, demanding, rebellious, impulsive, aggressive and less socially competent (Baumrind
1971).
iii) Uninvolved parenting: Uninvolved parenting describes the style of parents who make few
demands on their children but are unresponsive or rejecting as well. Uninvolved parents do
whatever they can to minimize the costs of being a parent and put little time and effort into
interaction with children. Parents efforts relate more to their own immediate comfort and
convenience than to the long-term development of the child. For example, these parents are
unlikely to establish and enforce rules about bedtime or childrens diets. At the extreme,
uninvolved parents may be neglectful. Parental depression is sometimes related to uninvolved
parenting; depressed parents tend to be disengaged, withdrawn, and unresponsive to their
children. As you might expect, children from homes where the parents are uninvolved, neglectful,
or depressed do not fare very well. These children tend to be noncompliant, aggressive,
20
withdrawn, and insecure in their attachments to others ( Egeland & Sroufe 1983; Miller, Cowan,
Cowan, Hetherington, & Clingempeel 1993).
iv) Authoritative parenting: this type of parenting is exhibited by parents who encourage verbal
give-and-take and explains to their children the reason behind discipline and household rules.
These parents value conformity to their rules and exert consistent and firm- but not excessivecontrol to bring it about. Authoritative parents are loving and supportive and they recognize the
importance of childrens individual interests and needs. Authoritative parents can be classified as
high in demandingness and high in responsiveness. Preschool children raised in authoritative
homes tend to be friendly, cooperative, socially competent, confident, and self-reliant. (Dekovic
& Janssens, 1992; Hinshaw et al., 1997).
Thus, authoritative parenting produces the best outcome for children. Baumrind (1989)
argued that the optimal parent- child relationship at any stage of development is characterized by
reciprocity- the tendency to engage in mutual give-and-take. Authoritative parenting is related to
a pattern of family functioning where parents accept mutual responsibility to be responsive to
reasonable demands of their children and children are expected to be responsive to their parents
demands. Authoritative parents maintain a balance between control and structure on the one hand
and respect and warmth on the other, and they encourage the same balance in their children. In
western cultures, this balance respects competent parenting, and parents who cannot provide the
necessary control and guidance have children who are difficult to manage (Belsky, Woodworth,
& Crnic 1996).
Because different cultures hold different values, it is not surprising that the degree to which
parents are authoritative or authoritarian differs across cultures and subcultures. Authoritative
parenting is more prevalent in two- parents families than in single parent families or step
families (Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992). Authoritarian parenting is more common among
21
families experiencing financial difficulties and among ethnic minorities (Steinberg, Mounts,
Lamborn, & Dornbusch 1991). Moreover, parents who adhere to conservative religious beliefs
tend to adhere to an authoritarian parenting style more often than do parents who are less
conservative in their religious beliefs. These findings indicate that parenting styles and their
impact on children are influenced by family circumstances and cultural beliefs and attitudes.
Parents monitor and supervise their adolescents schedules, peer associations, activities,
and physical whereabouts. Effective monitoring requires that parents be involved in the lives of
adolescents and maintain clear expectations about appropriate activities, acceptable peers, and
places where they can and cannot go (Barber, Olson & Shagle 1994). Adolescents whose parents
fail to monitor their activities are likely to be involved in antisocial behavior, delinquency, drug
use and early sexuality (Ambert, 1997; Barber, Oslen, & Shagle 1994).
Parental punitiveness refers to the use of force to influence childrens behavior and
qualities., either through spanking, slapping, or other forms of physical force or through nagging,
name-calling,or yelling ( Turner & Finkelhor 1996).
Mittal et al., (2006) state that discipline may achieve a behavioral goal, its
accomplishment may be nullified by the emotional and attitudinal side effects it produces in a
child. A positive correlation exists between aggressive behavior in children and severity of
discipline in the home. There is little doubt that harsh, arbitrary and inconsistent discipline arouse
resentment, hostility and anxiety in the child. From strong discipline a child builds up a store of
hostility that he directs towards others. Thus the conforming, docile child at home may be tiger on
the outside.
Socioeconomic status of the family
22
Socioeconomic status has been widely used as a measure of home environment.

Steinberg, Belsky and Meyer (1991) defined SES as measure of an individuals or familys
standing in society, based primarily on income, education and occupation.
Barnard, Bee and Hammond (1984); and Siegel (1984) reported a positive relationship
between SES and home environment. They found that the children belonging to families of
higher socioeconomic class receive an intellectually more beneficial home environment.
Ellision, Bartowski and Segal (1996) state that homes vary markedly in socioeconomic
status, not in amounts of wealth but in the ways in which the family income is obtained. Research
in United States shows that the class position of parents influences how they raise their children
Bossard (1953, 1954) explains that the type of home, clothing, spending money, and
other material possessions the adolescent has, all are influential in determining his social class
status in the peer group. The adolescent from an upper or upper-middle class family is more
assured of status than one from the lower-class family. When the adolescent finds that his lack of
social acceptance by his peers is due to lack of money, it frequently brings strong resentments
towards his parents. Should the economic status of the family be such that the adolescent must
work after school to contribute to the family support, his resentment against his parents will be
increased, School withdrawers frequently blame their parents and this does not improve the home
climate
NORC, (2003) states that social class affects not only the amount of money parents
spend but also what they expect of their children. When asked to pick from a list of traits that are
most desirable in a child, lower-class people favor obedience and conformity, whereas well to do
people select qualities such as good judgment and creativity
Sibling relationship
23
It is sometimes forgotten in the analyses of socialization within the family that parents are
not the only societal agents. Most families, at one point or another in their histories, are likely to
contain two or more children. Thus a childs siblings must also be seen as potential socializer.
Essman (1977), for instance, has found that older siblings role behavior towards younger children
influence the childs socialization in to the parental role. Children, it was found, learn parenting
behaviors from their siblings as well as from their parents.
Vandell et al (1987) describes that conflict is only one of many dimensions of siblings
relations. Sibling relations include sharing, helping, fighting, teaching and playing, and
adolescent siblings can act as rivals, emotional supports, and communication partners.
Cicirelli (1977) explains that in some instances, sibling may have stronger socializing
influence on the adolescent than parents have. Furman & Buhrmester (1985) describes that
relationship between siblings has received much less attention than relationship with parents in
every age group, yet for many adolescents siblings are significant companions
Dunn (1983) states that study of preadolescent generally indicate that childrens
perception of relationship with their sisters and brothers depend on whether the siblings are older
or younger, how far apart they are in age, and whether they are of the same or different gender.
For example, older siblings are generally dominating and aggressive than their younger siblings
and the later in twins, are more compliant than the older siblings. These differences often become
less marked as children grow older, however, so that by preadolescence, power differences are
less pronounced than in childhood. Vandell, Minnett & Santrock (1987) found that siblings who
are close in age typically report more warmth and closeness than those siblings who are farther
apart in age
Recent studies show that companionship, warmth and closeness are also frequently
mentioned in descriptions of sibling relationships (e.g., Buhrmester & Furman, 1990; Furman &
24
Buhrmester, 1985; Vandell et al., 1987). Conflict and rivalry between siblings are not necessarily
the same. Furman and Buhrmester (1985) found that preadolescents mentioned specific conflicts
only some of which arose from feelings of unequal treatment by parents. It seems likely that
sibling conflicts, like those in other close relationships, come about through a variety of different
issues in addition to intra family competition
Differences in sibling relationships appear in early childhood. Some siblings are very
close, others extremely antagonistic. Following factors effect the quality of sibling relationships
(Dunn, 1992):
1- The temperamental qualities of the siblings influence the level of conflict between them.
Children who are intense, active, or unadaptable in temperament are likely to have antagonistic
sibling relationships. The temperament match between siblings is also important: siblings who
are temperamentally similar are more likely to have positive relationships (Munn & Dunn, 1988).
2- McHale, Crouter, McGuire & Updegraff, (1995) state that negative relationships between
siblings often are attributed to the parents favoritism toward one of the siblings. Volling & Elins
(1998) think that it is often difficult to avoid treating children differently, especially if siblings are
of different ages. However, the affect of differential treatment become more profound if one
sibling is treated with less warmth and affection or with more punishment. That child is likely to
behave in rivalrous aggressive, and unaffectionate manner towards his or her siblings.
Kowal & Kramer (1997) state that children are less likely to respond negatively if they
perceive that the differential treatment was justified. Parents who use induction do not impose
their authority; they communicate confidence in adolescents abilities to make good decisions and
voluntarily comply. This parenting technique is more effective with adolescents than with young
children because of adolescents increased ability to think abstractly and consider several
possibilities (Hill, 1987).
25
Birth order
One variable that has been the subject of much attention in recent years is ordinal
position in the family: the birth order of a child with respect to his or her siblings. There is some
evidence to indicate that the childs ordinal position in the family structure has an influence on
the childs socialization and personality development. Since sibling relationships and birth order
variables are likely to influence the childs socialization, it is helpful for us to be sensitive to the
impact of birth order and sibling relationships on personality and academic achievement of
students.
Family type
Melville (1977) thinks that the type of family in which children are raised will
determine, to a large extent, the number and types of social relationships that they will
experience. These relationships, in turn, will affect both personality development and social
behavior. The most frequent arrangement is the nuclear family, consisting of two parents and
their offsprings. When two or more nuclear families, or some combination of them, live together,
it is called a joint family.
Family size
Family functioning is significantly influenced by the number, sex, and birth order of
children. As families become large, there is often a decrease in parent-child interaction but an
increase in interaction among children. Size of family has been found to play an important role in
the childs personality development.
Summary
Home is the primary societal unit. Home environment is categorized into social and
physical elements. The environment of the home in which a child is reared can advance or hinder
wholesome personality adjustment. The best adjusted children are those who live in warm and
26
supportive family climate. There are two major dimensions of parent behavior. The first,
acceptance- rejection, which focuses on the effects of parental behavior that is either warm or
hostile, the second dimension, control autonomy focuses on how restrictive or permissive
parents are in enforcing rules of behavior. Among the four common styles of parenting suggested
by Baumrin,1971;authoritarian , permissive , uninvolved and authoritative , authoritative
parenting produces the best outcome for children because in this style , parents maintain a balance
between structure and control on the one hand and warmth and respect on the other, and they
encourage the same balance in their children. Parenting styles and their impact on children are
influenced by family circumstances and culture, beliefs and attitudes. Socioeconomic status has
been widely used as a measure of home environment. Socioeconomic status of a family is based
on its income, education and occupation. Children from relatively higher SES families receive an
intellectually more advantageous home environment. In addition to parents, siblings must also be
seen as potential socializer siblings can act as emotional support, rivals and communication
partners. The family structure has been found to play an important role in childs socialization
and personality development. Family structure includes birth order or ordinal position of a child
with respect to his or her family, family type; nuclear or joint family and family size.
Personality
Mischel, Shoda and Smith (2004) state that the term personality has many definitions, but
no single meaning is accepted universally. In popular usage, personality is often equated with
social skill and effectiveness. In this usage, personality is the ability to elicit positive reactions
from other people in ones typical dealings with them. Some definitions by known personality
psychologists are presented below.
27
Cattell (1950) thinks that personality is a predicting agent who will tell what a person
will do under certain circumstances and covers all those behaviors which are manifest in his
actions as well as hidden ones.
Pervin (1996) describes that personality is the complex organization of cognitions,
affects, and behaviors that gives direction and pattern (coherence) to the persons life. Like the
body, personality consists of both structures and processes and reflects both nature (genes) and
nurture (experience). In addition , personality includes the effects of the past, including memories
of the past, as well as constructions of the present and future.
Different Approaches to Personality

The psychoanalytic approach
Ruch(1984) explains that the psychoanalytic theory of Freud is simultaneously a theory of personality,
motivation, development and mental illness (1933,1935,1938). Main idea behind the psychoanalytic
scheme is the concept that only a small part of human mental activity is illustrated by conscious thought. A
relatively large part of mental activity occurs at the preconscious and unconscious levels. Processes that are
not in consciousness at a given time are preconscious activities, but that can become conscious as needed.
However, unconscious activities are more important; these are largely, storage of instinctive urges.
Unconscious activities can influence behavior, but these activities cannot directly enter consciousness.
Freuds perception of how these three levels interact in an individuals personality is based on three
inferred personality structures: id, ego and super ego. Unconscious forces, which are accumulation of the
sex and aggression instincts are represented by id. Although ids mental workings are not available for
conscious inspection but its impulses can be sensed. Conscious representative of rational thought is ego.
Newly born baby reflects only id forces; and the ego develops gradually through the childs interaction
with the external world. Along with ego, superego is also developed by the childs experience. Superego
represents the internalization of the societys and parents prohibitions. According to Freud, behavior is
determined by the interaction of these three elements of the adult personality.
28
Carl Jung, soon after receiving his degree became a close associate of Freud. Jungs point of view
included two forms of unconsciousness. (1968a). Jungs personal unconscious was almost similar to
Freuds preconscious, which contains thoughts and memories that are not conscious at present but these
could be. Jungs novelty was the concept of a collective unconscious shared by all human beings as an
evolutionary heritage.jungs collective unconscious, like Freuds unconscious could influence behavior but
could not enter consciousness directly. Designs of images within the collective unconsciousness were
termed as archetypes; these are the common experiences of all human beings that have sound symbolic
meaning e.g. rising of the moon (Jung, 1968b). jung thought that these archetypes were actually the
summary of experiences of humans ancestors, and were expressed in similar myths and folk love of
different cultures.
Like Jung, Alfred Adler, wanted to signify human drives for success and superiority. According to Adler,
the dominant force in humans is a struggle for superiority. The special direction in which each person
struggles for superiority is an individual one, but it is mostly unconscious and only dimly understood by the
person.
Horney (1953) stressed on a concept of the intrinsic difficulties of life. Horney said that people face risk in
coping with childhood experiences of helplessness and isolation, and this risk is actually development of
ten different neurotic trends, e.g. neurotic need to exploit others.
The Behavioral Approach

Before Skinners behaviorism and Banduras social learning theory a brief description of
Dollard and Millers behavioral approach is being described. Ruch (1984) explains that John
Dollard and Neal Miller developed their theory of personality in the late 1940s.The theory they
developed was based on four concepts: drive, cue, response, and reinforcement. Freuds instincts,
as represented in the id, became for Dollard and Miller primary drives. These, in turn, were the
basis for other learned drives (Miller, 1951). The combination of primary and learned drives
provided the energy or motivation for behavior, and cues determined when, where, and which
behavior would ensue. Any distinctive stimulus, in any sensory mode, could become a cue for
29
some response, based on the learning history of the organism. Once the response had occurred, it
could be followed by a reinforcement. If so, the response became more probable in the presence
of the cues.
Although not the only version of behaviorism, Skinners approach is one of the best
known and most controversial (Rachlin, 1976). All behaviorists emphasize overt, measurable
behavior, but Skinner has insisted on limiting analysis to it. Internal activity, whether phrased in
nervous-system terms or mental terms, is not an appropriate level of analysis, he feels. In this,
Skinner is more extreme than many behaviorists, who are more willing to consider, for example,
the possibility of thoughts as covert behavior (Meichenbaum,1977). Skinners view is often
termed radical behaviorism because of his insistence on referring to environmental events in
considering any behavior. His is virtually the only approach to personality to forgo all inferred
constructs and to rely only on observed behavior and contingencies of reinforcement. Skinner
refuses to consider internal activities partly because they are so difficult to measure. But he also
believes that internal events such as thoughts or emotions are results of external events, not
causes of them.
Ruch (1984) explains that Banduras social learning approach is a form of learning
theory, which implies both a conceptual emphasis on learning processes and a methodological
emphasis on observable behavior and replicable results. Social learning theory also emphasizes
the effects of reinforcement on learning. The central focus of social learning theory, as elaborated
by Bandura and others, is on the process of modeling, the observation of some other persons
actions and the learning from those actions., without the observer necessarily either performing
the action or being rewarded for it (Bandura, 1977a). As Bandura has developed it, modeling
involves four major processes (Bandura, 1977b): for observed behavior to be modeled
successfully, it must first be attended to. Retention process must then ensure that the observed
30
behavior is retained for later use. Motor reproduction processes govern whether the observer is
physically able to perform the modeled action, and motivational processes offer the reason to do
so.
Overall, social learning theory sees a persons personality as developing through a lifetime
interaction between the person and his or her environment, each of which influences the other
(Bandura, 1974,1978). It offers a flexible framework for combining self and situation variables,
for adding cognitive features, and so forth, while seeking to remain as objective and behaviorally
focused as possible.
The Humanistic Approach:
The humanistic approach is usually attributed to the independent approaches of two
theorists, Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. Both emphasize concepts of the self and selfdevelopment, but they differ somewhat in how these concepts are defined and used.
Ruch (1984) explains that Maslows views, like Freuds were strongly influenced by his
beliefs about human motivation, but his view of motivation differed radically from Freuds.
Instead of powerful,,innate, negative forces that must be kept in check, Maslow saw weak, innate,
positive tendencies that must be nurtured (Maslow, 1968, 1970, 1971). Survival motives are the
most powerful and most immediate motives. Maslow proposed his well-known hierarchy of
needs to suggest how more exclusively human needs might appear after more basic needs were
satisfied.
According to Maslow, all of the needs in the hierarchy are innate to humans, but those
higher in the hierarchy are weaker; they only direct action when all earlier needs have been
satisfied.
Roggerss view is concerned with the development of self, but he approaches the concept
of self differently than Maslow did (Suls, 1982). Rogers personality theory is a person-centered
31
theory in several ways (Holdstock & Rogers, 1977). First, it emphasizes a phenomenological
approach, noting that each persons experienced world is unique, built up in part from that
persons experiences. Rogers view is also person-centered in emphasizing self-actualization,
though he defines it somewhat differently than Maslow did. To Roggers, to be self-actualizing is
to strive toward congruence between ones concept of self ( the set of beliefs about who and what
one is ) and ones experience. When a persons experience is at odds with the self, a state of
incongruence exists, and the person may become a patient. Rogers theory is thus a mixture of
emotional and cognitive elements.
The Trait Approach to Personality study
Mischel, Shoda and Smith (2004) explains that the trait approach to formal personality
study begins with the commonsense conviction that personality can be described with trait terms.
But it extends and refines those descriptions by arriving at them quantitatively and systematically.
Efforts to explain individual differences by formal trait theories face some of the same problems
that arise when traits are offered as causes by the layman. However numerous safeguards have
been developed to try to control some of these difficulties.
One of the most outstanding trait psychologists was Gordon Allport. A Psychological
Interpretation launched the psychology of personality as a field and discipline. In his classic work
and many later contributions, he made a convincing case that a distinctive field was needed, to
understand the person as a coherent, consistent whole individual. His view of personality was
broad and integrative, and he was sensitive and attentive to all its diverse aspects. Reacting
against the tendency of researchers to study isolated part processes, such as learning and memory,
in ways that failed to take account of individual differences, he wanted to pursue two goals. One
was to understand the differences between people in personality; the other was to see how the
different characteristics and processes (like learning, memory, and biological processes) that exist
32
within an individual interact and function together in an integrated way. His vision underlies
much of what is still the definition and main mission of personality psychology today. Allports
conception of traits continues to guide much of the work at the trait-dispositional level of
analysis. Allport (1937), in his theory explains that traits have a very real existence: they are the
ultimate realities of psychological organization.
Allport, implied that traits are relatively general and enduring: they unite many responses to
diverse stimuli, producing fairly broad consistencies in behavior. Allport was convinced that
some people have dispositions that influence most aspects of their behavior. He called these
highly generalized dispositions cardinal traits. For example, if a persons whole life seems to be
organized around goal achievement and the attainment of excellence, then achievement might be
his or her cardinal trait. Less pervasive but still quite generalized dispositions are central traits,
and Allport thought that many people are broadly influenced by central traits. Finally, more
specific, narrow traits are called secondary dispositions or attitudes.
Allport believed that ones pattern of dispositions or personality structure determines
ones behavior. No two people are completely alike, and hence no two people respond identically
to the same event. Each persons behavior is determined by a particular trait structure.
Allport thought that trait never occurs in any two people in exactly the same way: they
operate in unique ways in each person. This conviction was consistent with his emphasis on the
individuality and uniqueness of each personality.
Raymond B. Cattell is another important trait theorist. For Cattell, the trait is also the basic unit of
study: it is a mental structure, inferred from behavior, and a fundamental construct that
accounts for behavioral regularity or consistency. Like Allport, Cattell (1950) distinguished
between common traits, which are possessed by all people, and unique traits, which occur only in
a particular person and cannot be found in another in exactly the same form.
33
Cattell ( 1965) also distinguished surface traits from source traits. Surface traits are
clusters of overt or manifest trait elements (responses) that seem to go together. Source traits are
the underlying variables that are the causal entities determining the surface manifestation. In
research, trait elements are analyzed statistically until collections of elements that correlate
positively in all possible combinations are discovered. This procedure according to Cattell, yields
surface traits. For Cattell, source traits can be found only by means of the mathematical technique
of factor analysis. Using this technique, the investigator tries to estimate the factors or dimensions
that appear to underlie surface variations in behavior.
In Cattells system, traits may also be grouped into classes on the basis of how they are
expressed. Those that are relevant to the individuals being set into action with respect to some
goal are called dynamic traits. Those concerned with effectiveness in gaining the goal are ability
traits. Traits concerned with energy or emotional reactivity are named temperament traits (1965).
Eysenck (1961, 1991) has extended the search for personality dimension to the area of
abnormal behavior, studying such traits as neuroticism-emotional stability. He also investigated
introversion-extroversion as a dimensional trait. Eysenck and his colleagues have studied the
associations between peoples positions on these dimensions and their scores on a variety of other
personality and intellectual measures, and developed an influential model of personality designed
to account for the roots of these traits in ways that connect to the biological level of analysis.
Eysenck (1991) emphasized that his dimension of introversion-extroversion is based
entirely on research and must stand and fall by empirical confirmation. Eysenck suggested that
the second major dimension of personality is emotional stability or neuroticism. This dimension
describes at one end people who tend to be moody, touchy, anxious, restless, and so on. At the
other extreme are people who are characterized by such terms as stable, calm, carefree, eventempered, and reliable.
34
Common Features of Trait Theories

Mischel, Shoda and Smith (2004) explain some common features of trait theories:
i) Inferring Traits from Behavioral Signs: Traits are inferred from questionnaires, ratings, and
other reports about the persons dispositions. Usually, these self-reports are taken as direct signs
of the relevant dispositions. For example, the more often you rate yourself as aggressive, the more
you are assumed to have an aggressive disposition. So the relationship between what is sampled
and the inferred trait is direct and additive: the more frequently a behavioral tendency is reported
or described, the greater the amount of the underlying disposition.
ii) Generality and Stability of Traits: Trait theorists often have disagreed about the specific
content and structure of the basic traits needed to describe personality, but their general
conceptions have much similarity and they remain popular. They all use the trait to account for
consistencies in individuals behavior and to explain why persons behave differently to the same
stimulus.
iii) Search for Basic Traits Guided by the assumption that stable dispositions exists, trait
psychologists try to identify the individuals position on one or more dimensions. They do this by
comparing people tested under standardized conditions. They believe that positions on these
dimensions are relatively stable across testing situations and over long time periods. Their main
emphasis in the study of personality is the development of instruments that can accurately tap the
persons underlying traits.
iv) Quantification: The main feature of the trait approach has been its methodology. This
methodology is psychometric in the sense that it attempts to measure individual differences and
to quantify them. Psychometricians study persons and groups on trait dimensions by comparing
their scores on tests. To do this, they sample many people, compare large groups under uniform
conditions, and devise statistical techniques to infer basic traits. Their methods over the years
35
have become increasingly sophisticated and effective for meeting a wide range of measurement
goals (e.g., Jackson & Paunonen, 1980; John, 1990).
For many years in the long search for a universal taxonomy of traits, researchers
disagreed actively as to which personality dimensions they should use to describe personality.
Some proposed as many as 16; others, as few as two or three(Vernon, 1964). More recently,
however, consensus has grown among many researchers to focus on five dimensions of
personality (Goldberg, 1990; John, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1985,1987, 1999) that emerges from
ratings using English-language trait adjectives. These dimensions are found by using the method
of factor analysis.
Factor Analysis
This is a mathematical procedure that helps to sort test responses into relatively
homogeneous clusters of items that are highly correlated. Working in the psycho lexical
approach, a number of researchers have reached reasonable agreement about the five types of
dimensions or factors on which English trait terms may be clustered, often called the Big Five
Structure.( Goldberg, 1990; John, 1990).
These dimensions emerged from mathematical analysis of the responses with the method
of factor analysis. Factor analysis is a very useful tool for reducing a large set of correlated
measures to fewer unrelated or independent dimensions.
The factor analytic approach to describing trait dimensions is illustrated in a series of
pioneering factor analytic studies (Norman, 1961, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1958, 1961). These
studies investigated the factors obtained for diverse samples of people rated by their peers on
rating scales. The scales themselves came from a condensed version of the thousands of trait
names originally identified by Allport and Odberts search many years earlier for trait names in
the dictionary. After much research, 20 scales were selected and many judges were asked to rate
36
other people on them. The results were carefully factor analyzed. The same set of five relatively
independent factors appeared consistently across several studies and continues to form the basis
of what has become the Big Five Structure (e.g., John, 1990; Goldberg, 1992). It consists of five
factors measured with a personality inventory now called the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae,
1997).
The Five-Factor Model of personality

A trait is a temporally stable, cross-situational individual difference. Presently, the most
popular approach for studying personality traits are two important models with five factors, Costa
& Mc Craes Five Factor Model, and Goldbergs Big Five (as sighted in Mc Adams, 1992). The
Five-Factor
Model
represents
the
factors
as Extraversion,
openness,
Agreeableness
conscientiousness and Neuroticism. The Big Five model replaces neuroticism with emotional
stability, and names the openness factor intelligence. The Big Five are based upon factor
analysis of the entire trait-descriptive adjective in a natural language, as collected from a
dictionary. The Big Five are meant to provide a comprehensive description of phenotypic
personality traits. The Big Five model is a descriptive taxonomy that attempts to organize and
quantify traits, which make up the foundation of trait theory. A brief discussion on these traits is
presented here;
Extraversion-Introversion (E)
An extrovert is sociable, likes parties, has many friends, talkative and does not like studying or
reading by himself. He takes chances, craves excitement, acts on the spur of the moment. He
always has a ready answer, is fond of practical jokes, likes change; he is easygoing, optimistic,
carefree and likes to laugh and be merry. He tends to be aggressive, is not always reliable and
prefers to keep moving.
37
A typical introvert is introspective, quite, likes books and reserved, he looks before he
leaps and tends to plan ahead. He takes matters of daily life with seriousness, does not like
excitement and likes a well-ordered mode of life. He seldom behaves in an aggressive manner,
and keeps his feelings under control. He is usually pessimistic, but places value on ethical
standards and is reliable (Eysenck & Rachman, 1965, p. 19).
Openness to Experience (O)
The open person is imaginative, curios, creative, daring, complex, insightful, independent,
untraditional, analytical, artistic, explorative and liberal. The open person likes to think. In
contrast persons who are low in openness are down to earth, conventional, uncreative,
conforming, and conservative.
Emotional Stability-Neuroticism (N)
This trait plays a role in almost all of the contemporary factor models for personality. Emotional
stability versus neuroticism is thought to cover many other personality traits like nervousness,
chronic anxiety, depression, self consciousness, moodiness, and hostility. Neuroticism is (a
dimension of personality defined by stability and low anxiety at one end as opposed to instability
and high anxiety at the other end and high anxiety at the other end (Pervin, 1989, p. 7). A
neurotic individual will express emotions more frequently than an emotionally stable one. In
contrast persons who score low dimension are generally secure, relaxed, self satisfied, relatively
unemotional and cool and calm(Carlson, 1971; Lanyon, 1984).
Agreeableness-Antagonism (A)
It represents the extremes of easy going versus stuborn or trusting versus suspicious. persons
high in agreeableness sympathetic to others, helpfull and understanding. persons low in this trait
are skeptical argumentative and strong-built.
Consciousness (C)
38
Those high in this those high in this disposition are careful, organized, determined, dependable,
conventional, thorough, efficient, responsible, orderly and reliable. Those on the low end of this
dimension are careless, lazy, weak willed, undependable, disorganized, and not self-disciplined
(Carlson, 1971; Lan yon, 1984).
Supportive Evidence for the Five-Factor Model:
An explosion of research has provided extensive empirical documentation for the robustness of
the Five Factor Model, or Big Five. The kind of evidence that has accumulated is impressive
(e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1997, 1999; McCrae, et al., 1998), and too large to summarize beyond the
general conclusions to which it leads:
The Big Five Structure has often been replicated in research by diverse investigators
using a variety of English-speaking samples.
Especially the N, E, and A factors have been found to replicate well even when the
languages, cultures, and item formats used differ. Replicability has been reported for
diverse languages and language families that span Sino-Tibetan, Uraic, Hamito-Semitic,
and Malayon-Polynesian.
Overall, the results are impressive and broadly generalizable across cultures (McCrae et
al., 1998), although unsurprisingly some of the favors may take different forms in
different samples of culture.
The factor structure of individuals as described by this model tends to be relatively stable
in adults over long period of time.
Summary
Personality is often equated with social skill and effectiveness. There are different
approaches to personality. One of the oldest approach to personality is the biological approach.
There have been at least three biological approaches , focusing on body type, brain areas and
39
genetic influences. Freud , Jung , Adler and Horney have been most influential psychoanalysts.
Freuds work was based on clinical observations of neurotic persons and self-analysis. This led
him to posit the unconscious as a key component of personality. According to Freud, id, ego, and
superego form the psychodynamic structure of personality. Jung emphasized the collective
unconscious. He focused on the need to achieve unity through awareness of the collective and
personal unconscious. Adler saw individuals as struggling to overcome profound feelings of
helplessness and inferiority by striving for perfection. Dollard and Miller, the popular
behaviorists, emphasized drive, cue, response and reinforcement as the basic components of
learning in their theory. They explained that events that reduce a drive serve as reinforcement. In
Skiners conceptualization , analysis of stimulus conditions controlling behavior replaces
inferences about internal conflicts and underlying motives. Behavior may be shaped by
reinforcing successively closer approximations to a particular desired behavior. Banduras social
learning theory sees a persons personality as developing through a lifetime interaction between
the person and his or her environment, each of which influences the other. The humanistic
approach is usually attributed to Maslow and Rogers. Both emphasize concepts of the self and
self development , but in different ways. Trait theorists conceptualize traits as underlying
properties, qualities or processes that exist in persons. Most commonly known trait theorists are
Gordon Allport, R. B. Cattel and Hans J. Eysenck. In Allports theory traits are the general and
enduring mental structures that account for consistency in behavior. They range from highly
generalized cardinal traits to secondary traits or more specific attitudes. Cattell distinguished
between surface traits and source traits by factor analysis. Cattell tried to estimate the basic
dimensions or factors underlying surface variations in behavior. Eysenck used empirical analysis
to explore dimensional traits. The most popular approach for studying personality traits are two
important models with five factors, Costa & McCraes Five Factor Model and Goldbergs Big
40
Five. The Five Factor Model represents the factors as Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion,
Agreeableness and Neuroticism. The Big Five model replaces neuroticism with emotional
stability and names the Openness factor intelligence.
Researches relating to the variables of the study

