Volume 1, Issue 1, 2007    
       
  Impact of Parenting Styles and Locus of Control on Emerging Adults' Psychosocial Success    
       
  Cheryl S. Marsiglia, Jeffrey J. Walczyk, Walter C. Buboltz, Diana A. Griffith-Ross
Louisiana Tech University, buboltz@latech.edu
   
       
 

Abstract

This study examines the impact of locus of control (LOC) and perceptions of parenting styles (PS) on the psychosocial success (PSS) of emerging adults (EAs). PSS was defined as the successful resolution of the tasks postulated by Erikson’s stage theory of psychosocial development (1975). The Measures of Psychosocial Development (based on Erikson’s theory; Hawley 1988), the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri 1991), and the Internal-External scale of Rotter (1966) were completed by 334 undergraduates (ages 18-25). Analyses revealed associations between (1) authoritative parenting and PSS, (2) maternal authoritative parenting and internal LOC, and (3) external LOC and maternal permissive and authoritarian PS. The relation between paternal PS and PSS was also moderated by LOC. Emerging adults’ PSS may be affected both directly by their perceptions of the PS they encountered earlier in life and indirectly through LOC, which may also be influenced by perceived PS.

Introduction

Arnett (2000) has suggested that the period of life extending from age 18 to 25 be regarded as a distinctive life stage called Emerging Adulthood. Subsequently, Aquilino (2001) emphasized the need for research investigating the effects of early family experiences, especially that of parenting, on the developmental success and well-being of emerging adults (EAs). Research on socialization processes in the family provides consistent evidence that certain parental behaviors are associated with positive outcomes in children (Maccoby & Martin 1983). For example, studies have shown that adolescents whose parents provide high levels of security and adequate supervision have higher levels of social competence, college adjustment, and academic achievement (Holmbeck & Wandrei 1993; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts 1989; Strage & Brandt 1999).

Parental behaviors may have negative effects as well. For example, Aquilino and Supple (2001) examined the effects of parent-child relationships during adolescence on EAs’ well-being and substance abuse. They found that coercive parental control during adolescence was linked to decreased well-being and greater substance abuse during emerging adulthood.

Parenting Styles and Their Effects on Offspring

Parenthood is a multifaceted role that requires the implementation of many specific behaviors that work individually and together to influence the psychosocial success (PSS) of EAs. Over time, investigators have grouped parenting behaviors into related clusters called parenting styles (PS; Becker 1964; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiberman, Roberts, & Fraleigh 1987; Kelly & Goodwin 1983; Steinberg et al. 1989). Baumrind (1973) defined parenting style (PS) to be a consistent pattern with which parents interact with their children along two dimensions: demandingness and responsiveness. Demandingness refers to parental efforts to integrate children into the family through maturity demands, supervision, discipline, and willingness to confront behavioral problems. Responsiveness refers to the extent to which parents foster individuality, self-regulation, and self-assertion by consenting to or being aware and supportive of children’s needs and demands (Baumrind 1991). Based on the degree of responsiveness and demandingness employed by parents in rearing their children, Baumrind classified three PSs: authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive.

Authoritarian parenting. Authoritarian parenting is characterized by behaviors that are highly restrictive and extremely demanding. Parents who employ this style tend to constrain children’s independence and force them to follow strict rules by threatening harsh punishment for violations. They also tend to be less responsive to and accepting of their children. By preventing children from exercising control over their own behaviors and learning from their mistakes, authoritarian parents inadvertently may be rearing children to believe that they are not responsible for what happens to them.  Children and adolescents from authoritarian families tend to perform moderately well in school and to be less involved in problem behaviors than children and adolescents from permissive families, yet they have poorer social skills, lower self-esteem, and higher levels of depression than do children of authoritative parents. Compared with parents of other styles, authoritarian parents tend to rear girls who are less independent, boys who are more aggressive, and children who appear discontent and more extrinsically motivated (Ginsburg & Bronstein 1993).

Permissive parenting. Permissive parents, at the other extreme, are nonrestrictive, imposing few maturity demands and applying high levels of responsiveness. They either indulge or neglect their children's needs (Strage & Brandt, 1999). Permissive parents allow children to be self-regulated and free from rules or discipline. However, by not setting behavioral limits and goals and not holding children responsible for surpassing or falling short of those limits and goals, parents are failing to teach children that they are responsible for their own behavior. Moreover, children and adolescents from permissive families are susceptible to antisocial peer pressure (Condry & Simon 1974; Steinberg 1987). Such individuals are also more likely to be involved in problem behaviors and perform less well in school, but they have higher self-esteem, better social skills, and lower levels of depression than children raised by authoritarian parents (Strage & Brandt 1999).      

Authoritative parenting. Authoritative parenting is an optimal balance of responsiveness and demandingness. Authoritative parents direct children in a rational, issue-oriented manner by explaining the reasoning behind rules. They recognize children’s individuality, encourage verbal exchange, engage children in joint decision-making, and insist that children progressively assume more responsibility for responding to the needs of other family members within the limits of their capabilities (Maccoby 1992). Additionally, they provide appropriate scaffolding for their children's learning by supporting them when tasks are difficult and by backing away when children are succeeding on their own (Pratt, Kerig, Cowan, & Cowan 1988). By allowing children to learn from their mistakes and to proceed independently when fairing well, parents may be encouraging their children’s future self-reliance.

