Tkacova, Sona - 505843 - Senior Project Thesis

PARENTING STYLES AND THEIR EFFECT ON SELF-ESTEEM
The Effect of Age, Sex, and Parenting Styles on Self-Esteem in Young Adults
Thesis
by
Tkáčová Soňa
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Arts
in
Psychology
State University of New York
Empire State College
2017
Reader: Dr. Ronnie Mather

PARENTING STYLES AND THEIR EFFECT ON SELF-ESTEEM 2
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 6
2 Review of Literature ............................................................................................................................ 7
2.1. Role of Parents ............................................................................................................................. 7
2.2. Parenting Styles ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1. Authoritarian Parenting Style ............................................................................................. 10
2.2.2. Permissive Parenting Style ................................................................................................. 11
2.2.3. Authoritative Parenting Style .............................................................................................. 13
2.3. Contrasting parenting styles in terms of autonomy and control ................................................ 14
2.4. Other Views on Parenting Styles ............................................................................................... 19
2.5. Parenting Style Differences on Other Variables ........................................................................ 20
2.6. Self-Esteem ................................................................................................................................ 21
2.7. Age and Sex Differences in Self-esteem.................................................................................... 23
2.8. Parenting styles differences on self-esteem ............................................................................... 26
Hypotheses ............................................................................................................................................ 30
3 Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 31
3.1 Research Design........................................................................................................................ 31
3.2 Participants................................................................................................................................ 31
3.3. Instrumentation .......................................................................................................................... 32
3.3.1. The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) (Buri, 1991) ................................................ 32
3.3.2. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) (Rosenberg, 1965) ............................................ 33
3.4 Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 34
3.4.1. Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 35
3.4.2. Ethical Consideration ......................................................................................................... 35
3.4.3. Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 36
4 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 36
4.1. Descriptive Statistics .................................................................................................................. 36
4.2. Test of hypotheses...................................................................................................................... 39
5 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 42
6 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 46
References ............................................................................................................................................. 50
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................... 56
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................... 68
Appendix C ........................................................................................................................................... 72
Acknowledgement
I am eternally grateful to the people who have supported me throughout this endeavor.
Firstly, I would like to thank Dr. Mather Ronnie for providing me with guidance throughout
writing. I am also indebted towards Dr. Humberto Aguilera who gave me a solid basis of
knowledge from statistics to be able to go forward with the research, as well as guidance
while conducting the methodological analysis. Thank you goes to all who participated in my
research. I also send my gratitude to my friends Lea, Charlie, and Michael for supporting and
believing in me. Lastly, a huge thank you goes to my partner Patrik, who had the upmost
patience throughout the whole writing ordeal. Thank you for being there for me.
Abstract
An individual's upbringing has been found to be one of the crucial factors in shaping one's
personality development. Previous research has shown that parents, and their parenting styles,
have significant impact on the development of self-esteem, which, in turn, has an impact on
self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, academic performance, and other attributes. This project
thesis focuses on parenting styles, described as authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive,
together with age and sex, and their relationship to self-esteem in young adults. For this
purpose, 113 young adults were recruited, the majority being university students. This thesis
is a quantitative study, seeking, and attempting to explore, any significant correlations
between age, sex, parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive) and self-
esteem. Buri’s Parental Authority Questionnaire and Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale were
used to evaluate the relationship between the variables.
It was hypothesized that age, sex, and parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, and
permissive) can predict levels of self-esteem. Research on attachment styles and elements of
parenting styles (autonomy and control), contribute to the overall illustration of the role of
parents. The issue of subjectivity, in regard to self-esteem is also addressed, particularly the
importance of developing high levels of the latter. If self-esteem is low, it can lead to later
psychopathologies. Positive self-esteem serves as a protective factor against stress, anxiety,
and depression. Additionally, studies reveal self-esteem varies between sexes and ages, and
to an even greater extent, in young adults. Males are found to have higher self-esteem than
women which was confirmed in this thesis, while levels of self-esteem also rose with
increasing age. This paper concludes by exploring the limitations of this study, conflicting
previous research, and possible implications for future research.

Chapter 1
1 Introduction
Psychologists have long been astonished by the effect childhood and parents have on the
development of the individual. Freud himself was the forerunner of how child development
can influence adult psychopathology. However, as he focused on the unconscious and
psychological abnormalities, this thesis focuses on psychologists, theories, and research
which is empirically supported and readily visible in the sphere of behavioral and
developmental psychology.
The base of one's childhood is built upon one's parents or caregivers, who help form
worldviews, shape a child's attitude towards personal achievement, teach how to approach
difficulties in life and satisfy their needs be they psychological or physiological (Pomerantz,
Grolnick & Price, 2005). A parent in this paper's context is not the biological parent but the
main caregiver of the child and young adult, therefore the person or persons that have, or
were supposed to act, as the support system for the young individual. A parenting style is
understood as a set of approaches and behaviors a parent elicits towards a child, therefore
building an emotional environment in which the child is brought up in (Darling & Steinberg,
1993).
Previous research has revealed certain patterns in styles of parenting, mostly studied by
Baumrind (1966, 2005; Schaffer & Kipp, 2010). A common and distinguishing variable
amongst all parenting styles is control. The level of control varies from each other in each
parenting style. Parenting styles are commonly divided to authoritative, authoritarian, and
permissive (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).

The way a parent approaches and treats a child is a factor in the development of one's self-
image. However even though it is not the only factor and is not purely causational, there is a
significant correlation and therefore sends a strong message to all parents (Schaffer & Kipp,
2010). Communication is vital as it provides the child information about who he or she is in
the eyes of a figure of authority. Simple categories of parenting styles reflect this approach
(Schaffer & Kipp, 2010).
Even though parents are one factor which influences self-esteem, age and sex play a vital role
as well. Studies have found differences in males and females, with males having overall
higher levels of self-esteem than females (Orth & Robins, 2014). Furthermore, the discussion
if self-esteem remains stable throughout lifetime or fluctuates is also reviewed.
This research aims to examine the effect parenting styles together with age and sex have on
self-esteem in young adults. It is hypothesized that based on these predictors it is possible to
foretell self-esteem.
2 Review of Literature
2.1. Role of Parents
Parents serve a crucial role in the healthy development of a child. Parents should serve as a
secure base and safe haven (Howe, 2011). Attachment theory, coined by John Bowlby (1958)
gives insight into the basic behavioral strategies of humans from birth, which is bonding, to
the parents. Attachment is a bond between two individuals in childhood and adulthood.
According to Bowlby (1982), attachment is a “strong desire to establish a contact or seek
intimacy with a figure when the individual is scared, tired, or ill". It is essential to ensure
safety and proximity which gives way to the evolutionary perspective of adaptedness
(Bowlby, 1958; Howe, 2011).

