Associations Between Parenting Styles & Parental Self-Efficacy

Western Kentucky University Western Kentucky University

TopSCHOLAR® TopSCHOLAR®

Masters Theses & Specialist Projects Graduate School

8-2023

Associations Between Parenting Styles & Parental Self-E9cacy Associations Between Parenting Styles & Parental Self-E9cacy

Brian Richards

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses

Part of the Child Psychology Commons, Developmental Psychology Commons, and the Social

Statistics Commons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in

Masters Theses & Specialist Projects by an authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information,

please contact [email protected].

ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PARENTING STYLES AND PARENTAL SELF-EFFICACY

A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Art

Department of Psychology

Western Kentucky University

Bowling Green, Kentucky

Brian Richards

August, 2023

iii

ABSTRACT

ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PARENTING STYLES AND PARENTAL SELF-EFFICACY

The purpose of this study was to examine whether there is an association between

parenting styles and parental self-efficacy using a United States sample. One hundred twenty-

two parents with at least one child between the ages of 5 and 12 years were recruited for the

study. Participants were asked to complete a survey with measures for parenting styles and

parental self-efficacy as well as demographic information. Results indicated that authoritative

parenting style was positively correlated with parental self-efficacy; while authoritarian,

permissive, and uninvolved styles were negatively correlated. There is a need to replicate these

findings to increase confidence that the results are due to a relationship between constructs and

not due to chance or error. If replication of these results can be acquired then the way will be

paved for future research examining the direction of the relationship and potentially inform how

we approach parenting in the clinical setting to increase the likelihood of positive outcomes for

both the parents and their children.

Keywords: parenting style, parent self-efficacy, parenting, authoritarian, authoritative,

permissive, uninvolved

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………...……………...v

Introduction ...……………………………………………………………………………………..1

Methods ...…………………………………………………………………………………………9

Results ...…………………………………………………………………………………………12

Discussion...……………………………………………………………………………………...14

References...……………………………………………………………………………………...18

Appendix A: Western Kentucky University Institutional Review Board Approval Letter……...22

Appendix B: Parenting Style Four Factor Questionnaire....……………………………………..24

Appendix C: PS-FFQ McDonald’s Omega Analysis.…………………………………………...27

Appendix D: Parenting Sense of Competence Scale…………………………………………….29

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the Parenting Style Four Factor Questionnaire (PS-FFQ) scales

and Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC)......................................................................13

Table 2. Pearson correlations between parental self-efficacy as measured on the Parenting Style

Competence Scale (PSOC) by parenting style …….……………………………………………13

Introduction

Parenting styles and parental self-efficacy are two constructs with plentiful research

behind them. For instance, in recent studies, permissive parenting styles have been linked to the

internalization and externalization of adjustment problems in children (Mendez et al., 2020),

while exposure to authoritative parenting styles as a child is linked to higher levels of life

satisfaction in young adults (Lavric & Naterer, 2020). Higher levels of parental self-efficacy are

even associated with higher infant growth rates (Bahorski et al., 2020). However, levels of

parental self-efficacy has decreased between the years of 1999 and 2014 (Glatz & Buchanan,

2021). There is a notable gap in the current literature linking the two together. While examining

the current literature, only a few articles were found discussing the topic of the potential

relationship between parenting styles and parental self-efficacy (Harpaz et al., 2021). With this in

mind, this literature review largely focuses on research published within the last three years.

Additionally, during the literature review process, it should be noted that many of the articles

found that were published during the specified time frame feature non-American samples.

Parenting Styles

This thesis will be focusing on parenting styles based on the theory originally developed

by Baumrind (1971). In her original typology there were three parenting styles (authoritarian,

authoritative, and permissive), with a fourth (neglectful) being introduced later on by Maccoby

and Martin (1983). The authoritarian parenting style is defined by high demandingness and low

responsiveness, meaning that parents utilizing this style can be seen as controlling as they have

strict rules and expectations while generally not being nurturing. The authoritative style is

defined by both high demandingness and high responsiveness, meaning a parent using this style

has high expectations for their children, but are also warm and responsive. The permissive style

has low levels of demandingness but high levels of responsiveness. A parent that uses this

parenting style will set few rules and expectations and often indulge their children’s wants as to

not disappoint them. The negligent parenting style has low levels of demandingness and

responsiveness. These parents do not set rules and expectations and appear largely uninvolved in

their children’s lives (Baumrind 1971; Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

There have been several studies within the past three years examining the impact of

parenting styles in the literature. A study by Mendez et al. (2020) examined the role of parenting

styles in the internalizing, externalizing, and adjustment problems. In their literature review, it

was noted that past research has found significant interactive effects between severe discipline

and problems in children. They used a cross-sectional, paper-based survey. The study consisted

of 422 Colombian parents and 422 children. Inclusion criteria for the study involved the parents

being over the age of 18 with a minimum of five years of primary school and children between

the ages of 8 and 12 years. Additionally, the researchers required parental informed consent and

informed assent of the children. A path analysis was completed for this study to examine whether

relationship patterns were consistent with the observed covariance matrix.