Family Relations and Personality
Fleege (1945) found that frequent and severe conflicts lead to relationships that are
disturbing and debilitating to all concerned and that frequently lead to maladjustments. When
high school boys who said they were unhappy at home were asked why, fully 50 percent of the
reasons they gave related to the disagreeable atmosphere of the home created by quarreling.
(Pressy, 1929 and Beaven, 1949) describe that abnormally frictional home situations lead
to maladjustments outside the home as well as in the home. College students who have
adjustment difficulties frequently came from homes where the family relationships are bad and
where there is excessive friction between parents and child.
(Newell, 1934; Childers, 1935; Symonds, 1939 and Horrocks 1951) found that an
individual may become excessively introverted and suspicious of peoples motives: he may
become an attention seeker, going to any length to win the attention and affection he feels
deprived of at home; or he may even turn to delinquency.
Bose (1971) concluded from his study on the personality pattern of institutionalized boys,
that most of such boys were found to be aggressive, non cooperative and selfish having stern
attitudes towards the world and the people. Mentally they had low intellectual capacities, lacked
persistency in efforts, lacked concentration, and concept formation. They derived satisfaction
through violence, stealing and wandering. Their development of ego was disturbed. The common
theme of their stories centered on deprivation, lack of love, conflict of desires, offence and
41
punishment. It is evident that denial of family or family support, love, affection and material
benefits turned them into wayward vagrants.
Saran (1970) found from his study that the individual development of child with regard to
curiosity, creativity, constructiveness and practical competence depends largely upon the
presence of proper environment at home. Murlidharan (1971) concludes from his study on the
behavioral problems of the children that parent-deprived children manifest more problems than
those of the non- deprived ones and that children of employed mothers had more problems than
those of the non-employed. Clavert (1990) revealed that a balance between factorslike
relationships in the family and with , has its effect on the manifestation of child maltreatement.
(Carlo, Fabes, Laible, & Kupanoff, 1999; Stafford & Bayer, 1993) found that warm, supportive,
and accepting parental behavior is related with the development of social competence by
adolescents and children of all ages.
(Fuligne & Eccles, 1993; Rohner, 1986) found that parents who hug, kiss, praise and
spend positive time with their adolescents foster close ties and communicate confidence in their
adolescents abilities. (Papini & Roggman, 1992; Peterson & Haan 1999) think adolescents who
receive support and nurturance from their parents have high self-esteem and a well-developed
identity and are less anxious, depressed, and aggressive than those who do not.
(Laursen and Williams, 1997; Peterson and Leigh, 1990) came to the conclusion that
warm supportive parenting prepares adolescents for intimate peer relationships. Adolescents
having warm relationships with their mothers and fathers select peers who reinforce rather than
contradict parental values. Stafford and Bayer (1993) found that an important way through which
many parents influence their sons and daughters is by using logical reasoning, or induction, to
persuade them to accept the parental viewpoint.
42
Hoffman (1994) describes that parents who rely on induction have teens with positive
social values and high self-esteem. (Stafford and Bayer, 1993; Turner and Finkelhor, 1996) found
that when parents rely on physical or verbal punitiveness, their children may develop hostility
toward them and may resist or reject their authority. Patterson, Reid and Dishion, (1992)
concluded from their study that adolescents may respond to parents punitive behavior with their
own punitive behaviors (such as yelling or insulting parents), thereby creating a cycle of punitive
responses in the family. Eckenrode, Laird and Doris (1993) found that adolescents whose parents
use harsh punishment are expected to develop low self-esteem and less advanced moral values
than their friends. They also are expected to have problems in school, use drugs and develop
behavior problems.
Nokao, Takaishi, Tatsuta, Katayama, Iwase, Yorifuji and Takeda (2000) studied the
effects of family environment( paternal and maternal participation in child rearing before and
after 4 years of age, parental relationship, child rearing style, sibling relationship, birth order,
number of siblings, socioeconomic status) on personality traits
(maturity, extraversion, &
intellect) The results revealed that extraversion was negatively related to overprotection and with
maternal participation in child rearing. Maturity was correlated with appropriate child-rearing
style, high socioeconomic status and paternal participation in child rearing. Intellect was
associated with maternal participation in child rearing and high socioeconomic status. Family
environment had more strongly influenced the children of high intellect or high introversion than
those with low intellect or high extroversion. High socioeconomic status had no relation with
extroversion. Thus the results indicate that the temporal aspect of personality (extraversion) is
less easily influenced by family environment than is the character aspect of personality (i.e.,
personality). Reti, Samuels, Eton, Bienvenn Costa and Nestadt (2002) concluded from their
research that adult anti social personality characteristics are related with maternal overprotection
43
and low parental care. For men, a significant was found between anti social charecteristics and
both high maternal behavioral restrictiveness and low maternal care, whereas for women high
maternal denial of psychological autonomy and low paternal care were significantly associated
with antisocial traits.
Family relations and Achievement
Rosen and Andrade (1959) from their research found that parents of high achievements
boys are likely to be more competitive, indicate more involvement, and appear to take more
pleasure in the problem-solving experiments. They appear to give them more things to operate
rather than fewer. More objective data show that the parents of a boy with high achievement tend
to have higher aspirations for him to do well at any given task, and they seem to have a higher
regard for his competence at problem solving. They set up standards of excellence for the boy
even when none is given, or if a standard is given will expect him to do better than average. As
he progresses they tend to react to his performance with warmth and approval, or, in the case of
the mothers especially, with disapproval if he performs poorly.
Milner (1951) interviewed both mother and children to determine family variables that
were related to high and low language score on the California test of mental maturity. High
scoring children had more books, were read to more often, had more meal time conversation with
parents, and received less harsh physical punishment. Interpretation of the finding is obscured by
the great difference in socioeconomic status between low and high scoring groups. Milners study
suggests that different socioeconomic groups have different patterns of parent behavior that are
partially determined by their adaptation to their life situation but also are related to their
childrens intellectual development.
Clarke and Clark (1959) reported that low intelligence test scores are not only developed
but maintained by adverse environments of neglect and cruelty. Their studies of mentally retarded
44
adolescents and young adults show an average IQ increase of 16 points during the six year period
after they left their adverse home environments with 33% showing IQ increments of 20 points or
more.
(Dave, 1963; and Wolf, 1964) through interviews with parents of fifth grade children
about family educational processes, have isolated a number of parental variables that are related
to academic achievement and intellectual development. Family process was found to be more
highly related to intelligence and achievement than was socioeconomic status.
Werner, Bierman and French (1971) presented a longitudinal study of the effects of
prenatal complications and of socioeconomic status, educational stimulation and emotional
support upon achievement problems, learning problems, and emotional difficulties of children.
They concluded that the childs learning, achievement, and emotional problems were more
related to indices of family environment than with socioeconomic status.
Hess (1969) cited by Bronfenbrenner (1972) based on an extensive review, has developed
a list of parent behavior that have been found to be related to intellectual development and
academic achievement. The Hess list is as follows:
A- Intellectual relationship
1. Demand for high achievement
2. Maximization of verbal interaction
3. Engagement with and attentiveness to the child
4. Maternal teaching behavior
5. Diffuse intellectual stimulation
B - Affective relationship
1. Warm affective relationship with child
2. Feelings of high regard for child and self
45
C- Interaction patterns
1. Pressure for independence and self-reliance
2. Clarity and severity of disciplinary rules
3. Use of conceptual rather than arbitrary regulatory strategies
(Henderson, 1988; Lehr & Harris, 1988) have suggested that parents can profoundly
affect the development of appropriate academic motivation, skills and achievements. Crouter,
MacDermid, McHale, and Perry-Jenkins (1990) found that less well-monitored boys received
lower grades at school than children whose parents monitored them more closely. It is not just
that children with disengaged parents are more socially incompetent, irresponsible, immature and
alienated from their families: they also have poorer relationships with peers and perform more
poorly at school.
Baumrind (1991) found that parental involvement plays an important role in the
development of both social and cognitive competence in children, whereas a lack of parental
monitoring is strongly associated with the risk of delinquent behavior. Payne, Mary, Taylor and
Dukes (1993) concluded from their research that greater at riskness in students is related to
depressed home environment, less adequate socialization and lowered cognitive performance.
Steinberg (1996) found in a study as coated by Patten (2000) that typical forms of
parental involvements such as checking homework, monitoring academic involvement from
home, encouraging better performance, did not by them raise the studentss level of performance.
It is clear from Steinbergs work that passing much time with children is not the matter of
concern. He found that school achievement is more dependants on the ways students structure
their lives and on the priorities they and their parents hold.
Musun-Miller & Blevins-Knabe (1998) suggest that for parents to communicate their
evaluation of academic activities is through their own involvement. Simply by engaging in
46
activities such as reading, going to museum, or learning a language, parents may, convey their
appreciation of education. Parents who are interested in spending time on these leisure pursuits
are also likely to try to get their sons and daughters involved. Joint family activities are not only
indicative of interest in education but, at the same time offer experiences to children as well as
opportunities to try out their own abilities.
Desimore (1999) examined the relationship between parental involvement and student
achievement by using the data from National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. Parent
involvement variables included parenting practices at homes; school-home communication;
volunteering, or being audience at school; involvement in home learning activities; decision
making, governance, and advocacy roles; and community collaboration. The achievement
variable was eight grade mathematics and reading scores. The results of the study show that there
was statistically significant and substantively meaningful difference in the relationship between
student achievement and parents involvement according to the students race and family income.
(Connel & Prinz, 2002; Pianta & Egeland, 1994; Pianta, Erickson, Wagner, Krentzer, &
Egeland, 1990; Pianta, Erickson, Wagner, Krentzer & Bennet, 1997) came to the conclusion that
parents who scaffold learning experiences and provide assistance to their children when needed
early in childrens lives may prepare their children for school entry and provide a basis for them
to benefit from educational activities. (Bradley et al., 2000; Chen, Lee & Stevenson, 1996; De
Garmo, Forgatch & Martinez, 1999; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Heiss, 1996) conclude that
parents own behavior as well as joint family activities have been shown to influence childrens
academic motivation and behavior. (Bradley et al., 2000; Gutman & Eccles, 1999) find that
authoritative parenting, in particular, has positive effects on how students approach the demands
they face in school.
47
Okpala, Smith and Frederick (2001) studied the influence of parental involvement,
socioeconomic status of parents and instructional expenditures on mathematics achievement
scores of Grade 4 students and found that significant difference existed between the achievement
score of student on the basis of parental involvement, parental socioeconomic status and
instructional expenditures
Wild, Hofer & Pekrun, (2001) state that authoritative parenting can be interpreted as
behavior that provides conditions conducive to self-regulated learning. Parenting style may not
directly affect students beliefs and attitudes but may rather be indicative of a generally
stimulating climate in the family.
Flouri and Buchanan (2003) concluded from the results of their study that although both
father and mother involvement contributed significantly and independently to offsprings
happiness, father involvement had a stronger effect. Furthermore, the association between father
involvement and happiness was not stronger for sons than for daughters. There was no evidence
suggesting that family disruption weakens the association between father involvement and
happiness, or that father involvement is more strongly related to offspring happiness when mother
involvement is low rather than high
Parents Education and Personality
Jehangir,.Tahir & Saeed (2000) investigated the contribution of parents educational level
upon the personality makeup of 695 male subjects, between 18-35 years, with intermediate to
masters and professional qualification in various fields. They found that subjects with highly
educated parents i.e., B.A / B.Sc. and above would be relatively more confident, self reliant, free
from anxieties and other psychological problems in comparison to subjects with less educated and
uneducated parents.
48
Khan, Anila and Pervez (1991) found from their research that if the parents are more
educated, the more elevated is the socioeconomic status and more satisfaction stems from it,
along with concomitant privileges, facilities and behavioral stances
(Drucker and Remners, 1952; Sims, 1954; and Sudhir and Lalhirimi, 1989) state that
parental education and that occupational status is an index of class status and personality
characteristics in the shape of satisfactions and problems associated with, and children of less
educated parents or totally uneducated have low emotional stability and more anxious and prove
to be a problem .(Fleming and Gottfried, 1998; Ninio 1998) came to the conclusion that parental
influences on the child assume two different forms; parental actions with the child are the most
obvious. Parents who regularly talk and read to their children usually produce children with the
largest vocabularies, the highest intelligence scores, and the best academic grades.
Parents Education and Achievement
Sudhir and Lalhirimi (1989) examined relationship between sex, SES, parental
educational status and parental occupation on parent child interaction, and academic achievement
in 88 boys and 112 girls from 5 secondary schools in Mizoram state of India. They found that
parents of high professional group had high parent child interaction.
(Battin-Pearson et al; 2000; Blok & Saris, 2000; Erickson & Jonson 1996; Ferguson &
Woodward, 2000; Henz & Maas, 1995) conclude that the educational attainment seems to have a
heritable quality. There is considerable evidence pointing to the level of parental education as a
strong predictor of childrens success in the educational system. Parents education can influence
childrens education via different routes: (a) through the transmission of cognitive competencies,
(b) through increased opportunities, and (c) through the transmission of parental beliefs and
attitudes concerning the value and utility of education. The effects of these beliefs and attitudes
are mostly attributed to the role they play in a motivational process. A case in point is the belief
49
that a good mastery of mathematics facilitates the entry into better jobs, makes a decent income
more likely, or is admired by others. Valued consequences of mathematics achievement would
and then motivate students to strive harder.
Ahmed (1991) found that out of 56 subjects who had qualified the competitive
examination for public sector jobs at the Provincial Public Commission, of the North West
Frontier Province of Pakistan, 30 of the subjects had parents with Bachelor and above educational
qualifications.
(Keith et al., 1996, 1998; Shumow & Miller, 2001; Stevenson & Baker, 1987) describe
that parents educational level has been found to significantly predict parental involvement in
their childrens schooling. (Gill & Reynolds, 1999; Singh et al., 1995) found that those parents
who had attained higher levels of education have higher expectations for their childrens
education than parents who have lower levels of education.
Englund, Uckner, Whaley and Egeland (2004) found by a research study that mothers
with higher (vs. lower ) educational attainment provided more support for their children in
problem-solving situations in preschool , had higher expectations of educational attainment for
their children in first grade , and were more involved in their childrens school in first grade.
They also found that mothers who provided appropriate structure for their children and
coordinated their own behavior to their childrens activities in problem-solving tasks in early
childhood had children with higher levels of IQ as compared with mothers who either were
uninvolved with their children or did not provide appropriate structure for their children in these
laboratory tasks. Higher IQ in turn led to higher academic achievement in first grade. Higher
academic achievement in first grade then led to higher parental expectations, greater parental
involvement, and higher achievement in third grade. High academic achievement early in school
may contribute to a process that supports high academic achievement at later ages.
50
Socioeconomic status and personality

Daries and Dollar (1940) think that children from the lower class become used to
physical aggression and are permitted to express violent anger. Upper and middle-class children,
by contrast, are expected to inhibit these emotions.
(Davis 1944; Ericson 1946; Davis and Havighurst, 1946; and Maas, 1951) observed that
lower class parents are more permissive and give their children great physical and social freedom
than children from the middle class enjoy. They punish more severely when the child misbehaves,
and they rarely praise. Middle class children are expected to assume responsibility early, to
comfier to group patterns and are more closely supervised than those of lower class. Lower class
children go to the movies, alone earlier, while those from the middle class are expected to think
seriously about preparing themselves for the future.
Kohn (1977) explains that people of lower social standing usually have limited education
and perform routine jobs under close supervision. Expecting that their children will hold similar
positions, they encourage obedience and may even use physical punishment such as spanking to
get it .Well-off parents, with more schooling usually have jobs that demand imagination and
provide more personal freedom, and they try to inspire the same qualities in their children.
Consciously or not, all parents act in ways that encourage their children to follow in their
footsteps.
(Elder,Conger, Foster & Ardelt,1992; Flanagan, 1990 ) found that as familys economic
situation worsens, parents exhibit less nurturance and more negative discipline toward the
children.
(Conger et, al., 1994; Mcloyd & Wilson, 1991) came to the conclusion that poor parents
are more likely to issue commands without explanation, less likely to consult children about their
wishes, and less likely to reward children for behaving in a desirable way.
51
Khan & Anila (1997) explored from their research that the parents of the middle SES are
more verbally, physically, and emotionally responsive to their children. They impose a minimum
of social restriction on their children. They have more involvement and provide better physical
and temporal environment as well as more play material; toys etc. and they also provide variety in
daily stimulation for their children. On the other hand, the parents from lower SES do not give
much importance to these issues in their childrens development.
Lareau (2002) explains that more well-off parents typically provide their children with
an extensive program of leisure activities, including sports, travel and music lesson. These
enrichment activities far less available to children growing up in low-income families-represent
important cultural capital that advances learning and creates a sense of confidence that will
succeed later in life.
(Baltzell, 1979, Lareau, 2002; NORC, 2003) concluded from their research that affluent
people with greater education and financial security are also more tolerant of controversial
behavior. Working class people, who grow up in an atmosphere of greater supervision and
discipline and are less likely to attend college, tend to be less tolerant.
Socioeconomic status and Achievement
Werner, Bierman, and French (1971) show that intellectual situation varies with the
socioeconomic status of the family. They correlated the IQs of almost five hundred students (97
percent nonwhite or non Anglo) from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds in rural Hawaii
with the intellectual simulation potential of their homes. Intelligence tests were given twice at 20
months and at age 10. Results showed that correlations between childrens IQ and family
background were all positive. The relationship was quite similar for parental education, and socio
economic status, but what is particularly interesting is that educational stimulation produced the
highest correlation and evidently was the most significant variable. The variable of educational
52
stimulation consisted of a composite rating of the opportunities available in the home for
enlarging childrens vocabulary; the quality of the language models available for children; the
intellectual activities and interests of the family; the kind of work habits emphasized in the home;
the availability of learning supplies, books and periodicals; and the opportunities for children to
participate in and explore various aspects of the larger environment through libraries, special
lessons, recreational activities, and the like. The intelligence tests given at 20 months also showed
positive relationship with parental education, IQ and SES.
All these variables were interrelated, of course. Parents with more years of education are
likely to have higher status jobs and to be more affluent. They are also more likely to create an
environment that is intellectually stimulating for a child. This Hidden Curriculum at home
depends partly on economic factors, because it costs money to buy books, subscribe to
magazines, pay for music lessons, and participate in a wide range of recreational activities. But
educational stimulation is not entirely dependent on economic support, for it also includes such
variables as the work habits of the family, the complexity of the language the children are
exposed to, and the like. In other words, the parents attitude and values are also significant
factors. In any event, these variables tend to be correlated with socioeconomic status; the higher
the status, the greater the amount of educational stimulation to which the child is exposed; the
lower the status, the less the stimulation.
Singh (1965) revealed from his study that the relationship between achievement and
family income, though positive, was not statistically significant. Byrne and Byrne (1990) came to
the conclusion that students from private schools are more likely than their counterparts to
complete more schooling and to attend university, suggesting that type of school and parental
socioeconomic background are implicated in childrens academic performance.
53
Velez, Schiefelbein, and Valenzuella (1993) reviewed a large number of studies on the
relationship between family background factors and students achievement in Latin American
Countries to examine the influence of family background factors on student achievement. They
focused on parents socioeconomic status, students gender, students age, family type, family
income, family size, mean income of neighborhood, number of books in a household, television
and radio in home, hours of television watching, urban experience, study conditions at home,
parents age, number of rooms in a house, percentage of landlord parents, native language, and
intelligence ability. They found that socioeconomic status measured by parents education or
occupational status is positively associated with achievement in 49 out of 89 analyses covered. In
29 analyses, socioeconomic status has no relationship with students achievement. The remaining
two studies showed a negative relationship between socioeconomic status and student
achievement. The authors also examined the relationship of achievement with socioeconomic
status as measured by family income and family size. In two studies, family income had a
positive relationship with student achievement. In 25 studies, however, family income had no
relationship with student achievement. On the other hand, about 40 studies yielded a negative
relationship between family income and student achievement. In 15 studies, family size had a
positive relationship with student achievement. Nevertheless, in 35 studies, family size had no
relationship with student achievement.
Argyle (1994) found that parents with high socioeconomic status have certain values and
beliefs that increase the likelihood that their children will be academically successful.
Beaton (1996) concluded from the results of Third International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS) that strong positive relationship were present between students
achievements and having various study aids in home, including dictionary, computer and study
54
desk for students own use. The numbers of books and parents education was also a positive
indicator of students performance.
Kruse (1996) conducted a study to determine if students from low socioeconomic
environments have lower academic achievement compared to the academic achievement of
students from higher socioeconomic environments. The results revealed that there was a
statistically significant difference between the academic achievements of low socioeconomic
environments compared to that of high socioeconomic environments.
Saito (1999) conducted a study and explored the effect of socio-cultural factors in the
educational achievement of Vietnamese American High School students by involving 172
Vietnamese 12th grade students. The study found that socioeconomic status in United States was
not associated with achievement. However, socioeconomic status in Vietnam predicted
achievement.
Marks, Cresswell and Ainley (2006) examined fifteen years old students in thirty
countries to know the extent to which material resources and schools involve in the relationship
between SES and students achievement. They found that in most of the countries cultural factors
have an important role to play, but in few countries, material resources also have a strong effect.
In most of the countries educational inequality: school types and school tracks, and curriculum
tracking mediates the relationship between student achievement and their SES. Countries with
highly tracked systems tend to show stronger relationships. On average, over 60% of the effect of
socioeconomic background on achievement is accounted for by these factors. These findings are
independent of whether achievement in reading, mathematics, or science is examined.
55
Gender, Achievement and Personality

Mishra (1962) revealed from his research on engineering students that personality
patterns of the two groups differed in traits like anxiety, judgment and neuroticism. There were
however, no differences in their social adjustment and total emotional attitude.
Saraswat (1964) compared the personality patterns on adolescent boys and girls and
concluded that boys and girls do not differ significantly on stability, dependability, confidence
and inferiority. Similarly no difference was found between the two groups on the need of
abasement, achievement, affiliation, affection, introgression activity, autonomy, seclusion,
acquisition and deference. Suri (1973) found very few differences on all the personality factors,
between males and females. The average boys and average girls differ on two personality factors.
The former were emotionally more stable and conscientious, but the later were more affected by
feelings and expedient.
Shepardson & Pizzini (1994) found no significant difference in the achievement between
boys and girls. Heller & Zielger (1996) concluded from their study that male subjects had highest
results in physics, followed by general science. The male advantage is relatively small in biology
as compared to females.
Greenfield (1996) studied science achievement among students in grade three through twelve in
the four major ethnic groups in Hawaii. Data regarding achievement was obtained from the SAT science
subtest, and the Student Achievement Questionnaire. Significance differences in achievement were found
among ethnic groups and gender with those relating to ethnicity being greater than gender.
Wang and Staver (1997) conducted an empirical study to investigate gender differences in science
achievement, on 12,000 ninth grade students from five provinces of China. Highly significant differences
were found by the researchers. In each of the five provinces, the performance of male students was better
than that of female students.
56
Preece (1999) studied the influence of gender differences in science achievement on a large
sample of nine year students. A National Key stage 3 science test was taken by him in Wales and England.
From the results of data analysis, it was found that performance of boys was better than that of girls. The
researcher found that the largest gap in favor of males was in the subject of physics.
Harker (2000) conducted a study to explore the effect of gender on achievement at secondary
schools in New-Zeeland, in the subjects of mathematics, English and science. The relative achievement of
girls in coeducational and single-sex schools were studied in detail. Results indicated no significant gender
differences in achievement.
(Mirza and Malik ,2000 & Rana, (2000) concluded from their research studies that overall
performance of females was better than that of males in Pakistan.
Bell (2001) investigated the gender differences in science performance of 16 year old students in
UK by examining the written components of the science question papers for General Certificate in
Secondary Education Examination. He explored that gender difference exists in question parts that only the
retrieval of declarative knowledge and not the use of procedural knowledge. These differences were in
favor of boys for physics context, and in favor of females for human biology. Rana (2002) found that
science achievement of female students was better than the science achievement of male students.
Family size, achievement and personality