Children of authoritative parents tend to demonstrate social and academic competence, exhibit fewer problem behaviors (Maccoby 1994), and have fewer mental health problems than children of permissive or authoritatrian parents (Baumrind 1991; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch 1991; Steinberg 1990). Baumrind (1973) noted that such children are apt to demonstrate leadership qualities. Moreover, authoritative parenting has been associated with positive self-esteem, especially in women (Klein, O’Bryant, & Hopkins 1996).

PS has been linked to competence (Baumrind 1991) and perfectionism in college students (Flett, Hewitt, & Singer 1995). Strage and Brandt (1999) explored the effects of PS on college students' adjustment and success, finding that parents who granted autonomy by optimally balancing demandingness and support, reared children who had higher grades and better rapport with instructors. They were more confident, persistent, and task-involved than the children of non-authoritative parents. These findings suggest that PS continues to play an important role in the academic lives of college students, even if its effects diminish somewhat over time.

Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Success

Erikson’s (1975) stage theory of psychosocial development provides an integrative framework for exploring the impact of family dynamics on the psychosocial success of emerging adults. Erikson described eight developmental stages throughout the life span. In his theory, as they age, citizens of Western cultures experience conflicts, each involving either a positive outcome (successful resolution) or a negative one (unsuccessful resolution). Successful resolution confers on citizens psychosocial strengths, such as a sense of autonomy, a sense of initiative, or a sense of identity, that will serve them well later in life in meeting societal expectations and experiencing well-being. If a stage is not resolved successfully, the failure to gain the psychosocial strength may impair future development and success. According to Erikson’s theory, EAs should have achieved a sense of identity; that is, successful resolution of the adolescent conflict of the fifth stage: identity versus confusion.

Although Erikson’s fifth stage has been heavily studied (Oshe & Plug 1986), the role that PS plays during the critical developmental period of emerging adulthood has received insufficient attention. Steinberg and colleagues (1989) correlated PS with school achievement and with adolescents’ psychosocial maturity, which they defined as their sense of self-reliance and identity. They found that the impact of authoritative parenting on school achievement was mediated by whether adolescents developed a sense of autonomy and a healthy orientation toward work. Lamborn et al. (1991) found that adolescents from authoritative homes reported significantly higher levels of PSS than adolescents from authoritarian, permissive, or neglectful homes in terms of more positive self-conceptualizations, greater well-being, and fewer behavioral problems.

Locus of Control

Because individuals vary in the meanings that they attach to their own or others’ behavior, they place themselves on qualitatively different developmental paths (e.g., Fischer, Knight, & Van Parys, 1993; Levitt, Selman, & Richmond, 1991; Molden & Dweck, 2006; Thompson, 2000). In other words, if one person believes his behavior is the result of fate, and another believes hers is the result of hard work, they will differ in the goal setting behaviors and in the amount of effort they extend toward achieving those goals. This is the basic underlying concept of locus of control. Based on Rotter’s (1966) social learning theory, locus of control (LOC) is the extent to which individuals believe that their life circumstances are a function of either their own actions or external factors beyond their control (Moorhead & Griffin 2004). People who believe that they are in control of their own lives and that effort and ability determine their futures have an internal locus of control (ILOC). In contrast, individuals with an external locus of control (ELOC) believe that fate, luck, chance, or other people’s behavior determines what happens to them. The LOC construct has had considerable influence on research and theory concerning motivation, expectations, self-esteem, and risk-taking behavior (McCombs 1991). Moreover, it is one of the most studied variables in psychology (Rotter 1990). LOC relates to perceptions of power and autonomy, achievement, social involvement, and competence (Weisz, Weiss, Wasserman, & Rintoul 1987).

Few studies concerning LOC have examined its relation to PS, and of them, many have had methodological problems concerning the definitions and measurements of PS and have predominately involved children (see Krampen 1989). These studies indicate that the PS under which children were raised affect their LOCs (McClun & Merrill 1998). An ILOC tends to result from consistency of discipline, reinforcement of positive behaviors, and balanced autonomy: characteristics of authoritative parenting (Krampen 1989). Additionally, positive parental involvement has been implicated in the development of an ILOC of control in academic contexts (Grolnick & Ryan 1989).

Research has linked an ILOC with high self-esteem, job satisfaction, high self-efficacy, and high educational aspirations (Flowers, Milner, & Moore 2003; Morry 2003; Muhonen & Torkelson 2004; Wu, Tang, & Kwok 2004), whereas an ELOC has been associated with higher levels of stress, frequent illness, psychological distress, and relationship dissatisfaction (Morry, 2003; Muhonen & Torkelson 2004; Wu et al. 2004).

