The Correlations of Parenting Styles and Personal Identities

Parenting style is usually defined based on two dimensions of parental behaviour: control (strictness, demandingness) and warmth (affection, responsiveness) (Baumrind, 1971; Lamborn et al., 1991; Maccoby and Martin, 1983). Based on the two dimensions, control and warmth, four parenting styles have been differentiated (Lamborn et aL, 1991; Maccoby and Martin, 1983). Parents who are warm and at the same time exercise moderate levels of control are classified as authoritative. These parents employ inductive reasoning and explain reasons for their decisions as a means of controlling their children's behaviour. Parents who impose a high level of control and are not warm are classified as autocratic; those who are warm but exercise little control over the child are considered permissive (or indulgent): finally, parents who are not warm and who do not supervise and control their children are called unengaged (or neglectful).

Parental effectiveness has been evaluated in many differing ways, but one of the most widely used approaches focuses on (a) the extent to which parents make demands on their children and (b) the method in which parents elicit compliance with those demands. The two styles of parenting characterized by a high level of demandingness have been labelled “authoritative parenting” and “authoritarian parenting” (Baumrind, 1978; Holmbeck, Paikoff, & Brooks-Gunn, 1995; Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

Authoritative parents demand age-appropriate mature behaviour from their children, simultaneously fostering children’s autonomy in a warm and supportive environment. Parental support is evident particularly in the negotiation of family rules and routines. Although authoritative parents have the final say, children are encouraged to participate actively in discussions of decisions that affect them. This involvement in the decision-making process appears to provide children the experience needed to engage in thoughtful and responsible behaviour as adolescents and adults. In addition to deterring children’s internalizing and externalizing behaviour, authoritative parenting has been linked to a wide variety of prosocial adolescent outcomes including general psychological maturity, reasoning abilities, empathy, altruism, school achievement, and a healthy orientation toward work (Baumrind, 1978; Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994). Whereas some of the competencies fostered by authoritative parenting (e.g., independent thinking) might not be viewed as desirable in more communal societies, authoritative parenting has emerged as the most effective parenting style for the socialization of American children (Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991). In contrast to authoritative parents who encourage independent thinking, authoritarian parents expect their children to obey without questioning or reflecting on the specifics of a given situation. Authoritarian parenting is characterized by an emphasis on children’s conformity to parental rules in the context of low parental support. Authoritarian parents who are successful in enforcing their demands—usually through harsh, coercive discipline—often raise anxious or depressed children with deficient social skills (Bee, 1997; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994). Parents inclined toward authoritarian practices but lacking the means with which to enforce their rules often raise aggressive children whose lack of self-control results in subsequent peer rejection and delinquency (Patterson, DeBarsyshe, & Ramsey, 1989).

Several studies have demonstrated that adolescents who are raised in authoritative homes perform better in school that their peers (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts & Fraleigh, 1987; Lamborn, Mounts, Stienbderg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989; Stienbderg, Lamborn, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1991). These studies suggest that the link between authoritativeness and school success is (1) causal (Stienbderget al., 1989); (2) evident among both younger and older adolescents (Lamborn et al., 1991); (3) robust across different conceptualizations and operationalizations of authoritativeness (Dornbusch et al., 1987). Additional research on school outcomes other that grades, shows that authoritative parenting also is associated with increase in number of attitudinal and behavioural indicators of academic orientation during adolescence, including a stronger work orientation, greater engagement in classroom activities, higher educational aspirations, more positive academic self-conceptions, and lower levels of school misconduct, such as cheating or copying assignments (Lamborn, Mounts, Brown, & Steinberg, in press; Lamborn et al., 1991; Patterson & Yoerger, 1991; Steinberg et al., 1989).

Therefore, counsellors, teachers, and parents must consider the impact parenting styles may have on urban adolescents’ ability to learn and study, if inter-ventions are to be developed to increase students’ academic abilities. However, there has been little research on the possible effects of parenting styles on the academic performance and achievement among urban and rural adolescents. Urban adolescents, who perceive too much or too little support and control from their parents regarding the basic family functions, are likely to be at risk in their intellectual development, thus reducing their school achievement abilities (Olson, 1981).

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Similarly, adolescents face the challenge of forming a clear and stable sense of self-identity (Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000). A coherent, well-integrated identity structure provides a sense of purpose and direction, and it serves as the basis for effectively coping with and adapting to the demands and vicissitudes of daily life (Erikson, 1968). Based on the presence or absence of active self-exploration and firm identity commitments, Marcia (1966) identified four identity types or statuses referred to as achievers, moratoriums, foreclosures, and diffusions. Identity achievement: Individuals with firm commitment to moral values and personal life goals. Identity moratorium: Individuals with no commitment to an identity and are in the process of establishing long-term life goals. Although these individuals seem to be struggling at times, the active process of seeking an identity is considered appropriate, particularly in primary adolescence. Identity foreclosure: have committed to an identity and externally appear satisfied with life choices. They adopted an identity without the internal struggles with societal demands that those in moratorium and identity achievement experience. They might sacrifice personal values and life goals for popular beliefs and the goals society deems suitable. Identity diffusion: They often feel lost in life and express no interest in improving themselves or creating long-term goals. They have not committed to an identity and are not actively exploring or seeking an identity. Adolescents categorized as being achieved or foreclosed are more firmly committed and goal directed than students in the moratorium or diffusion statuses.

Moreover, the transitional adjustments of urban minority adolescents can be even more troublesome (Seidman, Aber, Allen, & French, 1996) because of already stressful home

and neighbourhood environments (Gillock & Reyes, 1996; Reyes, Gillock, Kobus, & Sanchez, 2000; Seidman, Allen, Aber, Mitchell, & Feinman, 1994). As soon as they begin high school, students frequently encounter a larger, mixed of students, class and teachers’ instruction, higher levels of competition (Bryk & Thum, 1989), and inflexible academic ability tracking (Seidman & French, 1997).

Additionally, there can be a loss of social status for ninth grade students who are now the youngest in the school (Eccles et al., 1993). These changes will be combined by increased stress levels, decreased self-esteem (Alvidrez & Weinstein, 1993), academic achievement, and social instability (Reed, McMillan, & McBee, 1995). Moreover, the size and system of urban public schools (Seidman et al., 1994) may further worsen these temporary features.

The objective of this study is to outline the following questions: (a) the correlations between parenting styles and the academic achievements among adolescents in urban and rural areas and (b) the correlations between the personal identity types and the academic achievements among adolescents in urban and rural areas.