Bossard (1953) describes that there is a gradual trend toward smaller families. Family
size affects the activities of each member of the family, and the combinations of the different
members within the family group. The role each plays in the family and the effect each has on the
individual members depends not so much on closeness of kinship as upon the needs of each
individual member and the satisfaction each member derives from relationship with other family
members.
Bossard (1952,1953, 1954) describes that studies of the patterns of large and small
families have revealed that they are markedly different, and their effects on children are likewise
different. The small family is characterized by planning in terms of size, child-rearing method,
57
and education of the children. Parenthood is intensive rather than extensive, thus putting
emphasize on each childs individual development. The small family is controlled by democratic
methods, with cooperation between parents and children. Each member has its own individual
roles and activities, and each is encouraged to be an individual. However, in the absence of other
children of the same sex and approximately the same age, parents compare their children with
other children outside the home and this results in greater pressure on each child. The small
family is under stress to achieve, to get ahead, and this like wise puts additional pressure on the
child. Because the number of contacts within the family group is limited, there are likely to be
many tensions and resentments.
Bossard (1952,1953, 1954) explains that the large family has been found to be different
in almost every way in its pattern of living from the small family, and as a result it produces an
entirely different type of home climate and has an entirely different effect on the individual
members. The characteristic features of the large family have been found to be as follows ;( 1) the
large family may be planned or it may not. If not, it is accepted as part of fate. (2) There are more
crises in a large family, because of the large number of individuals in the family. There is a
tendency to take the crises. Especially, the minor ones, in stride and to share them with other
family members to accept them as part of fate. (3) The large family is particularly vulnerable to
major crises, such as illness or death of parents, because so many are dependent upon the head of
the family. (4) In large family, emphasis is placed on the group rather than the individual, and
each is assigned a specific role with specific tasks. (5) Control is authoritarian, and is often in the
hands of older siblings. (6) There is little nagging or overprotection of any member, and little
pressure to live up to the standards set up by parents. (7) Economic necessity makes cooperation
essential, and the family is thus well organized and lives cooperatively. (8) There can be few
advantages, such as education and launching in a life career, for each member.
58
(Loomis et al., 1949; Bossard, 1952, 1953, 1954; Nye, 1952) describe that the relationship
of family size to the adjustments of the children have revealed that while children from large
families may be able to adjust to the changing vicissitudes of a realistic world better than those
from smaller families, they do not make as successful adjustments to people and to life in general
as children brought in smaller families,
Fisher and Hasyes (1941) found that by adolescence, there is generally more
maladjustments among those from large than among those from small families. Damrin (1949)
explains that in social acceptability, as measured by socio metric tests, adolescents from small
families are superior to those from families of five or more children. Fleege (1945) states that the
adolescent from a large family generally has to share more of the burdens and responsibilities of
the home than does the adolescents from the small family and thus feel over worked or deprived
of many of the material possessions or opportunities for recreation that the adolescent from a
small family enjoys.
Bossard & Sanger (1952).state that in spite of the economic and social advantages the child
receives when he is a member of a small family, he must sometimes pay the price for this, chiefly
in the form of problem-creating circumstances. While there are both advantages and
disadvantages to different family sizes, the home climate of the large family is often superior to
that of the small family.
(Stott, 1939, 1945; Carter, 1940; Bonney, 1942; Dyer, 1945; Ashley-Montagn, 1948;
Bossard, 1953, 1954) describe that it is popularly believed that the only child is handicapped by
lack of siblings to associate with and this will lead to poor social adjustments out side the home.
There is little evidence to substantiate this belief. In social situations, the young child, the highschool student, and the older adolescents make as good adjustments as those from families of
several siblings. Only children may, and frequently are, the victims of over protective parents, but
59
at the same time they are spared the sibling rivalry that is often so damaging to the personalities
of the children from larger families. Their home environment is generally more democratic and
more stimulating than that of the large family, and this helps them to achieve higher levels of
maturity for their ages than occurs in children from large families. As a result, they develop
personality patterns that make them popular with their peers, and they often assume positions of
leadership.
(Stuart, 1926; Carter, 1940; Dyer, 1945; Bossard, 1953, 1954) conclude that in emotional
adjustments, the adolescent who is the only child shows superiority over the none only child. He
is happy in his relationships with his contemporaries and well accepted by them. As there is no
sibling rivalry or little friction in the home, his home life is free of the tensions common in homes
where there are several children.
Zajonce and Marcus (1976) in an impressive research effort, have linked family size to
intellectual development. They found that as the size of the family increases, the average IQ of
the children tends to decrease. Gupta (1981) revealed from the results of her study that
achievement of students was independent of family type and size. Similarly it was found that
emotional and home adjustments were not affected by family type.Velez, Schiefelbein and
Valenzuella (1993), from their review of a large number of studies, in 15 studies they found a
positive relationship between family size and students achievement, but in 35 studies, family size
had no relationship with students achievement.
Birth order and personality
One variable that has been the subject of much attention in recent years is ordinal
position in the family: the birth order of a child with respect to his or her siblings. There is some
evidence to indicate that the childs ordinal position in the family structure has an influence on
the childs socialization and personality development. Since sibling relationships and birth order
60
variables are likely to influence the childs socialization, it is helpful for us to be sensitive to the
impact of birth order and sibling relationships on social development and maturity
Adler, (1933) explains that each child is treated differently within a family depending on
its order of birth and this differential treatment influences the childs worldview and thus his
choice of a lifes goal and lifestyle. Adler (1931) concentrated his research on the firstborn,
second-born, youngest, and the only child. The first-born child is the focus of attention until the
next child is born, at which time he or she is throned. According to Adler, the loss caused by
the birth of a sibling is deeply felt by the first-born, because now the attention of the mother and
father must be shared with a rival. The age of the first-born when the second child is born can
make a substantial difference, however. If the first-born is old enough to have already developed
a lifestyle and if that lifestyle is a cooperative one, then the first-born may develop a cooperative
attitude towards the new sibling. If not, the resentment toward the new sibling may last a lifetime.
The second-born child has to be extremely ambitious because he or she is constantly
attempting to catch up and surpass the older sibling. Of all the birth orders, Adler thought the
second born was the most fortunate. According to Adler, the second-born child behaves as if in a
race, as if someone were a step or two in fronts, and he or she must rush to get ahead. The
youngest child is, according to Adler, in the second worst position after the first-born. Adler
stated that the reason for this generally lies in the way in which all the family spoils him. A
spoiled child can never be independent. He loses courage to succeed by his own effort. Youngest
children are always ambitious: but the most ambitious children of all are the lazy children.
Laziness is a sign of ambition joined with discouragement: ambition so high that the individual
sees no hope of realizing it.
The only child is like a first-born child who is never dethroned, at least by a sibling. The
shock for the only child usually comes later (for example, in school) on learning that he or she
61
cannot remain the center of attention. The only child often develops an exaggerated sense of
superiority and a sense that the world is a dangerous place. The latter results if the parents are
overly concerned with the childs health. The only child is likely to lack well-developed social
interest and display a parasitic attitude, expecting others to offer pampering and protection.
Many factors can interact with the effects of birth order bringing about results contrary to those
generally expected. Such factors include the sex of older or younger siblings: the number of years
that separate them; and, most important, the way the child views his or her relations with other
members of the family.
Koch (1955) found that all the characteristics of first-borns are not positive. She secured
teachers impression of kindergarten children and then sorted out their rating according to the
childrens birth order. Results showed that first borns were inclined to show more anger, to be
more intense emotionally, to make more excuses when things went wrong, and to be less
responsive to sympathy and praise from adults. On the other hand they tended to articulate more
clearly in speech than second-borns. First borns with opposite sex siblings rated higher on
leadership, exhibitionism, and jealousy than those with same- sex siblings.
Schachter (1959) found that the firstborn child tends toward group values and is more
likely to be a conformer than the child born later. Hilton (1967) observed the behavior of pairs of
mothers and four year old children drawn from different birth order positions. She found that the
mothers of the first-born children, in contrast to those of laterborn were more likely to start the
child working on puzzles to offer suggestions, and generally to interfere with the childs
activities. Mothers of other children were more inclined to let them start puzzles on their own.
Mothers of first-borns were more likely to make overt jesters of love or emotional support (hugs,
kisses, etc) especially when the child was succeeding on the task assigned by the experiments. As
far as children themselves were concerned, first borns tended to be more dependent (more likely,
62
for example, to turn to their mothers side during the intermission between testing session) than
later born and were more likely to ask their mothers for help.
Mac Donald (1969) thinks that researchers, like parents, have paid far more attention to
the first born than to later- borns, and there have been literally hundreds of studies detailing the
ways in which first born children differ in personality, social behavior, and cognitive
development. Because of the opportunity first born have of playing the role of parents substitute,
supervising the behavior of their siblings, it is not surprising that research shows them as being
more socialized, more responsible, and more favorably disposed to persons in authority than
those who were later born .
Laosa and Brophy (1970) conducted a survey of kindergarten children and found that
some of the birth- order related differences that have been noted in adolescents and adults are also
present at this early age. Measure of creativity showed first-born to be more fluent verbally, and
they also tended to be slightly more popular with other children.
Rothbart (1971) conducted a study, in which mothers supervised their first- or second
born children, aged five, in a series of tasks. She noted that the mothers put more pressure to
achieve on first- borns and communicated more readily to them. For their part, the first- borns
were more compliant than the second-borns. Rothbart concluded that the mother of a first- born is
more likely to be intrusive in the achievement behavior of her child, and speculated that the
greater success that the first-born tends to have in school later on may be the result of his
willingness to accept performance standards that others have set for them.
Garfinkle, Massey & Mendel (1976) think that the second or the middle child may resist
the authority asserted by the older child and develop a rebellious nature. He may become
uncooperative in the presence of authority. Such oversensitivity to authority may retard
adjustment to group life.
63
Garfinkle, Massey and Mendel (1976) explain that because the youngest child never
experiences being replaced by another sibling, he or she may become the spoiled child of the
family. .Rosenblatt and Skoogher (1974) surveyed 39 cultures and found that in all of them first
born received more attention than those born later. First born is the focus for more elaborate birth
ceremonies, have more authority over siblings, and receive respect from siblings.
Belkin and Goodman (1980 ) explain that an advantage of being the youngest child that is
often cited in the literature is that having older siblings increases opportunities for early
socialization. Having an opportunity to model himself or herself after the interactions of older
siblings offers the youngest child to explore avenues of social interaction in the home
environment that were not available to the oldest child.
Birth order and achievement
Gini (1915) found an association between birth order and being a university professor.
From the replies of 445 professors in Italian universities, he found that twice as many were firstborns as would have been expected from chance, and that all other birth orders were below
expectancy or no higher than expectancy .
Clarke (1916) in his dissertation, on the nature and nurture of American men of letters,
reported that eldest and youngest sons appeared in greater than chance numbers. Cattell (1917)
published data based on 855 American scientists, which showed the same relation between birth
order and eminence, the eldest and then the youngest being favored.
Terman (1925) studied one thousand gifted school children-that is, children with 140
or higher IQ, which is the IQ of the top 1 percent of the general population. Majority of these
children belonged to small families. Very few of them belonged to families of five or more
children. He found that among those who belonged to families of two, three or four children, the
eldest was the most numerous, followed by the youngest, and then by the in-between children.
64
Ellis (1926) published A Study of British Genius, based on 975 eminent men and 55
women selected from the 66 volumes of the Dictionary of National Biography. Ellis found some
striking linkages to order of birth: the probability of appearance was much greater for a first-born
than for an intermediate child, and the youngest likewise was favored over the intermediate child,
though not to the same degree. Apperly (1939), in a study of the birth order on Rhodes Scholars,
mainly those from the United States, found the first-born to be overrepresented. Among two-child
family representatives, 144 were first-born, 91 second-born. He also found the youngest child to
take precedence over the in-between one.
Roe (1953) published her researches on 64 eminent scientists, selected for their
distinguished contributions by the elder statesmen in their respective specialties. Roe concludes,
some 46 of the 64-72 percent were actually or effectively the oldest sons in their respective
families. Jones (1954) gives some statistics on birth order of persons listed in Whos Who. Some
of 64 percent of the representatives of two-child families were first-born; if inclusion in Whos
Who were a strictly chance affair, one would expect, of course, a 50-50 distribution on the older
and the younger from two-child families. Of the three-child family representatives 52 percent
were first-born, instead of the 33 percent to be expected.
Altus (1965) found birth-order linkages to aptitude test data among students in the
University of California. Students at this university are a select group, since in general only those
applicants who rank in the top ten to fifteen percent with respect to high school grades are eligible
for admission. In two samples, one consisting of 18 hundred undergraduates and another of 2500,
the first-born scored higher to a small though statistically significant degree than did the laterborn on tests of verbal intelligence, which measure such things as the size of general vocabulary
and the ability to infer correctly the right words to make sense of statements from which key
65
words have been omitted. On the other hand, measures of quantitative ability were not found to
be associated with birth order.
Personality and Achievement
Sinha (1964), in his study of the salient features of personality of the high and low
achievers, found the following main characteristics:
Some salient features of high achievers
Background; most of the high achievers seem to come from urban homes, where generally the
father is educated. In some cases though not very commonly, they also have educated mothers.
Generally, a happy and pleasant childhood is recalled by most of the subjects. A few specific
incidents like accidents, punishment, and rebellious behavior are also recollected but generally
satisfaction in school, good relationships and high academic records are the common features of
this group
Family figures; An attitude of respect and warm admiration frequency characterizes their
perception of their father. In a few cases he is conceptualized as stern and dominating. But more
frequently he is seen as helpful, considerate and understanding. The father generally entertains a
positive attitude towards education and encourages or helps directly in it. Frequently, little or no
compulsion for studying on the part of the parent is asserted by the subject. The mother is most
often perceived as loving, devoted and kind. She is also seen as helpful in a general kind of way.
Moreover, both parents seem to repose considerable confidence and trust in these subjects. They
usually entertain high aspirations and hopes of them, while expressing general satisfaction over
their achievement and activities.
With respect to siblings a conflicting pattern of relationship is frequently asserted. Along
with regard and admiration for the older sibling there is some indication of self-assertiveness. An
urge to rival and excel the achievement of sibling is often noticeable. It is not uncommon that this
66
group asserts that their older siblings are indifferent or critical towards them. An ambivalent
attitude towards the sibling is far more common with younger siblings; they frequently appear to
demand respect and recognition for their qualities and achievement.
Personality features; In general intelligence, most of high achievers grade as superior. In their
thinking, they seem to place greater reliance on themselves rather than imitate or depend on
others. Greater self-reliance is expressed in solving their problems and devising plans and
solutions. They manifest a marked degree of interest in the theoretical and the abstracts.
Interest in abstract ideas and principles are frequently asserted, fantasy activity occupies a
significant place in thinking. Most of the subjects display a satisfactory general adjustment. They
have better home adjustment, emotional adjustment and health adjustment than the low achievers.
However, in their social relationships they are often somewhat withdrawn. They also prefer a few
close friends to having a lot of friends. In addition sensitivity to others seems to be fairly common
with this group. In their general adjustment, they manifest a diffused urge for the satisfaction of
the primary needs of acceptance and belongingness.
With respect to their anxiety, the high achievers in general tend to display a normal range
of manifest anxiety. The major area of worry is related to studies. Such an anxiety and tension
related to the present task of keeping up a high achievement level in the examination is the
concern of most of the subjects. However, this anxiety seems to act as an instigator to better
performance rather than an overwhelming influence disrupting effective functioning. The high
achievers are generally highly motivated.
Some salient features of low achievers
Back ground; Quite frequently the low achievers come from rural homes where the father often
has little education. Mothers education is not so common either. A happy and uneventful
childhood is recollected by them. Many of them assert an affectionate and loving atmosphere at
67
home during childhood. During early schooling mischievous behavior, and quarrels with
classmates are frequently reported. Pressure either by teachers or from parents is mentioned for
early schooling.
Family figures; A distant and ambivalent pattern of relationship with the father is more
frequently observed. The father is conceptualized by many as over bearing, dominating and
fearful. Closeness with the father is not commonly experienced. The mother is seen as very
loving, protective and nurturing. During childhood she appears to bear considerable closeness.
Protective behavior is also assigned to her if the father becomes too angry. The parents hold a
positive attitude towards education. Often they stated that their parents were on the whole
satisfied with their performance. In some cases, pressure by father for obtaining education is
mentioned. With siblings, a very cooperative and harmonious adjustment is asserted. Minimal
conflicts and quarrels, along with a helpful and affectionate attitude towards each other seem to
be the general inter-sibling relationship pattern.
Personality features; In general on intelligence most of the subjects grade as average. With
respect to their thinking, they do not seem to depart from the usual, exhibiting unlike the high
achievers, a lack of conscious striving for originality or novelty in expression and presentation of
ideas. In their thinking, they mostly tend to imitate or depend upon others, embracing ideas,
principles and ideals which are widely prevalent.
Mishra (1962) made a comparative study of non-academic background and personality
structure of high and low achievers in engineering education. Two groups of high and low
achievers were formed from amongst different engineering courses. The study revealed that
personality patterns of the two groups differed in traits like anxiety, judgment and neuroticism.
There were however, no differences in their intelligence, attitudes towards teachers, social
adjustment and total emotionality.
68
Eysenck (1967) found evidence to show that introverts are much more successful at
rather tedious relatively boring and lengthy tasks. Extroverts on the other hand , seemed to
perform better at shorter and more interesting activities.
Abraham (1969) conducted a study to determine the influence of basic personality
factors on academic achievement. The major findings were: (i) scholastic aptitude had the
maximum influence on academic achievement (ii) the influence of the temperamental dimensions
of neuroticism and introversion-extroversion on academic achievement showed sex differences;
(iii) it was found that the factor analysis of the personality variables and academic achievement
evolved a factor pattern in which three factors could be identified, viz., scholastic aptitude,
neuroticism and extraversion- introversion; (iv)the personality factors evolved from the analysis
of scores obtained from(a) a sample of boys and girls, (b) a sample of boys, and (c) a sample of
girls, were similar; (v) the personality factors evolved in the analysis had significant loadings on
the personality variables and so the influence of personality on academic achievement could be
described in terms of the personality factors; (vi) boys were found to be superior to girls in their
achievement and the same trend was noted in the loadings of the dominant personality factors.
Adaval, Kakkar, Aggrawal and Gupta (1961) conducted a research in an effort to probe
into the possible causes of failures in high school examination and suggested ways and means of
eradicating them. It revealed that: (i) the majority of students were below average in intelligence.
(ii) The majority of students were introvert. They had withdrawn themselves due to unhappy and
traumatic experiences in the environment. Their ego organization was not satisfactory. The
block of emotional depth was a major handicap in their general adjustment.
Jha (1970) examined the nature of relationship between intelligence, science aptitude,
adjustment, anxiety, extroversion, study habits and socio-economic status on the one hand and
achievement in science on the other hand. He found that (i) there was a significant positive
69
relationship between achievement in science and (a) general intelligence, (b) scientific aptitude
and (c) adjustment; (ii) there was a significant negative relationship between achievement in
science and anxiety in the case of boys and combined samples, but not so in the case of girls; (iii)
there was no relationship between achievement in science and extraversion; (iv) there was a
significant positive relationship between achievement in science and study habits in the case of
boys and combined samples, but not so in the case of science and socioeconomic status.
Pandit (1970), in his study Anxiety in Learning and Academic Achievement of
Children concluded that not only high anxiety is accompanied by a low level of learning and
achievement but also that there are certain anxiety situations in which low performers prove
anxious as is seen through their responses to different anxiety scales; but as against this, the high
performers did not report themselves to be anxious in these anxiety creating situations as a group.
Further, when the nature of anxiety in high performers is studied, they were also, as a group,
found to report themselves as anxious in certain situations in which the low performers did not
report themselves as anxious. When the content of these items were studied, it was found by
Pandit that the nature of anxiety in high performers pushed them into action and thus resulted in
better achievement, whereas the nature of anxiety in low performers was basically of avoidance
nature. The high performers reported themselves as more anxious to do better than others, to do
right things, to know how they were doing at school.
Kline and Gale (1971) found little evidence of the link between personality-academic
performances. Of the eight studies that they reviewed, seven showed a significant albeit lowcorrelation with academic performance. In their longitudinal research, they found very few
significant relationships between extroversion and academic performance.
Sharma (1972) conducted a study, aimed at identifying the over achievers and under
achievers and compared them with some personality factors. The results showed that (i) there
70
were significant differences among the over-achievers, average achievers, and under achievers
with regard to their adjustment in the school, home, social and religious and miscellaneous areas;
(ii) the over achievers had better adjustment than the under achievers in all areas of adjustment;
(iii)those who had more effective adjustment in the school, home, social and religious and
miscellaneous areas were over-achievers and those having less effective adjustment in these areas
were under-achievers.
Entwistle (1972) found extroversion to be an important factor in explaining the academic
attainment of primary-school children, while introversion seemed to be much more important
among college and university students.
Goh and Moore (1978) came to the result that introversion was the strongest predictor of
grade-point average in university students. Introversion was also the strongest predictor for
students studying hard sciences, but not for social sciences students.
Srivastava and Saxena (1979) conducted a study to find out the personality characteristics
of Indian students who rated themselves as academically successful and unsuccessful. The study
depicted that the students who rated themselves as academically unsuccessful on two second
personality factors, namely, adjustment versus anxiety and introversion versus extroversion. The
academically successful and unsuccessful students did not differ on two other second order
factors-tendermind emotionalilty vs. alert noise and subduedness versus independence.
Academically successful students were significantly lower on anxiety factor than successful
students. Academically successful students were more extravert than academically unsuccessful
students.
Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) found that introverts are more successful than extroverts at
vigilance tasks.
71
Child (1989) noted that introverts are better equipped to consolidate new material and
hence improve their chances of academic success.
Scott and Scott (1989) conducted an impressive study of childrens adjustment to high
school. Among 1825 respondents from seven different countries, namely Australia, Canada,
USA, Japan, Hong Kong, Germany and Taiwan one of the measures of school adjustment was
academic performance as appraised by teachers and students judgments. The researchers found
that students views of parental nurturance and punitiveness were linked to academic performance
through personality. Self-esteem mediated the effects of parental nurturance on good academic
performance, whilst high levels of hostility mediated the effects of parental punitiveness on low
academic performance.
Heaven (1990) examined the personality correlates of achievement motivation among
two samples of Australian teenagers attending high school. Extroversion was found to be the
most consistent correlate of achievement motivation for both sexes in both samples, followed by
psychoticism and neuroticism.
Furnham and Mitchell (1991) conducted a longitudinal study to examine the ability of
personality factors to predict academic performance at the end of the first, second, third and
fourth years of professional study. They came to the conclusion that personality factors play a
modest role in predicting academic performance, and that other non- personality factors were
probably more important in explaining academic performance.
Rothstein et al. (1994) came to conclusion that classroom performance was best predicted
by extroversion as well as by agreeableness and openness to experience, although these factors
did not predict performance with regard to written work. This measure of performance was best
predicted by verbal and quantitative aptitudes.
72
Furnham and Medhurst (1995) came to conclusion that extroverts were more likely to
participate in seminar activities, but were less successful at other tasks, such as essay-writing.
De Fruyt and Merielde (1996) found that conscientiousness is significantly negatively
correlated with the total number of re-examinations. They also came to the result that students
who score high on openness to experience are more likely than not to attain their degree after the
first examination period. It means a positive association between openness to experience and
learning and performance exists.
Summary
Abnormally frictional home situations lead to maladjustments inside and outside the home (Fleeg
, 1945; Beare, 1949; Horrocks , 1951; Bose, 1960; Murlidharan, 1971; Stafford & Bayer , 1993;
Patterson , Reid & Dishion, 1998; Reti , Samuels , Eton , Costa and Nestudt , 2000 ). Family
process was found to be more highly related to intelligence and achievement (Werner , Bierman
& French , 1971; Crouter, MacDermid, M. Hale and Perry-Jenkins, 1990; Henderson, 1988;
Lehrand & Harris, 1988; Steinberg, 1996; Desimore, 1999; Wild, Hofer & Pekrun, 2001).
Students with highly educated parents were found to be more confident, free from anxieties and
other psychological problems in comparison to subjects with less educated parents ( Sims, 1954;
Sudhir & Lalhirimi, 1989, Fleming & Gottfried, 1998; Farhana, Samra, Tahir & Saeed, 2002).
Parents education was found to influence childrens education ( Battin-Pearson et al; 2000; Block
& Saris, 2001; Ferguson & Woodward, 2000; Ahmed, 1991; Englund, Uckner, Whaley and
Egeland, 2004;). Middle class parents are more responsive to their children, and they provide
better environment to their children than parents from lower class ( Davis & Havighurst, 1946;
Maas, 1951; Kohn, 1977; Elder, Conger, Foster & Ardelt, 1992; Flanagan, 1999; Khan & Anila,
1997; Lureau, 2002). Socioeconomic status is positively associated with students achievement.
Strong positive relationships were found between students achievement and having various study
73
aids in home ( Werner, Bierman and French, 1971; Beaton, 1996; Kruse, 1996; Marks, Cresswell,
Ainley, 2006). As far as gender is concerned, male students showed better results in physics and
general science while females were better in biology ( Heller & Zielger, 1996; Preece, 1999; Bell,
2001). In Pakistan over all performance of girls was better than boys ( Mirza and Malik, 2000;
Rana 2002). In social acceptability, adolescents from small families were superior to those from
large families (Darmin, 1949; Loomis et al, 1949; Bossard, 1952, 1953, 1954; Nye, 1952). A
positive relationship was found between family size and students achievement( Zajonce &
Marcus, 1976) , but some studies found that achievement of students was independent of family
size (Gupta, 1981; Veloz, Schiefelbein & Valenzuella, 1993). The birth order variable was likely
to influence the childs personality ( Adler, 1946; Hilton, 1967; Schachter, 1959; Mac Donald,
1969; Laosa & Brophy, 1970) and first borns were found to stand high in their achievement,
followed by the youngest one(Gini, 1915, Terman, 1925, Jones, 1954).
.
74
CHAPTER 3
PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter gives a description of population of the study, sample of the study,
instruments used in the study, data collection method and the procedure used for the analysis of
data.
Population of the study:

The population of the study comprised 8533 intermediate science male and female
students of grade 12, who appeared in the intermediate examination (Part I) 2006 at the Board of
Intermediate and Secondary Education Rawalpindi.
Sample of the study

The aim of the study was to examine the effect of home environment on the achievements and
personality of the students. Home environment, the independent variable of the study comprises
of socio economic status along with family relations, family size, birth order and family type.
Cluster sampling technique was used for the selection of the sample of the study. It was decided
to select one male and one female college from each tehsil of Rawalpindi, Jhelum, Attock and
Chakwal districts. Finally 11 male and 10 female colleges were selected because no science
student was enrolled in Government College for Women Murree, in the session 2005-2007. The
number of science students in the selected colleges ranged from 10 to several hundreds. It was
decided to select all the available students of the college, if the total number of science students in
a college was not more than 70. If the total number of students was more than 70, students of only
one section of the college were selected. As a result data was collected from 724 students, among
them 410 were female and 314 were male students. Name of male and female colleges and their
relevant respondents number is given in tables No. 1-2 respectively.
75
Table # 1: Name of Male Colleges and Number of Respondents

Name of Colleges
1. Govt. College Asghar Mall Rawalpindi
Number of Respondents
70
2. Sarwar Shaheed Nishan-i- Haider Govt. College
23
Gujar Khan Rawalpindi

3. Govt. Degree College Kahuta (Rawalpindi).
14
4. Govt. Degree College Murree (Rawalpindi)
10.
5. Govt. College Attock
34
6. Govt. College Pindi Gheb (Attock)
11
7. Govt. College Fateh Jang (Attock)
18
8. Govt. Degree College G. T. Road, Jhelum
28
9. Govt. Al-Baruni Degree College Pind Dadan Khan, (Jhelum)
14
10. Govt. College Chakwal
68
11. Govt. College Talagang (Chakwal)
24
Total
314
Table # 2: Name of Female Colleges and Number of Respondents

Name of Colleges
1. Govt. College for Women Sattelite Town Rawalpindi
127
2. Govt. College for Women Gujar Khan ( Rawalpindi )
18
3. Govt. College for Women Kahuta ( Rawalpindi )
15
4. Govt. College for Women Attock
56
5. Govt. College for Women Pindi Gheb (Attock )
14
6. Govt. Girls Inter College, Fateh Jang ( Attock)
09
7. Govt. College for Women Jhelum
53
8. Govt. College for Women Pind Dadan Khan (Jhelum)
11
9. Govt. College for Women Chakwal
86
10. Govt. Girls Inter College Tala Gang ( Chakwal)
21
Total
410
76
Research Instruments:
The main aim of the study was to examine the effect of home environment on the
personality and academic achievements of the students. To collect information about home
environment (independent variable), personality and academic achievements of students
(dependent variables), following instruments were used;
Personality Instrument
In order to determine the personality of students a five factor personality inventory
developed by Dr. Tom Buchanan (2001) was used. The test materials and underline philosophy of
this inventory is derived from the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg 1999a). This
inventory is intended to access the five main domains of the Five Factor Model. The current
dominant model in theory and research on personality proposes that personality is best described
in terms of a hierarchal model with five main domains (Goldberg 1990; Costa & Mc Crae 1992;
Digman, 1990), openness, emotional stability, conscientiousness, agreeableness and extroversion.
It is based on an IPIP inventory developed by Goldberg (1999b). This five factor personality
inventory is attached at appendix no II.
The number of statements in each factor are presented in table 3.
Table # 3- Number of statements in each subscale of IPIP Personality Inventory

Name of Subscale
No of statements
Statement serial No.
Openness
1,4,15, 17, 23, 25, 35
Extroversion
5, 6, 13, 16, 18, 27, 32, 40, 41
Conscientiousness
10
7, 8, 14, 20, 21, 26, 29, 31, 34, 39
Emotional Stability
2, 3, 9, 12, 22, 28, 33, 36
Agreeableness
10, 11, 19, 24, 30, 37, 38
77
To solicit the responses of the students five point Likert type scale was used, having the
responses: very accurate, moderately accurate, neither accurate nor inaccurate, moderately
inaccurate, very inaccurate.
Index of Family Relations
To measure the intra-familial environment as perceived by students, the Index of Family
Relations (IFR) was used. This index was originally developed by Hudsen (1982). It comprises of
24 items. It uses five point Likert type scale to solicit students responses, the responses are: all of
the time, good part of the time, some of the time, a little of the time, none of the time.. The high
score on the respected measure indicated pleasant intra-familial environment, where the low score
indicated poor family relationships. This index of family relation is attached at appendix No. I.
Translation of instruments
Both the above mentioned instruments were translated into Urdu by the researcher. The
Urdu translation was validated by a committee of three experts, who gave the certificate for the
authenticity and validation of the Urdu versions of the instruments. Authenticated translated copy
of these two instruments is attached at appendix no. IV and V. A certificate for the authenticity
and validation of these instruments issued by a committee of experts is attached at appendix no.
VIII. .
Pilot Testing
Both the instruments were pilot tested. The reliability coefficient of both the instruments
was determined by applying Cronbach Alpha Reliability Method and it was found
Index of Family Relations and 0.792 for total personality inventory.
78
= 0.82 for
Demographic Variable Information Performa (DVIP)

A demographic Variable Information Performa (DVIP) was developed by the researcher
to collect information relating to the demographic variables of the study. The Performa consisted
of the following variables;
1. Parental education
2. Family income
3. Father's occupation
4. Institution's name
5. Parents' own house or not
6. Servant available at home
7. Transport facility available for students to attend their institution
8. Facilities available at home i.e, Television, Telephone, Computer, Internet, Air conditioner,.
9. Size of the family
10. Birth order (Sibling position) of the student.
11. Type of family i.e, Joint or nuclear
Achievement Score
The achievement score of students at intermediate level for annual examination 2006
(Part I) of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE) Rawalpindi was collected
from the result gazette of the BISE Rawalpindi 2006 (part 1). The result of those students who
failed in one or more subjects was collected from the office of BISE Rawalpindi, personally by
the researcher. Out of 724 subjects, 512 passed the examination and 212 failed in one or more
subjects. Total marks in part I were 550 and 182 was passing score.
79
Collection of Data
For data collection research instruments were administered to subjects with the
permission of the principal of each college. The data from the colleges of Rawalpindi Gujerkhan
and Chakwal and Jehlum was collected by the researcher personally. The data from other colleges
was collected by sending research instruments to the teachers of those colleges. The instructions
for the administration of the research instruments were sent to those teachers along with the
research instruments.
Scoring Procedure
Following methods were applied to score the collected data.
Personality; for personality determination every students total score was calculated by summing
up scores on 41 items of personality inventory. Each item is scored according to the following
categories, I very inaccurate, 2 moderately inaccurate, 3 neither accurate nor inaccurate,
4 moderately accurate, 5 very accurate. The scoring was reversed for the negative items. The
scores on five factors of personality were calculated by summing up the scores of items relevant
to each category.
Family relations; for determining the family relations as perceived by students, total individual
scores were calculated by adding up 24 items of the index of family relations. Each item is scored
according to the following categories, I none of the time, 2 a little of the time, 3 some of
the time, 4 a good part of the time, 5 all of the time. The scoring was reversed for the
negative items. On the basis of total score students were classified into three categories i.,e Poor,
Moderate and good. The values are given in table 4. The classification was based on experts
opinion. A certificate issued by experts for the authentification of classification of family
relations is attached at appendix X.
80
Table # 4 Classification of subjects on the basis of family relations