The Present Study

Building on and extending previous research, this study examined the long-term impact of PS and LOC on the PSS of EAs. In particular, LOC was analyzed to determine whether it moderated the relation between PS and PSS. Although associated with a more ELOC than authoritative parenting, as noted previously, authoritarian parents often exercise harsh discipline over their children, often leading to scholastic success and other achievement. Such success may foster a more ILOC and greater PSS as a result, especially a sense of industry and better identity formation (Berk 2004). Children of permissive parents may be the most externally controlled and have the lowest PSS as a result. Based on the preceding, these hypotheses were tested.

I. In the case of both mothers and fathers, authoritative parenting will be associated with greater PSS in children than authoritarian or permissive parenting.

II. In the case of both mothers and fathers, authoritative parenting will be associated with a more ILOC in children than authoritarian or permissive parenting.

III. LOC will moderate the impact of PS on PSS in EAs. In particular, permissive parenting will interact with LOC to lower PSS in both males and females. Authoritarian parenting, on the other hand, will interact with LOC to enhance PSS.

Method

Participants

Three hundred, thirty-four (334) undergraduate students participated in the study: 165 males (49.4%) and 169 females (50.6%). The mean age was 18.67, SD = 2.62. All were EAs, aged18 to 25. College freshmen numbered 228 (68.3%). There were 65 sophomores (19.5%), 33 juniors (9.9%), and eight seniors (2.4%). Five ethnic categories were represented: 264 European Americans (79%), 50 African Americans (15%), 12 Asian/Pacific Islanders (3.6%), six Hispanic/Latinos (1.8%), and one Native American (.3%). One participant (.3%) was self-identified as “other.” Household composition at the time of testing was as follows: 267 participants (79.7%) had come from a traditional household form birth (two biological or adoptive parents); 36 (10.8%) were from a single parent household; 26 (7.8%) lived with a biological parent and a step-parent, and three (.9%) were classified as “other.” The mean number of siblings was 2.55.

Instruments

Parental authority questionnaire. Buri (1991) designed the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) to assess Baumrind’s constructs of permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative PSs. Items are written from the perspective of offspring. Thus, an authoritative item concerning the EA’s mother might read "My mother has always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable." There is a 30-item scale to evaluate the father and a 30-item scale to evaluate the mother. Responses to items are made on a 5-point Likert-format scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The PAQ yields six separate scores for each participant: mother's permissiveness, mother's authoritarianism, mother's authoritativeness, father's permissiveness, father's authoritarianism, and father's authoritativeness. Scores on each of these variables can range from 10 to 50; the higher the score, the greater the perceived level of the corresponding parental style measured. Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from .74 to .92 over a two-week interval. The validity of the PAQ has been established (see Buri 1991). A limitation of this instrument is that it does not allow identification of neglectful parents. Even so, they are infrequently observed in college students (Maccoby 1992).

Measures of psychosocial development. As stated earlier, PSS was defined as successful task resolution as set forth in Erikson’s (1975) theory of psychosocial development. The Measures of Psychosocial Development (MPD; Hawley 1988), a self-report based on Erikson’s theory, was used to assess participants' levels of successful task resolution. It measures the degree to which the resolution of each of the eight stages of development has been attained. It consists of 112 self-report, Likert-format ratings (A-Not at all like me, E-Very much like me) made in response to self-describing statements (e.g., Easily deterred; Can’t express myself; Big difference between who I am and how I thought I would be). They make up 27 scales: eight positive, eight negative, and eight resolution scales, as well as three total scale scores. The 16 positive and negative scales measure the positive and negative attitudes associated with each psychosocial stage of development. The resolution scales reflect the status of conflict resolution for each of the eight psychosocial stages. The three total scales (total positive, total negative, and total resolution) assess overall psychosocial adjustment.

Of the 27 scales, 18 were relevant to this study. These scales reflected the resolution status of the first five stages of development: trust, autonomy, initiative, industry, and the identity. Of particular interest was the total resolution score of these five stages, with higher scores indicating greater PSS. Test-retest reliability coefficients for total scores range from .67 to .92. Internal consistency estimates range from .65 to .84 (Hawley 1988).

Locus of control scale. LOC was measured with the Internal-External Scale (I-E scale; Rotter, 1966). Although a number of such scales have been developed to assess LOC, Rotter's (1966) scale dominates the literature (Calderone, Hey, & Seabert 2001). The I-E scale is a 29-item forced-choice instrument, with six filler items, designed to assess externality, that is, the perception that events are unrelated to individuals’ behavior and therefore beyond their personal control. The lower their scores the more internal are their loci of control. Higher scores mean external loci. The normative mean observed by Rotter (1966) was 8.95. In this research, individuals falling below it were defined to have internal loci of control; above it are external loci of control. The scale has excellent internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and concurrent validity (Lefcourt 1976; Rotter 1990).

Procedure

Participants were undergraduate volunteers from introductory psychology classes at a university in the South who received extra credit for their participation. Informed consent was first obtained. The PAQ, MPD, I-E scale, and a demographics questionnaire comprised each test booklet. Their order was randomized over participants to control for order effects. Instructions for completing the booklets were provided to participants, who were allowed to fill out surveys at home and return them to their instructors, who then forwarded them to the first author.