Attachment theory provides a basis for the formation of attachment systems, parenting styles,
and sets of behaviors common for each parenting style. A child forms an attachment system
or style towards an attachment figure who serves as a safe haven and secure base for the
child to be curious and investigate their environment (Howe, 2011). A lack of an attentive
attachment figure leads to severe developmental outcomes for the child during childhood and
adulthood as an insecure attachment is formed. This further leads to attachment needs
constantly defeating endeavors concerning independency, work, relationships, and forming a
healthy self-confidence (Howe, 2011).
Attachment systems serve as a model for the child on how to respond to frightening situations
based on previous interactions with the mother or another primary caregiver (Howe, 2011).
This means that attachment and attachment systems also serve as an emotional regulator
(Howe, 2011). If children feel danger, the attachment system is activated and according to
how the parent responds to the child, the emotional arousal is controlled (Howe, 2011). By
these means, attachment also regulates affect (Howe, 2011). Every attachment system
represents a “behavioral strategies for managing stress under different care-giving patterns"
(Howe, 2011, p. 24). This is why attachment patterns and the influence of parents is so
crucial for the development of a socially, cognitively, and emotionally healthy being. Parents
are a focal point for children to learn how to manage their physiological and emotional state,
therefore to balance and control such states (Howe, 2011).
Parents who are not interested in the child cause him or her obstructions in the development
of a consistent sense of self and of others (Howe, 2011). Children should be assisted in
understanding they have an inner experience which is one of a kind for them and differs from
others (Howe, 2011). Parents promoting a child’s sense of meaningfulness, understandability,
and predictability also improve the reflective function of thinking about one’s own mind,
others’ minds, and how they both influence each other (Howe, 2011).
How can parents promote healthy patterns of cognitions and emotional regulations? This is
by assisting the child in developing a coherent and safe Internal Working Model (IWM)
(Howe, 2011). An IWM is formed by learning through experience and social activities
(Howe, 2011). It is the construction of “cognitive models of environment and people in it”
(Howe, 2011). By these means, new information and situations are understood through
already learned and active models (Howe, 2011). The IWM serves as a sort of mental
representation of how to react in certain situations based upon previous experiences (Howe,
2011). It also builds a sense of worthiness and extent to how we may influence the
environment (Howe, 2011). As the IWM organizes experiences, one starts to anticipate things
of oneself and from others and is able to contemplate purposeful actions (Howe, 2011). An
IWM is associated with a parenting style and attachment system due to the distinctive
features a certain IWM has, which is formed because of the parent's behaviors towards the
child (Howe, 2011).
2.2. Parenting Styles
While there have been multiple attempts to conceptualize parenting styles in the past,
Baumrind's distinguishing of styles by level of control is what has been most commonly used
(Baumrind, 1971, 1991; Crittenden, Dallos, Landini & Kozlowska, 2014; Darling &
Steinberg, 1993). Parenting styles are therefore viewed as a balance of a certain level of
control from the parents complimented by the level of responsiveness the parent has towards
the child (Baumrind, 1971, 1991; Crittenden, Dallos, Landini & Kozlowska, 2014; Darling &
Steinberg, 1993). A style is not merely what the parent does in the means of behavior towards
the child, but also the attitude the parent has while performing such behaviors, which builds
the environment the child grows up in (Baumrind, 1971, 1991; Crittenden, Dallos, Landini &
Kozlowska, 2014; Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Even though a child's attitude also influences
the relationship between the child and parent, Baumrind was able to separately measure the
parent's and child's behavior and the bi-directionality issue, therefore being able to
individually operationalize parenting styles (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). By this
conceptualization, parenting styles are distinguished as authoritative, authoritarian,
permissive, and neglectful (Baumrind, 1971, 1991).
2.2.1. Authoritarian Parenting Style
An authoritarian parent figures as a director for the child, the parent's voice is the one of strict
discipline with the tendency of restricting and rejecting the child's actions (Baumrind, 1971,
1991). This mindset of parenting is rather black or white.
The authoritarian parent may seem like the one that knows it all and is on top of the situation
(Howe, 2011). This may be so because the parent sees the child as a duty and therefore is
controlling over the child. An authoritarian mother may be herself rather avoidant and not be
emotionally available, thus forcing the child to be self-reliant (Howe, 2011).
Dissolution of boundaries between the mother and child is evident, as she is not capable of
mind-mindedness, prescribing what the child should feel rather than letting him feel what is
true for him (Howe, 2011). This is destructive towards the child's self-esteem and self-
assurance about one’s past (Howe, 2011). An authoritarian parent forces their expectations on
the child. These actions are typically not done out of lack of love towards the child but rather
as another form of displaying it (Baumrind, 1971, 1991, 1966, 2005; Gonzalez, Greenwood,
& WenHsu, 2001; Howe, 2011; Turner, Chandler, & Heffer, 2009).
What is typical for authoritarian parenting is the types of punishment and rewards which are
imposed on the child. Baumrind (1966) performed a meta-analysis of the types of parental
control which may be enforced and their subsequent effect on child behavior. A common
form of insuring the child obeys is to threaten, scorn, or harshly chastise the child. This has
been found to lead to aggressive behavior in children and in passive dependency in adulthood
(Baumrind, 1966). Mothers who are authoritarian may display love conditionally, that is
when the child complies with her orders, and love is shown. On the other hand, if the child
does not perform as the mother pleases, love is withdrawn in order to control and discipline
the child.
An authoritarian parent insists on perfectionist habits, such as behavioral discipline, tidiness,
everyone in the family contributing to the home by separating duties and following set rules
(Baumrind, 1966). Independence is not promoted in this type of parenting, even though self-
sufficiency is a rather positive quality for such a child, individual freedom is restricted and
controlled (Baumrind, 2005). This can have positive effects such as avoiding criminal and
risky behavior (Glueck & Glueck, 1950, as cited in Baumrind, 1966). Nevertheless, this may
be due to the supervised household the child lives in. Parents are the voice of authority and
power who firmly handle the child, which requires the child to conform and follow rules
while not questioning them. Studies show that these children have a strong sense of right and
wrong, while being less delinquent (Baumrind, 1966; 2005).
2.2.2. Permissive Parenting Style
Permissive parents simply do not give much care to control the child as they seldom reach for
punishments and the child may make his or her own decisions (Baumrind, 1971, 1991, 1966,
2005; Gonzalez, Greenwood, & WenHsu, 2001; Turner, Chandler, & Heffer, 2009). This is
however not a completely negative approach towards the child. Permissive parents are rather
tolerant towards the child, yet they are still they are responsive, providing them with
emotional care and support (Baumrind, 1971, 1966, 2005; Gonzalez, Greenwood, &
WenHsu, 2001; Turner, Chandler, & Heffer, 2009). These parents figure as a friend for the
child rather than strict authority (Baumrind, 1971; 1991; 1966; 2005). However, these parents
are not negligent, therefore one cannot categorize them as detached but rather as parents who
do not force children to behave according to adult standards (Baumrind, 1971, 1991, 1966,
2005; MacCoby & Martin, 1983). Parents who are uninvolved do not attach to the child and
are not emotionally supportive, which is not to be confused with permissive parenting
(MacCoby & Martin, 1983).
As a revealing factor for permissive parenting is the control the parent also has over
themselves. Previous research has shown that permissive parents who have problems with
their children surrendered to their child when it was demanding, which reveals issues with
parental self-control (Piotrowski, Lapierre, & Linebarger, 2013). This potentially leads to the
children themselves not having much self-control (Piotrowski, Lapierre, & Linebarger, 2013).
Baumrind (1966) focused on this phenomenon, as a permissive parent perceives that he or
she is giving the control to the child by letting it do as it pleases without posing any direct
power on the child. This leads to the issue of the child knowing where some set boundaries
are, what may be tolerated in his or her household, and what may not be in another setting.
Various studies reveal that a permissive parenting style correlates with children displaying
more sociable behavior and contentment (Baumrind, 1971; 1991; 1966; 2005). These parents
do not have high household requirements and grant sovereignty to the child. They view their
children as equal to them and therefore do not stand as figures of dominance with demands.
As children growing up in a permissive parenting environment have more freedom to express
themselves, they are more individualistic and interactive (Baumrind, 1966). Nonetheless,
since permissive parents do not elicit control over the child, it may have difficulties with
emotional regulation (Baumrind, 1971; 1991; 1966; 2005).
2.2.3. Authoritative Parenting Style
Authoritative parenting is the synthesis of control and emotional responsiveness towards the
child (Baumrind, 1971, 1991). These parents are figures the child can look up to. They are
typically secure adults themselves, who behave in a way which ensures discipline, yet they
can be playful friends too (Crittenden, Dallos, Landini & Kozlowska, 2014; Howe, 2011).
Parents who are authoritative promote independence by being able to negotiate with the child,
ensuring a balance between what is safe and discovering the world (Crittenden, Dallos,
Landini & Kozlowska, 2014; Howe, 2011). The parents are involved in the child's activities,
are fostering and caring but not overbearing. They are open and give reasons for their actions
and rules.
The authoritative parent serves as a secure base and safe haven, giving the child a person to
rely on for regulating their emotions and help build a stable self-image (Crittenden, Dallos,
Landini & Kozlowska, 2014; Howe, 2011). This is possible due to the parent being interested
in the child, attuning to the child's needs while promoting self-assurance and a positive
internal working model (Howe, 2011).
However, a child does very much have an influence on the parent, which may steer one from
a balanced reaction. To promote an authoritative parenting style, one does not have to
practice perfect behavior. An authoritative parent only has to be "good enough" to build a
secure attachment and a healthy internal working model (Baumrind, 1971, 1991; Howe,
2011). This is because raising a child in this matter builds goal-corrected partnerships
(Howe, 2011). The mother and child discuss and cooperate with each other while having
understanding for the others need (Howe, 2011). This is a learning process where individual
needs are taught to be met within the measures of the other individual (Howe, 2011).
Children raised by authoritative parents grow up in an integrated environment of rules and
freedom (Baumrind, 1966). Communication is indispensable in the interaction between the
mother and the child. An authoritative mother does not need to firmly state her position, as
she encourages the child to ask and discuss what is being instated (Baumrind, 1966).
Authoritative parents justify their actions and let the child take control of their own within
fair boundaries (Baumrind, 1966). This democratic household is not built upon regulation of
others actions nor need for the child to be strictly penalized. Love and affection is displayed
even in negative situations as love and display of affection is not under the condition of
discipline and conformity. The authoritative parenting style requires discipline; nonetheless it
is enforced in a tolerant manner (Baumrind, 1966). Therefore the authoritative parenting style
can be viewed as a balance of the permissive and authoritarian parenting style.
2.3. Contrasting parenting styles in terms of autonomy and control
The three parenting styles have one issue in common, encouraging or controlling a child's
autonomy. When parents support their children to explore their environment, to make
mistakes and productively learn from them, to take progressive control over their actions and
let them solve problems within their reach themselves, then these children approach
achievement positively (Pomerantz, Grolnick, & Price, 2005, p. 263). On the other hand,
children who are under constant control from so called helicopter parents are not able to work
independently and if so, are often not trusted. The children's lives are so structured that there
is little chance to take full control over their actions, therefore an inhibition of problem-
solving abilities may arise (Pomerantz, Grolnick, & Price, 2005). This forms a child's image
about himself/herself and further influences their self-esteem throughout life (Pomerantz,
Grolnick, & Price, 2005).
As it is now known, authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting all support
different levels of autonomy and control, which subsequently builds self-esteem (Baumrind,
1971; Soenens et al., 2007). How is this possible? A deeper examination reveals it may
depend on the level of promotion of volitional functioning (PVF) parents' exhibit toward their
children. When parents promote volitional functioning, then they are an encouraging platform
for an adolescent’s decision making (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens, 2009). A parent
high in PVF supports the child to perform actions based upon its own interest due to the
parent being compassionate (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens, 2009). Therefore, they
understand the child's position, are empathetic, and if the choices a child has are shortsighted,
then they are the ones to promote reasoning in the child (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens,
2009). Baumrind (1971; 1991; 1966; 2005) would describe this as a give and take interaction
through discourse reasoning. This therefore is an aid in building the child's foundation of self-
determination and solving their own problems (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens, 2009).
Children which have parents high in PVF develop better adjustment skills and are
intrinsically motivated, which leads to a higher healthy self-esteem (Soenens et al., 2007;
Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens, 2009).
Now, how does this differ from a parent merely promoting independence? Parents may
promote autonomy through PVF, therefore still being responsive and a support pillar for the
child (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens, 2009). However, a child may be “forced into
independence” by their parents who are psychologically controlling (Soenens, Vansteenkiste,
& Sierens, 2009, p. 189). This is applied when a child must decide for himself/herself but has
no-one to confide in (Soenens et al., 2007). Therefore, even if the child desires aid from his
or her parents, none is given, and thus the child is reluctantly compelled to come to a
resolution, which negatively correlates with the feelings or personal will to perform an action
(Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens, 2009).
There are numerous differences between PVF and promotion of independence (PI)? The level
of responsiveness the parents exhibit towards the child (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens,
2009). It is now known that responsiveness and psychological control are measurable
dimensions of parenting styles (Link, 2015; Matejevic, Jovanovic, &Jovanovic, 2014;
Schaffer &Kipp, 2010; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens, 2009; Turner, Chandler, &Heffer
2009).
Soenen, Vansteenkiste, and Sierens (2007) found that both promotion of volitional
functioning and promotion of independence correlates positively to adjustment. Nevertheless,
they researched the difference between a parent promoting volitional functioning and one
who is not, evaluating the consequences of the two factors on overall psychological well-
being, including adjustment and self-esteem, which was measured by using Rosenberg's Self-
Esteem Scale (1965). Results of three consecutive studies revealed that even though both
PVF and PI lead to autonomy, the difference is in the way this journey to independence is
conducted (Soenens et al., 2007). The promotion of volitional functioning is strongly
positively correlated with the development of a healthy well-being (Soenens et al., 2007). For
a child to be well adjusted and mentally healthy when becoming more independent, it should
be raised in a non-controlling environment, which encourages and supports individualistic
behavior (Soenens et al., 2007).