The results found that family cohesion, communication, shared leisure, and parental

conflicts have a direct, negative effect on anxious-depressive behavior in children. Additionally,

parental overload had direct, positive effects on anxious-depressive and isolated-depressive

behavior, somatic complaints, rule breaking, and family dissatisfaction. Impulsiveness was found

to have a direct effect on anxious-depressive and isolated-depressive behaviors, somatic

complaints, rule breaking, aggression, and school/social maladjustment. Authoritative parental

styles had a direct influence on anxious-depressive and isolated-depressive behaviors, somatic

complaints, rule breaking, and family dissatisfaction. Ambiguous styles, on the other hand,

showed direct influence on family dissatisfaction (Mendez et al., 2020).

Mendez et al. (2020) reported conflicts at home, parental overload, permissive or non-

consistent styles, and dysfunctional reaction to disobedience play a role in the internalizing,

externalizing, and adjustment problems in children. However, they noted that a democratic style,

collaboration between school and parents, parental satisfaction, and family cohesion serve as

protective factors for psychological problems. Mendez et al. (2020) reported most of the children

in their study live in non-traditional homes. They stated that a democratic/authoritative style has

a direct influence on rule breaking. They reported parents with this style have a decrease in

externalizing behaviors and follow up of rules. A permissive style affects internalizing problems.

This style is connected to children with inhibition problems. Non-consistent styles have a direct

influence on family dissatisfaction. The researchers stated that this style may create feelings of

uncertainty and frustration in children leading to family dissatisfaction.

Sun et al. (2020) sought to examine the relationship between parenting styles and the

self-congruence of people with self-evaluation working as a mediator. They recruited 385

undergraduate students from four universities in the Shadong Province of China to participate in

their study. To evaluate the parenting styles of the participants’ parents, Sun, Xu, and Song

(2020) used the Chinese version (Jiang et al., 2010) of the Egna Minnen Betraffande Uppfostrab

short form (Arrindell et al., 1999). Data analysis was conducted using t tests and analyses of

variance. Sun et al. (2020) used a Pearson product-moment correlation analysis to look at the

relationship between the participants’ perception of parenting style and their core self-evaluation

and self-congruence.

The results revealed significant differences in the perception of parenting styles and the

participants’ core self-evaluation and self-congruence Sun et al. (2020). The analysis additionally

showed significant differences between parental emotional warmth and parental education levels,

with parents with an educational level of a bachelor’s degree scoring the highest on emotional

warmth. Sun et al. (2020) noted significant differences in perception of parental emotional

warmth and core self-evaluation between participants who had siblings and those that did not.

The results further indicated that core self-evaluation had a significant, negative correlation with

parental rejection and overprotection. Conversely, results revealed a significant, positive

correlation between core self-evaluation and parental emotional warmth (Sun et al., 2020). An

examination of a mediation model revealed that participant core self-evaluation mediated

relationships between perception of parental warmth and self-congruence, which accounted for

50% of the total effect. Additionally, core self-evaluation mediated relationships between

perception of parental overprotection and self-congruence, which accounted for 59% of the total

effect. (Sun et al., 2020).

Lavric and Naterer (2020) conducted a study focusing on parenting style as a predictor of

life satisfaction in young people (ages 14-29 years). The researchers recruited from ten countries

in Southeast Europe. The researchers provided a questionnaire initially constructed in English

and translated into local languages. Lavric and Naterer (2020) used multiple linear regression

analysis to examine their data. The researchers examined religiosity as a potential confound

variable.

The results of the study indicated that for the children exposure to authoritative parenting

during elementary school was highly correlated with life satisfaction in all countries examined.

Lavric and Naterer (2020) noted that there was no significant correlation between authoritarian

parenting styles and high life satisfaction in any of the countries examined. This was also

indicated with permissive parenting styles, with Romania as the only exception. The results

revealed religiosity as a robust predictor of higher life satisfaction. Lavric and Naterer (2020)

reported that their findings indicate that authoritative parenting has a beneficial effect on life

satisfaction among young people, while pure authoritarian parenting has a negative effect. The

researchers additionally noted that permissive parenting styles also tended to indicate lower life

satisfaction unless combined with an authoritative one. They noted that only the positive effect

of authoritative parenting was universal across all countries examined. The researchers stated

that the study appears to indicate that life satisfaction is affected by the presence, or lack thereof,

of authoritative parenting. A limitation within the study was that uninvolved parenting styles not

being included in the study.

Yildiz et al. (2020) did a meta-analysis study on the relationship between parenting styles

and child perfectionism. Their analysis examined 45 studies published between 1990 and 2018.

The analysis found a positive relationship between perfectionist strivings in authoritative and

authoritarian parenting styles. A positive relationship was found between perfectionistic

concerns and authoritarian and permissive styles; however, the relationship was found to be

negative with authoritative styles. Finally, a negative relationship was found between order and

authoritarian styles. This illustrates that authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive styles all

have links to perfectionistic behaviors albeit in different facets.