Results

An a of .05 was used for all inferential tests. Prior to testing the hypotheses, gender differences were examined on all the variables in the study using independent samples t tests. No significant differences were found. Consequently, data were collapsed over gender in subsequent analyses. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and coefficient alphas for each scale.  Means and coefficient alphas compare favorably with what has been reported in the literature.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Parenting Styles, Locus of Control, and Total Psychosocial  Success

____________________________________________________________________

Variable                                                               N         %        Mean        SD     Alpha   ____________________________________________________________________

Parenting Style—Maternal                                                                                       .79

     Authoritative                                                 179      56.6      35.62       6.54      .70

     Authoritarian                                                124      37.1      33.25       6.81      .72

     Permissive                                                     15        4.5      23.68       5.79      .68     

Parenting Style—Paternal                                                                                       .85

     Authoritative                                                 155      52.4      34.06       6.84      .70

     Authoritarian                                                128      43.3      33.31       7.41      .68

     Permissive                                                     13        3.9      22.94       5.62      .66

Locus of Control                                                                         10.33       3.72      .82

Measures of Psychosocial Development                             40.94      31.24     .75

____________________________________________________________________

Hypothesis I

Hypothesis I predicted group differences in total PSS means (first five Eriksonian stages) as a function of maternal PS. The differences between PS means were compared using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Participants were classified into one of three parenting categories as determined by the category with the highest score on the PAQ, as recommended by Buri (1991). The independent variable, PS, thus had three categories: authoritarian, authoritative, or permissive. A total of thirty-one participants had to be excluded from the maternal or paternal analyses because their scores on two or more PS tied. The dependent variable was total resolution of the first five stages of psychosocial development. Results indicated a significant relation between PS and psychosocial development, F(2, 315) = 7.45, p < .001. Tukey's post-hoc analysis revealed that the participants of authoritative mothers scored significantly higher on MPD total resolution score, M = 46.9, than those with authoritarian, M = 33.54, or permissive mothers, M = 33.13. The latter two styles did not differ significantly from each other.

The relation between paternal PS and PSS was also addressed using a one-way ANOVA. The results indicated a significant relation, F(2, 293) = 4.83, p < .009. Tukey’s post-hoc analyses showed that participants of authoritative fathers scored significantly higher on MPD resolution, M = 45.45, than participants of authoritarian fathers, M = 36.35, who, in turn, had significantly higher scores the participants with permissive fathers, M = 24.38. The mean difference between permissive and authoritarian fathers was significant as well. Hypothesis I was strongly confirmed.

Hypothesis II

According to Hypothesis II, authoritative parenting would produce in EAs a more ILOC than either permissive or authoritarian parenting. To examine the relation between PS and LOC, two one-way ANOVAs, one for mothers and a second for fathers, were again computed. The independent variable in each case was PS category. I-E scores were the dependent variable. The test of the overall model for mothers was significant, F(2, 315) = 37.01, p < .000. Using Tukey's post-hoc procedure, it was found that maternal authoritative parenting was associated with a more internal LOC, 8.82, than either authoritarian or permissive parenting. Permissive, M = 13.40, and authoritarian parenting, M 12.08, were not significantly different from each other. Recalling that Rotter's (1966) normative mean for the I-E scale was 8.95, only the EAs of authoritative mothers in this sample had an ILOC.

To test the effect of paternal parenting styles on locus of control orientation an ANOVA was again computed. The model was not significant, F(2, 293) = 1.93, p = .196. Consequently, no post-hoc comparisons were justified. Overall,  Hypothesis II was partially supported, that is, confirmed in the case of mothers but not fathers.

Hypothesis III
This hypothesis concerns the possible moderating role of locus of control orientation between parenting styles and  psychosocial developmental success. To test it, hierarchical regression was used. For each regression, total task resolution of psychosocial development was the dependent variable. As above, separate analyses were conducted for mothers and fathers. Following the recommendation of Nunally and Bernstein (1994), psychosocial development was regressed onto a series of hierarchical blocks. The initial block consisted of dummy-coded demographic variables (i.e., gender, race, parental household composition) and age. The second block consisted of the three measures of perceived parenting styles (i.e., authoritative, authoritarian, permissive). The third block consisted of I-E scores. The fourth and final block tested for interactions by simultaneously entering all possible interaction (cross products) terms between the three parenting styles and locus of control. The hierarchical regression results of the maternal data are provided in Table 2. Please note hereafter that only adjusted R2s are reported.