As is known, an authoritative parent does not blindly impose rules in a demanding manner,
but rather strives for the child to personalize the values the parent is suggesting. Within self-
determination theory, this would lead to voluntary actions from the child (Soenens et al.,
2007). On the other hand, authoritarian parents enforce rules in a controlling approach, which
is contradictory to volitional functioning, as the child does not get the chance to be heard and
rather follows what is demanded of him or her due to external factors, like the parent's
withdrawal of love. Even though these children may be independent from their parents, this
may be due to them feeling forced to do so (Soenens et al., 2007).
Soenens, Vansteenkiste, and Sierens (2010) conducted another study revealing the
correlations between promotion of volitional functioning, promotion of independence, and
psychological control the parents have over the child. The most compelling results disclosed
that parents high on PVF negatively correlated with psychological control, therefore the
parents promoted self-willing, intrinsically motivated behavior in the child (Soenens,
Vansteenkiste, & Sierens, 2009). Even though the authors have stated that more research on
the relationship between PI, PVF, and psychological control is necessary, it is confirmed that
high levels of psychological control are not compatible with PVF, even in self-determination
theory (Link, 2015; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens, 2009). Parents control the situation
from their point of view while not taking on their child's values, thus making the child fulfill
the parents’ intentions through subtle schemes (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens, 2009). It
may be done by either explicitly controlling the child's decisions, or seemingly promoting
independence while withdrawing their responses and support, leaving the child to be on its
own (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, &Sierens, 2009). This withdrawal of support is common for
authoritarian parenting (Baumrind, 1971). However, PVF stands for a parent that is
supportive and non-controlling of the child's behavior, which are properties of an

authoritative parenting style (Link, 2015; Matejevic, Jovanovic, & Jovanovic, 2014; Schaffer
&Kipp, 2010; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens, 2009; Turner, Chandler, & Heffer 2009).
Research done by Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, and Ryan (1991) has revealed that receiving
positive rewards for executing an action may boost motivation momentarily; nonetheless it
negates or decreases intrinsic motivation due to the reward figuring as an external factor for
completing the task. The reward serves as a means of control over the child's behavior, which
exhibits signs of authoritarian parenting (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier & Ryan, 1991). A child
with an intrinsic motivation is more likely to have a higher self-esteem than with one with an
external locus of control (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier & Ryan, 1991). Therefore, if an
authoritarian parent were to give rewards to the child for conforming to their requests, it
would be counterproductive to the formation of a sense of internal control, as the control is
put in the hands of the parent (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier & Ryan, 1991). The reward shifts the
motivation to an external factor and that is to satisfy the parent's demands while receiving a
reward for doing so.
According to Baumrind's theory of parenting styles (1971; 1991; 1966; 2005), these rewards
build a sense of conditional love (Howe, 2011). That is, if the child does as the parent wishes,
the parent is pleased and the reward may even be to show affection. If the child does not
perform to the parent's high standards, affection may be withdrawn as a form of punishment,
or an actual punishment is executed (Baumrind, 1971; 1991; 1966; 2005; Howe, 2011). In the
end this can lead the child to believe that he or she is worthy only under certain conditions,
which diminishes the positive view of the self (Baumrind, 1971; 1991; 1966; 2005; Howe,
2011).
2.4. Other Views on Parenting Styles
Even though Baumrind's theory of parenting styles are most recognized and form the basis of
this study, it is necessary to also address the other views on parenting styles that have been
emerging in the past years. Van Ingen et al. (2015) researched the effect of this parenting
style on peer relationships and self-efficacy in college students. These parents are highly
engaged with their children, taking responsibility for their actions and in a way overly
guiding their children's decisions. Even though this parent - child interaction seems beneficial
from the parent's point of view, it hinders the child's development of maturity and liability.
As van Ingen et al. (2015) note, this is a type of domineering parenting which leads to
overreliance of the children on the parents as the children have never had the chance to form
a coherent identity and take responsibility of their actions. The parents are always there to
help, even when the children are fully functioning adults and should be able to negotiate their
own terms. The authors have found that helicopter parenting may lead to adjustment
disorders and anxiety (van Ingen, et al., 2015).
Research has shown that children with helicopter parents have difficulties forming a healthy
peer attachment, which is correlated with lower confidence, a distorted self-image, and a lack
of fulfillment from life (van Ingen, et al., 2015). On the other hand, when a young adult can
form a healthy peer attachment but not a secure attachment with their parent, they have
coincidently lower levels of depression and hostile behavior (Laible, Carlo, &Raffaelli,
2000).
Helicopter parenting cannot only impair the formation of peer attachments, but also the
development of self-efficacy (van Ingen, et al., 2015). Defined by Bandura (1994, 1997),
self-efficacy is our perceived ability and competence to perform certain actions to achieve a
desired outcome. Students high on self-efficacy believe in their abilities and are able to use
their skills to accomplish what they want; however, they are realistically aware of their
weaknesses. When a child is controlled, smothered with protective care and constant aid of
the parents, a child cannot form a sense of self-efficacy, as it has not had the chance to perfect
their abilities, be it either social, academic, or other (van Ingen, et al., 2015). Overall,
helicopter parenting has been found to be significantly correlated with negative peer
attachment and lower levels of general self-efficacy, but not in social contexts (van Ingen, et
al., 2015).
2.5. Parenting Style Differences on Other Variables
Even though this study focuses on the effect parenting styles have on self-esteem, it is vital to
distinguish the effect parenting styles have on other variables, as competence, adjustment,
academic achievement, social behavior, problem behavior, and more. This is so due to these
variables also affecting self-esteem.
Individuals growing up in an authoritative environment have high levels of competence and
adjustment, according to a study conducted by Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, and Dornbusch
(1991). Comparing to permissive and in this study's case also neglectful parenting styles,
authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles have a positive effect on academic
performance and refrain from drug use and problematic behavior. This may be due to both
parenting styles ensuring discipline in the household. Authoritarian parents drive children to
be obedient and comply with rules, while authoritative instill and explain rules with there
being space for negotiation (Baumrind, 1971; 1991; Howe, 2011). However, if a parent
practices a neglectful parenting style, there are vast negative effects the individual endures
comparing to authoritative parenting styles. Interestingly, neglectful and authoritarian
parenting styles are similar in terms of variables such as confidence and social abilities, as
neither parenting style positively promotes such skills. On the other hand, neglectful and
permissive parenting styles do not differ from each other regarding negative behavioral issues
and school performance (Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg & Dornbusch, 1991).
Nonetheless, authoritarian parenting style also has positive effects on various life aspects
while permissive parenting negative too, therefore these two styles fall between the
authoritative parenting style, with both positive and negative effects on the child. While
authoritarian parenting styles rear children to have a bright view towards school and a
negative one towards drug use and delinquency, these children are not as socially competent
as children from permissive families are (Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg & Dornbusch, 1991).
Even though the study by Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, and Dornbusch (1991) did not find a
significant difference, the adolescent participants who had a permissive rearing scored higher
on attitudes towards the self and even academic proficiency. Nevertheless, the authors
grouped authoritarian and neglectful parenting styles together due to the negative outcome of
self-perception, while permissive and neglectful parenting styles had a similar outcome in
problematic conducts (Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg & Dornbusch, 1991). Here it is possible
to examine how it is not possible to conclude authoritarian or permissive parenting style is
superior to one another, as both have their own struggles.
2.6. Self-Esteem
Self-esteem is valuable as it affects most human facets, also captured by the actual
conceptualization of the term self-esteem as it is known as an all-encompassing evaluation of