Overall, the current literature indicates that permissive parenting styles have been linked

to the internalization and externalization of adjustment problems in children (Mendez et al.,

2020), while exposure to authoritative parenting styles as a child is linked to higher levels of life

satisfaction in young adults (Lavric & Naterer, 2020). Additionally child perception of their

parent’s parenting style can be affected by their own self-evaluation and self-congruence (Sun et

al., 2020). Finally, child perfectionism is connected to the parenting styles they are exposed to

(Yildiz et al., 2020).

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy in regard to parenting can be defined as a parent’s belief in their capacity to

execute parental behaviors effectively (Schuengel & Oosterman, 2019). Schuengel and

Oosterman (2019) wrote a chapter in the Handbook of Parenting, Volume 3: Being a Parent

(Bornstein, 2019) on parenting self-efficacy. In the chapter, they summarized Bandura’s theories

on self-efficacy along with examining clusters of studies regarding the subject. The authors

divided the 788 studies they examined into 5 categories based on the overall theme, or purpose

of the study. The first category examined the effects that parents may have on their children’s

functioning and vice-versa. The second category contained terms associated with high-frequency

in intervention research. The authors noted many of the studies within this cluster focused on

parenting self-efficacy as an outcome measure. Third, the role of parenting self-efficacy across

the transition to parenthood. The fourth category involved operationalization and psychometric

qualities. The final category focused on child physical health. This cluster was reported to have

notable overlap between the intervention and parental transition clusters. Despite examining a

large number of studies, Schuengel and Oosterman (2019) made no reports indicating a notable

quantity of research on relationships between parental self-efficacy and other parenting concepts,

such as parenting styles, within the chapter. This illustrates a gap in the current literature.

Glatz and Buchanan (2021) examined trends in parental self-efficacy between 1999 and

2014. They noted that, over the last 20 years, parents living in Western cultures have a reported

increase in time spent with their children. They additionally reported a decrease in authoritarian

control and corporal punishment within these cultures. Glatz and Buchanan (2021) stated that

previous research has indicated parental practices utilizing warmth, positive communication, and

authoritative control have a positive impact on children. They cited that not much is known about

changes in parental perception and beliefs regarding their parenting role as justification for their

study.

The purpose of the study was to specifically examine potential differences in levels of

parental self-efficacy across two time periods (Glatz & Buchanan, 2021). The researchers

hypothesized that their 2014 sample would have significantly higher levels of parental self-

efficacy than the 1999 sample. Both samples were gathered from data used in two different

projects, however, the same measure was used for measuring parental self-efficacy. The data

enabled comparisons between American parents of young adolescents (categorized as children in

either the 6

or 7

grade) from two different points in time.

Glatz and Buchanan (2021) found that the 2014 sample reported significantly lower

levels of parental self-efficacy than the 1999 sample. These results were counter to expectations

from prior research. Glatz and Buchanan (2021) speculated that some changes that occurred in

the United States may provide explanations for the discrepancy in data. They listed the rise of the

internet and social media as a large factor that may be contributing to lower levels of parental

self-efficacy. However, the researchers do note that this is speculative and that further research

would need to be conducted.

Bahorski and colleagues (2020) examined if parental self-efficacy in new mothers could

predict the growth of their children. Participants were gathered from another study examining

infant care, feeding habits, and infant risk of obesity. The participants were first-time, low

income, African-American mothers between the ages of 18 and 35 with infants between birth

and 3 months of age. Infants born with any medical complications were excluded. Self-efficacy

was measured using the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC; Gibaud-Wallston and

Wanderman, 1978; adapted Johnston and Marsh, 1989). Since self-efficacy is linked with

positive outcomes, Bahorski et al. (2020) hypothesize that high levels of parental self-efficacy

would predict healthy growth rates, while lower levels would predict slow or excessive growth

rates. The results revealed that mothers of infants that had excessive growth rates had

significantly higher levels of parental self-efficacy than mothers of infants with slow growth

rates. This suggested that high levels of parental self-efficacy may place children at a higher risk

of obesity, however the authors noted that more research would be required to establish a more

generalizable and causal relationship between the two (Bahorski et al., 2020).

The current literature does provide us with the current trends of research on parental self-

efficacy (Schuengel and Oosterman, 2019). Parental self-efficacy has been shown to be related to

infant growth rates (Bahorski et al., 2020). Finally, it is noted that levels of parental-self efficacy

has decreased over time (Glatz & Buchanon, 2021). Some research does exist connecting

parenting styles and parental self-efficacy.