Score
Classification
Up to72
poor
From 73 96
moderate
More than 96
Good
Socioeconomic Status:
Socioeconomic Status is the term used by Social Scientists and Sociologists to describe
the position of individual or a group in a hierarchical social structure. This status is measured
through socio economic indicators such as Parental education, Family income and occupation,
Housing Facility and Material possessions (Adler et al, 1994). In the present study, researcher
used the following indicators for the calculation of parent's socioeconomic status on the basis of
experts opinion: Parental education, Family income, and ownership of a house, Availability of
home servant and other facilities available at home i.e, Telephone, Television, Internet, Computer
and Air conditioner. Numerical values were assigned to each variable and total score on SES was
calculated for each subject of the study. Scoring procedure for different indicators of
socioeconomic status is given below.
Parental Education
To score parental education, an eight point scale was used. Similar procedure was used
by Arif (1982) and Rana (2002). The values are mentioned in table 5.
81
Table # 5 Scoring procedure for parental education

Parental education level
Score
Uneducated
Primary
Middle
Matric
Intermediate
Graduate
Post Graduate
MBBS/B.Sc Engineering
PhD
Family Income:
Table 6, shows the scale used for monthly family income
Table # 6 Scoring procedure for family income

Monthly Income
Score
Up to 5000
<5000 to 10,000
<10000 to 15,000
<15000 to 20,000
<20000 to 25,000
Above 25,000
82
Value '1' was assigned to all other indicators of the socio economic status i.e, availability
of home servant, ownership of a house, and other facilities at home including computer,
telephone, television, internet and air-conditioner.
On the basis of parental socio economic status all subjects of the study were classified into three
categories. The classification was based on percentile scores. The values are presented in table 7.
Table # 7 Classification of subjects on the basis of socio economic scores

Score
Classification
Up to 25th percentile
Low
Less than 9
26th to 75thpercentile
Average
10
to 15
Above 75thpercentile
High
More than 15
For collecting demographic information about the subjects of the study, a demographic
section was attached with the instruments which included questions about family size, position of
the subject in his/her siblings (birth order), and type of their family. The effect of family size,
birth order, and family type on students academic achievement and personality was also studied.
After studying the results of various research studies (Bossard, 1954; Loomis et al., 1949, Nye,
1952; Fisher &Hasyes, 1941; Darmin, 1949; Fleeg, 1945; Zajonce and Marcus, 1976;
Schiefelbein and Valenzuella, 1993;Adler, 1933; Mac Donald, 1969; Luosa & Brophy, 1970;
Rothbart, 1971; Rosenblat & Skoogher, 1974; Roe, 1953; Jones, 1954; Altus, 1965 Terman,
1925), and consulting relative experts, numerical values were assigned to subjects of the study
83
according to their family size, birth order and family type. The values assigned and classification
of subjects regarding the size of their family, birth order and family type is given below.
Family size
All subjects of the study were classified into three groups on the basis of family size. The
classification is presented in table 10.
Table # 8 Classification of subjects on the basis of family size

Family size
Total No. of brothers and sisters
small
1 to 3
average
4 to 6
Large
7 and more
Value 1 was assigned to large, 2 to average and 3 to small family
Birth order
All subjects of the study were classified into three groups on the basis of their birth order, i.e.,
First born, Second born and Last born. Those subjects who were neither first born nor second
born were placed in the category of second born. Value assigned to first, last, and second born
was 3, 2 and 1 respectively.
Family type
On the basis of family type students were divided in two groups, i.e, nuclear and joint. Value
assigned to joint and nuclear family was 1 and 2 respectively.
Home environment
As mentioned in the theoretical framework of the study, students home environment comprised
of family relations, socio economic status of students parents, size of the family, birth order of
the student and type of the family.. Thus students home environment was determined by
summing up the score of the subjects from the index of family relations and other demographic
84
variables which affect students personality and their academic achievements. Experts opinion
was taken to determine the percentage weight of every variable. A certificate issued by experts
for the authentification of relative weight % of components of home environment is attached at
appendix IX. The percentage weight given to each variable is mentioned in table 8.
Table # 9 Relative weight % of every variable to determine home environment

Variable
Weight %
Family relations
50
Socioeconomic status
20
Size of the family
10
Birth order
10
Type of the family
10
On the basis of total home environment score, all subjects of the study were classified
into three groups. The classification was based on percentile scores. The values are presented in
table 9.
Table # 10 Classification of subjects on the basis of home environment

Score
Group
Up to 33rd percentile
Lower
1 to 70
Between 34th &75th percentile 71 to Middle
76.46
Above 75thpercentile
Higher
More than 76.46
85
Analysis of Data
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and t-test were used to test the hypothesis of the study. The
alpha (p) level of 0.05 was used in all tests of hypothesis. Null hypothesis No 1 to 21 and 29 to 63
were tested by applying Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Null hypothesis No. 21 to 28 and 64 to
70 were tested by applying t-test.
86
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
This chapter deals with the description and analysis of data. This chapter is divided into
two parts. Descriptive information about subjects of the study on different variables is presented
in part-1 , while part -2 deals with the results of hypothesis testing
PART-1
Descriptive Information
Table # 11 Distribution of subjects by home environment
Home environment group
Percentage
Higher
242
33.425
Middle
247
34.116
Lower
235
32.459
Total
724
100
Data from table 11, shows that the highest percentage of subjects (34.116) were from
middle home environment group followed by subjects from higher home environment group
33.425 %,while the lowest percentage of subjects was from lower home environment
group(32.459).
87
Table #12 Distribution of subjects by socioeconomic status

Percentage
Low
285
39.36
Average
251
34.67
High
188
25.97
Total
724
100
Table 12, provides the distribution of subjects by socioeconomic status. The highest percentage of
subjects (39.36) was from low socioeconomic status and the lowest percentage of subjects (25.97)
was from high socioeconomic status.
Table #13 Distribution of subjects by gender

Gender
Percentage
Male
314
43.37
Female
410
56.63
Total
724
100
Table 13, indicates the distribution of subjects by gender. The data shows that female subjects
were 56.63% and male subjects were 43.37 %.
88
Table # 14 Distribution of subjects by family size

Family size
Percentage
Small
161
22.24
Average
445
61.46
Large
118
16.30
Total
724
100
Table 14, provides the distribution of subjects regarding size of their family. It is indicated from
the table that the highest percentage (61.46) % of subjects was, from average size families,
followed by 22.24 % (small size), and the lowest percentage of subjects (16.30) was from large
families.
Table # 15 of subjects by birth order
Birth order
percentage
First born
207
28.59
Second born
380
52.49
Last born
137
18.92
Total
724
100
Table 15, shows that 52.49 percent of subjects were second born, 28.59 were first born and 18.92
were last born.
89
Table # 16 Distribution of subjects by family type

Type of family
percentage
Nuclear
438
60.50
Joint
286
39.50
Total
724
100
Table 16, shows the distribution of subjects regarding their family type. It indicates that
60.50 percent subjects belonged to nuclear families and 39.50 percent belonged to joint families.
90
PART-2
Testing of Null Hypothesis

This part deals with the results of hypothesis testing. Hypothesis No. 1 to 21 and 29 to 63
was tested by applying one way analysis of variance and LSD post hoc test of multiple
comparisons. Hypothesis No. 22 to 28 and 64 to 70 was tested by applying t-test.
H o1
There is no significant effect of home environment on students achievement

This hypothesis was tested by applying one way ANOVA

Achievement.
Home
Environment
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Higher
242
330.5826
55.14405
3.54479
Middle
247
300.4130
60.03820
3.82014
Lower
235
280.3362
61.56660
4.01616
Total
724
303.9807
62.36820
2.31790
group
91
Table # 17aUnivariate Analysis of Variance for effect of home environment on

students achievement .
Mean
Source of variance
Sum of Squares
df
Sig.
43.978
.000
Square
Between Groups
305778.56
152889.28
Within Groups
2506541.2
721
3476.479
Total
2812319.7
723
Table 17 presents the data about means of achievement score on the basis of home
environment. The highest mean (330.58) was found for subjects who belonged to higher home
environment group, and the lowest mean (280.33) was for those subjects who belonged to lower
home environment group.
Table 17a presents the summary of univariate analysis of variance, which shows that p
value (0.000) is less than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of
home environment on the achievement of students is rejected at 0.05 level of significance. Thus a
significant effect of home environment was found on students achievement.
As the results were significant, it was decided to run LSD Post Hoc Test of multiple
comparisons. However, only significant mean differences are presented here which contribute the
most in making the results significant.
92
Table # 17b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple comparisons regarding home
environment on students achievement.
Comparison
Mean Difference
Significance
Lower Vs Higher
-50.24
.000
Lower Vs Middle
-20.07
.000
Middle Vs Higher
-30.16
.000
It was concluded from the LSD Post Hoc Test that there was a significant difference in
the achievement of students from different home environments.
93
H o2 There is no significant effect of home environment on students personality.

personality
Home
environment
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Higher
242
150.1364
16.15517
1.03849
Middle
247
149.5263
16.93934
1.07782
Lower
235
142.0085
17.37692
1.13354
Total
724
147.2901
17.20011
.63924
group

students personality
Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
17.219
.000
Square
Between Groups
9751.026
4875.513
Within Groups
204144.06
721
283.140
Total
213895.09
723
Table 18 presents the data about means of personality score on the basis of home
environment. The highest mean (150.13) was found for subjects who belonged to higher home
environment group, and the lowest mean (142.00) was for those subjects who belonged to lower
home environment group.
94
Table 18a presents summary of univariate analysis of variance, which shows that p value
(0.000) was less than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of
home environment on students personality was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So there
was significant effect of home environment on students total personality.
As the results were significant, it was decided to run LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple
Comparisons. However, only significant mean differences are presented here which contribute
the most in making the results significant
Table# 18b LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding home
environment on students personality.
Comparison
Mean Difference
Significance
Lower Vs Higher
-8.12785
.000
Lower Vs Middle
-7.51781
.000
From LSD Post Hoc Test it was concluded that students from different home
environments were significantly different from each other regarding their personality.
95
H o3 There is no significant effect of home environment on openness factor of

This hypothesis was tested by applying one way ANOVA.
Table # 19 Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment on openness factor
of students personality
Home
environment
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Higher
242
22.3182
5.24444
.33713
Middle
247
22.7854
5.62357
.35782
Lower
235
21.9745
5.35646
.34942
Total
724
22.3660
5.41526
.20126
group

openness factor of students personality
Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
1.366
.256
Square
Between Groups
80.030
40.015
Within Groups
21121.974
721
29.295
Total
21202.004
723
The summary of univariate analysis of variance presented in the table 17a indicates that p
value (0.256) was more than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there was no significant
96
effect of home environment on openness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level
of significance. So there was no significant effect of home environment on openness factor of
97
H o4 There is no significant effect of home environment on emotional stability factor

Table # 20 Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment on emotional
Home
environment
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Higher
242
27.4752
5.40021
.40284
Middle
247
27.5547
6.33921
.37210
Lower
235
26.2340
5.80676
.37879
Total
724
27.0994
6.00010
.22299
group
Table # 20a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of home environment on

emotional stability factor of students personality
Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
3.656
.026
Square
Between Groups
261.349
130.674
Within Groups
25767.491
721
35.739
Total
26028.840
723
Table 20 presents the data about means of emotional stability factor of students
personality on the basis of home environment. The highest mean (27.55) was found for subjects
98
who belonged to middle home environment group and the lowest mean (26.23) was for those
subjects who belonged to lower home environment group.
The summary of univariate analysis of variance presented in the table 20a indicates that p value (0.026)
was less than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of home environment on
emotional stability factor of students personality was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So there was
significant effect of home environment on emotional stability factor of students personality.
Table: 20b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding home
environment on emotional stability factor of students personality.
Comparison
Mean Difference
Significance
Lower Vs Higher
-1.24116
.024
Middle Vs Lower
-1.32061
.016
99
H o5 There is no significant effect of home environment on extroversion factor of

Table # 21 Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment on extroversion
factor of students personality
Home
environment
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Higher
242
28.9132
6.47663
.41633
Middle
247
27.4980
6.31225
.40164
Lower
235
26.1234
6.25096
.40777
Total
724
27.5249
6.43969
.23933
group

extroversion factor of students personality
Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
11.517
.000
Square
Between Groups
928.205
464.102
Within Groups
29054.348
721
40.297
Total
29982.552
723
Table 21 presents the data about means of extroversion factor of students personality on the basis
of home environment. The highest mean (28.91) was found for subjects who belonged to higher
home environment group and the lowest mean (26.12) was for those subjects who belonged to
lower home environment group.
100
home environment on extroversion factor of students personality was rejected at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was significant effect of home environment on extroversion factor of
Table: 21b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding home
environment on extroversion factor of students personality.
Comparison
Mean Difference
Significance
Lower Vs Higher
-2.78982
.000
Middle Vs Higher
-1.41525
.014
Lower Vs Middle
-1.37457
.018
From LSD Post Hoc Test it was concluded that students living in different home
environments were significantly different from each other as far as extroversion factor of their
personalities was concerned.
101
H o6
There is no significant effect of home environment on conscientiousness factor of

Table # 22 Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment on

conscientiousness factor of students personality
Home
environment
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Higher
242
38.0785
6.31980
.40625
Middle
247
37.6802
6.65641
.42354
Lower
235
34.8000
7.50544
.48960
Total
724
36.8785
6.98044
.25943
group

Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
16.283
.000
Square
Between Groups
1522.463
761.231
Within Groups
33706.841
721
46.750
Total
35229.304
723
Table 22 presents the data about means of conscientiousness factor of students

personality on the basis of home environment. The highest mean (38.07) was found for subjects
102
who belonged to higher home environment group, and the lowest mean (34.80) was for those
subjects who belonged to lower home environment group. The results indicate that students
belonging to higher home environment group were more conscientious than those who belonged
to lower home environment group.
(0.000) was less than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there was no significant effect of
home environment on the personality of students was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So
there was significant effect of home environment on conscientiousness factor of students
personality.
the most in making the results significance.
environment on conscientiousness factor of students personality
Comparisons
Mean Difference
Significance
Lower Vs Higher
-3.27851
.000
Middle Vs Lower
-2.88016
.000
It was concluded by viewing the results of LSD Post Hoc Test that students belonging to
lower and higher and middle and lower home environment groups were significantly different
from each other as far as conscientiousness factor of their personalities was concerned. But no
such difference was found between the conscientiousness factor of those students personalities
who belonged to middle and higher home environment groups.
103
H o7 There is no significant effect of home environment on agreeableness factor of

Table # 23 Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment on agreeableness
Home
environment
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Higher
242
29.3430
3.73529
.24011
Middle
247
29.5466
3.89455
.24780
Lower
235
28.5064
3.76825
.24581
Total
724
29.1409
3.82205
.14205
group

agreeableness factor of students personality
Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
5.023
.007
Square
Between Groups
145.142
72.571
Within Groups
10416.488
721
14.447
Total
10561.630
723
Table 23 presents the data about means of agreeableness factor of students personality
on the basis of home environment. The highest mean (29.54) was found for subjects who
104
belonged to middle home environment group, and the lowest mean (28.50) was for those subjects
who belonged to lower home environment group. The results indicate that students belonging to
middle home environment group were more conscientious than those belonged to higher and
lower home environment groups.
The summary of univariate analysis of variance presented in the table 23a indicates that
p value (0.007) was less than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect
of home environment on agreeableness factor of students personality was rejected at 0.05 level
of significance. So there was significant effect of home environment on agreeableness factor of
the most in making the results significance.
environment on agreeableness factor of students personality
Comparisons
Mean Difference
Significance
Lower Vs Higher
-3.27851
.000
Middle Vs Lower
-2.88016
.000
lower vs higher and middle vs lower home environment groups were significantly different from
each other as far as agreeableness factor of their personalities was concerned. But no such
difference was found between the agreeableness factor of those students personalities who
belonged to middle and higher home environment groups.
105
From the results of hypotheses No. 1 to 7 it was concluded that home environment had
significant affect on the achievement and total personality of students. It had affected emotional
stability, extroversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness factors of students personality but
openness factor of students personality was not affected by home environment.
106
H o8 There is no significant effect of socioeconomic status on students achievement

Table # 24 Descriptive statistics for effect of socioeconomic status on students
achievement
Socioeconomic status N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
High
188
336.4894
51.60913
3.76398
Average
251
312.2908
54.11343
3.41561
Low
285
275.2175
63.08887
3.73706
Total
724
303.9807
62.36820
2.31790
Table # 24a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of socioeconomic status on

students achievement
Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
68.999
.000
Square
Between Groups
451800.469
225900.23
Within Groups
2360519.260
721
3273.952
Total
2812319.729
723
Table 24 presents the data about means of achievement score of students on the basis of
socioeconomic status. The highest mean (336.48) was found for subjects whose parents posses
high socioeconomic status and the lowest mean (275.21) was scored by those students who
107
posses low socioeconomic status. It means academic performance of students possessing high
socioeconomic status was better than those , whose socioeconomic status was average or low.
socioeconomic status on students achievement was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So
there was significant effect of socioeconomic status on students achievement.
. As the results were significant, it was decided to run LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple
the most in making the results significant.
Table # 24b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding
socioeconomic status on students achievement.
Comparison
Mean Difference
Significance
High Vs Average
24.1985 .
.000
High Vs Low
61.2718
.000
Average Vs Low
37.0732
.000
It was concluded by the LSD Post Hoc Test that there was a significant difference in the
academic achievement of students belonging to different socioeconomic status.
108
H o9 There is no significant effect of socioeconomic status on students personality

Table # 25 Descriptive statistics for effect of socioeconomic status on students
personality
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
High
188
149.2181
16.56426
1.20807
Average
251
149.5817
16.12068
1.01753
Low
285
144.0000
18.04884
1.06912
Total
724
147.2901
17.20011
.63924

Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
8.809
.000
Square
Between Groups
5101.954
2550.977
Within Groups
208793.134
721
289.588
Total
213895.088
723
Table 25 presents the data about means of students personality score on the basis of their
parents socioeconomic status. The highest mean (149.58) was found for subjects whose parents
possesed average socioeconomic status and the lowest mean (144.00) was scored by those
students who possessed low socioeconomic status. It means personality of those students who
109
possessed average socioeconomic status was better than those, whose socioeconomic status was
high or low.
socioeconomic status on students personality was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So there
was significant effect of socioeconomic status on students personality.
Table: 25b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding socioeconomic status
on students personality.
Comparison
Mean Difference
Significance
High Vs Low
5.2180
.001
Average Vs Low
5.5816
.000
different socioeconomic status were significantly different from each other as far as their
personalities were concerned. But wee see no significant difference between the personalities of
students who belonged to average and high socioeconomic status.
110
H010 There is no significant effect of socioeconomic status on openness factor of

Table # 26 Descriptive statistics for effect of socioeconomic status on openness
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
High
188
22.9521
5.78425
.42186
Average
251
22.3426
5.07801
.32052
Low
285
22.0000
5.43722
.32207
Total
724
22.3660
5.41526
.20126

Between Groups
Sum
Squares
102.901
Within Groups
Total
Source of variance
of
Mean
Square
51.451
21099.103
721
29.264
21202.004
723
df
Sig.
1.758
.173
value (0.173) was more than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect
of socioeconomic status on openness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. So there is no significant effect of socioeconomic status on openness factor of
111
H o11
There is no significant effect of socioeconomic status on emotional stability

Table # 27 Descriptive statistics for effect of socioeconomic status on emotional

Socioeconomic
Std.
N
Mean
status
Std. Error
Deviation
High
188
26.7660
6.21009
.45292
Average
251
27.6653
5.76191
.36369
Low
285
26.8211
6.04964
.35835
Total
724
27.0994
6.00010
.22299
Table # 27a Analysis of Variance for effect of socioeconomic status on emotional

Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
1.717
.180
Square
Between Groups
123.376
61.688
Within Groups
25905.464
721
35.930
Total
26028.840
723
The summary of analysis of variance presented in the table 27a indicates that p value
(0.180) was more than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of
socioeconomic status on emotional stability factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05
112
level of significance. So there was no significant effect of socioeconomic status on emotional

113
H o12
There is no significant effect of socioeconomic status on extroversion factor of

Table # 28 Descriptive statistics for effect of socioeconomic status on extroversion

Socioeconomic
Std.
N
Mean
Std. Error
status
Deviation
High
188
30.1915
6.42817
.46882
Average
251
27.9522
6.33196
.39967
Low
285
25.3895
5.79879
.34349
Total
724
27.5249
6.43969
.23933

Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
35.419
.000
Square
Between Groups
2682.251
1341.126
Within Groups
27300.301
721
37.864
Total
29982.552
723
Table 28 presents the data about means of extroversion factor of students personality
score on the basis of their parents socioeconomic status. The highest mean (30.19) was found for
subjects whose parents possesed high socioeconomic status and the lowest mean (25.38) was
114
scored by those students who possesed low socioeconomic status. It means openness factor of
personality of those students, who possessed high socioeconomic status, was better than those,
whose socioeconomic status was average or low.
socioeconomic status on students personality was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So there
was significant effect of socioeconomic status on students personality.
on extroversion factor of students personality.
Comparison
Mean Difference
Significance
High Vs Average
2.2393.
.000
High Vs Low
4.8023
.000
Average Vs Low
2.5627
.000
It was concluded by viewing the results of LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparison that
there was a significant difference in the extroversion factor of personality of students who
belonged to different socioeconomic status.
115
H o13
There is no significant effect of socioeconomic status on conscientiousness

Table # 29
Descriptive statistics for effect of socioeconomic status on

Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
High
188
36.6809
6.57529
.47955
Average
251
37.8845
6.48125
.40909
Low
285
36.1228
7.55699
.44764
Total
724
36.8785
6.98044
.25943

Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
4.393
.013
Square
Between Groups
424.102
212.051
Within Groups
34805.202
721
48.274
Total
35229.304
723
Table 29 presents the data about means of conscientiousness factor of students

personality score on the basis of their parents socioeconomic status. The highest mean (37.88)
was found for subjects whose parents possessed average socioeconomic status and the lowest
mean (36.12) was scored by those students who possesed low socioeconomic status. It means
116
openness factor of personality of those students, who possessed average socioeconomic status
was better than those , whose socioeconomic status was high or low.
Table 29a presents summary of analysis of variance, which shows that p value (0.013) was
less than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there was no significant effect of socioeconomic
status on students personality was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So there was significant
effect of socioeconomic status on students personality.
on conscientiousness factor of students personality.
Comparison
Mean Difference
Significance
Average Vs Low
1.7616
.004
It was concluded by viewing the results of LSD Post Hoc Test that only those students
who belonged to average and low socioeconomic status were significantly different from each
other regarding conscientiousness factor of their personalities. But no significant difference was
found between high and low, and average and high groups as far as conscientiousness factor of
their personalities were concerned.
117
H o14 There is no significant effect of socioeconomic status on agreeableness factor of

Table # 30 Descriptive statistics for effect of socioeconomic status on agreeableness factor of
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
High
188
28.6011
3.82860
.27923
Average
251
29.3745
4.17938
.26380
Low
285
29.2912
3.44924
.20432
Total
724
29.1409
3.82205
.14205

Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
2.576
.077
Square
Between Groups
74.925
37.463
Within Groups
10486.705
721
14.545
Total
10561.630
723
of socioeconomic status on agreeableness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05
118
level of significance. So there was no significant effect of socioeconomic status on agreeableness

It was concluded from the hypotheses No. 8 to 14 that socioeconomic status had
significant effect on students academic achievements but it had affected only extroversion and
conscientiousness factors of the personality and openness, emotional stability and agreeableness
were not affected by home environment
119
H o15 There is no significant effect of family relations on students achievement.

.
Table # 31 Descriptive statistics for effect of family relations on students achievement

Family
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Poor
17
282.8235
62.46122
15.14907
Moderate
102
289.1765
68.84599
6.81677
Good
605
307.0711
60.83631
2.47335
Total
724
303.9807
62.36820
2.31790
relations
achievement
Source of variance
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square F
Sig.
Between Groups
35742.491
17871.246
.010
Within Groups
2776577.238
721
3851.009
Total
2812319.729
723
4.641
Mean values presented in table 31 indicates that subjects with good family relations had
highest mean score (307.07), while subjects with poor family relations had lowest mean score
(282.82) as far as their academic achievement was concerned.
family relations on the achievement of students was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So
there was significant effect of family relations on students achievement.
120
Table: 31b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple comparisons regarding family relations on
students achievement.
Comparison
Mean Difference
Moderate Vs Good
-17.89
Significance
0.007
From the LSD Post Hoc Test it was clear that there was a significant difference in the
achievement of only those groups of students who had moderate and good family relations. No
significant difference in the performance of those students groups was found who had poor vs.
good, and poor vs. moderate family relations.
121
H o16 There is no significant effect of family relations on students personality.

Table # 32 Descriptive statistics for effect of family relations on students personality
Family
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Poor
17
130.2353
21.89044
5.30921
Moderate
102
138.1373
17.34509
1.71742
Good
605
149.3124
16.26956
.66145
Total
724
147.2901
17.20011
.63924
relations
personality
Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
29.076
.000
Square
Between Groups
15963.994
7981.997
Within Groups
197931.094
721
274.523
Total
213895.088
723
Mean values presented in table 32 indicate that subjects with good family relations had
(130.23) as far as their personalities were concerned.
family relations on the personality of students was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So there
122
was significant difference among students with different levels of family relations as far as their
personalities were concerned.
As the results were significant it was decided to run LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple
Table: 32b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding family relations on
Family Relations
Mean Difference
Significance
Poor Vs Good
-19.07
.000
Moderate Vs Good
-11.17
.000
From the LSD Post Hoc Test it was concluded that there was a significant difference in
the personalities of those groups of students who had poor vs. good, and moderate vs. good
family relations. No significant difference in the personalities of those groups of students was
found who had poor vs. good family relations.
123
H o17
There is no significant effect of family relations on openness factor of students

personality.
Table # 33 Descriptive statistics for effect of family relations on openness factor of

Family
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Poor
17
19.4706
5.89616
1.43003
Moderate
102
22.1078
5.32118
.52688
Good
605
22.4909
5.40223
.21963
Total
724
22.3660
5.41526
.20126
relations

Source of variance
Sum
Squares
of
df
Mean
Square
Between Groups
158.755
79.378
Within Groups
21043.249
721
29.186
Total
21202.004
723
Sig.
2.720
.067
The summary of univariate analysis of variance presented in the table 31a indicates that p value
(0.067) was more than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of
family relations on openness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was no significant effect of family relations on openness factor of students
personality.
124
H o18 There is no significant effect of family relations on emotional stability factor of

Table # 34 Descriptive statistics for effect of family relations on emotional stability factor of
Family
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Poor
17
23.7647
5.87930
1.42594
Moderate
102
25.0392
6.05735
.59977
Good
605
27.5405
5.90070
.23990
Total
724
27.0994
6.00010
.22299
relations
Table # 34a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family relations on emotional

Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
10.544
.000
Square
Between Groups
739.680
369.840
Within Groups
25289.160
721
35.075
Total
26028.840
723
(23.76) as far as emotional stability factor of their personalities is concerned.
125
family relations on the emotional stability factor of students personality was rejected at 0.05
level of significance. So there was significant difference among students with different levels of
family relations as far as emotional stability factor of their personalities was concerned.
Table: 34b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding family relation on
emotional stability factor of students personality.
Comparison
Mean Difference
Significance
Poor Vs Good
-3.77
0.010
Moderate Vs Good
-2.50
0.000
the emotional stability factor of personalities of those groups of students who had poor vs. good,
and moderate vs. good family relations. No significant difference in the emotional stability factor
of personalities of those groups of students was found who had poor vs. moderate family
relations.
126
H o19 There is no significant effect of family relations on extroversion factor of

.
Table # 35 Descriptive statistics for effect of family relations on extroversion

Family
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Poor
17
22.2941
7.26950
1.76311
Moderate
102
26.5588
6.50753
.64434
Good
605
27.8347
6.33521
.25756
Total
724
27.5249
6.43969
.23933
relations

Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
7.592
.001
Square
Between Groups
618.405
309.202
Within Groups
29364.148
721
40.727
Total
29982.552
723
(22.29) as far as extroversion factor of their personalities was concerned.
127
family relations on the extroversion factor of students personality was rejected at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was significant difference among students with different levels of family
relations as far as extroversion factor of their personalities was concerned.
.As the results were significant it was decided to run LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple
Table: 35b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple comparisons regarding family relations on
extroversion factor of students personality.
Comparison
Mean Difference
Significance
Poor Vs Good
-3.77
0.010
Moderate Vs Good
-.2.50
0.000
the extroversion factor of personalities of those groups of students who had poor vs. good, and
moderate vs. good family relations. No significant difference in the extroversion factor of
personalities of those groups of students was found who had poor vs. moderate family relations.
128
H o20 There is no significant effect of family relations on conscientiousness factor of

Table # 36 Descriptive statistics for effect of family relations on conscientiousness factor of
Family
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Poor
17
34.0588
8.01148
1.94307
Moderate
102
32.5000
7.47901
.74053
Good
605
37.6959
6.56829
.26704
Total
724
36.8785
6.98044
.25943
relations

Sum
Source of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
27.475
.000
Square
Between Groups
2494.823
1247.412
Within Groups
32734.481
721
45.401
Total
35229.304
723
highest mean score (37.69), while subjects with moderate family relations had lowest mean score
(32.50) as far as conscientiousness factor of their personalities was concerned.
129
family relations on the conscientiousness factor of students personality was rejected at 0.05 level
of significance. So there was significant difference among students with different levels of family
relations as far as conscientiousness factor of their personalities was concerned.
Table: 36b
LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding family

relations on conscientiousness factor of students personality.
Comparison
Mean Difference
Significance
Poor Vs Good
-3.63
0.028
Moderate Vs Good
-5.19
0.000
the conscientiousness factor of personalities of those groups of students who had poor vs. good,
and moderate vs. good family relations. No significant difference in the conscientiousness factor
of personalities of those groups of students was found who had poor vs. moderate family
relations.
130
H o21
There is no significant effect of family relations on agreeableness factor of

Table # 37 Descriptive statistics for effect of family relations on agreeableness factor of

Family
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Poor
17
26.3529
4.72944
1.14706
Moderate
102
27.7745
3.69883
.36624
Good
605
29.4496
3.73850
.15199
Total
724
29.1409
3.82205
.14205
relations
Table # 37a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family relations on agreeableness
Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
13.463
.000
Square
Between Groups
380.221
190.111
Within Groups
10181.408
721
14.121
Total
10561.630
723
(26.35) as far as agreeableness factor of their personalities was concerned.
131
(.000) was less than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of
family relations on the agreeableness factor of students personality was rejected at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was significant difference among students with different levels of family
relations as far as emotional agreeableness factor of their personalities was concerned.
Comparisons However, only significant mean differences are presented here which contribute the
most in making the results significant.
Table: 37b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding family relations on
agreeableness factor of students personality.
Comparison
Mean Difference
Significance
Poor Vs Good
-3.09
0.001
Moderate Vs Good
-1.67
0.000
the agreeableness factor of personalities of those groups of students who had poor vs. good, and
moderate vs. good family relations. No significant difference in the agreeableness factor of
personalities of those groups of students was found who had poor vs. moderate family relation.
From the results of hypotheses No. 15 to 21 it was concluded that family relations had
significantly effected students achievement. This variable had significantly affected emotional
stability, extroversion, conscientiousness and agreeableness factors of the personality. Only
openness remained unaffected by family relations
132
H o22
There is no significant effect of gender on students achievement.