   
       
 

Table 2

Hierarchical Regression for Psychosocial Success onto Demographics, Maternal Parenting

Styles, Locus of Control, and Maternal Parenting Styles X Locus of Control (N = 314)

___________________________________________________________________________

                                                                                                 Ra2                        Δ2                                B
___________________________________________________________________________

Step 1—Demographics                                                     .009                    .009            

    Gender                                                                                                                                                  .062

     Race                                                                                                                                                    .069

     Parental Household Composition                                                                                               -.002

Step 2—Perceived Parenting Styles                                .092                    .083

     Maternal Authoritative                                                                                                                     .266*

     Maternal Authoritarian                                                                                                                    -.051

     Maternal Permissive                                                                                                                      -.125*

Step 3—Locus of Control                                                  .122                    .030                            -.187*

Step 4—Interaction of Maternal Perceived

   Parenting Styles X Locus of Control                             .131                    .090

     Maternal Authoritative x LOC                                                                                                          .519

     Maternal Authoritarian x LOC                                                                                                         .031

     Maternal Permissive x LOC                                                                                                          -.207
___________________________________________________________________________

In step one of analyzing the maternal parenting data, demographics were not significant predictors, F(3, 311) = .964, p > .05. In step two, parenting styles were added and accounted for significant variance beyond the demographic variables, F(6, 308) = 5.195, p < .0001. The examination of incremental variance in the second model indicated an R2 of .083, which is an improvement over .009 of the first model. The standardized beta weights provide a means of assessing the relative contribution of each of the predictor variables on the dependent variable. Authoritative parenting was the strongest and only positive predictor among maternal parenting style scores (B = .266, p < .05). Permissive parenting was a significant negative predictor (B = -.125, p < .05), whereas authoritarian parenting was not.Step three determined the effect of LOC on PSS, while retaining the factors previously entered. The resulting model was significant, F(7, 307) = 6.09, p < .001. R2 was .122, a value significantly larger than that of the previous two models. Standardized beta weights reveal that the best predictor was authoritative parenting, B = .213. The other two significant, albeit negative, predictors were LOC, B = -.187, and permissive PS, B = -.119. Greater authoritative parenting, less permissive parenting, and a more ILOC were associated with PSS.

 

Finally, the results of adding the interaction terms (cross products) between PS and LOC produced a significant model, F(3, 311) = 4.55, p < .001. The R2 was .131. None of the betas of the interaction terms were significant. Although PS and LOC each accounted for unique variance in the PSS of EAs, Hypothesis III was not supported with mothers.To assess the relative contributions of paternal PS, LOC, and the possible interaction between the two, a hierarchical regression was again conducted as before, including entry of the same blocks into the model. In step one, the demographic variables alone did not produce a significant model. Adding paternal PS in step two did produce a significant model, F(6, 285) = 5.28, p < .0001. As with mothers, the authoritative style of fathers was the only significant and positive predictor, B  = .289, p < .05.
 

Table 3

Hierarchical Regression for Psychosocial Success onto Demographics, Paternal Parenting

Styles, Locus of Control, and Parenting Styles X Locus of Control (N = 291)

________________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                                                                 Ra2                         Δ2                               B

________________________________________________________________________________

 

Step 1—Demographics                                                     .002                        .012

     Gender                                                                                                                                                 .083

     Race                                                                                                                                                     .072

     Parental Household Composition                                                                                                  .005

Step 2—Perceived Parenting Styles                                .081                        .088

     Paternal Authoritative                                                                                                                        .289*

     Paternal Authoritarian                                                                                                                        .033

     Paternal Permissive                                                                                                                          .357

Step 3—Locus of Control                                                  .113                         .034                         -.188*

Step 4— Interaction of Paternal Perceived

 Parenting Styles X Locus of Control                               .186                         .055

     Paternal Authoritative x LOC                                                                                                            -.095

     Paternal Authoritarian x LOC                                                                                                            .667*

     Paternal Permissive x LOC                                                                                                             -.700*
________________________________________________________________________________

 * p < .0

Adding I-E scores in step three improved the accuracy of prediction of PSS. R2 rose from .113 to .136 and again produced a significant model, F(7, 284) = 6.277, p < .0001. The largest predictor was paternal authoritative parenting, B = .266, p < .05. LOC was a significant negative predictor, B = -.188, p < .05.

To test for the moderating effect of LOC on the relation between paternal PS and PSS in step four, the interaction terms between PS and LOC were added. R2 changed from .136 to .186. The model was significant, F(10, 281) = 7.569, p < .0001. Moreover, two significant interactions were found, one between authoritarian PS and LOC, B = .667, p < .05, and another between permissive PS and LOC, B = -.700, p < .05. Hypothesis III was supported in the case of fathers. LOC moderated the relation between paternal PS and PSS such that authoritarian parenting enhanced PSS, whereas permissive parenting diminished it.

Discussion

The effects of PS on many childhood outcomes have been examined in the literature (Baumrind 1989, Berk 2004; Maccoby 1994; Maccoby & Martin 1983; McClun & Merrill 1998). It is known, for instance, that parental influence extends into adolescence (Newcomb 1996). However, research concerning the long-term psychosocial impact of PS on EAs is less abundant, but is theoretically predicted by Erikson’s theory. This study sought to extend prior research by examining the impact of PS and LOC on the PSS of EAs.

Hypothesis I concerned the psychosocial advantage of authoritative parenting and was confirmed. EAs of authoritative mothers or fathers displayed greater psychosocial developmental task resolution than EAs whose parents were authoritarian or permissive. Parents who make appropriate maturity demands and have high levels of responsiveness seem to enable their children to master important developmental tasks even past adolescence.