Parenting Styles and Parental Self-Efficacy

Harpaz et al. (2021) conducted a study examining if parental self-efficacy is predicted by

subjective well-being, parenting styles, and help-seeking from teachers. The researchers gathered

132 Israeli Jewish parents with at least one child in elementary school for the study. For the

sakes of measuring parental self-efficacy, they used the PSOC (Gibaud-Wallston and

Wanderman, 1978; adapted Johnston and Marsh, 1989) and the short version of the Parenting

Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PDSQ: Robinson et al., 2001) for parenting styles. The

results found that authoritative parenting styles were inversely correlated with permissive and

authoritative parenting styles. Additionally, they found that permissive and authoritarian styles

were positively correlated with one another. The researchers noted that authoritative style

positively predicted higher levels of parental self-efficacy, while permissive and authoritarian

parenting styles was correlated with lower levels of parental self-efficacy (Harpaz et al., 2021).

Harpaz and colleagues (2021) noted that a significant limitation of their study is their relatively

moderate sample size and lack of cultural diversity. They additionally reported a need for

replication. In summary, their study indicated that parenting styles may have a large impact on

parental self-efficacy. This adds justification for the current study, showing that a relationship

between parenting styles and parental self-efficacy has been examined in the past. However,

there is a notable lack in replication and diversity of samples.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine whether there is an association between

parenting styles and parental self-efficacy in a United States sample. The research question for

this study is: what is the association between parenting styles and parental self-efficacy? In order

to answer this research question, surveys were completed by parents regarding their parenting

styles and parental self-efficacy, and the scores across scales were correlated.

Hypotheses

: There will be non-significant associations between parenting styles and parental self-

efficacy.

: There will be significant associations between parenting styles and parental self-efficacy.

Methods

Participants

An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009), which

indicated that a minimum of 338 participants were needed for the study for a power of 0.8 with

an effect size of 0.3, and an alpha-level of 0.05. Participants were recruited through Prolific to

complete measures via online survey. Inclusionary criteria for the study is all participants must

be the biological parent of at least one child between the ages of 5 and 12 years. Participants

were given an $8 incentive for completing the survey. One hundred fifty-three parents were

recruited for the study instead of the suggested 338 due to limitations in funding and the desire to

acquire data in a timely fashion. Thirty-one participants’ data were removed either due to

incomplete data or not having children within the designated age range. Therefore, the final

sample consisted of 122 participants.

In the final sample, 84 (68.89%) were White, 25 (20.50%) were African American, 4

(3.28%) were Asian, 4 (3.28%) were Native American or Alaskan Native, and 5 (4.10%)

identified as other. Twelve (9.84%) identified as Hispanic or Latino. The sample consisted of 67

(54.91%) males, 54 (44.26%) females, and 1 (0.82%) identifying as other. The sexuality of

participants consisted of 98 (80.33%) identifying as straight, 3 (2.50%) as gay or lesbian, 20

(16.39%) as bisexual, and 1 as other (0.82%). The average age of the parents was 35.79 (SD =

8.93) years. The parents reported on average 1.97 children (SD = 1.27) with their average age

being 8.68 (SD = 5.09) years.

Procedures

Before data collection, all measures and procedures were approved by the institutional

review board for this study at Western Kentucky University (see Appendix A). The survey

contained an informed consent and debriefing form at the beginning and end of the survey,

respectively. After reading the consent form and agreeing continue in the study, the participant

would complete the survey consisting of two questionnaires, and a demographic information

form.

Measures

Parenting Style Four Factor Questionnaire

The Parenting Style Four Factor Questionnaire (PS-FFQ; Shyny, 2017) is a measure used

to identify preferred parenting styles with 32 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale (See

Appendix B). The scale measures the four parenting styles; authoritative, authoritarian,

permissive, and uninvolved, as proposed by Baumrind (1991) and Maccoby and Martin (1983).

The scale has a reported Cronbach’s alpha of .92 (Shyny, 2017). The scales for each parenting

style are not mutually exclusive from each other in this measure. Authoritarian, Authoritative,

and Permissive scales on the PS-FFQ (Shyny, 2017) positively correlates with the same scales on

the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ; Robinson et al., 2001) with a

reported Pearson’s correlation coefficient at approximately .82 (Shyny, 2017). The Uninvolved

scale does not correlate with any scale on the PSDQ (Robinson et al., 2001) as the measure only

measures three of the four parenting styles. This sample’s internal consistency coefficients for

the Authoritarian and Uninvolved scales were found to be adequate (McDonald’s ω = .73, ω =

.81).

The McDonald’s omega could not be computed for the Authoritative and Permissive

scales due to a negative covariance matrix. To deal with the non-converging omegas, a leave-

one-out approach was used to adjust the scales (Hayes & Coutts, 2020). The item intercorrelation

matrix was investigated for each scale. For the Authoritative scale, item 7 had negative and small

correlations with other items so it was removed and the scale was recalculated without item 7;

the resulting omega coefficient was adequate (ω = .71). For the Permissive scale, items 2 and 6

had negative and small correlations with other items so they were removed and the scale was

recalculated without items 2 and 6; the resulting omega was low (ω = .51, Kalkbrenner, 2021).

See Appendix C for McDonald’s omega analysis.