oneself (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). This evaluation results into either a
high or positive self-esteem when one perceives oneself as capable or fortunate; or low self-
esteem defined as an unfortunate view of oneself (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs,
2003). There stems an issue in the exactness of the term, as a high self-esteem may be viewed
as a positive and truthful evaluation of one´s abilities, but it may also be distorted by being
disproportionally over-confident and egotistical (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs,
2003). On the other hand, a low self-esteem may be set objectively by knowing one’s own
weaknesses, or having a “pathological sense of insecurity” by being overly humble and
insecure (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003).
Self-esteem is therefore a rather subjective and complex view of oneself (Baumeister,
Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). One cannot judge another´s self-esteem based on reality,
but rather based upon one´s opinion which is not always objective (Baumeister, Campbell,
Krueger, & Vohs, 2003).
As this study's instrument is the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, it is vital to conceptualize and
operationalize self-esteem in Rosenberg's (1965) terms. In this case, high self-esteem is not
one, which is above others, but rather elicits respect towards oneself. For the purpose of this
study, high self-esteem is when one is aware of his or her weaknesses and strengths, using
their strengths to overcome the weak properties, without self-righteous characteristics. This
way one is content with who they are, yet strive to achieve more throughout life (Rosenberg,
1965). Therefore, a certain level of curiosity and ambition may be applied to a healthy self-
esteem.
On the contrary, a person with low self-esteem disrespects oneself (Rosenberg, 1965).
Comparing to an individual with high self-esteem, the one with low does not recognize their
strengths but rather dwells on the weaknesses, eliciting antipathy towards the self. This
person has a certain disregard towards their positive properties (Rosenberg, 1965).
2.7. Age and Sex Differences in Self-esteem
The level of self-esteem varies amongst ages and between genders. However, it is viewed as
a stable trait that may change during life but is relatively independent to constant fluctuation
of achievements and downfalls. Self-esteem can be compared to personality features as
extroversion or conscientiousness (Fraley& Roberts, 2005). Self-esteem should be built upon
an intrinsic appreciation for the self and not be dependent on external experiences. This
stability occurs during the transition from teenage years to productive adult years (Meier,
Orth, Denissen, & Kühnel, 2011).
The path of self-esteem development is relatively similar across gender and generations (Orth
& Robins, 2014). Longitudinal studies provide empirical evidence in regards to the changes
of levels of self-esteem in one's life (Orth & Robins, 2014). Childhood is rather untouched by
external factors which may distort the child's self-esteem and is relatively high.
There is a slight decline in self-esteem during adolescence with an increase from adolescence
to adulthood (Moksnes & Espens, 2012; Orth & Robins, 2014).The decrease of self-esteem in
adolescence is more pronounced in girls due to the larger amount of emotive issues (Moksnes
& Espens, 2012), even though there is research which also contradicts the self-esteem
differences amongst sexes and deem them as not significant (Erol & Orth, 2011).A study
focusing on the correlation of depression, anxiety, and self-esteem while controlling for age
and gender differences revealed that adolescent girls have higher levels of depression and
anxiety, which was also negatively correlated with self-esteem (Moksnes & Espens, 2012).
How one perceives oneself is especially important in adolescence due to the turbulent social,
biological, and cognitive changes which occur in teenage years. A low self-esteem in these
years can predict lower emotional health, which is even more pronounced in girls than boys
(Moksnes & Espens, 2012). However, self-esteem has a rising tendency from adolescence
(Orth & Robins, 2014).
The peak of self-esteem is at the age of 51, according to a longitudinal study by Orth and
Robins (2014). Self-esteem declines into older age; nonetheless, there are still speculations
into the strength of the decline. This is possibly due to third variables such as financial
resources and the quality of health and lived life, which alleviate and prevent the strong
decline of self-esteem in an older age (Orth & Robins, 2014).
Research dealing with age and gender differences has suggested that males generally exhibit
higher self-esteem regardless of culture (Kling et al., 1999; Bleidorn, Arslan, Denissen,
Rentfrow, Gebauer, Potter, & Gosling, 2016; Orth & Robins, 2014). Bleidorn and colleagues
(2016) found that males have a higher self-esteem than females in a cross-cultural study of
participants from 48 countries but also confirmed previous research on the increase of self-
esteem from adolescence to adulthood (Orth & Robins, 2014). Bleidorn et al. (2016) suggest
this increase may be due to biological differences in various ages and sexes, nonetheless due
to absence of studies on this hypothesis; it is not possible to conclude biological and genetic
mechanisms play a role in the development of self-esteem.
Another possibility for the increase of self-esteem after adolescence may be due to the
mastery of new life roles. It is common amongst nations that the time after adolescence is a
time of personal and professional growth (Orth & Robins, 2014). After adolescence, one
often finishes school, acquires a new job, or has a serious relationship. This often causes us to
experience new challenges which subsequently change our thinking and activities, while this
comprehension of new roles leads to higher self-efficacy and eventually even self-esteem
(Orth & Robins, 2014).
In the study by Wagner, Lang, Neyer and Wagner (2014), levels of self-esteem throughout
adult life were found to also be due to personality factors as extroversion and
conscientiousness. Their research found that high self-esteem in middle adulthood is also
associated to low levels of neuroticism, which also ensures the stability of self-esteem in later
adulthood. Additionally, what caused a difference in self-esteem between young and older
adults was higher education. The authors' study revealed women reporting lower self-esteem
than men, while both gender's levels of self-esteem were stable throughout lifetime. Self-
esteem did generally remain stable throughout the whole adult life; nonetheless younger
adults had a slightly higher self-esteem than those in older. This may be due to changes in
social activities, health, and other resources (Wagner, Lang, Neyer & Wagner, 2014).
Even though males score higher in self-esteem than females around the world, this difference
is rather pronounced in countries which are more developed (Bleidorn et al., 2016). A theory
by Guimond et al. (2007) suggests that this is due to "social comparison processes". The idea
of social comparison processes revolve around the impression that men compare means that
men compare themselves not only to other men but across genders, while women to other
women and between sexes too. According to Guimond et al. (2007, as cited in Bleidorn et al.
2016), this comparing amongst sexes encourages “self-stereotyping processes”. This causes a
larger gender difference between females and males in Western countries and a less
pronounced gender difference in not developing countries in the east, particularly studied
Asian countries.
Another hypothesis for the difference of self-esteem between males and females, mainly in
Western nations, is the importance of physical image in women. Individuals who are
confident in their presentation and perceive themselves as attractive have higher levels of
self-esteem. However, if there is an increased societal pressure to conform to cultural
expectations of beauty, there is an increased probability that young adolescent girls have an
adverse view towards their appearance and subsequently have lower levels of self-esteem
(Bleidorn et al., 2016). On the other hand, countries in northern Europe, specifically
Scandinavian countries showed higher gender impartiality across ages largely due to a
“history of women’s suffrage” (Bleidorn et al., 2016). Developing countries vary from
Western nations in the low gender gap which increases over age, while Western countries
have a more diverse gender gap which decreases over age (Bleidorn et al., 2016).
Based on this previous research, more questions researched in this study are: How strong is
the relationship of age and self-esteem and sex and self-esteem? Does self-esteem vary
amongst sexes? Do levels of self-esteem change with increasing age?
2.8. Parenting styles differences on self-esteem
Multiple studies have shown that there is a relationship between certain parenting styles and
self-esteem. From these studies it is clear that the environment the child is brought up in
serves as a vital factor for the formation of one's self-perception (Buri, 1989; DeHart, Pelham
&Tennen, 2006, Mogone a& Mogonea, 2014; Zakeri & Karimpour, 2011).
Buri (1989) performed a study based on Baumrind's (1971) parenting style typology. Using
white university students from Midwest USA and their parents as participants, Buri (1989)
was able to identify the students' perception of the parenting style their father and mother
used, separately, while also evaluating the parenting style the mother and father believed they
applied to their daughter or son. Evaluating the correlations between self-esteem and
nurturance and self-esteem and authoritativeness, the two factors by which the parenting
styles can be measured, the study revealed positive correlations between the students'
perception of nurturance from the mother and father and self-esteem, while on the other hand
both the parent's did not put as much value on this factor in parenting (Buri, 1989). Buri
discovered the parents' assessment of authoritativeness and the relation to self-esteem is what
was deemed most significant (Buri, 1989).
Thus it is possible to observe the varying perception of the children and the parents on what
forms and ensures a healthy sense of worth. This is explained by the "interactionist view of
self-esteem development" which indicates that it is the subjective evaluation of one's self-
esteem that is vital, rather than the assessment done by others (Buri, 1989). Parents may
often dismiss certain factors in their parenting behaviors, as they believe the child perceives
their actions the same as they (parents) do. In the end, extensive authoritativeness is what can
be damaging to a child's self-esteem, rather than receptiveness and nurturing discipline (Buri,
1989).
On the other hand, DeHart, Pelham and Tennen (2006) explored parenting styles and the
correlation with implicit self-esteem in three studies, one of which also evaluated the
mother's perception of overprotectiveness and nurturance variables within their parenting
towards their child. Again conducted on university students, the study focused on factors
typical for parenting styles and how they related to the student's implicit and explicit self-
esteem. A thorough analysis of the differences between implicit and explicit self-esteem
reveals how they are not correlated and therefore even repeated negative childhood
experiences may not negatively influence explicit self-esteem but rather implicit self-esteem.
Implicit self-esteem is one which is not necessarily conscious to the person, while the explicit
is prone to personal reinterpretation of interpersonal relations (DeHart, Pelham & Tennen,

2006). Implicit self-esteem is one that is constructed from the different forms of contact the
child has from a young age with the parent, while it preserves throughout one's life, changing
in a rather slow pace (DeHart, Pelham & Tennen, 2006). Three studies confirmed the overall
notion of nurturance having a positive effect on self-esteem, in this case both implicit and
explicit. Contrasting nurturance was overprotectiveness, which had a significantly negative
correlation with implicit self-esteem, while permissiveness negatively correlates with explicit
self-esteem. Differing from Buri's (1989) results, the mothers' reports were corresponding to
those of the children (DeHart, Pelham & Tennen, 2006).
A similar study performed by Mogonea and Mogonea (2014) also looked into the family
environment and its effect on self-esteem in adolescents in Romania. The research went
beyond investigating the relationship between parenting styles and self-esteem by carrying
out interventions for the parents to benefit the children (Mogonea & Mogonea, 2014).
Finally, they examined the correlation of self-esteem and academic results (Mogonea &
Mogonea, 2014). Similarly to Buri's (1989) research, Mogonea and Mogonea's (2014) results
reveal that students with very high self-esteem have parents who are supportive yet are
demanding. On the other hand, these results deemed negative for the permissive parenting
style and low self-esteem while positive for authoritarian and high self-esteem (Mogonea &
Mogonea, 2014). They suggest that if the parents are relaxed in the level of control, the
children are not self-confident enough to pursue undertaking activities while lacking
accountability for their actions (Mogonea & Mogonea, 2014).
A study from Iran performed by Zakeri and Karimpour in 2011 confirms, even with the
cultural differences, the hypothesis that styles which involve characteristics as "acceptance-
involvement" and "psychological autonomy-granting", items from the Steinberg's (2005,
cited in Zakeri & Karimpour, 2011) deemed significantly positive for the formation of a
healthy self-esteem in university students, both boys and girls. On the other hand, "strictness-
supervision", which is a feature for an authoritarian parenting style, did not foretell the level
of self-esteem (Zakeri & Karimpour, 2011). Therefore, their results are parallel to results of
previous studies written above, again validating the importance of parental warmth and
reception while exhibiting some control, yet not demanding to punitive measures.
According to aforementioned studies, this research studies questions as: Can parenting styles
predict self-esteem? Does the authoritative parenting style have a positive correlation to high
self-esteem? Do authoritarian and permissive parenting styles influence self-esteem
negatively?
Hypotheses
H01: None of the predictors (age, sex, authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative parenting
styles) is useful in predicting self-esteem in young adults
H02: The predictor authoritarian parenting style does not contribute to predicting self-esteem
in young adults
H03: The predictor permissive parenting style does not contribute to predicting self-esteem in
young adults
H04: The predictor authoritative parenting style does not contribute to predicting self-esteem
in young adults
H05: The predictor age does not contribute to predicting self-esteem in young adults
H06: The predictor sex does not contribute to predicting self-esteem in young adults
Ha1: At least one of the predictors (age, sex, authoritarian, permissive and authoritative
parenting styles) is useful in predicting self-esteem in young adults
Ha2: The predictor authoritarian parenting style contributes to self-esteem
Ha3: The predictor permissive parenting style contributes to self-esteem
Ha4: The predictor authoritative parenting style contributes to self-esteem
Ha5: The predictor age contributes to predicting self-esteem in young adults
Ha6: The predictor sex contributes to predicting self-esteem in young adults