This study specifically addressed the first five stages of Erikson's (1975) theory by assessing task resolutions of trust, autonomy, initiative, industry, and identity. Prior research has shown that authoritative parenting provides children what they need to achieve each of these five psychosocial strengths. Specifically, it promotes in children initiative, purpose, goal directedness (Baumrind 1973), confidence, and accurate assessments of their abilities (Lamborn et al. 1991; Maccoby 1994). The results of this study confirm the salutary long-term effects of authoritative parenting. Conversely, participants whose parents were authoritarian or permissive scored lower on the MPD, suggesting that authoritarian and permissive PS did not foster successful resolution of the first five stages of psychosocial development. These are also in accord with the results of prior research (Baumrind 1973; Maccoby & Martin 1983). A few caveats are noteworthy. First, the data collected are cross-sectional and correlational. Consequently, it is impossible to ascribe causal linkages among the constructs measured (Masten 2001). Moreover, data were collected from a single source, with its potential for mono-method biases. Future research on these issues might, for instance, corroborate EAs’ perceptions with parental self-perceptions of their styles. Moreover, it should be noted that PS can change over time. Consequently, recollections of EAs may reflect current PS, not styles that parents had years before.

According to Hypothesis II, authoritative parenting inculcates an internal LOC in EAs. It was confirmed with mothers, but not with fathers. In particular, EAs whose mothers were authoritative had means on Rotter’s (1966) I-E scale reflective of an ILOC compared to the EAs of authoritarian and permissive parents. These results too are consistent with previous studies involving younger children (Chorpita & Barlow 1998; Krampen 1989; McClun & Merrill 1998).

Some studies of PS utilize only one score for parents and do not differentiate between maternal and paternal styles (e.g., Dornbusch et al. 1987). The present results suggest that such a methodology may be inaccurate inasmuch as in this sample important differences were found in the pattern of results from mothers to fathers. Specifically, the results revealed that maternal PS influenced LOC, whereas paternal PS did not. Clearly, parental gender is important.

According to Hypothesis III, a significant interaction would occur between PS and LOC, indicating that LOC moderates the relation between PS and PSS. Specifically, LOC will interact with authoritarian parenting to enhance PSS and will interact with permissive parenting to lower it. The predicted pattern was found with paternal PS only. It is unclear why confirmation of this hypothesis did not generalize across parents. It may be because of the different roles of fathers in parenting compared to mothers, especially their prominent roles in discipline (Maccoby & Martin 1983). The findings do, however, reveal that PS, which are part of young adults’ past, and LOC, which are part of their present attributional style, can combine in complex ways to influence psychosocial outcomes. It may be that the EAs of authoritarian fathers, because of their enhanced academic success (Ginsburg & Bronstein 1993), develop a slightly more ILOC that synergistically enhances their PSS compared to the EAs of permissive fathers. In support, recall that the PSS of the EAs of authoritarian fathers was significantly greater than that of the EAs of permissive fathers.

The significant interactions involving fathers suggests the need to explore factors beyond PS that influence LOC. For instance, research has shown that socioeconomic status, health status, and other early environmental factors also play a role in development of LOC (Ruggiero & Taylor 1997). What factors can promote an ILOC and how do they interact with PS? The present findings, along with those of other researchers, suggest the powerful role that LOC may play in the development of resiliency in individuals (Masten 2001; Weisz & Stipek 1982). For example, McCombs (1991) found that LOC had a significant influence on motivation, expectations, and self-esteem. The thrust of empirical work in this area has demonstrated that coping processes vary as a function of the perceived controllability of a situation. An ILOC may have adaptive value in the face of misfortune by providing victims with the motivation to work to change their plight rather than retreat to a sense of apathy or hopelessness.

Limitations and Future Research. As noted above, the present findings are cross-sectional and correlational. Consequently, they do not support causal inference. Longitudinal designs that test the three hypotheses of this research would yield data more supportive of such deduction (Masten 2001). Another concern with the present data is the infrequency with which the permissive PS was observed. Though other research has shown permissive parenting to be the least prevalent of the three types (e.g., Strage & Brandt 1999), this sample had an unusually low number of permissive mothers and fathers. In retrospect, because of their low achievement, a large percentage of children from permissive parents are unlikely to be among those who have attained entry into college compared to the general population. In longitudinal studies of adolescents, participants have been categorized into perceived parenting types by using only the data derived from a pure type (Steinberg et al. 1989). Lamborn and colleagues (1991) eliminated two-thirds of their data and used only the middle tetrad as the pure parenting type. Indeed, many of the participants in this study had scores very near to each other. Recall that thirty-one participants actually tied on two different PS scores and their data had to be thrown out. A longitudinal sample more representative of the general population would lessen this concern.

Conclusions. Investigation of the long-term impact of PS on EAs has been a relatively unexplored area. Yet, it is reasonable to postulate that childhood experiences set the stage and influence the path for the remainder of life. For instance, Newcomb (1996) found that family support and bonding reduced the relation between general deviance and psychological distress for both male and female adolescents, and contended that "the parent and family environment is the earliest and primary socialization force in a child's life, with all subsequent socialization experiences shaping and modifying this prior influence" (p. 374), a view supported by the present data.