Parenting Sense of Competence Scale

The second measure is the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC; Gibaud-

Wallston & Wanderman, 1978; adapted Johnston & Marsh, 1989). The PSOC (Gibaud-Wallston

& Wanderman, 1978; adapted Johnston & Marsh, 1989) is used to measure parental self-efficacy

with 17 items scored on a 6-point Likert scale (See Appendix D). Reported internal consistency

ranged from 0.72 to 0.82 across studies (Gibuad-Wallston & Wanderman, 1978; Johnston &

Marsh, 1989; Ohan et al., 2000; Gilmore & Cuskelly, 2008). Ohan et al. (2000) reported

consistent good agreement in the factor structures in their sample and the Johnston and Mash

(1989) sample. This sample’s internal consistency was adequate (McDonald’s ω = 0.86).

Data Analyses

Descriptive statistics were computed and Pearson’s Correlation (r) and the coefficient of

determination (r

) were completed using SPSS version 29.0 to observe the association between

variables. Pearson’s r greater than .10 was considered small, .30 medium, and .50 large (Field,

2016). Normality and kurtosis of all variables were assessed. A Post-hoc power analysis was

conducted to determine the power of the final study sample.

Results

As seen in Table 1, Authoritarian, Authoritative, Permissive, and PSOC scores were

normally distributed, while uninvolved scores were positively skewed. As seen in Table 2, a

significant negative correlation was found between authoritarian parenting style and parental

self-efficacy (r = -.35, p < .001, r

= .12). A significant positive correlation was found between

authoritative parenting style and parental self-efficacy (r = .29, p = .001, r

= .08). A significant

negative correlation was found between permissive parenting style and parental self-efficacy (r =

-.35, p < .001, r

= .12). A significant negative correlation was found between uninvolved

parenting style and parental self-efficacy (r = -.49, p < .001, r

= .24).

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for the Parenting Style Four Factor Questionnaire (PS-FFQ) scales and

Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC)

M(SD) Min Max Skewness SE Kurtosis SE

PS-FFQ

Authoritarian 18.30 (4.75) 9 31 0.40 0.22 -0.11 0.44

Authoritative 30.57 (4.08) 18 40 -0.38 0.22 0.53 0.44

Permissive 22.40 (3.47) 14 31 0.19 0.22 0.01 0.44

Uninvolved 14.36 (4.89) 8 37 1.34 0.22 3.06 0.44

PSOC 72.34 (12.44) 34 102 0.85 0.22 0.12 0.44

Table 2

Pearson Correlations Between Parental Self-Efficacy as measured on the Parenting Style

Competence Scale (PSOC) by Parenting Style

Parenting Style

Authoritarian Authoritative Permissive Uninvolved

PSOC Pearson’s r -.35 .29 -.35 -.49

Note. All p-values ≤ .001.

A post-hoc observed power analysis was conducted in G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009),

where α was equal to .05 and N was 122. The reasoning for this analysis is the number of

participants recruited was less than the recommended amount from the a priori power analysis.

These analyses may be useful in informing researchers whether an increased sample size has the

potential to yield different results (O’Keefe, 2007), or whether null results can be replicated

(Onwnegbuzie & Leech, 2004). A test of Pearson’s r between Uninvolved and Parental Self-

Efficacy yielded an observed power (1–β error probability) of .99. A test of Pearson’s r between

Authoritarian and Parental Self-Efficacy yielded an observed power of .98. A test of Pearson’s r

between Permissive and Parental Self-Efficacy yielded an observed power of .98. A test of

Pearson’s r between Authoritative and Parental Self-Efficacy yielded an observed power of .90.

Overall, these findings indicate that an increased sample size might be likely to result in a similar

amount of variance shared by these variables.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine whether there is an association between

parenting styles and parental self-efficacy using a United States sample. Results indicated that

there was a significant relationship between parenting styles and parental self-efficacy.

Authoritarian parenting was negatively associated with parental self-efficacy and shared 12%

variance. Authoritative parenting was positively associated with parental self-efficacy and shared

8% variance. Permissive parenting was negatively associated with parental self-efficacy and

shared 4% variance. Uninvolved parenting style was negatively associated with parental self-

efficacy and shared 24% variance.

This study found a positive, yet small to medium correlation between authoritative

parenting style and parental self-efficacy (r = .29); where as Harpaz et al. (2021) found that they

were positively correlated strongly (r = .51). Harpaz et al. (2021) found that permissive

parenting styles was negatively correlated with parental self-efficacy (r = -.51). A similar

correlation was found in this study but has a moderate effect size (r = -.35), compared to the

large effect size in Harpaz et al.’s (2021) study. Authoritarian parenting style was negatively

correlated with parental self-efficacy (r = -.41). Both studies have similar correlations with

moderate effect sizes. Uninvolved parenting has not been examined in previous studies.

The difference in effect sizes for Authoritative and Permissive styles could be due to

participant samples or the measures used. For example, Harpaz et al. (2021) sample included

Israeli Jewish families rather than United States parents; therefore the difference in magnitude of

relations could reflect a possible cultural effect. Harpaz et al. (2021) noted that Israeli parenting

may be impacted by constant threats of terror attacks and war. Additionally, it should be noted

that the data was collected during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may also be a

mediating factor. Further investigation would be needed to add any credence to these

possibilities.