3 Methods
3.1 Research Design
The research design was formatted in an exploratory way as it focused on explaining the
influence specific parenting styles have on self-esteem in young adults. What this research
attempted to illustrate is which of the independent variables of age, sex, and parenting styles,
recognized as authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive transmit to the dependent variable
self-esteem, resulting in either a positive or negative effect. Based upon Baumrind's theory of
parenting styles together with the literature review, the theory was that each individual
parenting style has an effect on self-esteem. Thus, a structured questionnaire was used to
reveal Baumrind's parenting style to measure the independent variable, while a scale is
administered to measure the dependent variable of self-esteem. Descriptive statistics were
examined by using the SPSS package. To determine if there is a relationship between the
independent predictors of age, sex, parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, and
permissive) and dependent criterion of self-esteem, multiple regression analysis is performed.
3.2 Participants
The participants in this research are all young adults either studying or working in Prague,
Czech Republic. The sample size contained 113 individuals. 74 participants were female
while 39 participants were male. The participants' age varied from 18 to 35 (M = 24.17, SD =
3.90) as the study focused on young adults. Participants aged older or younger than this limit
were not considered. The questionnaire and scale was distributed personally by the researcher
at the University of New York in Prague and REED Recruitment Specialist s.r.o. The study
examined the effect of age, sex, and parenting styles on self-esteem in young adults. The
predictors or subscales of parenting styles include permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative
parenting styles. Other demographic variables concerning nationality, marital status, work
experience and/or study major were not evaluated.
The Institutional review board of Empire State College received the Request for Approval of
Research Using Human Subjects. All of the participants were briefed on the purpose of the
study before receiving the instruments, while they were also debriefed after filling out the
questionnaire and scale by being encouraged to express their opinion on the face validity of
the instruments, the difficulty, and how comprehensible the statements in both instruments
were.
3.3. Instrumentation
The instruments distributed to the participants were chosen for their supposed linguistic
clarity, high validity, and reliability.
3.3.1. The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) (Buri, 1991)
The PAQ was developed by Buri (1991) to measure Baumrind's authoritarian, authoritative,
and permissive parenting styles perceived by the child, in this case, young adult. The
questionnaire is a self-report measure which includes 30 items based on a five point Likert
scale, scoring from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Every individual item
measures one of the three parenting styles already known as authoritarian, authoritative,
permissive. Therefore the highest score on a given parenting style served as an indicator for
the dominance of use. Depending on the use, the PAQ can identify the parenting styles of
fathers and mothers. However this study will use the PAQ focusing solely on mothers'
parenting style which, as has been found, also correlates with the father's parenting style
(Buri, 1991). According to Buri and other experts (1991) who had evaluated the
questionnaire, the PAQ scored high on reliability and validity. It has been found that test-
retest reliability approximations were r=.81 for mother's permissiveness (PERMM), r=.86 for
mother's authoritarianism (ATNM), and r=.78 for mother's authoritativeness (ATVM),
revealing that PAQ successfully examines the type of parenting style perceived by young
adults (Buri, 1991).
3.3.2. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) (Rosenberg, 1965)
The second self-report instrument distributed was the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES).
High on reliability and consistency, the RSES contains a Likert scale format consisting of
four points, ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). Ten items, five of which
are worded negatively and five positively, measure the positive and negative self-perception
(Rosenberg, 1965). The five negatively worded items were subsequently reversely scored.
The scores were finally summed to obtain the value of self-esteem. The higher the value of
the score, the higher the self-esteem is in the individual.
Overall the scale is uni-dimensional, as it measures solely one variable, self-esteem.
Nevertheless, it measures it on the range from a negative to positive view of oneself (Hensley
& Roberts, 1976; Rosenberg, 1965). It was constructed as a scale due to the simple
administration to research subjects regarding the actual completion of the scale and amount
of consumed time.
The PAQ and RSES are available online to the general population without any charge.
However, Rosenberg's family requested to be notified of the use of the Self-Esteem Scale,
which was carried out accordingly.
3.4 Procedure
Participants were allocated at the University of New York in various classes and the library,
while they were also recruited at the company REED Specialist Recruitment s.r.o. Even
though the participants were most often in groups, the questionnaire and scale were filled out
individually. The participants were informed about the intention of their participation, and
that was to volunteer in an undergraduate research thesis. An informed consent form was
distributed to ensure the participants were briefed about the aim of their participation and that
their cooperation is voluntary. They were reassured their identity and answers would remain
confidential. Once agreeing to become a subject of research, the signed consent was gathered
and hard copies of the instruments were administered. Additional items of age and sex were
added to guarantee the participants were truly young adults from the age of 18 to 35. The
results of individuals below or above the age limit were considered invalid and irrelevant to
the study. Data was collected within two weeks.
The independent or predictor variables of authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative
parenting styles were obtained by distributing the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri,
1991). The dependent or criterion variable of self-esteem was obtained by distributing the
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). The average amount of time spent on
completing the instruments was 15 minutes. After finishing the questionnaire and scale, the
participants were debriefed by once again receiving information about the aim of the study,
while they were also encouraged to reflect upon the questions as if they perceived the
instruments as useful, understandable, and high in face validity. Neither financial
compensation nor any other was offered; nevertheless the participants were given the chance
to request the results of the study after it was finished either personally or electronically.
3.4.1. Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences program (IBM SPSS Statistics 22) was used
to analyze the data. To be able to assess the mean, standard deviation, and distribution of the
data, descriptive statistics were measured. The assumption of normality was checked after
gathering all the data. The evaluation of data was possible due to performing a Pearson's or
Spearman's rho correlation. Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to reveal the
relationship between the independent variables age, sex, and parenting styles - authoritarian,
authoritative, and permissive, and the dependent variable of self-esteem.
3.4.2. Ethical Consideration
Before the administration of the instruments, the participants were informed about the reason
this research was being conducted. As the questionnaire and scale was voluntary and
anonymous, they were again reassured their identity will stay private. A simple circling of the
answers to each item was the only task the participants had to do; therefore the identity of
each respondent is not attainable. The answers to the completed questionnaire and scale were
recorded into SPSS, labeling each paired questionnaire and scale by number, again
guaranteeing the anonymity of the participants. These steps together insured that no-one
could possibly uncover the identity of a participant. The study did not involve the participants
in doing any physical activity, while they were also not harmed psychologically, as there
were no possible risks tied to the research.
3.4.3. Assumptions
Trust was put into the participants in filling out the questionnaire and scale truthfully and
with thorough thought. The issue of being raised by a mother or a woman primary care-giver
was also assumed. No other assumptions were expected.
4 Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
Concerning the RSES (self-esteem) scores, the average scores (M = 20.51) were slightly
lower than the median score (Mdn = 21.00). The minimum score of the RSES was 3 and the
maximum 30 out of the total 30. The standard deviation of the scores was 5.50 (S² = 30.28)
(see Table 1). The RSES scores were not normally distributed as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's
test (p < .05). The RSES scores were not normally distributed as assessed by visual
inspection of the histogram (See Figure 1). The RSES scores were approximately normally
distributed as assessed by visual inspection of Normal Q-Q Plots (See Figure 2). The RSES
scores were normally distributed with a skewness of -0.424 (SE = 0.227) and a kurtosis of
0.420 (SE = 0.451).
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of RSES scores in a sample of 113 participants

M Mdn Mode SD S2 Minimum Maximum
Self-esteem 20.51 21 23 5.50 30.28 3 30
Assessing the permissive parenting style subscale of the PAQ, the scores stretched from 14 to
44 while the mean consisted of 28.92. The median score was just slightly higher with the
value of 29. The standard deviation of the permissive parenting style scores was 6.26 (S² =
39.25) (see Table 2). The permissive parenting style scores were normally distributed as
assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p > .05).The scores were not normally distributed as
examined by visual inspection of the histogram (see Figure 3). The permissive parenting style
scores were relatively normally distributed as assessed by visual assessment of the Normal Q-
Q Plots (see Figure 4). The scores were normally distributed with a skewness of 0.008 (SE =
0.227) and a kurtosis of -0.016 (SE = 0.451).
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of Permissive parenting style scores in a sample of 113 participants

Permissive 28.20 29 31 6.26 39.25 14 44
The authoritarian parenting style had a range of 40 scores, starting at the minimum 10 and
ending with the maximum 50. The average score (M = 29.92) was only somewhat higher than
the median score (Mdn = 29) (see Table 3). The authoritarian parenting style scores were
normally distributed as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p > .05).The authoritarian parenting
style scores were not normally distributed as examined by visual inspection of the histogram
(see Figure 5). The scores were rather normally distributed as assessed by visual assessment
of the Normal Q-Q Plots (see Figure 6). The scores were normally distributed with a
skewness of 0.275 (SE = 0.227) and a kurtosis of -0.557 (SE = 0.451).
Table 3
Descriptive statistics of Authoritarian parenting style scores in a sample of 113 participants

Authoritarian 29.92 29 29 8.66 75.14 10 50
The authoritative parenting style ranged from the minimum score of 17 to the maximum
score of 47. The mean score (M = 35.27) was slightly lower than the median (Mdn = 36) (see
Table 4). The authoritative subscale scores of the PAQ were not normally distributed as
assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p<.05). The authoritative parenting style scores were not
normally distributed as assessed by visual inspection of the histogram (see Figure 7). The
scores were normally distributed as examined by visual assessment of the Normal Q-Q Plots
(see Figure 8). The scores were normally distributed with a skewness of -0.753 (SE = 0.227)
and a kurtosis of 0.536 (SE = 0.451).
Table 4
Descriptive statistics of Authoritative parenting style scores in a sample of 113 participants

Authoritative 35.27 36 39 6.24 29.01 17 47
Age ranged from the minimum score of 18 to the maximum score of 35. The mean score of
24.15 was higher than the median (Mdn = 23) (see Table 4). The age scores were not
normally distributed as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p <.05). The age scores were not
normally distributed as assessed by visual inspection of the histogram (see Figure 9). The
scores were normally distributed as examined by visual assessment of the Normal Q-Q Plots
(see Figure 10). The scores were normally distributed with a skewness of 0.900 (SE = 0.227)
and a kurtosis of 0.280 (SE = 0.451).
Table 5
Descriptive statistics of Age scores in a sample of 113 participants

Age 24.15 23 21 3.90 15.23 18 35
Sex was categorized as a nominal variable and labeled as male and female. The mean score
of 1.65 was lower than the median (Mdn = 2) (see Table 6). Females represented 65.6% of
the sample size with 74 participants. Males represented 34.5% of the sample size with 39
participants. The sex scores were not normally distributed as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test
(p <.05). The age scores were not normally distributed as assessed by visual inspection of the
histogram (see Figure 11). The scores were normally distributed as examined by visual
assessment of the Normal Q-Q Plots (see Figure 12). The scores were normally distributed
with a skewness of -0.660 (SE = 0.227) and a kurtosis of -1.593 (SE = 0.451).
Table 6
Descriptive statistics of Sex scores in a sample of 113 participants

Sex 1.65 2 2 0.478 0.228 1 2
4.2. Test of hypotheses
A multiple regression was run to predict the self-esteem in young adults based on age, sex,
and specific parenting styles such as permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative.