This hypothesis was tested by applying t-test
Table # 38 t -test for effect of gender on achievement
Gender
Mean
Female
410
322.15
Male
314
280.24
df
722
t- value
P value
9.49
0.001
Summary of t test presented in the above table indicates that p value (0.001) was less than
0.05. Hence the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of gender on
achievement of students was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So there was significant effect
of gender on achievement of students.
Mean value for female students (322.15) was higher than that of male students (280.24).
Therefore it was concluded that performance of female students was better than male students.
133
H o23
There is no significant effect of gender on students personality.

Table # 39 t- test for effect of gender on students personality.
Gender
Mean
df
t- value
P value
Female
409
146.89
722
-0.701
0.041
Male
314
147.80
0.05. Hence the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of gender on personality
of students was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So there was significant effect of gender on
134
H o24
There is no significant effect of gender on the openness factor of students

personality
Table # 40
t- test for effect of gender on openness factor of students personality
Gender
Mean
df
t-value
P value
Female
410
23.10
722
4.23
0.022
Male
314
21.40
Summary of t- test presented in table 40 indicates that p value (0.022) was less than 0.05.
Hence the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of gender on openness factor
of students personality was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So there was significant effect
of gender on openness factor of students personality.
135
H o25
There is no significant effect of gender on the emotional stability factor of

Table # 41 t -test for effect of gender on the emotional stability factor of students
personality.
Gender
Mean
Df
t-value
p-value
Female
410
26.05
722
-5.47
.827
Male
314
28.46
Summary of t test presented in table 41 indicates that p value (0.827) was more than 0.05.
Hence the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of gender on emotional
stability factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of significance. So there was no
significant effect of gender on emotional stability factor of students personality.
136
H o26
There is no significant effect of gender on the extroversion factor of students

Personality.
Table # 42
t- test for effect of gender on the extroversion factor of students

personality.
Gender
Mean
Df
t-value
P value
Female
410
28.25
722
3.53
.327
Male
315
26.56
Hence the null hypothesis stating that there was no significant effect of gender on extroversion
factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of significance. So there was no
significant effect of gender on extroversion factor of students personality.
137
H o27
There is no significant effect of gender on the conscientiousness factor of

Table # 43
t-test for effect of gender on the conscientiousness factor of students

personality.
Gender
Mean
Df
t-value
P value
Female
410
36.46
722
-1.84
.000
Male
314
37.42
0.05. Hence the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of gender on
conscientiousness factor of students personality was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So
there was significant effect of gender on conscientiousness factor of students personality.
138
H o28
There is no significant effect of gender on the agreeableness factor of students

Personality.
Table # 44
t-test for effect of gender on the agreeableness factor of students

personality.
Gender
Mean
Df
t-value
P value
Female
410
28.80
722
-2.69
.362
Male
314
29.57
Summary of t test presented in the above table indicates that p value (0.362) was more
than 0.05. Hence the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of gender on
agreeableness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of significance. So there
was no significant effect of gender on agreeableness factor of students personality.
From the results of hypotheses No. 22 to 28 it was concluded that gender had significant
affect on students achievement but it affected only openness and conscientiousness factors of
personality. Emotional stability, extroversion and agreeableness factors of personality remained
unaffected by gender.
139
H o29
There is no significant effect of fathers education on students achievement.


achievement
Fathers
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Uneducated
37
277.2973
53.48253
8.79247
Primary
32
274.9063
70.85349
12.52525
Middle
53
281.2075
76.37593
10.49104
Matric
216
295.1898
59.53179
4.05062
Intermediate
142
305.7465
61.23787
5.13897
Graduation
156
321.9744
55.14742
4.41533
Master
75
326.7333
57.91637
6.68761
Professional
13
323.9231
62.93444
17.45487
Total
724
303.9807
62.36820
2.31790
education
140

Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
7.517
.000
Square
Between Groups
192520.986
27502.998
Within Groups
2619798.743
716
3658.937
Total
2812319.729
723
Table 45 presents the data about means of achievement score on the basis of fathers
education. The results indicate that performance of those students was better whose fathers had
higher educational qualification. The highest mean 326.73 was found for subjects whose fathers
had post graduate degree, while the lowest mean 274.90 was for those students whose fathers had
only primary level of education.
value (0.000) was less than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect
of fathers education on the achievement of students was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So
there was significant effect of fathers education on the achievement of students.
141
Table # 45b
LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding fathers

education on students achievement.
Educational qualification
Mean Difference
Significance
Uneducated Vs Intermediate
-28.44
0.011
Uneducated Vs Graduation
-44.67
0.000
Uneducated Vs Post graduation
-49.43
0.000
Uneducated Vs Professional
-46.62
0.017
Primary Vs Intermediate
-30.84
0.009
Primary Vs Graduation
-47.06
0.000
Primary Vs Post Graduation
-51.82
0.000
Primary Vs Professional
-49.01
0.014
Matric Vs Graduation
-26.78
0.000
Matric Vs Post Graduation
-31.54
0.000
Intermediate Vs Graduation
-16.22
0.021
Intermediate Vs Post Graduation
-20.98
0.015
From the LSD Post Hoc Test it was concluded that all the groups with different
qualifications were significantly different regarding their achievement from each other. There was
no significant difference between the groups of students whose fathers had graduation and above
qualification.
142
H o30
There is no significant effect of fathers education on students personality


personality
Fathers education N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Uneducated
37
146.5405
15.45350
2.54054
Primary
32
139.7500
17.89035
3.16260
Middle
53
146.4528
17.97174
2.46861
Matric
216
146.3981
18.14486
1.23460
Intermediate
142
148.6620
17.00850
1.42732
Graduation
156
148.4936
16.72645
1.33919
Master
75
150.2933
15.39285
1.77741
Professional
13
139.4615
13.20111
3.66133
Total
724
147.2901
17.20011
.63924
143

Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
1.957
.058
Square
Between Groups
4015.462
573.637
Within Groups
209879.626
716
293.128
Total
213895.088
723
of fathers education on students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of significance. So there
was no significant effect of fathers education on students personality.
144
H o31
There is no significant effect of fathers education on the openness factor of

Table # 47
Descriptive statistics for effect of fathers education on openness

Fathers
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Uneducated
37
23.0270
5.36183
.88148
Primary
32
20.3125
5.79453
1.02434
Middle
53
22.0943
5.27791
.72498
Matric
216
22.0926
5.53641
.37671
Intermediate
142
22.0352
4.90536
.41165
Graduation
156
23.2821
5.79187
.46372
Master
75
23.0000
4.68465
.54094
Professional
13
20.1538
6.18932
1.71661
Total
724
22.3660
5.41526
.20126
education
145
Table # 47a
openness factor of students personality.
Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
2.024
.050
Square
Between Groups
411.374
58.768
Within Groups
20790.630
716
29.037
Total
21202.004
723
value (0.050) was not less than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant
effect of fathers education on openness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level
of significance. So there was no significant effect of fathers education on openness factor of
.
146
H o32
There is no significant effect of fathers education on emotional stability factor

Table # 48 Descriptive statistics for effect of fathers education on emotional stability factor
Fathers
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Uneducated
37
26.5946
5.68360
.93438
Primary
32
27.5313
6.43571
1.13768
Middle
53
27.9434
5.12316
.70372
Matric
216
27.1991
6.08255
.41386
Intermediate
142
27.4225
5.65224
.47433
Graduation
156
26.3205
5.63513
.45117
Master
75
27.5467
7.38386
.85262
Professional
13
25.6154
7.03015
1.94981
Total
724
27.0994
6.00010
.22299
education
147
Table # 48a
Emotional stability factor of students personality

Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
.826
.566
Square
Between Groups
208.396
29.771
Within Groups
25820.444
716
36.062
Total
26028.840
723
of fathers education on emotional stability factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05
level of significance. So there was no significant effect of fathers education on emotional
148
H o33
There is no significant effect of fathers education on the extroversion factor of

Table # 49 Descriptive statistics for effect of fathers education on extroversion factor of

Fathers
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Uneducated
37
26.1081
5.15743
.84788
Primary
32
23.0938
6.46758
1.14332
Middle
53
25.3774
5.36809
.73736
Matric
216
26.7037
6.17988
.42049
Intermediate
142
27.8169
6.46169
.54225
Graduation
156
29.3141
6.62625
.53052
Master
75
29.2133
6.13870
.70884
Professional
13
30.4615
7.11355
1.97294
Total
724
27.5249
6.43969
.23933
education
149
Table #49a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of fathers education on extroversion
Between Groups
Sum
Squares
1930.110
Within Groups
Total
Sources of variance
of
Mean
Square
275.730
28052.442
716
39.179
29982.552
723
df
Sig.
7.038
.000
Mean values presented in table 49 indicate that subjects whose fathers had professional
degree had highest mean score (30.46), while subjects whose fathers had only primary education
had lowest mean score (23.09),as far as extroversion factor of their personality was concerned.
of fathers education on extroversion factor of students personality was rejected at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was significant effect of fathers education on extroversion factor of
150
Table: 49b
LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple comparison regarding fathers

education on extroversion factor of students personality.
Mean Difference
Significance
Uneducated Vs Primary
3.01
0.047
-3.20
0.005
Uneducated Vs Post-Graduation
-3.10
0.014
-4.35
0.031
Primary Vs Matric
-3.60
0.002
-4.70
0.000
-6.22
0.000
-6..11
0.000
-7.36
0.00
Middle Vs intermediate
-2.41
0.017
Middle Vs Graduation
-3.93
0.014
Middle Vs Post Graduation
-3.83
0.001
Middle Vs Professional
-5.08
0.009
-2.61
0.000
-2.50
0.003
Matric Vs Professional
-3.75
0.036
-1.51
0.037
From the LSD Post Hoc Test it was concluded that all the groups with different
qualifications were significantly different from each other regarding extroversion factor of their
151
personalities. There was no significant difference in the extroversion factor of personality

between the groups of students whose fathers had graduation and above qualification.
152
H o34
There is no significant effect of fathers education on conscientiousness factor

Table # 50 Descriptive statistics for effect of fathers education on Conscientiousness factor

Fathers
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Uneducated
37
36.4865
8.00216
1.31555
Primary
32
35.1250
7.90569
1.39754
Middle
53
36.8302
8.01138
1.10045
Matric
216
37.1065
7.11453
.48408
Intermediate
142
37.5211
6.54143
.54894
Graduation
156
36.6667
6.35238
.50860
Master
75
36.9333
6.88385
.79488
Professional
13
33.9231
7.51068
2.08309
Total
724
36.8785
6.98044
.25943
education
153
Table # 50a
Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
.863
.535
Square
Between Groups
294.845
42.121
Within Groups
34934.459
716
48.791
Total
35229.304
723
of fathers education on conscientiousness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05
level of significance. So there was no significant effect of fathers education on conscientiousness
154
H o35
There is no significant effect of fathers education on the agreeableness factor

Table # 51 Descriptive statistics for effect of fathers education on agreeableness

Fathers
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Uneducated
37
29.5946
3.12214
.51328
Primary
32
29.2188
3.55359
.62819
Middle
53
29.8491
3.03439
.41681
Matric
216
28.9630
3.91877
.26664
Intermediate
142
29.6197
3.45741
.29014
Graduation
156
28.5897
4.15331
.33253
Master
75
29.7600
4.00621
.46260
Professional
13
25.5385
3.79946
1.05378
Total
724
29.1409
3.82205
.14205
education
155

Sum
of
Sources of variance
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
3.182
.003
Square
Between Groups
318.627
45.518
Within Groups
10243.003
716
14.306
Total
10561.630
723
Mean values presented in table 51 indicate that subjects whose fathers had professional
degree, had lowest mean score for the agreeableness factor of their personalities.
of fathers education on agreeableness factor of students personality was rejected at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was significant effect of fathers education on agreeableness factor of
156
Table # 51b LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding effect of
fathers education on agreeableness factor of their personality
Mean Difference
Significance
4.05
0.001
3.68
0.003
Middle Vs graduation
1.25
0.037
Middle Vs Professional
4.31
0.000
Matric Vs Professional
3.42
0.002
1.006
0.022
Intermediate Vs Professional
4.05
0.000
Graduation Vs Post Graduation
-1.17
0.028
Graduation Vs Professional
3.05
0.005
Post Graduation Vs Professional
4.22
0.000
From the LSD Post Hoc Test it was concluded that all the groups of students whose
fathers hold different levels of educational degrees were significantly different regarding
agreeableness factor of their personalities.
From the results of hypotheses No. 29 to 35 it was concluded that fathers education had
significantly affected students academic achievements but it had affected only extroversion and
agreeableness factors of personality. Openness, emotional stability and conscientiousness were
not affected by this variable.
157
Ho36
There is no significant effect of mothers education on students achievement.

Table # 52 Descriptive statistics for effect of mothers education on students

achievement
Mothers
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Uneducated
173
277.2370
62.92896
4.78440
Primary
116
293.9397
63.41859
5.88827
Middle
79
290.1646
55.40166
6.23317
Matric
184
310.5924
56.60642
4.17308
Intermediate
104
330.0962
52.62277
5.16009
Graduation
54
343.1111
55.16482
7.50698
Master
14
363.7857
51.23577
13.69334
Total
724
303.9807
62.36820
2.31790
education
158
Table # 52a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of mothers education on

Sum
of
Sources of variance
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
17.668
.000
Square
Between Groups
362239.849
60373.308
Within Groups
2450079.880
717
3417.127
Total
2812319.729
723
In table 52 the highest mean 363.78 was found for subjects whose mothers had post
graduate degree while the lowest mean 277.23 was for those students whose mothers were
illiterate.
of mothers education on the achievement of students was rejected at 0.05 level of significance.
So there was significant effect of mothers education on the achievement of students.
159
Table: 52b LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding mothers education on
Uneducated Vs Primary
Mean Difference
-16.70
Significance
0.018
Uneducated Vs Matric
-33.35
0.000
-52.85
0.000
Uneducated Vs graduation
-65.87
0.000
Uneducated Vs Post Graduation
-86.54
0.000
Primary Vs Matric
-16.65
0.017
-36.15
0.000
-49.17
0.000
-69.84
0.000
Middle Vs Matric
-20.42
0.010
Middle Vs Intermediate
-39.93
0.000
-52.94
0.000
-73.62
0.000
Matric Vs Intermediate
-19.50
0.007
-32.51
0.000
-53.19
0.001
Inter Vs Graduation
-52.94
0.000
mothers had different educational qualification were significantly different from each other
160
regarding their achievement. There was no significant difference between the groups of students
whose mothers have graduation and above qualification.
161
Ho37
There is no significant effect of mothers education on students personality.

Table # 53
Descriptive statistics for effect of mothers education on students

personality
Mothers
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Uneducated
173
144.4393
18.67790
1.42005
Primary
116
145.3621
15.39305
1.42921
Middle
79
146.3797
16.85329
1.89614
Matric
184
148.8804
17.33208
1.27774
Intermediate
104
150.8846
16.91802
1.65895
Graduation
54
147.8704
15.31314
2.08385
Master
14
153.7857
15.89474
4.24805
Total
724
147.2901
17.20011
.63924
education
162

Sum
of
Sources of variance
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
2.464
.023
Square
Between Groups
4320.640
720.107
Within Groups
209574.448
717
292.294
Total
213895.088
723
Table 53 presents the data about means of personality score on the basis of mothers
education. The highest mean 153.78 was found for subjects whose mothers had post graduate
degree, while the lowest mean 144.43 was found for those subjects whose mothers were illiterate.
value(0.023) was less than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there was no significant effect
of mothers education on the achievement of students was rejected at 0.05 level of significance.
So there is significant effect of mothers education on students personality.
163
Table # 53b
LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple comparison regarding mothers

education on students personality.
Mean Difference
Significance
-4.20
0.021
Uneducated Vs intermediate
-6.14
0.004
-5.52
0.017
From the LSD Post Hoc Test it was concluded that only the above mentioned groups of
students whose mothers had different educational qualifications were significantly different from
each other regarding their personalities.
164
Ho38
There is no significant effect of mothers education on openness factor of

Table # 54
Descriptive statistics for effect of mothers education on openness

Mothers
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Uneducated
173
21.8092
5.74897
.43709
Primary
116
22.5086
4.65785
.43247
Middle
79
21.3038
5.59614
.62961
Matric
184
22.2500
5.39404
.39765
Intermediate
104
23.5962
5.16809
.50677
Graduation
54
23.6852
5.52806
.75227
Master
14
21.3571
6.02057
1.60906
Total
724
22.3660
5.41526
.20126
education
165

Sum
of
Sources of variance
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
2.375
.028
Square
Between Groups
413.198
68.866
Within Groups
20788.806
717
28.994
Total
21202.004
723
Mean values presented in table 54a indicate that subjects whose mothers had graduate
degree, had highest mean score (23.68), while subjects whose mothers were middle pass, had
lowest mean score (21.30) as far as openness factor of their personality was concerned.
The summary of univariate analysis of variance presented in the table 102 indicates that p
of mothers education on the openness factor of students personality was rejected at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was significant effect of mothers education on the openness factor of
166
Table: 54b LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple comparisons regarding mothers
education on openness factor of students personality.
Mean Difference
Significance
Uneducated Vs intermediate
-1.78
.008
-1.87
.026
Middle Vs intermediate
-2.29
.004
-2.38
.012
Matric Vs intermediate
-1.38
.037
each other regarding openness factor of their personalities.
167
Ho39
There is no significant effect of mothers education on the emotional stability

Table # 55
Descriptive statistics for effect of mothers education on emotional

Mothers
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Uneducated
173
27.3468
5.76133
.43803
Primary
116
26.2414
5.55701
.51596
Middle
79
27.2278
5.74891
.64680
Matric
184
27.2935
6.57539
.48474
Intermediate
104
27.5769
5.82211
.57090
Graduation
54
25.8889
6.07086
.82614
Master
14
29.0000
6.65640
1.77900
Total
724
27.0994
6.00010
.22299
education
168

Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
1.195
.307
Square
Between Groups
257.639
42.940
Within Groups
25771.201
717
35.943
Total
26028.840
723
of mothers education on emotional stability factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05
level of significance. So there was no significant effect of mothers education on emotional
169
Ho40 There is no significant effect of mothers education on extroversion factor of

Table # 56
Descriptive statistics for effect of mothers education on extroversion

Mothers
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Uneducated
173
25.2948
5.68759
.43242
Primary
116
26.6897
6.04392
.56116
Middle
79
27.6962
7.07534
.79604
Matric
184
27.6304
6.46507
.47661
Intermediate
104
29.2308
6.45858
.63332
Graduation
54
31.1296
5.12871
.69793
Master
14
33.0714
6.75351
1.80495
Total
724
27.5249
6.43969
.23933
education
170

Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
10.307
.000
Square
Between Groups
2380.698
396.783
Within Groups
27601.854
717
38.496
Total
29982.552
723
Mean values of table 56 indicate that students whose mothers had post graduate degree
had highest mean score (33.07), while students whose mothers were uneducated had lowest mean
score (25.29), as far as extroversion factor of their personality was concerned.
of mothers education on extroversion factor of students personality was rejected at 0.05 level
of significance. So there was significant effect of mothers education on extroversion factor of
.
171
Table # 56b LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple comparisons regarding mothers
education on extroversion factor of students personality
Mean Difference
Significance
Uneducated Vs middle
-2.40
0.005
-2.31
0.000
-3.93
0.000
Uneducated Vs graduation
-5.83
0.000
Uneducated Vs Post Graduation
-7.77
0.000
-2.54
0.003
Primary Vs Graduation I
-4.43
0.000
-6.38
0.000
Middle Vs Graduate
-3.43
0.002
-5.37
0.003
Matric Vs Intermediate
-1.61
0.034
-3.51
0.000
-5.45
0.002
Intermediate Vs Post Graduation
-3.84
0.001
mothers had different educational qualification were significantly different from each other
regarding extroversion factor of their personality There was no significant difference between the
groups of students whose mothers had graduation and above qualification.
172
H041
There is no significant effect of mothers education on the conscientiousness

Table # 57
conscientiousness

Mothers
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Uneducated
173
35.9942
8.06045
.61282
Primary
116
36.7586
6.62619
.61523
Middle
79
36.8101
6.69496
.75324
Matric
184
38.0217
6.52524
.48105
Intermediate
104
36.8750
6.53696
.64100
Graduation
54
36.0741
6.97665
.94940
Master
14
37.2857
4.96803
1.32776
Total
724
36.8785
6.98044
.25943
education
173
Table # 57a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of mothers education on

Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
1.425
.202
Square
Between Groups
415.067
69.178
Within Groups
34814.236
717
48.555
Total
35229.304
723
value (0.202) was more than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there was no significant
effect of mothers education on conscientiousness factor of students personality was accepted at
0.05 level of significance. So there was no significant effect of mothers education on
174
HO42
There is no significant effect of mothers education on the agreeableness factor

Table # 58 Descriptive statistics for effect of mothers education on agreeableness

Mothers
education
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Uneducated
173
29.6301
3.42725
.26057
Primary
116
28.8362
3.73688
.34696
Middle
79
28.8734
3.93657
.44290
Matric
184
29.4674
3.56501
.26282
Intermediate
104
29.3462
4.26949
.41866
Graduation
54
27.1667
4.48793
.61073
Master
14
28.9286
3.54019
.94616
Total
724
29.1409
3.82205
.14205
175

Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
3.409
.003
Square
Between Groups
292.913
48.819
Within Groups
10268.717
717
14.322
Total
10561.630
723
of mothers education on agreeableness factor of students personality was rejected at 0.05 level
of significance. So there was significant effect of mothers education on agreeableness factor of
studentspersonality.
Comparisons. However, only significant mean differences were presented here which contribute
176
Table # 58b
LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding mothers
education on agreeableness factor of students personality
Comparisons
Mean Difference
Significance
2.44
0.000
1.66
0.008
1.70
0.011
Matric Vs graduation
2.28
0.000
2.17
0.001
each other regarding agreeableness factor of their personalities.
From the results of hypotheses NO. 36 to 42 it was concluded that mothers education
had significant effect on academic achievements and openness, extroversion and agreeableness
factors of personality but emotional stability and conscientiousness remained unaffected by
mothers education.
177
Ho43
There is no significant effect of familys income on students achievement

Table # 59
Descriptive statistics for effect of familys income on students achievement
Family income
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Up to 5000
116
267.0086
65.02782
6.03768
<5000 to 10000
238
289.7479
58.03625
3.76193
<10000 to 15000
129
312.6822
54.35258
4.78548
<15000 to 20000
112
327.8125
55.74225
5.26715
<20000 to 25000
39
319.0513
48.54458
7.77335
Above 25000
90
340.6111
58.57900
6.17477
Total
724
303.9807
62.36820
2.31790
178
Table # 59a
Sum
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
24.492
.000
Square
Between Groups
409773.546
81954.709
Within Groups
2402546.183
718
3346.165
Total
2812319.729
723
Table 59 presents the data about means of achievement score on the basis of familys income.
The results show that achievement of students whose familys income was higher, was better than
those whose familys income was less. The highest mean score (340.61) was found for subjects
whose familys income was above 25000 and the lowest mean score (267.00) was for those
subjects whose familys income was only up to 5000.
of familys income on students achievement was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So there
was significant effect of familys income on students achievement
179
Table # 59b
LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding familys

income on students achievement
Family income
Mean Difference
Significance
5000 Vs 10000
-22.73
0.001
5000 Vs 15000
-45.67
0.000
5000 Vs 20000
-60.80
0.000
5000 Vs 25000
-52.04
0.000
5000 Vs above 25000
-73.60
0.000
10000 Vs 15000
-22.73
0.000
10000 Vs 20000
-38.06
0.000
10000Vs 25000
-29.30
0.003
10000 Vs above 25000
-50.86
0.000
15000 Vs 20000
-15.13
0.043
15000 Vs above 25000
-27.92
0.000
From the LSD Post Hoc Test it was concluded that students belonging to different
income groups are significantly different from each other regarding their academic achievement.
180
Ho44
There is no significant effect of family income on students personality

Table # 60

personality
Family income
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Up to 5000
116
146.4052
19.57060
1.81708
<5000 to 10000
238
144.8109
16.85612
1.09262
<10000 to 15000
129
148.4419
14.61266
1.28657
<15000 to 20000
112
148.3482
18.82863
1.77914
<20000 to 25000
39
154.2821
17.51984
2.80542
Above 25000
90
148.9889
15.04562
1.58595
Total
724
147.2901
17.20011
.63924
181
Table # 60a

Mean
Sources of variance
Sum of Squares
df
Sig.
2.748
.018
Square
Between Groups
4016.520
803.304
Within Groups
209878.568
718
292.310
Total
213895.088
723
The results show that personality of those students whose familys income was higher
,was better than those whose familys income was less. The highest mean score (154.28) was
found for subjects whose familys income was up to 25000 and the lowest mean score(144.81)
was for those subjects whose familys income was only up to 10000.
value (.018) was less than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of
familys income on students personality was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So there was
significant effect of familys income on students personality.
182
Table: 60b
LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple comparisons regarding familys

income on students personality
Comparisons
Mean Difference
Significance
5000 Vs 25000
-7.87
0.013
10000 Vs 15000
-3.76
0.044
10000 Vs 20000
-4.17
0.033
10000 Vs 25000
-9.60
0.001
10000 Vs above 25000
-4.74
0.025
students belonging to different income groups were significantly different from each other as far
as their personalities were concerned.
183
Ho45
There is no significant effect of family income on the openness factor of

Students personality.
Table # 61
Descriptive statistics for effect of familys income on openness

Std.
Family income
Mean
Std. Error
Deviation
Up to 5000
116
22.1034
5.52525
.51301
<5000 to 10000
238
22.3403
5.30879
.34412
<10000 to 15000
129
22.5271
4.95145
.43595
<15000 to 20000
112
21.6607
5.55813
.52519
<20000 to 25000
39
24.2821
6.34926
1.01670
Above 25000
90
22.5889
5.50565
.58035
Total
724
22.3660
5.41526
.20126
184
Table # 61a

Sum
of
Mean
Sources of variance
Squares
df
Square
Sig.
Between Groups
214.864
42.973
1.470
.197
Within Groups
20987.140
718
29.230
Total
21202.004
723
of familys income on openness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was no significant effect of familys income on openness factor of students
personality.
185
Ho46
There is no significant effect of family income on the emotional stability factor

Table # 62
Descriptive statistics for effect of familys income on emotional

Std.
Family income
Mean
Std. Error
Deviation
Up to 5000
116
27.5259
6.35947
.59046
<5000 to 10000
238
26.6387
6.04516
.39185
<10000 to 15000
129
27.3721
5.51429
.48551
<15000 to 20000
112
26.9286
5.99206
.56620
<20000 to 25000
39
27.8462
5.91403
.94700
Above 25000
90
27.2667
6.18225
.65167
Total
724
27.0994
6.00010
.22299
186
Table # 62a

Sum
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
.602
.698
Square
Between Groups
108.748
21.750
Within Groups
25920.092
718
36.100
Total
26028.840
723
of familys income on emotional stability factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05
level of significance. So there was no significant effect of familys income on emotional stability
187
Ho47
There is no significant effect of familys income on extroversion factor of

Table # 63
Descriptive statistics for effect of familys income on extroversion factor of
Family income
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Up to 5000
116
25.1897
6.22605
.57807
<5000 to 10000
238
26.4748
6.18265
.40076
<10000 to 15000
129
28.0155
5.68576
.50060
<15000 to 20000
112
28.3929
6.81328
.64379
<20000 to 25000
39
29.7949
6.83713
1.09482
Above 25000
90
30.5444
6.15011
.64828
Total
724
27.5249
6.43969
.23933
188
Table # 63a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of familys income

on extroversion factor of students personality
Sum
of
Sources of variance
Mean
Df
Squares
Sig.
10.440
.000
Square
Between Groups
2032.012
406.402
Within Groups
27950.541
718
38.928
Total
29982.552
723
Table 63 presents the data about means of extroversion factor of personality score on the
basis of familys income. The highest mean score (30.54) was found for those students whose
familys income was above 25000, and the lowest mean score (25.18) was for those whose
familys income was only up to 5000.
value (.000) was less than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of
familys income on extroversion factor of students personality was rejected at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was significant effect of familys income on extroversion factor of
189
Table # 63b
LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding family