What has been observed herein may have clinical significance. An accurate and comprehensive understanding of the long-term impact of PS has implications for establishing appropriate prevention and treatment programs for those low in psychosocial competence (Cowan, Powell & Cowan 1998). These findings, if replicated in other studies, could lead to training modules focused on fostering parental skills and interventions designed to help the children of non-authoritative parents to develop more ILOC.

With respect to counseling and parenting practices, this investigation supports a relation between theory and practice by identifying correlates of PSS. PS and an ILOC were observed to contribute uniquely and synergistically to PSS. In counseling centers, therapeutic interventions might include approaches addressing parenting issues, which would fit nicely with many family system approaches.

LOC influences motivation, expectations, self-esteem, risk-taking behavior, and the outcome of actions (McCombs 1991). Interventions designed to foster an ILOC may help individuals to see the world as a place that can be altered or to which they can adapt (Reich & Zautra 1981). The development of a strong identity and intimate peer relationships are key tasks for EAs (Arnett 2000), which present significant adaptive challenges for many of them (Erikson 1975). Counselors can assist EAs from permissive backgrounds to alter their perceptions of these stressful developmental times and help them develop a sense of control in adapting to their constantly changing work, school, and social environments.

The present results have theoretical significance as well. Individual differences can buffer or build resilience against negative life events (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker 2000; Masten 2001; 1999). LOC may moderate psychological symptoms, feelings of stress, and the development of anxiety in children (Chorpita & Barlow 1998; Frost & Clayson 1991). Beliefs about personal control traditionally have been conceptualized in the coping literature as important individual variables that can influence cognitive appraisals of stressful situations (Lazarus & Folkman 1984). An ILOC may confer protection against the experience or threat of distress, and may influence the way individuals cope (Skinner 1995). Indeed, one aspect of attributional retraining concentrates on strengthening ILOC and coping mechanisms (Deshler, Schumaker, & Lenz 1984). The present findings extend prior research on LOC (e.g., Kim, Sandler, & Tein 1997) by suggesting that, in some cases, an internal LOC acts as a resiliency factor, moderating between authoritarian parenting and PSS. In other words, although individuals may not have been reared under authoritative parents, they may, nonetheless, develop an ILOC, which helps them to overcome their non-optimal parenting and achieve PSS.

References

 

Aquilino, W.S. (2001). Long-term effects of single versus multiple family disruptions on young

adult well-being. Rochester: The Annual National Council on Family Relations.

 

Aquilino, W.S., & Supple, A.J. (2001). Long-term effects of parenting practices during adolescence on well-being outcomes in young adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 22(3),

289-308.

 

Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.

 

Baumrind, D. (1973). The development of instrumental competence through socialization. In A. Pick (Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (pp. 3-46). Minneapolis:University

of Minnesota Press.

 

Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Eds), Child Development Today and Tomorrow, (pp. 349-378). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95.

 

Becker, W.C. (1964). Consequences of different types of parental discipline. In M.L. Hoffman & L.W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of Child Development Research (pp. 169-208). NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

 

Berk, L.E. (2004). Development through the lifespan (3rd Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 110-119.

 

Calderone, K.S., Hey, W., & Seabert, D. (2001). Perceived stress and locus of control differences

between employed and non-employed college students: implications for increasing internal locus of control. Student Affairs Journal Online, Retrieved May 25, 2001 from http://sajo.org.

 

Chorpita, B. E. & Barlow, D. H. (1998). The development of anxiety: the role of control in the early environment. Psychological Bulletin,124, 3-21.

 

Condry, J. & Simon, M. L. (1974). Characteristics of peer- and parent-oriented children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, 543-554.

 

Cowan, P. A., Powell, D. & Cowan, C. P. (1988). Parenting interventions: a family systems

Perspective. In W. Damon, I.E., Sigell, & K.A. (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 4: Child Psychology in Practice (pp. 3-72). NY: Wiley.

 

Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Lenz, B. K. (1984). Academic and cognitive interventions for LD adolescents: I). Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17(2), 108-117.

 

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F. & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The

relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.

 

Erikson, E. H. (1975) Life history and the historical moment. NY: Norton.

 

Fischer, K.W., Knight, C.C., & Van Parys, M. (1993). Analyzing diversity in developmental pathways: Methods and concepts. In R. Case & W. Edelstein (Eds.), The new structuralism in cognitive development: Theory and research on individual pathways. Vol. 23. Contributions to human development (pp. 33-56). Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger.

 

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Singer, A. (1995). Perfectionism and parental authority styles. Individual Psychology: Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research and practice, 51, 50-60.

 

Flowers, L.A., Milner, H.R., & Moore, J.L. (2003). Effects of locus of control on African-American high school seniors’ educational aspirations: implications for preservice and inservice high school teachers and counselors. High School Journal, 87(1), 39-50.

 

Frost, T. F. & Clayson, D. E. (1991). The measurement of self-esteem, stress-related life events, and locus of control among unemployed and employed blue-collar workers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1402-1417.

 

Ginsburg, G. & Bronstein, P. (1993). Family factors related to children's intrinsic/extrinsic motivational orientation and academic performance. Child Development, 64, 1461-1471.