The casewise diagnostics revealed a case's standardized residual greater than ±3 standard
deviations. However we kept the scores of the participant in the analysis. The assumptions of
linearity, independence of errors, homoscedasticity, unusual points and normality of residuals
were met. The predictors of age, sex, permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting
styles did statistically predict self-esteem, F(5, 107) = 2.944, p =.016, adj. R2 = .080.
Therefore we can reject the first null hypothesis and accept the first alternative hypothesis.
The predictors permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting styles did not add
statistically significantly to the prediction, p>.05. It was found that there was not a
statistically significant correlation between permissive parenting style and self-esteem, r(113)
= .162, p > .05.
It was found that there was not a statistically significant correlation between authoritarian
parenting style and self-esteem, r(113) = -.128, p > .05. It was found that there was not a
statistically significant correlation between authoritative parenting style and self-esteem,
r(113) = .108, p > .05. Therefore we cannot reject the second, third, and fourth null
hypothesis.
However, age and sex added statistically significantly to the prediction, p<.05. Therefore we
can reject the fifth and sixth null hypothesis and accept the fifth and sixth alternative
hypothesis.
Table 5
Model summary of multiple regression
Mode R R Adjusted Std. Error Change Statistics Durbin-
l Square R Square of the R F df df2 Sig. F Watson
Estimate Square Change 1 Change
Change
.348 10
1 a .121 .080 5.279 .121 2.944 5 .016 2.040
7
a. Predictors: (Constant), Authoritative, Sex, Age, Permissive, Authoritarian
b. Dependent Variable: Self-Esteem
Table 6
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 9.027 6.901 1.308 .194
Age .268 .130 .190 2.057 .042
Sex 2.526 1.060 .219 2.383 .019
1
Permissive .107 .109 .121 .977 .331
Authoritarian -.031 .080 -.050 -.395 .694
Authoritative .058 .092 .066 .633 .528
Table 7
Regression table ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 410.233 5 82.047 2.944 .016b
1 Residual 2981.997 107 27.869
Total 3392.230 112
a. Dependent Variable: Self-Esteem
b. Predictors: (Constant), Authoritative, Sex, Age, Permissive, Authoritarian
5 Discussion
This research study focused on the association between permissive, authoritarian and
authoritative parenting styles, and self-esteem in young adults with regards to examining the
variables age and sex. It was investigated by applying the Parental Authority Questionnaire
(Buri, 1991) and Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). All in all, 113
participants contributed to this study (39 male, 74 female). The participants' age ranged from
18 to 35 years old and categorized as young adults. It was hypothesized that one of the
predictors recognized as age, sex, permissive parenting style, authoritarian permissive
parenting style, and authoritative parenting style would have a significant correlation with
self-esteem, therefore possibly predicting it. The correlation was tested by multiple regression
analysis. There was a statistically significant correlation between sex, age, and self-esteem.
Permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting styles did not statistically significantly
predict self-esteem.
In regards to the descriptive statistics, there was a statistically significant difference between
males and females in terms of self-esteem. Males scored higher in self-esteem (M=22.31,
SD=5.079) than females (M=19.57, SD=5.515). These results confirm the hypothesis that
females have a lower self-esteem than males (Kling et al., 1999; Bleidorn et al., 2016; Orth &
Robins, 2014). This is true even though the sample was not equally distributed in terms of
sex. The mean of self-esteem was in a normal range (M=20.51) while 16 of the 113
participants had a score of less than 15 on the RSES, revealing that truly the majority of the
sample has a normal to high self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965). Amongst the participants with
the score of less than 15, only three were male while 13 were female.
The major discovery of this study was the significant correlation between age, sex, and self-
esteem. This was examined by the multiple regression analysis. Therefore it was possible to
accept the alternative hypothesis stating that at least one of the predictors (age, sex,
permissive parenting style, authoritarian parenting style, and authoritative parenting style) is
effective in predicting self-esteem. Such a result confirms the findings revised in the literature
review (Kling et al., 1999; Bleidorn et al., 2016; Orth & Robins, 2014).
It should be noted that, when examining the individual hypotheses regarding specific
parenting styles, the second, third, and fourth alternative hypothesis had to be rejected and the
null hypothesis accepted. The results of analyzing the effects of parenting styles on self-
esteem in this study's sample; permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting styles did
not significantly predict self-esteem. Based on previous research, the authoritative parenting
style should have a significant positive correlation with self-esteem. This means that parents
who are high in demandingness but also high in responsiveness predict high self-esteem in
their children (Baumrind, 1966). Parents who promote self-esteem ask their children
appropriate requests but also appreciate the given effort and give reasons for their actions.
The results regarding parenting styles and their effect on self-esteem deemed statistically
insignificant, therefore rejecting much of the research that has been described above
(Baumrind, 1971; 2005; Buri, 1989; Zakeria & Karimpour, 2011; Matejevic, Jovanovic,
&Jovanovic, 2014; Schaffer &Kipp, 2010; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, &Sierens, 2009; Turner,
Chandler, &Heffer 2009). Nonetheless, this study obtained a positive correlation between
permissive and authoritative parenting styles with self-esteem. Not all research however
suggests that permissive has a positive correlation, as it may be negative in some cases
(Mogonea & Mogonea, 2014). In addition, authoritarian does not have a significant
correlation in each case (Mogonea & Mogonea, 2014; Zakeria & Karimpour, 2011). In this
study the authoritarian parenting style was negatively correlated with self-esteem. Since the
results were not statistically significant, it is not possible to generalize these results to the
general public. However, research shows that authoritarian parents significantly predict low
self-esteem (Buri, Louis Elle, Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988).
Further analysis of the results of the correlations between the parenting styles show an
inverse correlation between authoritarian and authoritative parenting, which has also been
discussed by Baumrind (1966; 2005), as these two styles are seen as completely distinct from
each other and cannot overlap even though the dimensions may seem similar. Even though
authoritative parenting includes the dimension of demandingness, as does the authoritarian
style, there is a clear difference in the control the parent has over the child and the
relationship of the parent to the child. An authoritarian parent is anxious to lose control over
their child and therefore restricts and demands, often treating the child as a means to an end,
rather than the end itself (Baumrind, 1966; 2005). An authoritative parent does not lose
control by supporting their child in his or her own endeavors, while an authoritarian parent
does not promote such an action (Baumrind, 1966; 2005). Thus these parenting styles cannot
be similar, which is confirmed by the results of this study and previous research (Baumrind,
1966; 2005).
However, there are limitations to this study. While debriefing the participants after them
completing the questionnaires, they provided feedback notes revealing a possible
misunderstanding of the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri, 1991). As English language
was not the participants' native language, there could have been a linguistic
misunderstanding. The questionnaire itself contains statements which, after the participants'
comments, deemed easily incomprehensible. Some of the statements were: "My mother has
always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that family rules and
restrictions were unreasonable." and "Even if her children didn’t agree with her, my mother
felt that it was for our own good if we were forced to conform to what she thought was right."
(Buri, 1991, p. 113). In a future study, the PAQ would be revised to achieve higher linguistic
clarity for the participants, assuming their native language is not English.
Another drawback of the study is the restricted sample size of 113 participants. There were 5
predictors: age, sex, permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting style. In multiple
regression analysis it is recommended to have 40 participants for predictor (Osborne, 2000),
thus it would be wise to broaden the sample size in future research.
The mean of self-esteem (M=20.51) in the sample was also relatively high and differing
between males (M=22.31) and females (M=19.79). Therefore a more diverse sample size
would be beneficial to register if there is a significant correlation between any of the
parenting styles and self-esteem. The participants were not asked additional demographic
variables as for example nationality. This can be viewed as a limitation as a study of 48
nations has found there are national differences in self-esteem levels in different countries
and in males and females from researched countries (Bleidorn et al., 2016).
Furthermore, the Big Five traits as neuroticism, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness
and extraversion would be evaluated in a next study to see if they also contribute to the
prediction of self-esteem. As it has been found, self-esteem is affected by more variables than
those which were examined in this study (Fraley& Roberts, 2005).

6 Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of parenting styles (permissive,
authoritarian, and authoritative) together with age and sex on self-esteem. The intent was to
reveal if any of the predictors influence the levels of self-esteem in young adults aged 18 to
35 in a positive or inverse way.
Parents constitute a vital component in a person's healthy development and mental health as
they affect various life facets. In childhood, from the first days of life we form attachments
towards our parents. They start behaving in ways forming patterns of rewards and
punishments, forms of communication, and providing an image for the child's self. Parents
balance levels of control and autonomy which are reflected in the most common parenting
styles: permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative (Baumrind, 1966). Research has found that
parents shape self-esteem, but also self-efficacy, academic performance, motivation, and even
approach to drug use (Baumrind, 1971, 1991; Howe, 2011; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg &
Dornbusch, 1991). In general, studies confirm that it is the authoritative parenting style which
is positively associated with high self-esteem (Baumrind, 1966; Mogonea & Mogonea, 2014).
On the other hand, self-esteem may not only be affected by parenting styles. This study
examined not only parenting styles but also the relationship of age and sex on self-esteem.
Research has found that females report lower levels of self-esteem in males (Wagner, Lang,
Neyer & Wagner, 2014). Some studies report these gender differences in self-esteem remain
stable throughout lifetime (Wagner, Lang, Neyer & Wagner, 2014), while there is also
research which confirms that the gap between females and males narrows with rising age
(Bleidorn et al., 2016).