Income on extroversion factor of students personality.
Familys income
Mean Difference
Significance
5000 Vs 15000
-2.82
0.000
5000 Vs 20000
-3.20
0.000
5000 Vs 25000
-4.60
0.000
5000 Vs above 25000
-5.35
0.000
10000 Vs 15000
-1.55
0.023
10000 Vs 20000
-1.93
0.007
10000 Vs 25000
-3.33
0.002
10000Vs above 25000
-4.08
0.000
20000 Vs above 25000
-2.15
0.015
From the LSD Post Hoc Test it was concluded that students belonging to different
income groups were significantly different from each other regarding extroversion factor of their
personalities
190
H o48 There is no significant effect of family income on the conscientiousness

Table # 64
Descriptive statistics for effect of familys income on conscientiousness factor
Family income
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Up to 500
116
37.5000
7.81581
.72568
<5000 to 10000
238
35.7605
7.11252
.46104
<10000 to 15000
129
37.3488
6.20440
.54627
<15000 to 20000
112
37.9821
6.91516
.65342
<20000 to 25000
39
38.0513
5.78086
.92568
Above 25000
90
36.4778
6.81576
.71844
Total
724
36.8785
6.98044
.25943
Table # 64a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of familys income

on conscientiousness factor of students personality
Sources of variance
Sum
Squares
of
Mean
df
Square
Between Groups
575.336
115.067
Within Groups
34653.968
718
48.265
Total
35229.304
723
Sig.
2.384
.037
Table 64 presents the data about means of conscientiousness factor of personality on the
basis of familys income. The highest mean (38.05) was found for subjects whose familys
191
income was up to 25000, and the lowest mean (35.76) was for those subjects whose familys
income was up to 10000.
of familys income on conscientiousness factor of students personality was rejected at 0.05
level of significance. So there was significant effect of familys income on conscientiousness
As the results were significant, so it was decided to run LSD Post Hoc Test of Multiple
Comparisons? However, only significant mean differences were presented here which contribute
Table # 64b
LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple Comparisons regarding familys income
on conscientiousness factor of students personality
Familys income
Mean Difference
Significance
5000 Vs 10000
-1.78
0.024
10000 Vs 15000
-1.63
0.032
10000 Vs 20000
-2.26
0.005
From the LSD Post Hoc Test it was concluded that only above mentioned groups of
students belonging to different income groups were significantly different from each other
regarding conscientiousness factor of their personalities.
192
Ho49
There is no significant effect of family income on the agreeableness factor of students
personality
Table # 65
Descriptive statistics for effect of familys income on agreeableness factor of
Family income
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Up to 5000
116
29.5086
3.63197
.33722
<5000 to 10000
238
29.1807
3.68784
.23905
<10000 to 15000
129
28.8605
3.98188
.35059
<15000 to 20000
112
29.3393
4.39810
.41558
<20000 to 25000
39
30.0513
3.61975
.57962
Above 25000
90
28.3222
3.39142
.35749
Total
724
29.1409
3.82205
.14205
Table # 65a

Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
1.696
.133
Square
Between Groups
123.259
24.652
Within Groups
10438.371
718
14.538
Total
10561.630
723
193
of familys income on agreeableness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was no significant effect of familys income on agreeableness factor of
From the results of hypotheses No. 43 to 49 it was concluded that familys income had
significant effect on students academic achievements but it had significantly affected only
extroversion and conscientiousness factors of personality openness, emotional stability and
agreeableness remained unaffected by family income.
194
Ho50
There is no significant effect of family size on students achievement

Table # 66
Descriptive statistics for effect of family size on students achievement
Family size
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Small
161
317.6522
61.25890
4.82788
Average
445
300.0809
64.28234
3.04727
Large
118
300.0339
53.78748
4.95154
Total
724
303.9807
62.36820
2.31790
Table # 66a
achievement
Sum
of
Sources of variance
Squares
df
Mean Square F
Sig.
Between Groups
38698.255
19349.128
.007
Within Groups
2773621.474
721
3846.909
Total
2812319.729
723
5.030
Table 66 presents the data about means of achievement score on the basis of family size.
The highest mean (317.65) was found for subjects who belonged to small families, and the lowest
mean (300.03) was for those subjects who belonged to large families.
of family size on the achievement of students was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. So there
was significant effect of family size on the achievement of students.
195
Table # 66b
students achievement.
Family size
Mean Difference
Significance
Small Vs Average
17.57
0.002
Small Vs Large
17.61
0.019
From LSD Post Hoc Test it was concluded that groups of students from different family
size were significantly different from each other regarding their academic achievement. It was
also clear that there was no significant difference between achievements of students from average
vs. large family size.
196
H o51
There is no significant effect of family size on students personality

Table # 67
Descriptive statistics for effect of family size on students personality
Family size
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Small
161
146.6460
17.55328
1.38339
Average
445
147.4045
17.27906
.81911
Large
118
147.7373
16.52164
1.52094
Total
724
147.2901
17.20011
.63924
Table # 67a
personality
Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
.162
.850
Square
Between Groups
96.222
48.111
Within Groups
213798.867
721
296.531
Total
213895.088
723
of family size on students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of significance. So there was
no significant effect of family size on students personality.
197
H o52 There is no significant effect of family size on openness factor of students personality.
Table # 68
Descriptive statistics for effect of family size on openness factor of students
personality
Family size
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Small
161
21.7329
5.39648
.42530
Average
445
22.3303
5.50807
.26111
Large
118
23.3644
4.96942
.45747
Total
724
22.3660
5.41526
.20126
Table # 68a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family size on openness factor of
Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
3.134
.044
Square
Between Groups
182.718
91.359
Within Groups
21019.286
721
29.153
Total
21202.004
723
Table 68 presents the data about means of openness factor of personality on the basis of
family size. the highest mean(23.36), was found for subjects who belonged to large family and
the lowest mean(21.73) was found for those subjects who belonged to small families.
198
of family size on openness factor of students personality
was rejected at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was significant effect of family size on openness factor of students
personality.
Table # 68b
openness factor of students personality.

Comparison
Mean Difference
Significance
Small Vs Large
-1.63
0.013
From the LSD Post Hoc test it was concluded that there was significant difference in the
openness factor of students personalities, only between the groups of students from small and
large families.
199
H o53
There is no significant effect of family size on emotional stability factor of students
personality
.
Table # 69
Descriptive statistics for effect of family size on emotional stability factor of
Family size
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Small
161
27.2112
6.77533
.53397
Average
445
27.0697
5.99340
.28411
Large
118
27.0593
4.83275
.44489
Total
724
27.0994
6.00010
.22299
Table # 69a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family size on emotional stability

Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
.036
.965
Square
Between Groups
2.595
1.297
Within Groups
26026.245
721
36.097
Total
26028.840
723
200
of family size on the emotional stability factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level
of significance. So there was no significant effect of family size on emotional stability factor of
201
H o54
There is no significant effect of family size on extroversion factor of students
personality.
Table # 70
Descriptive statistics for effect of family size on extroversion

Family size
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Small
161
27.8385
6.52773
.51446
Average
445
27.5146
6.64125
.31483
Large
118
27.1356
5.50666
.50693
Total
724
27.5249
6.43969
.23933
Table # 70a

Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
.406
.666
Square
Between Groups
33.766
16.883
Within Groups
29948.787
721
41.538
Total
29982.552
723
of family size on extroversion factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was no significant effect of family size on extroversion factor of students
personality
202
H o55
There is no significant effect of family size on conscientiousness factor of

Table # 71
Descriptive statistics for effect of family size on conscientiousness

Family size
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Small
161
37.2112
6.33089
.49894
Average
445
36.8472
7.21260
.34191
Large
118
36.5424
6.97204
.64183
Total
724
36.8785
6.98044
.25943
Table # 71a

Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
.324
.724
Square
Between Groups
31.587
15.793
Within Groups
35197.717
721
48.818
Total
35229.304
723
of family size on conscientiousness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was no significant effect of family size on conscientiousness factor of
203
H o56 There is no significant effect of family size on agreeableness factor of students

personality.
Table # 72
Descriptive statistics for effect of family size on agreeableness
Family size
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Small
161
28.7764
3.95281
.31152
Average
445
29.2674
3.74382
.17747
Large
118
29.1610
3.93314
.36207
Total
724
29.1409
3.82205
.14205
Table # 72a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of family size on agreeableness

Sum
Sources of variance
of
Mean
df
Squares
Sig.
.978
.377
Square
Between Groups
28.561
14.281
Within Groups
10533.069
721
14.609
Total
10561.630
723
of family size on agreeableness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of
204
significance. So there was no significant effect of family size on agreeableness factor of students
personality.
From the results of hypotheses No. 50 to 56 it was concluded that family size had
significantly affected students academic achievements and openness factor of their personality.
But it had no effect on emotional stability, extroversion, conscientiousness and agreeableness
factors of the personality.
205
H o57 There is no significant effect of birth order on students achievement

Table # 73
Descriptive statistics for effect of birth order on students achievement
Birth order
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
First Born
207
309.2995
65.08551
4.52376
Second Born
380
299.6500
60.73104
3.11544
Last Born
137
307.9562
62.23058
5.31672
Total
724
303.9807
62.36820
2.31790
Table # 73a

achievement
Sum
of
Sources of variance
df
Mean Square
Sig.
1.952
.143
Squares
Between Groups
15148.11
7574.056
Within Groups
2797171.61
721
3879.572
Total
2812319.72
723
of birth order on the achievement of students was accepted at 0.05 level of significance. So there
was no significant effect of birth order on students achievement.
206
H o58 There is no significant effect of birth order on students personality

Table # 74
Descriptive statistics for effect of birth order on students personality
Birth order
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
First Born
207
146.3865
16.73162
1.16293
Second Born
380
147.6658
17.68670
.90731
Last Born
137
147.6131
16.58988
1.41737
Total
724
147.2901
17.20011
.63924
Table # 74a

Personality.
Sources
of Sum
of
df
Mean Square
Sig.
236.955
118.477
.400
.671
Within Groups
213658.13
721
296.336
Total
213895.08
723
variance
Squares
Between Groups
of birth order on students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of significance. So there was no
significant effect of birth order on students personality.
207
H059 There is no significant effect of birth order on openness factor of students personality
Table # 75
Descriptive statistics for effect of birth order on openness factor of students
achievement
Birth order
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
First Born
207
21.6763
5.22379
.36308
Second Born
380
22.5316
5.45178
.27967
Last Born
137
22.9489
5.53109
.47255
Total
724
22.3660
5.41526
.20126
Table # 75a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of birth order on openness

Sources
of Sum
of
df
Mean Square
Sig.
2.662
.070
variance
Squares
Between Groups
155.427
77.713
Within Groups
21046.577
721
29.191
Total
21202.004
723
p value (0.070) is more than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect
of birth order on openness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was no significant effect of birth order on openness factor of students
personality.
208
H o60
There is no significant effect of birth order on emotional stability factor of

Table # 76
Descriptive statistics for effect of birth order on emotional stability

factor of students achievement
Birth order
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
First Born
207
26.9517
6.15556
.42784
Second Born
380
27.1842
5.77208
.29610
Last Born
137
27.0876
6.41055
.54769
Total
724
27.0994
6.00010
.22299
Table # 76a
Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of birth order on emotional

Sources
of Sum
of
df
Mean Square
Sig.
7.269
3.634
.101
.904
Within Groups
26021.571
721
36.091
Total
26028.840
723
variance
Squares
Between Groups
of birth order on emotional stability factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was no significant effect of birth order on emotional stability factor of
209
H o61 There is no significant effect of birth order on extroversion factor of

Table # 77
Descriptive statistics for effect of birth order on extroversion

Birth order
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
First Born
207
27.3188
6.29800
.43774
Second Born
380
27.6763
6.59799
.33847
Last Born
137
27.4161
6.23869
.53301
Total
724
27.5249
6.43969
.23933
Table # 77a

Sources
of Sum
of
df
Mean Square
Sig.
19.124
9.562
.230
.795
Within Groups
29963.428
721
41.558
Total
29982.55
723
variance
Squares
Between Groups
p value (0.795) was more than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant
effect of birth order on extroversion factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was no significant effect of birth order on extroversion factor of students
personality.
210
H o62
There is no significant effect of birth order on conscientiousness factor of

Table # 78
Descriptive statistics for effect of birth order on conscientiousness

Factor of students personality
Birth order
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
First Born
207
36.8792
6.95128
.48315
Second Born
380
36.8105
6.99875
.35903
Last Born
137
37.0657
7.02119
.59986
Total
724
36.8785
6.98044
.25943
Table # 78a

Sources
of Sum
of
df
Mean Square
Sig.
6.557
3.278
.067
.935
Within Groups
35222.747
721
48.853
Total
35229.304
723
variance
Squares
Between Groups
The summary of univariate analysis of variance presented in the table 78a
indicates that
p value (0.935) was more than 0.05 and the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant
effect of birth order on conscientiousness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05
level of significance. So there was no significant effect of birth order on conscientiousness factor
211
H o63 There is no significant effect of birth order on agreeableness factor of

Table # 79
Descriptive statistics for effect of birth order on agreeableness

Birth order
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
First Born
207
29.3382
3.62457
.25193
Second Born
380
29.0842
3.92990
.20160
Last Born
137
29.0000
3.82523
.32681
Total
724
29.1409
3.82205
.14205
Table # 79a

Sum
of
Mean
Sources of variance
Squares
df
Square
Sig.
Between Groups
11.996
5.998
.410
.664
Within Groups
10549.634
721
14.632
Total
10561.630
723
212
of birth order on agreeableness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. So there was no significant effect of birth order on agreeableness factor of students
personality.
From the results of Hypotheses No. 57 to 63 it was concluded that birth order had no
significant affect on academic achievement and students personality.
213
H o64 There is no significant effect of family type on students achievement.

Table # 80
t-test for effect of family type on students achievement
Variable
Mean
df
t- value
P value
Nuclear
438
316.00
722
6.60
0.126
Joint
286
285.56
Summary of t- test presented in table 80 indicates that p value (0.126) was more than
0.05. Hence the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of family type on
students achievement was accepted at 0.05 level of significance. So there was no significant
effect of family type on students achievement.
214
H o65 There is no significant effect of family type on students personality
Table # 81 t- test for effect of family type on students personality.

Family type
Mean
df
t- value
P value
Nuclear
438
147.60
722
0.618
0.296
Joint
286
146.80
Summary of t- test presented in the above table 81 indicates that p value (0.296) was
more than 0.05. Hence the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of family type
on students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of significance. So there was no significant
effect of family type on students personality.
215
H o66 There is no significant effect of family type on the openness factor of

Students personality
Table # 82
t- test for effect of family type on the openness factor of students

personality
Family type
Mean
df
t-value
P value
Nuclear
438
22.68
722
-1.97
.370
Joint
286
21.87
Hence the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of family type on openness
factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of significance. So there was no
significant effect of family type on openness factor of students personality.
216
H o67 There is no significant effect of family type on emotional stability factor of

Table # 83
t-test for effect of family type on emotional stability factor of

personality.
Family type
Mean
df
t-value
P value
Nuclear
438
26.72
722
-2.10
.306
Joint
286
27.67
Hence the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of family type on emotional
stability factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of significance. So there was no
significant effect of family type on emotional stability factor of students personality.
217
H o68 There is no significant effect of family type on extroversion factor of

Table # 84
t-test for effect of family type on extroversion factor of students

personality.
Family type
Mean
df
t-value
P value
Nuclear
438
27.80
722
-1.43
.073
Joint
286
27.10
Summary of t test presented in the above table 84 indicates that p value (0.073) was more
than 0.05. Hence the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of family type on
extroversion factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of significance. So there
was no significant effect of family type on extroversion factor of students personality.
218
H o69
There is no significant effect of family type on conscientiousness factor of

Table # 85
t-test for effect of family type on conscientiousness factor of

personality.
Family type
Mean
df
t-value
P value
Nuclear
438
37.02
722
-.721
.143
Joint
286
36.64
Summary of t test presented in the above table 85 indicates that p value (0.143) was more
than 0.05. Hence the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of family type on
conscientiousness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of significance. So
there was no significant effect of family type on conscientiousness factor of students personality.
219
Ho70
There is no significant effect of family type on agreeableness factor of students

personality.
Table # 86
t-test for effect of family type on agreeableness factor of personality.
Family type
Mean
df
t-value
P value
Nuclear
438
29.10
722
.352
.728
Joint
286
29.20
Hence the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant effect of family type on
agreeableness factor of students personality was accepted at 0.05 level of significance. So there
was no significant effect of family type on agreeableness factor of students personality.
From the results of Hypotheses No. 64 to 70 it was concluded that neither personality nor
academic achievement of students was affected by the independent variable of family type.
220
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of home environment on students
personality and academic achievement. The population of the study was students of science
subjects of 12th grade from Govt. colleges registered with the Board of Intermediate and
In this study two research instruments were used. In order to measure the personality of
students a 41 itemed Five Factor Personality Inventory developed by Tom Buchanan (2001) was
used. The five factors were openness, emotional stability, extroversion, agreeableness and
conscientiousness. To measure the intra-familial environment, as perceived by students, the Index
of Family Relations (IFR) was used. This index was originally developed by Hudson (1982).
Both of the above mentioned instruments were translated into Urdu by the researcher. The
Urdu translation was validated by a committee of three experts. For pilot testing both of the
instruments were administered to fifty students.
A demographic variable information Performa was developed by the researcher to get
information about the variables of parental education, family income, parents own house or not,
servant available at home, availability of transport facility, and other facilities including
television, computer, internet and telephone.
221
The information about achievement score of students was collected from the Result
Gazette of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Rawalpindi for the Intermediate
Annual Examination part1, 2006.
Total 70 null hypotheses were formulated to examine the cause-effect relationship
between the variables of home environment, achievement and personality of students. Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) and t-test were used to test the hypotheses of the study.
It was concluded from the present study that with the exception of family type and birth
order, all other independent variables had significant effect on the academic achievements of the
students. However students personality was partially affected by these variables
Findings
1.
There was significant effect of home environment on the achievement of students (table
17a).
2.
There was significant effect of home environment on the total personality of students (table
18a).
3.
No significant effect of home environment was found on the openness factor of students
personality (table 19a)
4.
There was a significant effect of home environment on the emotional stability factor of
students personality (table 20a)
5.
A significant effect of home environment was found on the extroversion factor of

6.
Conscientiousness factor of students personality was significantly affected by their home

environment (table 22a)
222
7.
There was a significant effect of home environment on the agreeableness factor of

8.
Socioeconomic status had significant effect on the achievement of students (table 24a)
9.
There was significant effect of socioeconomic status on students total personality (table
25a)
10.
There was no significant effect of socioeconomic status on the openness factor of

11.
Socioeconomic status had no significant effect on the emotional stability factor of

12.
A significant effect of socioeconomic status was found on the extroversion factor of

13.
A significant effect of socioeconomic status was found on the conscientiousness factor of

14.
No significant effect of socioeconomic status was found on the agreeableness factor of

15:
Family relations had significant effect on the achievement of students (table 31a)
16.
There was significant effect of family relations on the total personality of students (table
32a)
17.
There was no significant effect of family relations on the openness factor of students
18.
Emotional stability factor of students personality was significantly affected by family

relations (table 34a)
19.
There was significant effect of family relations on the extroversion factor of students
personality (table 35a).
223
20.
There was significant effect of family relations on the conscientiousness factor of

students personality (table 36a).
21.
There was significant effect of family relations on the agreeableness factor of students
22.
There was significant effect of gender on students achievement (table 38)
23.
There was significant effect of gender on the total personality of students (table 39).
24.
There was significant effect of gender on the openness factor of students personality
(table 40)
25
There was no significant effect of gender on the emotional stability factor of students
personality (table 41).
26.
There was no significant effect of gender on the extroversion factor of students

personality (table 42)
27.
There was significant effect of gender on the conscientiousness factor of students

28.
There was no significant effect of gender on the agreeableness factor of students

29.
There was significant effect of fathers education on the achievement of students (table
45a).
30.
There was no significant effect of fathers education on students total personality (table
46a).
31.
There was no significant effect of fathers education on the openness factor of students
32.
There was no significant effect of fathers education on the emotional stability factor of
224
33.
There was significant effect of fathers education on the extroversion factor of students
34.
There was no significant effect of fathers education on the conscientiousness factor of

35.
There was significant effect of fathers education on the agreeableness factor of students
36.
There was significant effect of mothers education on students achievement (table 52a).
37.
There was significant effect of mothers education on students total personality (table
53a).
38.
There was significant effect of mothers education on openness factor of students

39.
There was no significant effect of mothers education on emotional stability factor of

40.
There was significant effect of mothers education on extroversion factor of students

41.
There was no significant effect of mothers education on conscientiousness factor

42.
There was significant effect of mothers education on agreeableness factor of students

43.
Students achievement was significantly affected by their familys income (table 59a).
44.
Students total personality was significantly affected by their familys income (table 60a).
45.
There was no significant effect of familys income on openness factor of students

225
46.
There was no significant effect of familys income on emotional stability factor of

47.
There was significant effect of familys income on extroversion factor of students

48.
There was significant effect of familys income on conscientiousness factor of students

49.
There was no significant effect of familys income on agreeableness factor of students

50.
There was significant effect of family size on students achievement (table 66a).
51.
There was no significant effect of family size on students total personality (table 67a).
52.
There was significant effect of family size on openness factor of students personality
(table 68a).
53.
There was no significant effect of family size on emotional stability factor of students
54.
There was no significant effect of family size on extroversion factor of students

55.
There was no significant effect of family size on conscientiousness factor of students

56.
There was no significant effect of family size on agreeableness factor of students

57.
There was no significant effect of birth order on students achievement (table 73a).
58.
There was no significant effect of birth order on students total personality (table 74a).
59.
There was no significant effect of birth order on openness factor of students personality
(table 75a).
226
60.
There was no significant effect of birth order on emotional stability factor of students
61.
There was no significant effect of birth order on extroversion factor of students

62.
There was no significant effect of birth order on conscientiousness factor of students

63.
There was no significant effect of birth order on agreeableness factor of students

64.
There was no significant effect of family type on students achievement (table 80).
65.
There was no significant effect of family type on students total personality

(table 81).
66.
There was no significant effect of family type on openness factor of students personality
(table 82).
67.
There was no significant effect of family type on emotional stability factor of students
68.
There was no significant effect of family type on extroversion factor of students

69.
There was no significant effect of family type on conscientiousness factor of students

70.
There was no significant effect of family type on agreeableness factor of students

227
Conclusions
1. There was a significant cause- effect relationship between the independent variable of home
environment and dependent variables of students academic achievement and their total
personality. Personality factor of extroversion, emotional stability, agreeableness and
conscientiousness were also significantly affected by the home environment, only openness
factor of students personality was not affected by the home environment. It means
personality was also significantly affected by the home environment.
2. The independent variable of socioeconomic status significantly affected both achievement
and personality of students. Personality factors of extroversion and conscientiousness were
also significantly affected by socioeconomic status, while no significant effect of
socioeconomic status was found on openness, emotional stability and agreeableness factors of
students personality. Socioeconomic status had partially affected students personality
3. The independent variable of family relations had significant effect on the dependent variables
of students achievement as well as their personality. As far as personality factors were
concerned, with the exception of openness, all other factors (emotional stability, extroversion,
conscientiousness and agreeableness) were found to be affected by the family relations.
4. Gender had significant effect on students achievement and their total personality. Emotional
stability, extroversion and agreeableness factors of personality were not affected by gender.
However gender significantly affected openness and conscientiousness factors of personality.
It means gender had partial affect on students personality.
5. Educational level of students fathers had significant effect on their achievement, however no
significant effect of fathers education was found on students personality. Extroversion and
agreeableness factors of personality were significantly affected by fathers educational
228
qualification. However fathers education had no significant effect on openness, emotional