Grolnick, W. S. & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children's self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143-154.

 

Hawley, G. A. (1988). Measures of Psychosocial Development Manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessments Resources.  

 

Holmbeck, G.N., & Wandrei, M.L. (1993). Individual and relational predictors of adjustment in

first-year college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 73-78.

 

Kelly, C., & Goodwin, G. (1983). Adolescent perception of three styles of parental control. Adolescence, 18, 567-571.


Kim, L. S., Sandler, I. N., & Tein, J. (1997). Locus of control as a stress moderator and mediator in children of divorce. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25(2), 145-155.

 

Klein, H. A., O'Bryant, K., & Hopkins, H. R. (1996). Recalled parental authority style and self-

perception in college men and women. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 157, 5-17.

 

Krampen, G. (1989). Perceived child rearing practices and the development of locus of control

in early adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12, 177-193.

 

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, 62, 1049-1065.

 

Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.


Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research (2nd

Ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 

Levitt, M.Z., Selman, R.L., & Richmond, J.B. (1991). The psychosocial foundations of early adolescents’ high-risk behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 349-378.

 

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D. & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: a critical

evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543-562.

 

Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: an historical

overview. In , R. D. Parke, P.A. Ornstein, J. J. Rieser, & C. Zahn-Waxler (Ed.). A Century of

Developmental Psychology (pp. 589-615). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

 

Maccoby, E. E. (1994). Middle childhood in the context of the family. In W.A. Collins (Ed.), Development During Middle Childhood: The Years from Six to Twelve (pp. 184-239). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

 

Maccoby, E. E. & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family. In P. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 4: Socialization, Personality, and Social Development (4th ed.) (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

 

Masten, A. S. (1999). Resilience comes of age: reflections on the past and outlook for the next

generation of research. In M. D. Glantz, J. Johnson, & L. Huffman (Eds.), Resilience and Development: Positive life adaptations (pp. 282-296). New York: Plenum.

 

Masten, A.S. (2001). Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227-238.

 

McClun, L.A. & Merrell, K. W. (1998). Relationship of perceived parenting styles, locus of

control, and self-concept among junior high age students. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 381-392.

 

McCombs, B. (1991). Metacognition and Motivation in Higher Level Thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

 

Molden, D.C., & Dweck, C.S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61(3), 192-203.

 

Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R.W. (2004). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations (7th Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

 

Morry, M.M. (2003). Perceived locus of control & satisfaction in same-sex friendships. Personal Relationships, 10(4), 495-509.

 

Muhonen, T., & Torkelson, E. (2004). Work locus of control and its relationship to health & job satisfaction from a gender perspective. Stress and Health, 20(1), 21-28.

 

Newcomb, M. D. (1996). Adolescence: pathologizing a normal process. Counseling Psychologist, 24, 482-490.

 

Nunally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.

 

Oshe, R. & Plug, C. (1986). Cross-cultural investigation of the validity of Erikson’s theory of personalilty development. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50(5), 1240-1252.

 

Pratt, M. W., Kerig, P., Cowan, P. A. & Cowan, C. P. (1988). Mothers and fathers teaching 3-year-olds: authoritative parenting and adult scaffolding of young children's learning. Developmental Psychology, 24, 832-839.


Reich, J. W. & Zautra, A. (1981). Life events and personal causation: some relationships with

satisfaction and distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1002-1012.

 

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of Reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.

 

Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case variable. American Psychologist, 45, 489-493.

 

Ruggiero, K. M. & Taylor, D. M. (1997). Why minority group members perceive or do not perceive the discrimination that confronts them: the role of self-esteem and perceived control. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 72(2), 373-389.

 

Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived Control, Motivation, and Coping Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

Steinberg, L. (1987). Single parents, stepparents, and the susceptibility of adolescents to antisocial peer pressure. Child Development, 58, 269-275.

 

Steinberg, L. (1990). Interdependency in the family: autonomy, conflict, and harmony. In S. Feldman & G. Elliot  (Eds.), At the Threshold: The Developing Adolescent, 255-276.

 

Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436.

 

Strage, A. & Brandt, T.S. (1999). Authoritative parenting and college students' academic

adjustment and success. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 146-156.

 

Thompson, R.A. (2000). The legacy of early attachments. Child Development, 71, 145-152.

 

Weisz, J. R. & Stipek, D. J. (1982). Competence, contingency, and the underdevelopment of

perceived control. Human Development, 25, 250-281.

 

Weisz, J.R., Weiss, B., Wasserman, A.A., & Rintoul, B. (1987). Control-related beliefs and

depression among clinic-referred children and adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 58-63.

 

Wu, A.M.S., Tang, C.S.K., & Kwok, T.C.Y. (2004). Self-efficacy, health locus of control, &

psychological distress in elderly Chinese women with chronic illness. Aging and Mental Health, 8(1), 21-28.
 

   
       
  Return to top.    
 
| Home | Contact UsEditorial Board | Current Issue | Submission |
 
 
 
© Copyright 2006, Scientific Journals International.  All Rights Reserved.