The study's aim was to either confirm or negate the main hypothesis that age, sex, and
parenting styles contribute to self-esteem. This null hypothesis was rejected and as a
statistically significant result showed a positive effect of age on self-esteem, revealing that
higher self-esteem is associated with higher age. Another finding of this research was the
confirmation of previous studies regarding higher levels of self-esteem in males. While age
and sex did contribute to the model, permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting
styles did not.
The research was designed to be exploratory in manner while focusing on quantitative data.
113 participants completed the study, with 74 females and 39 males participating. The
participants were requested to complete two self-report questionnaires to evaluate the
perceived parenting style of their mother and their state self-esteem. Buri's (1991) Parental
Authority Questionnaire and Rosenberg's (1965) Self-Esteem Scale were used for their high
validity and reliability. Multiple regression analysis was used to analyze the collected data to
see if the results correlate with research and hypotheses. The key outcome of the study was
the significant correlation between age, sex, and self-esteem deeming that it is possible to
predict levels of self-esteem according to one's age and sex. Specifically, higher age is
associated with higher levels of self-esteem. Concerning sex, the results of this research
correspond to previous studies stating males report higher self-esteem than females.
Unfortunately none of the parenting styles (authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative)
significantly predicted self-esteem.
This research has its limitations, mainly with the sample size, thus not all alternative
hypotheses could have been accepted. Previous research is in itself conflicting therefore the
results of this study do not necessarily negate preceding studies in the literature review. Self-
esteem is highly subjective in addition to the perception of parenting styles. Self-esteem is

also affected by third variables as extroversion and conscientiousness which were not
evaluated in the study.
Taking into account these limitations, there is still no doubt in how crucial high self-esteem in
a healthy functioning. High levels of self-esteem are beneficial for an overall satisfactory life.
Low self-esteem is linked to depression and anxiety (Arens & Hasselhorn, 2014). It is sure
that there are more variables which influence self-esteem than solely parents, age, and sex.
Nonetheless, if parents could influence the development of their children's self-esteem in a
positive manner, it is worthwhile informing them of their impact.
To take previous studies a step further, it is possible to provide parents with suggestions on
how to interact with their child so it develops into an adult with a high sense of self-worth.
Parents do not have to behave according to one straightforward parenting style. However if
approached with a challenge while raising their child, suggestions or interventions regarding
give-and-take communication from the authoritative parenting style seem beneficial for the
parent and the child. A crucial time for such an intervention is adolescence, as it may be a
tormenting time for the teenager and the parent. Due to many bodily, cognitive, and
behavioral changes in the teenager, the parent may choose to overly control and steer the
development of the child. This authoritarian approach is found to be detrimental to self-
esteem (Baumrind, 2005). So the child develops an independent, coherent, and self-honored
sense of self, the parent should balance autonomy and authority, verbal give-and-take, and
give reasons for his or her decisions and actions. With this authoritative approach and
equilibrium the child builds a high self-esteem which is stable despite the highs and lows of
everyday life.
In the end, there is still research to be done on the extent parents influence the child's
development of self-esteem, mainly in addition with personality traits of the child. Research
suggests parents, age, and sex do have an impact children's self-esteem; nonetheless the topic
of self-esteem belongs to the age old discussion of nature versus nurture, therefore the
examination of variables which impact self-esteem is countless.

References
Arens, A. K., &Hasselhorn, M. (2014). Age and Gender Differences in the Relation between
Self-Concept Facets and Self-Esteem. Journal Of Early Adolescence, 34(6), 760-791.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior,4. New York: Academic Press, pp. 71-81.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., &Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-
esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier
lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology,4(1,
Pt.2), 1-103. doi:10.1037/h0030372
Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In P.A.
Cowan & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Advances in family research (Vol. 2). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child
Development, 37887-907.
Baumrind, D. (2005). Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New
Directions For Child & Adolescent Development, 2005(108), 61-69.
Bleidorn, W., Arslan, R. C., Denissen, J. A., Rentfrow, P. J., Gebauer, J. E., Potter, J., &
Gosling, S. (2016). Age and gender differences in self-esteem-a cross-cultural
window. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, (3), 396.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1 . Attachment . New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the childs tie to his mother. International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 39, 350-371.
Buri, J. R. (1989). Self-esteem and appraisals of parental behavior. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 4(1), 33-49.
Buri, Louis Elle, Misukanis, & Mueller. (1988). Effects of parental authoritarianism and
authoritativeness on self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(2),
271-282.
Buri, J. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment,
57(1), 110–119.
Crittenden, P.; Dallos, D; Landini, A &Kozlowska, K. (2014). Attachment and Family
Therapy. Open University Press.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting styles as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487- 496.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and
Education: The Self-Determination Perspective. Educational Psychologist,
26(3/4), 325.
DeHart, T., Pelham, B. W., &Tennen, H. (2006). What lies beneath: Parenting style and
implicit self-esteem. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 421-17.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.12.005
Fraley, R. C., & Roberts, B. W. (2005). Patterns of continuity: A dynamic model for
conceptualizing the stability of individual differences in psychological constructs
across the lifecourse. Psychological Review, 112, 60–74.
Howe, David (2011). Attachment across the Lifecourse: A brief Introduction. Palgrave Mc
Millan.
Hensley, W. E., & Roberts, M. K. (1976). Dimensions Of Rosenburg's Self-Esteem Scale.
Psychological Reports, 38(2), 583-584. doi:10.2466/pr0.1976.38.2.583
Laible, D. J., Carlo, G., &Raffaelli, M. (2000). The Differential Relations of Parent and Peer
Attachment to Adolescent Adjustment. Journal Of Youth And Adolescence, (1).
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., &Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of
Competence and Adjustment among Adolescents from Authoritative, Authoritarian,
Indulgent, and Neglectful Families. Child Development, (5). 1049.
Link, S. (2015). Self-Determination Theory. Research Starters: Education (Online Edition),
MacCoby, E., Martin, J., &Mussen, P. H. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
parent-child interaction.
Matejevic, M., Jovanovic, D., &Jovanovic, M. (2014). Parenting Style, Involvement of
Parents in School Activities and Adolescents’ Academic Achievement. Procedia -
Social And Behavioral Sciences, 128(International Conference: Education and
Psychology Challenges - Teachers for the Knowledge Society - 2nd Edition EPC-TKS
2013), 288-293. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.158

Meier, L. L., Orth, U., Denissen, J. J. A., & Kühnel, A. (2011). Age differences in instability,
contingency, and level of self-esteem across the life span. Journal of Research in
Personality, 45, 604–612.
Mogonea, F., &Mogonea, F. (2014). The Role of the Family in Building Adolescents’ Self-
esteem. Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences, 127(The International
Conference. Psychology and the Realities of the Contemporary World- 4th
edition - Psiworld 2013, 189-193. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.238
Moksnes, U. K., &Espens, G. A. (2012). Self-esteem and emotional health in adolescents -
gender and age as potential moderators. Scandinavian Journal Of
Psychology, 53(6),483- 489.
Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2014). The development of self-esteem. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 23, 381–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547414
Osborne, J. (2000). Prediction in Multiple Regression. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7(2). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=2
Piotrowski, J. T., Lapierre, M. A., &Linebarger, D. L. (2013). Investigating correlates of
self-regulation in early childhood with a representative sample of English-speaking
American families. Journal Of Child And Family Studies, (3), 423.
Pomerantz, E. M., Grolnick, W. S., & Price, C. E. (2005). The Role of Parents in How
Children Approach Achievement (C. S. Dweck, Ed.). In A. E. Elliot (Ed.),
Handbookof Competence and Motivation. Retrieved April 30, 2016.`
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press
Shaffer, D., & Kipp, K. (2010). Development of the Self and Social Cognition. In
Developmental psychology: Childhood and adolescence (8th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Shiota, M., &Kalat, J. (2012). Emotion (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Beyers, W., & Ryan, R.
M. (2007). Conceptualizing parental autonomy support: Adolescent perceptions of
promotion of independence versus promotion of volitional functioning.
Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 633-646. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.633
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., &Sierens, E. (2009). How Are Parental Psychological
Controland Autonomy-Support Related? A Cluster-Analytic Approach. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 71(1), 187-202. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00589.x
Turner, E. A., Chandler, M., &Heffer, R. W. (2009). The Influence of Parenting Styles,
Achievement Motivation, and Self-Efficacy on Academic Performance in College
Students. Journal Of College Student Development, 50(3), 337-346.
van Ingen, D. J., Freiheit, S. R., Steinfeldt, J. A., Moore, L. L., Wimer, D. J., Knutt, A. D.,
Scampinello, S., & Roberts, A. (2015). Helicopter Parenting: The Effect of an
Overbearing Caregiving Style on Peer Attachment and Self-Efficacy. Journal Of
College Counseling, 18(1), 7-20.
Wagner, J. j., Lang, F., Neyer, F., & Wagner, G. (2014). Self-esteem across adulthood: the
role of resources. European Journal Of Ageing, 11(2), 109-119.