stability and conscientiousness factors of students personality.
6. The independent variable of mothers education had significantly affected the dependent
variables of students achievement and their personalities. With the exception of emotional
stability and openness all other factors of personality, namely extroversion, conscientiousness
and agreeableness were significantly affected by mothers education. Mothers education had
partially effected students personality.
7. There is a significant cause-effect relationship between the independent variable of family
income and dependent variables of students achievement and their total personality.
Similarly personality factors of extroversion and conscientiousness are also significantly
affected by the independent variable of familys income. However familys income had no
significant effect on openness, emotional stability and agreeableness factors of personality.
Students personality was partially affected by the familys income.
8. The independent variable of family size had significantly affected students achievement, but
this variable had no significant effect on the personality of students. Similarly personality
factors like extroversion, emotional stability, conscientiousness and agreeableness are not
significantly affected by the family size. However a significant cause-effect relationship was
found between the independent variable of family size and dependent variable of openness
factor of personality.
9. No significant cause and effect relationship was found between the independent variable of
birth order and dependent variables of students achievement and their personality. Similarly
all of the five factors of personality (openness, emotional stability, extroversion,
conscientiousness and agreeableness) were not significantly affected by the independent
variable of birth order.
229
10. The independent variable of type of the family had no significant effect on the dependent
variables of students achievement and their personality. At the same time no cause-effect
relationship was found between the independent variable of type of the family and dependent
variables of openness, emotional stability, conscientiousness, extroversion and agreeableness
factors of personality.
In short we can say that with the exception of birth order and family type, all independent
variables of the study had significant effect on students academic achievements. But as far as
students personality was concerned, it was only partially affected by different independent
variables of the study
Discussions
Present study was aimed to examine the effect of home environment on the personality
and academic achievement of students. It also sought to examine the effect of family relations,
socioeconomic status, parents education, family size and type and birth order on students
personality and achievement. The findings of the present study support the literature reviewed,
with some exceptions.
Present study reveals that home environment significantly affects the academic
achievement of students. It was found that students who belonged to higher home environment
group had highest mean achievement score (330.58), while the lowest mean achievement score
(280.33) was found for students who belonged to lower home environment group. This result is
consistent with the findings of Clarke and Clark (1959) and Rosen and Andrade (1945). Clarke
and Clark (1959) reported that low intelligence scores were developed and maintained by adverse
environment of neglect and cruelty at home. Their studies of mentally retarded adolescents and
young adults showed an average increase of 16 points during the six years period after they left
230
their adverse home environments with 33% showing IQ Increments of 20 points or more. Rosen
and Andrade (1945) found that parents of high achievement boys tend to be more competitive,
show more involvement and seem to take more pleasure in the problem-solving experiments.
They appear to be more interested and concerned with their son's performance.
Present research also indicates a positive cause and effect relationship between home
environment and personality. Students who belonged to higher home environment group had
highest personality means (150.13), while personality mean for students belonging to middle
home environment group was 149.52, and the lowest mean (148.00) was found for students from
lower home environment group. The present study also shows a positive cause-effect relationship
between home environment and extroversion, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and
agreeableness factors of personality. But no such relationship was found with openness factor of
personality.. These results somehow support the findings of Saran (1970) and Kundu (1989).
Saran found from his study that the individual development of child with regard to curiosity,
constructiveness and practical competence depends largely upon the presence of proper
environment at home. Kundu concludes that, a close emotional relationship between parents and
the child effects the inculcation of effective emotional relationship. Rejection and broken homes
affect the behavior and social adjustment of the child. In the present study home environment had
not significantly affected the openness factor of personality. This factor refers to imagination,
creativity, curiosity and analytical abilities. These abilities are perhaps more affected by genetics
than environment.
Khan and Anila (1997) and Rana (2002) explored from their research that middle class
students showed better results than those from low and high class. Velez, Shiefelbein and
Valenzuella (1993) found that socioeconomic status was positively associated with achievement.
Beaton (1996) found a strong positive relationship between students' achievement and their
231
parents socioeconomic status. Kruse (1996) revealed from his study a statistically significant
difference between the academic achievements of students from low socioeconomic environment,
compared to those from high socioeconomic environment. The findings of the present study were
also consistent with their findings. The present study also found that students from high
socioeconomic status obtained higher means (336.48 ) for achievement score, than students from
average (312.29) and low (275.21) socioeconomic status.
Present study revealed a significant effect of socioeconomic status on the total personality
of students. Similarly a positively significant effect of socioeconomic status was found on
extroversion and conscientiousness. Students from high socioeconomic group were found to be
more extrovert (Mean=30.39) than low (Mean= 25.38), and average group (Mean=27.65). as far
as conscientiousness was concerned students from average socioeconomic class showed highest
mean score for conscientiousness (37.88), and students from high socioeconomic class were
found to be more conscientious (Mean=36.68) than those from low SES group (Mean=36.12).
These results are somewhat in agreement with the studies of Kohn (1977), Baltzell, (1979a),
NORC, 2003;. They found that poor parents were more likely to issue commands without
explanation, and less likely to consult children about their wishes, and reward children for
behaving in a desirable way. But these results do not support the findings of Nokao, et,al. (2000).
They found that high socioeconomic status was not related to extroversion, but intellect was
related to high socioeconomic status.
The present study found that parents educational qualification had significant effect on
the achievement of students. It was found that parents education was positively associated with
the achievement of their children. This finding is in agreement with the findings of the studies
conducted by Battin-Pearson et al. (2000); Block and Saris (2000); Erickson and Jones (1996);
Ferguson and Woodward (2000) and Henz and Maas (1995). These researchers concluded that
232
the level of parental education is a strong predictor of childrens success in the educational
system. Sudhir and Lalhirimi (1989) examined a positive relationship between parental
educational status and academic achievement of school students.
Drucker and Remners (1952) and Sims (1954) found that children of less educated
parents or totally uneducated had low emotional stability and were more anxious and proven to
problem. The present study also found that students with highly educated (post graduate) parents
had better personalities than those whose parents were less educated. One unexpected finding of
the present study was that the mean of achievement and personality scores of students whose
fathers had professional degrees, were lower than those whose fathers had post graduate degree. It
may be due to the fact that professional parents give more time to their profession and cant spend
enough time with their children as compared to non professional fathers.
Present study found a significant effect of family relations on the total personality of
students. Students who had good family relations, had highest personality mean (149.31), while
those students who had poor family relations, their personality mean was the lowest (130.23). It
means students personality was positively affected by family relations. Similarly family relations
were found to have a significant effect on all the factors of personality studied in the present
research (extroversion, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and agreeableness), except
openness to experience. Statistically, openness to experience was also affected by family
relations, but the effect was not significant. These findings of the present study support the
findings of previous researches. Papini and Roggman (1992) and Peterson and Hann (1999) found
that adolescents, who received support and nurturance from their parents had a well developed
identity and were less anxious, depressed, and aggressive than those who did not. Pressy (1929)
and Beaven (1949) found that students who had adjustment difficulties frequently came from
233
homes where the family relationships were bad and where there was excessive friction between
parents and their children.
Dave (1963) and Wolf (1964) found that family process was highly related to academic
achievement and intellectual development. Werner, Bierman and French (1971) concluded from
their longitudinal study that the childs learning and achievement were significantly related to
indices of family environment. Henderson (1988) and Harris (1988) found that parents can
profoundly effect the development of appropriate academic motivation, skills and achievement.
The present study also supports the findings of the above mentioned researchers. The results
indicated that students having good family relations had highest mean (307.07) for achievement
score while students having poor family relations had lowest mean (282.82) for achievement
score. Mean score for students having moderate family relations was found to be 289.17.
Wang and Staver (1997) conducted a study of gender differences in Chinese students
achievement by involving 12000 students. They found that the performance of male students was
better than female students. Similar results were found by a study conducted by Preece (1999).
Present study also indicated a significant effect of gender on the academic performance of
students. The mean of achievement score for female students (322.15) was higher than the mean
of achievement score for male students (280.24). This finding is inconsistent with the findings of
researches conducted by Greenfield (1996); Mirza and Malik (2000) and Rana (2002). These
researchers also found that the performance of female students was better than that of male
students.
Present study found no significant effect of gender on emotional stability, extroversion
and agreeableness factors of students personality, but a significant effect of gender was found on
openness and conscientiousness. Present study revealed that females were more open to
experience (Mean= 23.10) than males (Mean=21.40), but male students were found to be more
234
conscientious (Mean=37.42) than female students (Mean=36.46). These findings are somehow
consistent with the findings of Suri, who from his research on Differential Personality Traits
found very few sex differences on all the 14 personality factors. Saraswat (1964) also found that
girls do not differ significantly from boys on stability, dependability, confidence and inferiority.
Review of previous researches revealed that children from small families were superior to
children from large families as far as their social and emotional adjustments were concerned
(Bossard, 1952, 1953, 1954; Nye, 1952; Damrin, 1949; Fleeg, 1945). But quite contrary to these
findings no significant effect of family size was found on the personality of students. Although a
significant effect of family size was found on the openness factor of students personality, but
other factors of personality studied in the present research were not affected by the family size.
Zanjonce and Marcus (1976) found from his research that as the size of the family
increases, the intellectual development of the children tends to decrease. Present study is also
consistent with the findings of Zanjonce and Marcus. A significant effect of family size was
found on the achievement of students. Students from small families performed better
(Mean=317.65), than those who were from large families (Mean=300.03).
Rothbart (1971) and Hilton (1967) found that students achievement was affected by the
birth order of the child. Results of present study did not support the findings of Rothbart and
Hilton. Although a statistical difference was found in the means of achievement scores of first
borns (mean=309.19), and second borns (299.65), but the difference was not significant.
Adler (1933,) and Laosa and Brophy (1970) found that birth order significantly affects the
personality of students. But Ernst and Angst (1983) and Schooler (1972) claimed that there were
simply no effects of birth order on personality. Present study is also consistent with the findings
of Ernst and Angst and Schooler, as the present study had found no significant effects of birth
order on students personality. There are some other factors which may influence the results, as
235
Dunn (1983) thinks that sex of the siblings, age difference among siblings also influence the
childrens perceptions of relationships with their brothers and sisters.
A study conducted by Gupta (1981) revealed that achievement of students was
independent of family type. Similarly he found that emotional and home adjustments were also
not affected by the type of the family. Present study also supports Guptas views because no
significant effect of family type was found on the achievement and personality of students.
It was found from the present research that academic achievement was significantly
affected by almost all independent variables of the study except birth order and family type.
Openness factor of personality was affected by independent variable of mothers education,
gender and family size. Emotional stability factor of personality was significantly affected only
by total home environment and family relations. Extroversion factor of personality was affected
by home environment, family relations, mothers education, fathers education, familys income
and socioeconomic status. Conscientiousness factor of personality was affected by home
environment, family relations, socioeconomic status, gender and income of the family.
Agreeableness factor of personality was affected by total home environment, family relations,
mothers education and fathers education. Thus it is concluded that students personality factors
were partially affected by the independent variables of the study.
Recommendations
1. Results of the present study indicate the importance of pleasant home environment, thus to
increase the quality of family life, parents education concerning child rearing practices is
recommended.
2. Results of the present study show that mothers education is very important for the academic
achievement of students, hence it is recommended that government should take solid steps to
increase and encourage female education programmes.
236
3. It is recommended to incorporate family life education in the school and college curriculum
to produce responsible citizens.
4. Awareness of common people regarding the importance of pleasant, warm and supportive
family relations should be raised by using mass media.
5. Teachers, administrators, curriculum planners and policy makers should know students
psychological and physical needs, thus it should be made an important part of their
professional training.
6. Present study has shown socioeconomic status as an important variable to influence students
achievement, so it is recommended that government should take steps to raise socioeconomic
status of people.
7. In a fast developing world home environment has undergone a tremendous change that has
affected students moral and intellectual development. Hence, more researches should be
conducted to explore and analyze other factors which may influence students academic
achievement and their personality.
237
References
Abraham, P.A.(1969) An Experimental Study of Certain Personality Traits and Achievement of
Secondary School Pupils, Unpublished thesis, PhD. (Psychology). Kerala University..
Adaval, S.B., Kakkar, Aggrawal and Gupta.(1961). Causes of Failure in High School
Examination. Allahabad University. Deptt. Of Education.
Adler, A. (1931). What life should mean to you.New York:Greenberg.
Adler, A. (1933). Religion and Individual Psychology and Social Interest. NewYork: Greenberg.
Adler, N.E., Boyce, B., Chesney, M.A., Cohen, S., Folkman, S., Kahn, R.L., & Syme,
S.L. (1994). Socioeconomic status and health: the challenge of the gradient.
American Psychologist, 49, 15-24
Ahmed, M. (1991). The NWFP Public Service Commission Annual Report.
Peshawar: Government Printing Press.
Ainsworth, M.D.S (1972) cited in: A scientific look at the Origions of infant-mother
attachment. Johns HopKins journal, 6 (1).
Allen, Bem P. (1994), Personality Theories ( pp.5,6,11-14), Allyn & Bacon, A Division
of Simon &
Schuster Ink.160 Gonld Street Needham Heights, MA 02194
Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Patterns and growth in personality. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Altus, W. O. (1965) . Birth order, aptitude and the Gottschaldt test. Address,
American Psychological Association Meeting, Chicago.
Ambert, A.M. (1997). Parents, children and adolescents.: Interactive relationships and
development in context. New York: Haworth Press.
Anne Anastasi & Susana Urbina (1988). Psychological Testing, Prantice-Hall, Inc.
Argyle, M. (1994) The psychology of social class. London: Routledge
Arif, M.H. (1982). A Comparative study of conservers and nonconservers on some
tasks with respect to intelligence, school achievement and socioeconomic status.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Education and Research, University
238
of the Punjab, Lahore.

Ashley-Montagn, M.F.:(1948.). Sex ,order of birth and personality.Amer J..
Orthopsychiat.,18, 351-353
Baltzell, E. Digry (1979a) .Philadelphia Gentlemen : The Making of a National Upper
Class. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bandura, A. (1974). Behavior theory and the models of man. American Psychologist.
29, 859-869
Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review
Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determination. American Psychologist,
33, 344-358.
Baranowski, M. D. (1982). Grandparent-adolscent relationship: Beyond the nuclear
family. Adolescence, 17, 575-584.
Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E., & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between parental
psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized
behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1120-1136.
Barnard, K. E., Bee, H.L., & Hammond, M.A. (1984). Home environment and
cognitive development in a healthy, low-risk sample : The Seattle study. In
W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home environment and early cognitive development
(pp. 117-149). Orlando : Academic Press.
Baskett, L.M., & Johnston, S.M. (1982). The young Childs Interaction with parents
versus siblings. Child Development 53, 643-650.
Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M.D., Abbott, R.D., Hill, K.G., Catalano, R.F., & Hawkins, J.D.
(2000). Predictors of early highschool dropout. A test of five theories. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92, 568-582.
Baumrind. D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In. R.M. Lerner,
A.C. Peterson & J.Brooks-Gunn(Eds), Encyclopedia of adolescence(vol. 2,
pp. 746-758). New York: Garland Publishing
Baumrind, D.(1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool Behaviour,
Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-83
Baumrind D. (1971). Currant patterns of parental authority. Developmental
Psychology Monograph, 4(1, pt, 2)
239
Baumrind D. (1991). The influence of Parenting style on adolescent competence and substance
abuse. Journal of Early Adolescence, II , 56- 95.
Baumrind, D.(1989). Rearing Competent Children. In W.Damon (Ed), Child Development Today
and Tomorrow (pp. 349-378). Sanfransisco Jossey-Bass Elder, G.H.
Beaton, A. (1996). Science achievement in the middle school years:Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). BOSTON: International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Attainment.
Beaven, M. B.: (1949). Studies reflecting the family-world scene. Sch. & Soc., 69, 148-151.
Beckwith, L., & Cohen, S.E (1984). Home environment and cognitive competence in preterm
children during the first 5 years. In A.W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home environment and early
cognitive development (p. 235-271). Orlando :Academic Press.
Belkin S. Gary and Goodman Norman (1980). Intimate Relationships, Rand McNally College
Publishing Company Chicago.
Bell, J. F. (2001). Investigating gender differences in science performance of 16- year-old pupils
in the UK. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (5), 469-486.
Belsky, J., Woodworth, S., & Crnic., K. (1996). Trouble in the second year: three questions about
family interactions. Child Development, 67, 556-578.
Block, H., & Saris, W.E. (2000). Relerante variabelen bij het doorrerijzen na de lagere school:
Een Structureel model [The assignment of elementary school pupils to secondary school
types: A linear structural model]. Tijdschrift roor onderwijsresearch, 25, 231-247.
Blyth, D. a., Hill, J. P.,& Thiel, K. S. (1982). Early adolescents significant others: Grade and
gender differences in perceived relationships with famial adults and young people. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 425-450.
Bonney, M. E. (1942). A study of the relation of intelligence, family size, and sex differences
with mutual friendships in the primary grades. Child Develpm., 13, 79-100
Bose, K., (1971) A Psychological Study of the Personality Patteren of a Group of
Institutionalized Boys with a view to understanding Certain Emotional Factors leading to
Problem Behavior, Unpublished Thesis, PhD. (Education). Lucknow University..
Bossard, J. H. S.: (1953.) Parent and child. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bossard, J. H. S.: (1954.)The sociology of child development. Rev. ed. New York: Harper.
Bossard, J. H. S., and Sanger, W. p.: (1952). the large family system-a research report.
Amer Social. Rev., 17, 3-9.
240
Bossard, J.H.S, & Boll, E.(1956) Adjustment of Sibling in Large Families. American Journal of
Psychiatry , 112, 889-892
Bradley, R.H. Corwyn, R.F., Caldwell, B. M., Whiteside-Mansell, L., Wasserman, G. A., &
Mink, I. T. (2000). Measuring the home environments of children in early adolescence.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 247-288.
Branje, S.J.T., Van Aken, M.A.G., Van Lieshout, C.F.M., & Mathijssen J.J.J.P.(2003).
Personality judgments in adolescents families: The perceiver, the target, their
relationship, and the family. Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 60-68
Brim, 0.G. Jr. (1978). Family structure and sex role learning by children. A further analysis of
Helen kochs data Sociometry, 21(1), 1-16.
Bronfenbrenner Urie, (1972). Influences on human development. The Dryden Press Inc.
Hinsdale, Illinois
Brown, N., & Evans, R. (1998). Socioeconomic status and education: Living in a social world.
Advanced Social Psychology, 324.
Bryant, B., & Crockenberg, S. B. (1980). Correlates and dimensions of prosocial behaviour: A
study of female siblings with their mothers. Child Development, 51, 529-544.
Buchanan Tom, (2001), Online Implementation of an IPIP Five Factor Personality Inventory.
http://users.wmin.ac.uk/~buchant/wwwffi/introduction.html
Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1990). Perceptions of sibling relationships during middle
childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 61. 1387-1398.
Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W.( 1987). The development of companionship and intimacy. Child
Development,58,1101-1113.
Byrne, D.G. and Byrne, A. (1990) Adolescent personality, school type and educational outcomes:
an examination of sex differences. In Heaven P. and Callan, V. (eds), Adolescence: an
Australian perspective. Sydney: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 98-115
Caldwell, B. M. and Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home Observation for the Measurement of the
Environment. Little Rock, AR: Authors. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1987).
Characteristics of at-risk students. Washington, DC: Authors
Carlo,G., Fabes, R.A., Laible, D & Kupanoff, K. (1999). Prosocial/moral development in early
adolescence II: Social processes. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 1-8.
Carlson, R. (1971). Where is the person in the personality research? Psychological Bulletin,
75,203-219.
241
Carson, R.C.,& Butcher, F.N. (1992). Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life. New York:
Harper. Collins. Carter , W. P.: 1940. The only child in the family. Chicago: University of
Chicago Libraries.
Carter , W. P.: 1940. The only child in the family. Chicago: University of Chicago Libraries.
Casy, P.H., Bradley, R.H., Nelson, J.Y., & Whaley, S. A. (1988). The clinical assessment of a
childs social and physical environment during health visits. Developmental and
Behavioral Pediatrics, 9, 333-338.
Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality: A systematic, theoretical, and factual study. New York:
McGraw-Hill
Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Baltimore: Penguin Books
Cattel, R.B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476-506.
Chen, C. Lee, S. Y. & Stevenson, H.W. (1996). Long-term predictions of academic achievement
of American, Chiese and Japanese adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18,
750-759.
Child, D. (1989). The relationship between introversion-extroversion,neuroticism and
performance in school examinations. British Journal of Educational Psychology 34, 178196.
Childers, A. T.: (1935). Hyperactivity in children having behavior disorders. Amer.
J.Orthopsychiat
Cicirelli, V. (1977). Family structure and interaction: Sibling effects on Socialization. In M.
McMillan & M. Sergio (Eds.), Child Psychiatry: Treatment and research. New York.
Cicirelli, V. G (1980). A comparison of college womens feelings toward their siblings and
parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 78 111-118.
Clarke, E. L. (1916). American Men of Letters. Their Nature and Nurture, Columbia University
Press. New York. P. 84.
Clarke, A.D.B. & Clarke, A.M (1959). Recovery from the effects of depriviation. Acta
Psychologica, , 16, 137-144
Clausen, J. A. (1966), Family structure, Socialization and Personality. In L. W. Hoffman, and M.
L. Hoffman(Eds.), Reviews of Child Development Research, New York: Rusel Sage
Foundation,
242
Clavert A. (1990). Family environment factors associated with child abuse.

Psychol Rep ; 66: 458.
Conger, R.D., Ge, X., Elder, G.H., Lorenz, F.O., & Simons, R.L., (1994). Economic stress,
coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development,
65, 541-561.
Connell, C. M.,& Prinz. R. J. (2002). The impact of childcare and parent-child interactions on
school readiness and social skills development for low income African American Children.
Journal of School Psychology, 40, 177-193.
Costa, P.T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1997). Longitudinal stability of adult personality: in R. Hogan,
J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 269-291). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Costa, P.T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). revised NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)
. Professional manual. O dessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Crouter, A.C. Mac Dermid, S.M., McHale, S.M. & Perry-Jenkins, M.(1990). Parental monitoring
and perceptions of childrens school performance and conduct in dual-and-single-earner
families. Developmental Psychology, 26, 649-657.
Crow D. Lester &Crow Alice (1965). Adolescent Development and Adjustment. McGraw-Hill
Book Company NewYark
Damrin, D. E.: 1949. Family size and sibling age, sex and position as related to certain aspects of
adjustment. J. soc. Psychol., 29, 98-102.
Dave, R.T (1963). The identification and measurement of environmental process variables that
are related to educational achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Chicago.
David A. Payne and Mary Jo McGee- Brown, Paulette Tayler and Margaret Dukes, (1993).
Development and Validation of a family environment checklist for use in selecting at-risk
participants for innovative educational pre-school programs, Educational and
Psychological Measurement 53, 1079-1084
Davis, A.:(1944). Sociolization and adolescent personality. 43d Yearb. Nat. Soc. Stud. Educ.,
. I, 198-216
Davis, A., and Havighurst, R. J.: (1946). Social class and color differences in child rearing.
Amer.Social. Rev., 17, 698-710
243
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
De Fruyt, F. and Mervielde, I. (1996). Personality and interests as predictors of educational
streaming and achievement. European Journal of Personality 10, 405-425.
DeGarmo, D.S., Forgatch, M. S., & Martinez, C. R., Jr (1999). Parenting of divorced mothers as a
link between social status and boys academic outcomes. Unpacking the effects of
socioeconomic status. Child Development. 70, 1231-1245.
Dekovic, M., & Janssens, J. M. (1992). Parents child-rearing style and childs socioeconomic
status. Developmental Psychology,28, 925-932.
.De Raad, B. and Schouwenburg, H. (1996). Personality in learning and education: a review.
European Journal of Personality 10, 303-336.
Desimore, L., (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: do race and income
matter? Journal of Educational Research, 93(1),11-30.
Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.Annual Review
of Psychology, 41, 417-440
Drucker, A.J., & Remmers, H.H. (1952). Environmental determinants of basic difficulty
problems. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,47, 379-381 (1975).
Dunn,J. (1983). Sibling relationships in early childhood. Child Development,54, 787- 811.
Dunn J.(1992). Sisters and Brothers: current issues in developmental research. In F. Boer & J.
Dunn (Eds.). Childrens sibling relationships (pp. 1-18). Hillsdale; NJ: Erlbaum.
Durbin, D.L., Darling , N., Steinbeg. L., & Brown, B.B. (1993). Parenting style and peer group
membership among E uropean- American adolescents. Journal ofResearch on Early
Adolescence, 3, 87-100.
Dyer, D. E.: (1945). Are only children different? J. educ. Psychol., 36, 297-302.Eckenrode,
J.,Larid, M., & Doris, J. (1993). School performance and disciplinary problems among
abused and neglected children. Developmental psychology,29, 53-63
Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1983) Developmental sequelae of maltreatment in infancy. In.
Rizley & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), New directions for child development (Vol. 11. Pp. 77-72).
San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.
Egger, P., & Kauchak, D. (1999). Educational Psychology: windows on classroom.Columbus,
ohio: Merrill.
Eirini Flouri and Ann Buchanan.(2003) The Role of Father Involvement and Mother Involvement
in Adolscents Psychological Well being, British Journal of Social Work , 33, 399-406.
244
Elder, G. H., Conger, R. D., Foster, E. M., & Ardelt, M. (1992). Families under economic
pressure. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 5-37.
Ellis, A. (1926), A study of British Genius, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Ellison Christopher G., Bartkowski John P., and Segal Michelle L. (1996) Do Conservative
Protestant Parents Spank More Often? Further Evidence from the National Survey of
Families and Households. Social Science Quarterly. Vol.77, No. 3 : 663-673
Emery, R.E. & O Leary, K.D.(1984) Marital discord and child behaviour problems in a non
clinical sample, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 12: 411-420.
Englund M. Luckner E. Amy, Whaley J. L. Gloria, and Egeland Byron, (2004). ). Childrens
Achievement in Early Elementry School: Longitudinal effects of Parental Involvement,
Expectations, and Quality of Assistance Journal of Educational Psychology vol. 96,No. 4,
723-730.
Entwistle , N. (1972). Personality and educational attainment. British Journal of Educational
Psychology 42, 137-151.
Ericson, M. C.: (1946). Child rearing and social status. Amer. J. Sociol., 52, 190-192.
Ericson, R. & Jonson, J. O. (1996). Introduction. Explaining class inequality in education.
The Swedish test case. In R. Ericson & J.O. Jonsson (Eds.), Can Education be equalized?
(pp. 1-63). Boulder, Co: Westview.
Ernst, C. & Angst, J.(1983). Birth order:Its influence on personality. Berlin. Germany:SpringerVerlag.
Essman, C.S.(1977). Sibling relations as socialization for parenthood. The Family coordinator,
26(3), 259-262
Eysenck, H. J. (1961). The effects of psychotherapy. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), Handbook of
abnormal psychology: An experimental approach . New York: Basic books.
Eysenck, H. J. (1965). The causes and cures of neurosis: An introduction to modern behavior
therapy based on learning theory and principles of conditioning. San Diego, CA: Knapp.
Eysenck, H. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, 11,: Charles C.Thomas.
Eysenck, H. and Eysenck, M. (1985). Personality and individual differences: a natural science
approach. New York: Plenum.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Personality, stress, and disease: An interactionist perspective.
Psychological Inquiry, 2, 221-232.
245
Fabes Richard & Lynn Martin Carol (2000). Exploring Child Development ( pp.180-182), Allyn
and Bacon. USA.
Farhana, Jehangir, Samra A. Tahir & Tahir Saeed (2000). Parental education: A
contributing factor to personality. The Journal of Psychology 5-13.
Faw, T., & Belkin, G.S. (1989 ). Child Psychology, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ferguson, D. M., & Woodward, L. J. (2000). Family socio economic status at birth and rates of
university participation. NewZeland Journal of Education studies, 35, 25-36.
Fisher, W., and Hayes, S. B.:( 1941). Maladjustment in college, predicted by Bernreuter
Inventory scores. J. appl. Psychol., 25, 86-96
Flanagan, C. A. (1990). Families and schools in hard times. In V.C. McCloyd &C.A. Flanagan
(Eds.), Economic stress; Effects on family life and child development (pp.7-26). San
Francisco: Jossy-Bass.
Fleege, U. H.: (1945). Self-revelation of the adolescent boy. Milwaukee, Wis.:Bruce. ForstromCohen, B., & Rosenbaum, A. (1985). The effects of parental marital violence on young
adults: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Marriage and the family, 47, 467-472.
Flouri Eirini and Buchanan Ann.(2003) The Role of Father Involvement and Mother Involvement
in Adolscents Psychological Well being, British Journal of Social Work , 33, 399-406
Frank, L.K. (1939). Projective Methods for the Study of Personality. Journal of Psychology, 8,
389-413.
Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. In J. Strachy (Ed. and Trans. ),
The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Frued (vol. 22. pp.
1-182). London: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1935). A general introduction to psychoanalysis (rev. ed.) (J. Riviere, Transe.). New
York: Liveright
Freud, S. (1938). The basic writing of Sigmond Freud (A. A. Brill, Ed. and Trans.). New York:
Modern Library.
Fuligni, A.J., & Eccles, J. S. (1993). Percieved parent- child relationships and early adolescents
orientation towards peers. Developmental Psychology.29, 622-632.
Furnham, A. and Mitchell, J. (1991). Personality, needs, social skills and academic achievement:
a longitudinal study . Personality and Individual Differences 12, 1067-1073.
Furnham, A and Medhurst, S. (1995). Personality correlates of academic seminar behavior:a
study of four instruments. Personality and Individual Differences 19, 197-208.
246
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D.(1985). Childrens perceptions of the qualities of sibling
relationships. Child Development. 56. 448-461.
Gander J. Mary & Gardiner W. Harry (1981). Child and Adolescent Development, Litte Brown
and Company, Boston Toronto.
Garfinkle, M., Massey, R., & Mendel E. (1976). Adlerian Guidelines for Counselling. In G.S.
Belkin (Ed.), Counseling. Directions in theory and Practice. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall /
Hunt, pp. 145-150.
Garfinkle, M., Massey, R., & Mendel E. (1976). Adlerian Guidelines for Counselling. In G.S.
Belkin (Ed.), Counseling. Directions in theory and Practice. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall /
Hunt, pp. 145-150.
Gary S. Belkin & Norman Goodman. (1980). Intimate Relationships, Rand McNally College
Publishing Company.
Gill, S., & Reynolds, A.J. (1999), Educational expectations and school achievement of Urban
African American Children. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 403- 424.
.Goh, D. & Moore, C. (1978). Personality and academic achievement in three educational levels.
Psychlogical Reports 43, 71-79.
Goldberg, L.R.(1990). An Alternative description of personality. The Big-Five factor Structure.
Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 59 (6), 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). THE Development of Five-Factor Domain Scales from the IPIP Item
Pool. http.//ipip.ori.org/ipip/memo htm.
Gottfried, A.W. (1984). Home environment and cognitive development in young children of
middle socioeconomic status families. In A.W. Gottfried(Ed.), Home environment and
early cognitive development (pp. 57-115). Orlando: Academic Press.
Gottfried, A. W., & Brady, N. (1975). Interrelationships between and correlates of psychometric
and Piagetian scales of sensorymotor intelligence. Develpm. Psychol., 11, 379-387.
Greenfield, T. A. (1996), Gender, ethnicity, science achievement and attitudes. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 33 (8), 901-933.
Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents involvement in childrens schooling: A
multi dimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65, 237252.
Gupta, A.K. (1981). Study of Parental Preferences in Relation to Adolescent, Personality
Adjustment and Achievement. Model Institute of Education and Research, Jammu..
247
Gutman, L. M. & Eccles, J. E. (1999). Financial strain, parenting behavior and adolescents
achievement: Testing model equivalence between African American and European
American single and two-parent families. Child Development. 70, 1464-1476.
Hall, C.S.,& Lindzey, G. (1991). Theories of Personality. New York: Wiley.
Harker, r. (2000). Achievement, gender and single/coed debate. British Journal of Sociology and
Education,21(2), 203-215.
Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do.
New York: Free Press.
Heaven, P. (1990). Attitudinal and personality correlates of achievement motivation among highschool students. Personality and Individual Differences 11, 705- 710.
Heiss, J. (1996) effects of African American family structure on school attitude and performance.
Social problems, 43, 246
Heller, K. A., & Ziegler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and science: can
attributional retraining improve the performance of gifted females? Gifted Child Quarterly,
4, 200-210.
Henderson, A. T. (1988), The evidence continue to grow : Parent involvement improves student
achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education Report 23.
Henz, U.7 Maas, I. (1995). Chancengleichheit durch die Bildungsexpansion [equal opportunities
due to educational expenses]. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie and Sozial psychologie, 47,
605-633.
Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1992). Coping with marital transitions. Monographs
of the society for research in child development. (vol. 57, serial No. 227).
Hill, J. P. (1987). Research on adolescents and their families. In C. E. Irwin (Eds.), Adolescent
social behavior and health (Vol.13, pp. 13-31). San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.
Hilton, I., (1967). Differences in the behavior of mothers toward first and later-born children.
J. pers. Soc. Psycho., 7, 282-290.
Hinshaw, S. P. Zupan, B. A., Simmel, C., Nigg, J. T., et al. (1997). Peer status in boys with and
without attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Child Development, 68, 880-896.
Hoffman, M.L., (1994). Discipline and internalization, Developmental psychology, 30, 26-28.
Holdstock, T., & Rogers, C. R. (1977). Person centered theory. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Contemporary
personality theories. Itasca. IL: F. E. Peacock.
Horney, K. (1942). Self-analysis. New York: W. W. Norton.
Horney, K. (1953). Collected Works of Karen Horney (2 vol.). New York: W. W. Norton.
248
Horrocks, J. E.: (1951). The Psychology of Adolescence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hudson, w.w. (1982b). A measurement Package for Clinical Worker. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Sciences, 18, 229-238
Jackson, D. N. & Paunonen, S. V. (1980). Personality structure and assessment. In M. R.
Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (vol. 31). Palo Alto,CA:
Annual Reviews, Inc
Jha, V (1970). An Investigation into some Factors Related to Achievement in Science by Students
in Secondary Schools. Unpublished Thesis, PhD. (Education).. Patna University.
John, O. P. (1990). The big-five factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural
language and questionnares. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: theory and
research (pp. 66-100).
Johnson, D.J., Breckenridge, J.N., & McGowan , R.J. (1984).Home environment and early
cognitive development in Mexican-American children. In A.W. Gottfried(Ed.).Home
environment and early cognitive development (pp. 151-195).Orlando: Academic Press.
Jones, H.E. The Environment and Mental Development. In L. Carmichael (Ed), Mannal of Child
Psychology. New York: Willey, 1954.
Jung, C. G. (1968a). Analttic psychology: its theory and practice. New York: Pantheon Books.
Jung, C. G. (1968b). Man and his symbols. New York: Dell.
Justice B. Clavert A (1990). Family environment factors associated with child abuse. Psychol Rep
66: 458.
Kagan, S.L., & Neuman, M.J. (1998). Lessons from three decades of transition research.
Elementary School Journal, 87, 365-379.
Keith, T. Z. Keith, P.B., Quirk, K. J.,Cohen- Rosenthal, E& Franzese, B.(1996). Effects of
parental involvement on achievement for students who attend school in rural America.
Journal of Research in Rural Education, 12, 55-67
Keith, T. Z. Keith, P.B., Quirk, K. J., Sperduot, J., Santillo, S.,& Killings, S. (1998).
Longitudinal effects of parent involvement on high school grades: Similarities
and differences across gender and ethnic groups. Journal of School Psychology,
36, 335- 363.
Khan Sarwat & Anila (1997), Home Environment of the Children Belonging to Lower and
Middle Socioeconomic Status. Personality Study and Group Behavior. 17, 1-16.
Kline, P. and Gale, A. (1971). Extraversion, neuroticism and performance in a psychology
examination. British Journal of Educational Psychology 41, 90-94.
Koch, H. L., (1955). Some Personality correlates of sex, sibling position, and sex of sibling
among five and six-year old children. Genet. Psycho, Monogr., 52, 3-50.
Kochanska, G., & Askan, N. (1995). Mother-child mutually affect, the quality of child
compliance to requests and prohibitions, and maternal control as correlates of early
internalization. Child Development, 66, 236-254.
249
Koeloga,H. (1992). Extraversion and Vigilance Performance: 30 years of inconsistencies.