Both studies used the PSOC (Gibaud-Wallston & Wanderman, 1978; adapted Johnston &

Marsh, 1989) for parental self-efficacy, however Harpaz et al. (2021) used the PSDQ (Robinson,

et al., 2001) to measure parenting styles. While the parenting style measures may examine the

same constructs for the most part, they may put different emphasis on different aspects of

authoritative and permissive styles. However, the results of both do indicate that parents had

similar associations between constructs, which makes it reasonable to make comparable

conclusions about the direction of the associations.

Limitations

This study has limitations. One notable limitation of this study is the sample size. The a

priori power analysis indicated that a sample size of 338 was needed for a power of 0.8. While

the post-hoc analysis of this study’s sample (N = 122) indicated adequate power for all

correlations, the inclusion of additional participants might have incrementally altered the

correlations. Additionally, having a larger sample size could allow for a more nationally

representative sample, which would make the results more generalizable to the United States

overall.

There were also concerns of scale reliability with the PS-FFQ (Shyny, 2017). Items were

removed to increase the internal consistency of the Authoritative and Permissive scales.

However, it is unclear if the low internal consistency was specifically due to how the items were

constructed or how the sample participants responded to the items. Furthermore, the Permissive

parenting scale’s low internal consistency is of particular note. Due to more than one item being

removed it is uncertain the correlation with parental self-efficacy is due to error or systemic

relationship. Further psychometric investigations, which include internal consistency could help

clarify how items relate to the proposed factors.

A third limitation is the self-report nature of the measures. Parenting style and parental

self-efficacy scores were limited to self-perception rather than more objective assessments, such

as parent-child interaction observations. This led to inaccuracies in reported parenting behaviors

due to individual’s limited ability to self-observe. This can lead to concerns of test validity in our

findings that would not be as present if a more objective measure was used such as one that

utilizes direct parent-child interactions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study’s results provided support for the hypothesis that parenting

styles are associated with parental self-efficacy. Furthermore, this study addresses a gap in

literature linking these two constructs. While parenting styles and parental self-efficacy have

been researched in the past, few studies have examined how they may or may not be related.

However, there are concerns of internal reliability within the measures for this study. Other

limitations that would need to be addressed in the future is the smaller sample size and the self-

report nature of the measures.

As such, there is a need to replicate these findings to increase confidence that the results

are due to a relationship between constructs and not due to chance or error. The association

indicates that parenting styles and parental self-efficacy may be influencing one another or have

a connecting factor that warrants more investigation. If replication of these results can be

acquired then the way will be paved for future research examining the direction of the

relationship and potentially inform how we approach parenting in the clinical setting to increase

the likelihood of positive outcomes for both the parents and their children.

REFERENCES

Arrindell, W. A., Sanavio, E., Aguilar, G., Sica, C., Hatzichristou, C., Eisemann, M., …van der

Ende, J. (1999). The development of a short form of the EMBU: Its appraisal with

students in Greece, Guatemala, Hungary and Italy. Personality and Individual

Differences, 27(4), 613–628.

Bahorski, J. S., Childs, G. D., Loan, L. A., Azuero, A., Rice, M. H., Chandler-Laney, P. C.,

Hodges, E. A., Wasser, H. M., Thompson, A. L., & Bentley, M. E. (2020). Parental self-

efficacy in new mothers predicts infant growth trajectories. Western Journal of Nursing

Research, 42(4), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945919854464

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4(1,

Pt.2), 1–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030372

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using

G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods,

41, 1149–1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Gilmore, L. A. & Cuskelly, M. (2008) Factor structure of the parenting sense of

competence scale using a normative sample. Child Care, Health & Development, 38(1).

48-55.

Glatz, T., & Buchanan, C. M. (2021). Trends in parental self-efficacy between 1999 and 2014.

Journal of Family Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2021.1906929

Gómez, I., García-Barranco, M. R., De las Heras, R. R., Martínez de Salazar, A. A., Cobos, L.

S., Martin, M. J. G., & Fernández, C. S. (2013). Memoriadel proyecto investigación:

Evaluación de Estilos Educativos Parentales. Patrocinado por la Asociación Española de

Psicología Clínica y Psicopatología (AEPCP).

Field, A. (2016). An Adventure in Statistics the Reality Enigma (M. Kavanagh, Ed.). SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Harpaz, G., Grinshtain, Y., & Yaffe, Y. (2021). Parental self-efficacy predicted by parents’

subjective well-being and their parenting styles with possible role of help-seeking

orientation from teachers. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied. 155

(6), 571-587 https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2021.1926896

Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating

reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1-24.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629

Hernández-Hernández, P. (2004). TAMAI: Test Autoevaluativo Multifactorial de Adaptación

Infantil: Manual. Madrid: TEA Ediciones S.A.