Zakeri, H., &Karimpour, M. (2011). Parenting Styles and Self-esteem. Procedia - Social
And Behavioral Sciences, 29 (The 2nd International Conference on Education and
Educational Psychology 2011), 758-761. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.302

Appendix A
Figure 1. Histogram of RSES scores

Figure 2. Normal Q-Q Plot of RSES scores

Figure 3. Histogram of Permissive parenting style scores

Figure 4. Normal Q-Q Plot of Permissive parenting style scores

Figure 5. Histogram of Authoritarian parenting style scores

Figure 6. Normal Q-Q Plot of Authoritarian parenting style scores

Figure 7. Histogram of Authoritative parenting style scores

Figure 8. Normal Q-Q Plot of Authoritative parenting style scores

Figure 9. Histogram of Age scores

Figure 10. Normal Q-Q Plot of Age scores

Figure 11. Histogram of Sex scores

Figure 12. Normal Q-Q Plot of Age scores

Appendix B
Parental Authority Questionnaire
(Buri, 1991)
Instructions:
For each of the following statements, circle the number of the 5-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 5 = strongly agree) that best describes how that statement applies to you and your
mother. Try to read and think about each statement as it applies to you and your mother
during your years of growing up at home. There are no right or wrong answers, so don’t
spend a lot of time on any one item. We are looking for your overall impression regarding
each statement. Be sure not to omit any items.
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
1. While I was growing up my mother felt that in a well-run home
the children should have their way in the family as often as the 1 2 3 4 5
parents do.
2. Even if her children didn’t agree with her, my mother felt that
it was for our own good if we were forced to conform to what she 1 2 3 4 5
thought was right.
3. Whenever my mother told me to do something as I was
growing up, she expected me to do it immediately without asking 1 2 3 4 5
any questions.
4. As I was growing up, once family policy had been established,
my mother discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the 1 2 3 4 5
children in the family.
5. My mother has always encouraged verbal give-and-take
whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were 1 2 3 4 5
unreasonable.
6. My mother has always felt that what her children need is to be
free to make up their own minds and to do what they want to do,
even if this does not agree with what their parents might want. 1 2 3 4 5
7. As I was growing up my mother did not allow me to question

any decision she had made. 1 2 3 4 5
8. As I was growing up my mother directed the activities and

decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and 1 2 3 4 5
discipline.
9. My mother has always felt that more force should be used by
parents in order to get their children to behave the way they are 1 2 3 4 5
supposed to.
10. As I was growing up my mother did not feel that I needed to

obey rules and regulations of behavior simply because someone in
authority had established them. 1 2 3 4 5
11. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me

in my family, but I also felt free to discuss those expectations with
my mother when I felt that they were unreasonable. 1 2 3 4 5
12. My mother felt that wise parents should teach their children
early just who is boss in the family. 1 2 3 4 5
13. As I was growing up, my mother seldom gave me expectations

and guidelines for my behavior. 1 2 3 4 5
14. Most of the time as I was growing up my mother did what the
children in the family wanted when making family decisions. 1 2 3 4 5
15. As the children in my family were growing up, my mother

consistently gave us direction and guidance in rational and 1 2 3 4 5
objective ways.
16. As I was growing up my mother would get very upset if I tried
to disagree with her. 1 2 3 4 5
17. My mother feels that most problems in society would be

solved if parents would not restrict their children’s activities,
decisions, and desires as they are growing up. 1 2 3 4 5
18. As I was growing up my mother let me know what behavior

she expected of me, and if I didn’t meet those expectations, she 1 2 3 4 5
punished me.
19. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to decide most
things for myself without a lot of direction from her. 1 2 3 4 5
20. As I was growing up my mother took the children’s opinions

into consideration when making family decisions, but she would
not decide for something simply because the children wanted it. 1 2 3 4 5
21. My mother did not view herself as responsible for directing

and guiding my behavior as I was growing up. 1 2 3 4 5
22. My mother had clear standards of behavior for the children in

our home as I was growing up, but she was willing to adjust those
standards to the needs of each of the individual children in the 1 2 3 4 5
family.
23. My mother gave me direction for my behavior and activities
as I was growing up and she expected me to follow her direction,
but she was always willing to listen to my concerns and to discuss 1 2 3 4 5
that direction with me.
24. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to form my own
point of view on family matters and she generally allowed me to
decide for myself what I was going to do. 1 2 3 4 5
25. My mother has always felt that most problems in society

would be solved if we could get parents to strictly and forcibly
deal with their children when they don’t do what they are 1 2 3 4 5
supposed to as they are growing up.
26. As I was growing up my mother often told me exactly what
she wanted me to do and how she expected me to do it. 1 2 3 4 5
27. As I was growing up my mother gave me clear direction for

my behaviors and activities, but she was also understanding when 1 2 3 4 5
I disagreed with her.
28. As I was growing up my mother did not direct the behaviors,
activities, and desires of the children in the family. 1 2 3 4 5
29. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me

in the family and she insisted that I conform to those expectations
simply out of respect for her authority. 1 2 3 4 5
30. As I was growing up, if my mother made a decision in the

family that hurt me, she was willing to discuss that decision with
me and to admit it if she had made a mistake. 1 2 3 4 5
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1965)
Instructions:
Below is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself. If you strongly
agree, circle SA. If you agree with the statement, circle A. If you disagree, circle D. If you
strongly disagree, circle SD.
1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. SA A D SD

2. At times, I think I am no good at all. SA A D SD
3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. SA A D SD
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. SA A D SD
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. SA A D SD
6. I certainly feel useless at times. SA A D SD
7. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with SA A D SD
others.
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. SA A D SD
9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. SA A D SD
10. I take a positive attitude toward myself. SA A D SD
Appendix C
Informed Consent Form
Parenting Styles and Their Effect on Self-Esteem
(Senior Thesis, SUNY Empire State College)
Information and purpose: You are being asked to take part in a research study on the relationship
between parenting styles and self-esteem in young adults, taking account age and sex. Older and
recent research proposes that each of the three parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, and
permissive) have an either positive or inverse effect on self-esteem throughout our life.
The aim of this research is to examine the association between the above mentioned parenting styles
and self-esteem, while also taking into account the age and sex of the participant.
You are asked to fill out two self-report questionnaires. The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ)
by Buri (1991) which measures the three common parenting styles: Authoritarian, Authoritative, and
Permissive. Then you will fill out Rosenberg's (1965) Self-Esteem Scale, which measures your
current state self-esteem. Lastly, you will fill out your age and sex. Other demographic variables are
not asked. This study should take around 15 minutes.
Participant’s rights: You may decide to stop being a part of the research study at any time without
explanation. You have the right to ask that any data you have supplied to that point to be withdrawn
or destroyed. You also have the right to omit or refuse to answer any question that is asked of you. If
you have any questions as a result of reading this information sheet, you should ask the researcher
before the study begins. If you wish to see the results of this research, you can contact the researcher
at xtkacovas@student.unyp.cz.
Benefits and risks: What is beneficial about your participation is your opportunity to provide
information for the senior thesis project research on how certain parenting styles, age, and sex affect
self-esteem. There are no known risks for you in this study.
Confidentiality:
 I understand that participation in research is not required, is voluntary.

 I understand that I am participating in psychological research;
 I understand that my identity will not be linked with my data, and that all information I
provide will remain confidential;
By signing this form I am stating that I am over 18 years of age, and that I understand the above
information and consent to participate in this study.
_________________________ _________________________
Date Participant's signature

Tkacova, Sona - 505843 - Senior Project Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Tkacova, Sona - 505843 - Senior Project Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PARENTING STYLES AND THEIR EFFECT ON SELF-ESTEEM

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

State University of New York

Empire State College

Reader: Dr. Ronnie Mather

thesis focuses on parenting styles, described as authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive,

is a quantitative study, seeking, and attempting to explore, any significant correlations

used to evaluate the relationship between the variables.

psychopathologies. Positive self-esteem serves as a protective factor against stress, anxiety,

previous research, and possible implications for future research.

can influence adult psychopathology. However, as he focused on the unconscious and

psychological abnormalities, this thesis focuses on psychologists, theories, and research

permissive (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).

(Schaffer & Kipp, 2010).

if self-esteem remains stable throughout lifetime or fluctuates is also reviewed.

self-esteem in young adults. It is hypothesized that based on these predictors it is possible to

2.1. Role of Parents

According to Bowlby (1982), attachment is a “strong desire to establish a contact or seek

(Bowlby, 1958; Howe, 2011).

adulthood as an insecure attachment is formed. This further leads to attachment needs

constantly defeating endeavors concerning independency, work, relationships, and forming a

healthy self-confidence (Howe, 2011).

therefore to balance and control such states (Howe, 2011).

others (Howe, 2011). Parents promoting a child’s sense of meaningfulness, understandability,

child (Howe, 2011).

2.2. Parenting Styles

individually operationalize parenting styles (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). By this

conceptualization, parenting styles are distinguished as authoritative, authoritarian,

permissive, and neglectful (Baumrind, 1971, 1991).

2.2.1. Authoritarian Parenting Style

1991). This mindset of parenting is rather black or white.

emotionally available, thus forcing the child to be self-reliant (Howe, 2011).

An authoritarian parent insists on perfectionist habits, such as behavioral discipline, tidiness,

wrong, while being less delinquent (Baumrind, 1966; 2005).

2.2.2. Permissive Parenting Style

(MacCoby & Martin, 1983).

Baumrind (1966) focused on this phenomenon, as a permissive parent perceives that he or

As children growing up in a permissive parenting environment have more freedom to express

emotional regulation (Baumrind, 1971; 1991; 1966; 2005).

2.2.3. Authoritative Parenting Style

internal working model (Howe, 2011).

Children raised by authoritative parents grow up in an integrated environment of rules and

freedom (Baumrind, 1966). Communication is indispensable in the interaction between the

can be viewed as a balance of the permissive and authoritarian parenting style.

2.3. Contrasting parenting styles in terms of autonomy and control

Grolnick, & Price, 2005).

As it is now known, authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting all support

Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens, 2009).

independence” by their parents who are psychologically controlling (Soenens, Vansteenkiste,

(Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens, 2009).

dimensions of parenting styles (Link, 2015; Matejevic, Jovanovic, &Jovanovic, 2014;

functioning and promotion of independence correlates positively to adjustment. Nevertheless,

conducted (Soenens et al., 2007). The promotion of volitional functioning is strongly

be raised in a non-controlling environment, which encourages and supports individualistic

behavior (Soenens et al., 2007).

may be due to them feeling forced to do so (Soenens et al., 2007).

correlations between promotion of volitional functioning, promotion of independence, and

parents promoted self-willing, intrinsically motivated behavior in the child (Soenens,

supportive and non-controlling of the child's behavior, which are properties of an

would be counterproductive to the formation of a sense of internal control, as the control is

reward for doing so.