Psychological Bulletin 112, 239-256.
Kohn, Melvin L (1959) Social class and parental values, American Journal of Sociology,
54, 337-351,
Kohn, Melvin L (1977), Class and Conformity: A study in values. Homewood, 111: Dorsey
Press.
Kowal, A., & Kramer, L. (1997). Childrens understanding of parental differential treatment.
Child Development, 68, 113-126.
Kretschmer, E. (1925). Physique and character. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Krech, D. (1962). Cortical localization of function. In L. Postman (Ed.), Psychology in the
making: Histories of selected research problems (pp. 31-72). New York:Alfred A. Knopl.
Kruse, K. (1996). The Effects of a low socioeconomic environment on the students academic
achievement. ( ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 402380).
Kundu, C.I., (1989), Personality Development, Sterling Publishers Private Limited
Lal, K.A.(1968). A Coparative Study of Emotional Stability of Mentally Superior and Average
Adolescents, Unpublished Thesis, Ph.D. Agra University.
Lanyon, R.L. (1984). Personality assesment. Annual Rewiew of Psychology. 35,(57- 58, 667-701,
{13})
Laosa, L. M., & Brophy, J. E., (1970) Sex x birth order interaction in measures of sex typing and
affiliation in Kindergarten children, Amer Psychol. 5, 363-364.
Lareau, Annette.(2002) Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Child rearing in Black Families
American Sociological Review.. 67,. 5 ,747- 776.
Laursen, B & Williams,V. A. (1997). Perceptions of interdependence and closeness in family and
peer relationships among adolescents with and without romantic partners. In S. Shulman &
W. A. Collins (Eds.). Romantic Relationships . (pp. 3-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lee, C. M., & Gotlib, I. H. (1995). Mental illness and the family. In I.,LAbate (Ed.),Hand book
of developmental family psychology and psychopathology (pp. 243-264). New York:
Willey.
Lehrand, J.B. and Harris, H.W. (1988). At-risk, low achieving students in the classroom.
Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Lester D.Crow & Alice Crow, (1965). Adolescent Development and Adjustment. Mc GrawHill Book Company New York p. 369
250
Loomis, C. P., Baker, W. B. and Proctor, C.: (1949). The size of the family as related to social
success of children. Sociometry, 12, 313-320.
Lurie, O. R. (1970). The emotional health of children in a family setting. Community Mental
Health Journal, 6, 229-235.
Maas, H. S.: (1951). Some social class differences in the family systems and group relations of
pre-and early adolescents. Child Develpm., 22, 145-152.
Maccoby, E., & Martin J. (1983). Secialization in the context of the family: Parent-child
interaction. In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), P.H. Massen (Series Ed,) Hand book of Child
Psychology : socialization, personality, and social development (PP.1-101) New York
Wiley.
MacDonald, A. P., Jr., (1969a). Manifestations of different levels of socialization by birth order.
Develpm. Psychol, 1, 485-492.
Mandelbaum, A. (1969). Youth and Family. Menninger Quarterly, 23, 4-11.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality ( 2nd ed. ). New York: Harper and Row
Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Viking Press.
McAdams, D.P. (1992). The five factor model of Personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of
Personality, 60, 329-361.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Updating Normans adequacy taxonomy:Intelligence
and personality in dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the Five-Factor model of personality
across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to
experience.In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of perspnality
psychology (pp. 825-847). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr, Del Pilar, G.H. Rolland, J., & Parker, W.D. (1998). Crosscultural assessment of the five-factor model: The Revised NEO Personality Inventiry.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 171-188.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A Five-Factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin
&O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139-153).
New York: Guilford.
251
McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T; Jr., de Lima, M. P., Simoes, A., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., et al.
(1999). Age differences in personality across the adults life span: parallels in five cultures.
Developmental psychology. 35, 466-477.
Mc Gurk, H. & Lewis, M. (1972). Achievement motivation and ordinal Position of birth.
Development Psychology, 7(3), 364-367.
McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., McGuire, S., & Updegraff, K. A. (1995). Congruence between
mothers and fathers differential treatment of siblings: Links with family relations and
childrens well being. Child Development, 66, 116-128.
Mcloyd, V. C., & Wilson, I., (1991). The strain of living poor: Parenting, social support, and
childs mental health. In A. Huston (Eds.), Children in poverty(pp.105-135). Cambridge,
England; Cambridge University Press.
McMillan, D. W., & Hiltonsmith, R. W. (1982). Adolescents at home: An exploratory study of
the relationship between perception of family social climate, general well-being and actual
behaviour in the home setting. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 301-315.
Meichenbaum, D. H. (1977). Cognitive behavior modification: An integrative Approach. New
York: Pelnum Press.
Melvill, K. Marriage and Family Today. New York: Random House, 1977.
Michelle M. Englund, Amy E. Luckner, Gloria J. L. Whaley, and Byron Egeland (2004).
Childrens Achievement in Early Elementry School: Longitudinal effects of Parental
Involvement, Expectations, and Quality of Assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology
96,. 4, 723-730.
Miller, N. B., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Heatherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1993).
Externalizing in preschoolers and early adolescents: A cross-study replication of a family
model. Developmental psychology, 29, 4-18.
Miller N. E. (1951). Learnable drives and rewards. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of
experimental psychology (pp. 435-472). New York: John Wiley.
Mirza, M. S. & Malik, R. (2000). Gender and Academic Achievement. Lahore: Department of
Women Studies, University of the Punjab.
Mischel Walter, Shoda Yuichi, & Smith E. Ronald (2004). Introduction to Personality (pp. 4760).John Wiley & Sons, INC.
Mishra, H.K. (1962). Personality Factors in High and Low Achievers in Engineering Education.
Unpublished Thesis, PhD. (Education)-IIT Kharagpur.
252
Mittal Sexena Shalini, (2006). Child:Development of personality and traits,Kalpaz publications

Delhi.
Moulton, R. W., Burnstein, E., Liberty, P. G., & Altucher, N. (1966). Patterning of parental
affection and disciplinary dominance as a determinant of guilt and sex typing. Journal of
personality and Social Psychology, 3 63-72.
Munn, P. & Dunn, J. (1988). Temprament and the developing relationship between siblings.
International Journal of behavioral Development, 12. 433-451.
Murdock, (1949), viewed the family as a social group whose members are related by ancestry,
marriage or adoption and who live together, cooperate economically and care for the
young. In Murdock, George. P. Social Structure. New York: Macmillan.
Murlidharan, R..(1971) Motor Development of Indian Children--- Development Norms of Indian
Children 2 years to 5 years, NCERT.
Mussen-Miller, L. (1993). Sibling status effects: Parents perception of their own children. The
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 189-198.
Mussen Miller, L. & Blevin- Knabe, B. (1998), Adults Beliefs about Children and Mathematics:
How important is it and how do children learn about it? Early Development and Parenting.
7, 191-202
.Nair, C.S. & Fisher, D. L. (2001). Learning environments and students attitudes to science at the
senior secondary and tertiary levels. Issues in Educational Research, 11 (2), 12-31.
retrieved from World Wide Web http://education.curtin.edu.au/iier/iier/nair.html
Newell, H. W.: (1934). A further study of maternal rejection. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat., 6, 576589.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (1998). Early child care and self control,
compliance, and problem behavior at twenty-four and thirty-six month. Child
Development, 69, 1145-1170.
Nokao, Takaishi, Tatsuta, Katayama Iwase,Yorifuji Jyo Takedo.(2000). The influences of family
environment on personality: Psychiatry and clinical Neuroscience 54,1,91
Noller Patricia & Callan Victor, (1991). The Adolescent in the Family. Routledge, 11 New Fetter
Lane, London EC4P 4 EE.
NORC General Social Surveys, 1972-2002: (2003) Cumulative Codebook, Chicago: National
Opinion Research Center.
Norman, W. T. (1961). Development of self-report tests to measure personality factors identified
from peer nominations. USAF ASK Technical Note
253
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor

structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology. 66, 574-583
Nye, I.: (1952). Adolescent-parent adjustment: age, sex, sibling number, broken homes, and
employed mothers as variables. Marriage, Fam, Living, 14, 327-332.
Okpala, C. O., & Smith, Fredrick E. (2001). Parental involvement, instructional expenditures,
family socioeconomic attributes, and student achievement. The Journal of Educational
Research., 95 (2), 110-115.
Olson, H.A. (1979). Early Recollections : Their uses in diagnosis and psychotherapy. Spring
field, IL. Thomas.
Ornstein, A. C., & Levin, D. U. (1993). Foundations of Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Orr. & Dinur, B. (1995). Actual and perceived parental social status: Effects on adolescent selfconcept. Adolescence, 30, 603-616.
Pandit, K.L.(1970). The role of Anxiety in Learning and Academic Achievement of Children,
Unpublished Thesis, PhD. (Education). Delhi University.
Papini , D. R., & Roggman, L.A. (1992). Adolescent perceived attachment with parents in
relation to competence, depression, and anxiety; a longitudinal study: Journal of early
adolescence, 12, 420- 429
Parish, T. S., Dostal, J. W., & Parish, J. G. (1981). Evaluations of self and parents as a function of
intactness of family and family happiness. Adolescence, 16, 203-210.
Patterson, G.R., Reid, J.B., & Dishon, T.J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia Press.
Patten P. (2000). How parents and press influence childrens school success. NPIN Parents News
for September-October 2000 of interest. Site: npin-org / p news / 2000.
Peck F. Robert, (1958), Family Patterns Correlated with Adolescent Personality Structure,
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57, 347-350
Pervin A. Lawrence, (1989) Personality, Jhon Wiley & Sons, INC.
Pervin, L.A.(1993). Personality:. Theory and research. (6th ed.), Singapore: John Wiley and sons
lNC.
Pervin, L.A. (1996). The Science of Personality. New York: Wiley.
Peterson, G.W.,& Leigh, G. R. Adams (Eds.) (1990). The family and social competence in
adolescence. In T.P. Gullotta & G. R. Adams (Eds.). Developing social competence in
adolescence (vol.3,pp. 97-138). New-bury Park, CA: Sage.
254
Peterson, G.W., & Haan, D. (1999). Socializing children and parents in families. In. M.Sussman,
S. Steinmetz, & G. W. Peterson (Eds.). Handbook of Marriage and the Family (pp. 455501). New York: Plenum
Pianta, R.C. & Herbers. K.L. (1996). Observing mother and child behavior in a problem-solving
situation at school entry: Relations with academic achievement . Journal of school
psychology, 34, 307-322.
Pianta, R.C. Nimetz, S.L., & Bennett, E.(1997), Mother-child relationships, and school outcomes
in preschool and Kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 263-280.
Pianta, R.C., & Egeland, B.(1994). Predictors of instability in childrens mental test performance
at 24, 48, and 96 months intelligence. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18, 145-163.
Pianta, R.C., Erickson, M. F., Wagner, N., Kreutzer, T., & Egeland, B. (1990). Eary predictors of
referral for special services., child-based measures versus mother-child interactions. School
Psychology Review, 19, 240-250.
Powell, M. (1963). The psychology of adolescence. U.S.A. The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.
Preece, P. F. W.., AND Skinner, N. C., & Riall, R. A. H. (1999). The gender gap and
discriminating power in the national curriculum key stage three science assessments in
England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (9), 979-987.
Pressey, L. C.: 1929. Some college students and their problems. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State
University Press.
Rachlin, H. (1976). Introduction to modern behaviorism (2nd ed. ). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman
Rana Akram Rizwan (2002). Effect of Parents socioeconomic status, students self concept and
gender on science- related attitudes and achievement. Unpublished thesis PhD.
(Education). Institute of Education and Research, University of the Pungab, Lahore.
Reti I. M., Samuels J. F., Eaton W.W., Bienvenn O. J.III, P.T. Coster Jr & Nestadt
G.(2002).Adult antisocial personality traits are associated with experiences of low parental care
and maternal overprotection, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavian 106, 2, 126.
Rice, F. P. (1987). The Adolescent: Development, relationships, and culture. (5th ed).U.S.A.
Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Robert F. Peck (1958), Family Patterns Correlated with Adolescent Personality Structure,
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57, 335-347.
Roe, A. (1953). Psychol. Monograph . 352, 3.

Rogers, D. (1977). The Psychology of adolescence. (3rd ed). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
255
Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance-rejection

theory. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
Rorschash, H.(1942/1951). Psychodiagnostics: A Diagnostic Test Based on Perception. New
York: Grune & Stratton.
Rosen, B. C.(1956) The achievement syndrome a psycho cultural dimension of social
stratification. American Sociological Association , 21, 203-211
Rosen, B. C., & D Andrade, R. (1945). The psychological origins of achievement motivation.
Soiometry, 22, 185-218.
Rosenblatt, P. C., & Skoogberg, E. L., (1974). Birth order in cross cultural perspective.Develpm.
Psychol; 10, 48-54.
Rothbart K. Mary, (1971), Birth order and Mother-child Interaction in achievement Situation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 2.
Rothstien M., Paunonen, S., Rush, J. and King, G. (1994). Personality and cognitive ability
predictors of performance in graduate business school. Journal of Educational Psychology
86, 516-530.
Rubenstien, J.L., Pederson, I. A., & Yarrow, L. J., (1977). What happens when mother is away?
A comparison of mothers and substitute caregivers. Develpm. Psychol., 13, 529-530.
Ruch, C. John, (1984), Psychology, The personal science (pp. 414-424). Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Belmont, California, A Devision of Wardsworth, Inc.
Saito, L. T. (1999). Socio-cultural factors in the educational achievement of Vietnamese
American high school students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, (08), 2802.
Saran , V. (1970). A Study of personality traits of Nursery School Children Against the
Background of their Home Environment, Thesis, PhD.(Education). Agra University.
Saraswat, M., A.(1964). Comparative Study of the Personality Patterns of Adolescent Boys and
Girls, Thesis, Ph.D. (Education). Allahbad University.
Schachter, S. (1959). The Psychology of affiliation . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Schaefer, E. (1959). A complex model of individual development, Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 59, 226-235.
Schooler, C. (1972). Birth Order Effects: Not here, not now. Psychological Bulletin, 78, 161-175.
Scott, W. and Scott, R. (1989). Family correlates of high-school adjustment: a cross-cultural
study. Australian Journal of Psychology 41, 269-28
256
Sharma, K.G.(1972). A Comparative Study of Adjustment of Over and Under Achiever,

Unpublished Thesis, PhD. (Education). Aligarh Muslim University.
Sheldon, W. H., & Stevens, S. J. (1942). The varities of temperament: A psychology of
constitutional differences. New York: Harper and Row.
Shepardson, D. P. & Pizzini, E. L. (1994). Gender, achievement, and perception toward science
activities. School Science and Mathematics, 4, 188-193.
Shumow, L.,& Miller, J.D. (2001). Parentsat-home and at-school academic involvement with
young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 68- 91.
Siegal, L.S. (1984). Home environmental influences on cognitive development inpreterm and
full-term children during the last 5 years. In A. W.Gottfried(Ed.), Home environment and
early cognitive development (pp. 197-233). Orlando: Academic Press.
Sims, V.M. (1954). Relations between the social class identification and personality adjustment
of a group of high school and college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 323-327.
Singh, B.N.K.(1965). Some Non-Intellectual Correlates of Academic Achievements, Unpublished
Thesis, PhD. (Education). Patna University.
Singh, K., Bickley, P.G., Trivette, P., Keith, T.Z. Keith, P.B., & Anderson, E.(1995).The effects
of four components of parental involvement on eighth-grade student achievement;
Structural analysis of NELS-88 Data. School Psychology Review. 24, 299-317.
Sinha, Durganand.,(1964) Achievers, and Non-Achievers, Psychological, Sociological and
Educational Study, Allahabad, United Publishers, pp. 144-151.
.Srivastva. R. K., and Sexena.V. (1979). Personality Correlates of self-rated Academic success
and failure- a comparative study, project financed by P.P.N. College, Kanpur.
Stafford, L., & Bayer, C.L. (1993). Interaction between parents and children.Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Steinberg, L. (1996). Adolescence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Steinberg, L., Belsky, J., &Meyer, R.B. (1991). Infancy, childhood, and adolescence.New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S. Lamborn, S, D. & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative parenting
and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches, Journal of Research on
Adolescence. 1, 19-36.
Stevenson, O.L., & Baker, D.P.(1987). The family-school relation and the childs school
performance. Child Development, 58, 1348-1357.
257
Stocker, C., Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1989). Sibling relationships: Links with child temperament
maternal behaviour and family structure. Child Development, 60, 715-727.
Stott, L.H.: (1939). Personality development in farm, small-town, and city children. Unir. Nobr.
Agric. Exper. Station, Res. Bull. No. 114.
Stott,, L.H.:( 1945). Research in family life in Nebraska. 1. home Econ., 37: 80-83
.
Stuart, J. C.: 1926. Data on the alleged psychopathology of the only child. J. abnorm.
Soc. Psychol., 20, 441-445.
Sudhir, M.A & S. Lalhirimi (1989). Parent Child interaction and achievement among Secondary
School students in Aizwi. Psychological Abstract 1991, 78(1).
Suls,J. (Ed.), (1982). Psychological perspectives on the self. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Suri,S.P.(1973), Differential Personality Traits in intellectually Superior, Average and Below
Average Students, Unpublished Thesis, PhD(Education.Kurukshetra University.
Sutton-Smith, B, (1982). Birth Order and sibling status effects. In M.E. Lambs & B. Sutton-Smith
(Eds.), Sibling relationships: their nature and significance across the life span. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum
Swatantra, M.D. (1971). A Study of Aggression in Children. unpublished Diss (M.Ed).
Kurukshetra University.
Symond, P. M.: (1939). The psychology of parent child relationships. New York: AppletonCentury- Crofts.
Terman, L. M.: (1925), Genetic studies of genius, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Tupes , C., & Christal, R. E. (1958). Stability of personality trait rating factors obtained under
diverse conditions. USAF WADC Technical Note, No.58-61
Tupes , C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. USAF
ASD Technical Report, No. 61-67
Turner, H.A., & Finkelhor, D. (1996). Corporal punishment as a stress among youth. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 58, 155-166
Vandell, D. L., Minnett, A. M., & Santrock, J. W. (1987). Age differences in sibling relationships
during middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8. 247-257.
258
Velz, E., Schiefelbein, E., & Valenzuella, J. (1993). Factors affecting achievement in primary
education. Washington, DC: Human Resources Development and Operations Policy, The
World Bank. (Working Paper Series).
Vernon, P. E. (1964). Personality assessment: A critical survey. New York: Wiley.

Verna, M. A., & Campbell, J.R. (1999). The differential effects of family process and SES on
academic self-concept and achievement of gifted Asian American and gifted Caucasian
school students. http://www. Eric-web.tc. Columbia. Edu.
Volling, B. L., & Belsky,J. (1992). The contribution of mother-child and father-child
relationships to the quality of sibling interaction: A longitudinal study.
Child Development, 63, 1209-1222.
Volling. B. L., & Elins, J. L. (1998). Family relationships and childrens emotional adjustment as
correlates of maternal and paternal differential treatment, Child Development, 69, 16401656.
Wachs, T. D. (1989). The nature of the physical micro- environment: An expanded classification
system. Merril Palmer Quarterly, 35, 399-40.
Wang, J., & Staver, J. R. (1997). An empirical study of gender differences in Chinese students
science achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 90 (4), 252-255.
Werner, E. E., Bierman, J, M., & French, F. E., (1971). The Children of Kauai. Hondulu: U. of
Hawaii Press, 366-367.
Wolf, R. M. (1964). The identification and measurement of environmental process variables
related to intelligence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Wolfe, R. and Jhonson, S. (1995). Personality as a predictor of college performance. Educational
and Psychological Measurement 55, 177-185.
Wolff, P. H., (1969), The neutral history of crying and other vocalizations in early infancy. In B.
M. Foss, Ed., Determinants of infant behavior. London: Methuen.
Zajonc, R.B. & Marcus, G.B, (1976). Birth order and intellectual development. Psychological
Review, 82, 74-88.
259
Appendix -I
INVENTORY OF FAMILY RELATIONS (IFR)
Statements
1-
The members of my family really care about each

other
2-
I think my family is terrific
3-
My family gets on my nerves
4-
I really enjoy my family
5-
I really can depend on my family
6-
I really do not care to be around my family
7-
I wish I was not the part of this family
8-
I get along well with my family
9-
Members of my family argue too much
10-
There is no sense of closeness in my family
11-
My family doesn't understand me
12-
I feel like a stranger in my family
13-
There is too much hatred in my family
14-
My family is well respected by others who know us
15-
There seems a lot of friction in my family
16-
There is a lot of love in my family
17-
Members of my family get along well together
18-
life in my family is generally un pleasant
19-
My family is a great joy to me
2021-
I feel proud of my family

Other families seem to get along better then ours
22-
My family is a real source of comfort to me
All of
the time
260
A good
part of
the time
Some of
the time
A little
of the
time
None of
the time
23-
I feel left out of my family
24-
My family is an unhappy one
261
Appendix-II
PERSONALITY INVENTORY
Statements
Very Accurate
1
Tend to vote for conservative political

candidates
have frequent mood swings
Am not easily bothered by things
Believe in the importance of art
Am the life of the party
Am skilled in handling social situations
Am always prepared
Make plans and stick to them
Dislike myself
10
Respect others
11
Insult people
12
Seldom feel blue
13
Don't like to draw attention to myself
14
Carry out my plans
15
Am not interested in abstract ideas
16
Make friends easily
17
Tend to vote for liberal political candidate
18
Know how to captivate people
19
Believe that others have good intentions
20
Do just enough work to get by
21
find it difficult to get down to earth
22
panic easily
23
avoid philosophical discussions
24
accept people as they are
25
dont enjoy going to art museums
26
pay attention to details
27
keep in the background
28
feel comfortable myself
29
waste my time
30
get back at others
31
get chores done right away
32
dont talk a lot
Moderately
Accurate
262
Neither
Accurate Nor
Inaccurate
Moderately
Inaccurate
Very
Inaccurate
33
Am often down in the dumps
34
shirk my duties
35
dont like art
36
often feel blue
37
cut others to pieces
38
have a good word for everyone
39
dont see things through
40
feel comfortable around people
41
have little to say
263
Appendix III
Demographic Variable Information Performa (DVIP)
1.
Your Name______________
2.
College Name_______________
3.
Marks secured in Part-1_______
4.
Roll No. of Part1 examination____________
5.
Fathers education____________
6.
Mothers education _________
7.
Fathers profession___________
8.
Mothers profession _________
9.
Familys monthly income_____________
10. Do your parents own a house ______________________

11. What is the size of your house _______________
12. Do you have a servant at home________________
13. Do you use any transport to go to your college ______________
14. Tick a mark of () on the facilities you have at home
i.
Television
iv. Internet
ii. Telephone
iii. Computer
v. Air conditioner
15. How many brothers and sisters do you have ______________

16. What is your birth order (position in siblings) _____________
17. What is the type of your family, Nuclear or Joint ___________
264
Appendix- IV
Urdu Translation
265
Urdu Translation
Appendix-V
266
267
Appendix-VI
Urdu Translation of Demographic Variable Information Performa
268
Appendix-VII
LIST OF EXPERTS
1. Dr. Mumtaz Akhter
Professor
Institute of Education and Research
University of the Punjab Lahore
2. Dr. Abid Hussain

Associate Professor
3. Dr. Muhammad Hameed Nawaz
Associate Professor
4. Dr. Muhammad Asif
Associate Professor
5. Dr. Nasir Mehmood
Associate Professor
269
6.
Dr. Hamid
Lecturer
Federal College of Education
H-9 Islamabad
7.
Syed Zia ullah Shah

Lecturer
8.
Shabnum Iftikhar
Lecturer
9.
Dr. M. Saeed Shahid

Associate Professor
270
Appendix-VIII
271
Appendix-IX
Authentification of Relative Weight % of Home Environment
272
273
274
Appendix-X
Authentification of Classification of Family Relations
275
276
277
Appendix-X1
List of Colleges and number of respondents
List of Male Colleges
No. of respondents
01 Govt. College Asghar Mall Rawalpindi
70
02 Sarwar Shaheed Nishan-i- Haider Govt. College
23
Gujar Khan Rawalpindi

03 Govt. Degree College Kahuta (Rawalpindi).
14
04 Govt. Degree College Murree (Rawalpindi)
10.
05 Govt. College Attock
34
06 Govt. College Pindi Gheb (Attock)
11
07 Govt. College Fateh Jang (Attock)
18
08 Govt. Degree College G. T. Road, Jhelum
28
09 Govt. Al-Baruni Degree College Pind Dadan Khan, (Jhelum)
14
10 Govt. College Chakwal
68
11 Govt. College Talagang (Chakwal)
24
Total
314
278
List of Female Colleges
1. Govt. College for Women Sattelite Town Rawalpindi
127
2. Govt. College for Women Gujar Khan ( Rawalpindi )
18
3. Govt. College for Women Kahuta ( Rawalpindi )
15
4. Govt. College for Women Attock
56
5. Govt. College for Women Pindi Gheb (Attock )
14
6. Govt. Girls Inter College, Fateh Jang ( Attock)
09
7. Govt. College for Women Jhelum
53
8. Govt. College for Women Pind Dadan Khan (Jhelum)
11
9. Govt. College for Women Chakwal
86
10. Govt. Girls Inter College Tala Gang ( Chakwal)
21
Total
412
279

Effect of Home Environment On Personality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Effect of Home Environment On Personality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effect of Home Environment On Personality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFFECT OF HOME ENVIRONMENT ON PERSONALITY AND

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS OF GRADE 12 IN

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MODERN LANGUAGES, ISLAMABAD

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MODERN LANGUAGES

DISSERTATION AND DEFENSE APPROVAL FORM

Thesis/Dissertation Title: Effect of Home Environment on Personality and Academic Achievement of

Doctor of Philosophy in Education

(Dr. Tayyab Alam Bukhari)

(Dr. Shazra Munawar)

Name of Dean (FAISR)

(Brig. ( R) Dr. Aziz Ahmed Khan)

DISSERTATION AND DEFENCE APPROVAL FORM ii

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY

Research Instruments: .....................................................................................................................77

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION AND RECOMENDATIONS

Table # 1- Names of male colleges and number of respondents76

Table # 2- Names of female colleges and number of respondents .. 77

Table # 3- Number of statements in each subscale of IPIP Peronanlity

Table # 4 Classification of subjects on the basis of family relations............................ 81

Table # 5 Scoring procedure for parental education.................................................... 82

Table # 6 Scoring procedure for family income ........................................................... 82

Table # 7 Classification of subjects on the basis of socio economic scores ................. 83

Table # 8 Relative weight % of every variable to determine home environment ........ 85

Table # 9 Classification of subjects on the basis of home environment ....................... 85

Table # 10 Classification of subjects on the basis of family size ................................. 84

Table # 11 Distribution of subjects by home environment........................................... 87

Table #12 Distribution of subjects by socioeconomic status........................................ 88

Table #13 Distribution of subjects by gender ............................................................... 88

Table # 14 Distribution of subjects by family size ....................................................... 89

Table # 15 Distribution of subjects by birth order 89

Table # 16 Distribution of subjects by family type90

Table # 17 Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment on students

Table # 17aUnivariate Analysis of Variance for effect of home environment on

LSD POST HOC Test of Multiple comparisons regarding

homeenvironment on students achievement.93

Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of home environment

onstudents personality ..94

Table # 19 Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment on openness

Table # 19a Univariate

Analysis of Variance for effect of home environment

onopenness factor of students personality ................................................................ 96

Table # 20 Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment on emotional stability

Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of home environment

onemotional stability factor of students personality.98

homeenvironment on emotional stability factor of students personality.................. 99

Table # 21 Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment on extroversion factor

Table # 21a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of home environment

homeenvironment on extroversion factor of students personality..101

Table # 22 Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment onconscientiousness

Table # 22a Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of home environment on

homeenvironment on conscientiousness factor of students personality ................. 103

Descriptive statistics for effect of home environment on

agreeablenessfactor of students personality ........................................................... 104

Univariate Analysis of Variance for effect of home environment

onagreeableness factor of students personality ...................................................... 104