Jiang, J., Lu, Z., & Jiang, B. (2010). Revision of the short form Egna Minnen Betraffande

Uppfostrab for use in China [In Chinese]. Psychological Development and Education,

26(1), 94–99.

Johnston, C., & Mash, E. J. (1989). A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy. Journal of

Clinical Child Psychology, 18(2), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp

1802_8

Kalkbrenner, M. T. (2021). Alpha, omega, and H internal consistency reliability estimates:

Reviewing these options and when to use them. Counseling Outcome Research and

Evaluation, 14(1), 77-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2021.1940118

Lavrič, M., & Naterer, A. (2020). The power of authoritative parenting: A cross-national study of

effects of exposure to different parenting styles on life satisfaction. Children and Youth

Services Review, 116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105274

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child

interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology. 4, 1-101 New York:

Wiley.

Méndez, J. H. M., Sánchez, J. P. E., & Becerra, M. I. G. (2020). Role of parenting styles in

internalizing, externalizing, and adjustment problems in children. Salud Mental, 43(2),

73–84.

Ohan, J. L., Leung, D. W., & Johnston, C. (2000). The Parenting Sense of Competence Scale:

Evidence of a stable factor structure and validity. Canadian Journal of Behavioural

Science/Revue canadienne des Sciences du comportement, 32(4), 251-261.

O’Keefe, D. J. (2007). Brief report: Post hoc power, observed power, a priori power,

retrospective power, prospective power, achieved power: Sorting out appropriate uses of

statistical power analyses. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 291–299.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19312450701641375

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2004). Post hoc power: A concept whose time has come.

Understanding Statistics, 3, 201–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328031us0304_1

Robinson, C., Mandleco, B., Roper, S. & Hart, C. (2001). The Parenting Styles and Dimensions

Questionnaire (PSDQ). Handbook of Family Measurement Techniques, 3, 319-321.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). A tentative scale for the measurement of process in psychotherapies. In M.

Stein (Ed.), Contemporary psychotherapies (pp. 184-256).

Schuengel, C., & Oosterman, M. (2019) Parenting self-efficacy. In M. Bornstein (Ed.),

Handbook of Parenting Volume 3: Being a Parent (pp. 654-680). Routledge.

Shyny, T. (2017). Construction and Validation of PS-FFQ (Parenting Style Four Factor

Questionnaire). International Journal of Engineering Development and Research, 5(3),

426-437.

Sun, C., Xu, J., & Song, Y. (2020). The relationship between parenting styles and self-

congruence of undergraduate students: Core self-evaluation as a mediator. Social

Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 48(12), 1–10.

https://doi.org./10.2224/sbp.9479

Wang, D. (1994). Development of a Chinese version of the Self-Consistency and Congruence

Scale. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2(1), 19–22.

Yıldız, M., Duru, H., & Eldeleklioğlu, J. (2020). Relationship between parenting styles and

multidimensional perfectionism: A meta-analysis study. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim

Bilimleri/Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 20(4), 16–35.

Appendix A

Western Kentucky University Institutional Review Board Approval Letter

Appendix B

Parenting Style Four Factor Questionnaire

(Shyny, 2017)

Read the following statements carefully and indicate your response by marking the

appropriate number.

1. All of the time

2. Most of the time

3. Some time

4. Rarely

5. Never

1 I want my child to follow my instructions because I am the authority to

decide what to do or what not to do. 1 2 3 4 5

2 I would like to be a friend, Philosopher and guide to my child. 1 2 3 4 5

3 I am very soft with my child so that I cannot correct him/her at proper

time by punishment. 1 2 3 4 5

4 I do not have any demand or control on my child and I give total

freedom. 1 2 3 4 5

5 I have little patience to tolerate any misbehaviour of my child or to listen

to the excuses in any kind of mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5

6 I used to understand the feelings of my child in any situation and always

try to get the opinion of my child whenever I buy something for him/her. 1 2 3 4 5

7 Whenever the child comes with low marks, I will not give any

punishments rather I feel he/she will become better next time. 1 2 3 4 5

8 As I am very sad and depressed I cannot show much care and deep

emotional tie up with my child. 1 2 3 4 5

9 I strongly believe that my child’s future is in my hand and so there is a

strict time table for my child to follow. 1 2 3 4 5

10 Important decisions of the family are done together and I give full

freedom to my child to share everything with me. 1 2 3 4 5

11 I give valuable reward to my child for obeying me or behaving well. 1 2 3 4 5

12 As I am very busy with my household and office duties, I get less time

to involve my child’s studies or to listen his/her needs and wishes. 1 2 3 4 5

13 I have clear expectations regarding my child’s behaviour and I am not

much bothered about the likings of my child regarding his/her future. 1 2 3 4 5

14 As I understand the strength and weakness of my child, I set some

appropriate rules for him/her and give friendly corrections whenever

necessary. 1 2 3 4 5

15 Though I have definite goal and planning about my child’s future I

cannot follow it strictly because of my leniency. 1 2 3 4 5

16 I have enough stress and strain myself and hence I cannot take care of

my child’s welfare. 1 2 3 4 5

17 I usually like to give physical punishment than giving advices to my

child because I am sure he/she will not listen to it. 1 2 3 4 5

18 I will not force my child in any of his/her future career and I also help

him/her to set a realistic goal. 1 2 3 4 5

19 As I was brought up by strictly disciplined parents, I am very liberal

with my child. 1 2 3 4 5

20 I usually give more important to my own likes and wishes but not

bother much about needs or misbehaviours of my child. 1 2 3 4 5

21 I believe that only through punishment a child can be corrected and I

also do not like to give any financial freedom to my child. 1 2 3 4 5

22 Whenever my child fail to follow the time table given to him/her, I

remind the consequences with a touch of love and affection. 1 2 3 4 5

23 I like to be a very affectionate parent towards my child and also I take

the responsibility of my faulty parenting on my child. 1 2 3 4 5

24 As I am busy and get little time to care my child, he/she is quite free

to move own way to take decisions. 1 2 3 4 5

25 The punishment I give to my child depends upon my mood. 1 2 3 4 5

26 My child talks with me out of being punished after he/she has done

something wrong. 1 2 3 4 5

27 I always threaten my child with punishment but do not actually doing

it because of my leniency. 1 2 3 4 5

28 As I am bounded with severe life problems, I ignore my child’s

misbehaviour and I have no idea about his/her life outside the home. 1 2 3 4 5

29 Whenever my child shows disobedience, I scold and criticise him/her

with bursting anger. 1 2 3 4 5

30 Even though I am busy I have enough time to visit my child’s school

& to meet teachers to know his/her progress. 1 2 3 4 5

31 Because of excessive love and sympathy I have showing towards my

child, he/she has no self discipline. 1 2 3 4 5

32 I never like to tell my child where I am going or why I am late. 1 2 3 4 5

Appendix C

PS-FFQ McDonald’s Omega Analysis

PS-FFQ Inter-Item Correlation Matrix of Items on the Authoritative Scale as seen in SPSS

PS-FFQ Authoritative Scale McDonald’s Omega as Seen in SPSS

PS-FFQ Authoritative Scale McDonald’s Omega After Removal of Item 7 as Seen in SPSS

PS-FFQ Inter-Item Correlation Matrix of Items on the Permissive Scale as Seen in SPSS

PS-FFQ Permissive Scale McDonald’s Omega as Seen in SPSS

PS-FFQ Permissive Scale McDonald’s Omega After Removal of Item 2 and 6 as Seen in SPSS

Appendix D

Parenting Sense of Competence Scale

(Gibaud-Wallston & Wandersman, 1978)

Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. The problems of taking care of a child are easy to solve once

you know how your actions affect your child, an understanding

I have acquired. 1 2 3 4 5 6

2. Even though being a parent could be rewarding, I am

frustrated now while my child is at his/her present age. 1 2 3 4 5 6

3. I go to bed the same way I wake up in the morning, feeling I

have not accomplished a whole lot. 1 2 3 4 5 6

4. I do not know why it is, but sometimes when I’m supposed

to be in control, I feel more like the one being manipulated. 1 2 3 4 5 6

5. My parent was better prepared to be a good mother than I am. 1 2 3 4 5 6

6. I would make a fine model for a new parent to follow in order

to learn what she would need to know in order to be a good parent. 1 2 3 4 5 6

7. Being a parent is manageable, and any problems are easily

solved. 1 2 3 4 5 6

8. A difficult problem in being a parent is not knowing whether

you’re doing a good job or a bad one. 1 2 3 4 5 6

9. Sometimes I feel like I’m not getting anything done. 1 2 3 4 5 6

10. I meet by own personal expectations for expertise in caring

for my child. 1 2 3 4 5 6

11. If anyone can find the answer to what is troubling my child, I

am the one. 1 2 3 4 5 6

12. My talents and interests are in other areas, not being a parent. 1 2 3 4 5 6

13. Considering how long I’ve been a parent, I feel thoroughly

familiar with this role. 1 2 3 4 5 6

14. If being a parent of a child were only more interesting, I would

be motivated to do a better job as a parent. 1 2 3 4 5 6

15. I honestly believe I have all the skills necessary to be a good

parent to my child. 1 2 3 4 5 6

16. Being a parent makes me tense and anxious. 1 2 3 4 5 6

17. Being a good parent is a reward in itself. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Name: Richards, Brian

brian.richards648@topper.wku.edu

Type of document: ['Thesis']

-

Keywords (3-

missive, uninvolved





-





I hereby warrant that I am the sole copyright owner of the original work.

I also represent that I have obtained permission from third party copyright owners of any material



acknowledged such third-part owned materials clearly. I hereby grant Western Kentucky University the

permission t



estern Kentucky University policies and the

-

party privacy. I also understand that the University retains the right to remove or deny the right to

depo



use of their





['I consent to the above statement.']