IJCRT21X0093

www.ijcrt.
org © 2023 IJCRT | Volume 11, Issue 5 May 2023 | ISSN: 2320-2882
PARENTING STYLES AND SELF-ESTEEM IN

ADOLESCENTS
*Aaliya Sethi 1, Dr.Pankaj Singh 2

*1 Student, M.A Clinical Psychology, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Associate Proffesor, Amity University,Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
ABSTRACT
The main objective of this research is to evaluate and investigate parenting styles and their influence on
adolescents' self-esteem, particularly in the Indian context. There are 4 key kinds of parenting styles:
authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and neglectful. Both supposedly and virtually it has always been
documented and proven that the authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles have been kept as
the concentration of this research to measure their outcome on adolescents' self-esteem because the careless
approach of parents always hurts the features related to their "self." Therefore, the study's inclusion criteria were
a random sampling approach.
The chosen test for this review comprised of a sum of 110 members (60 females and 50 mal es) youths chosen
from Delhi and NCR in India. 13 to 19 years was the age bracket (with no psychological handicap, normal young
student, with almost identical fiscal foundation and just those from solid family units with moms who were
makers at home).
To determine the relationship, ten research papers were examined. It was discovered that the authoritative
parenting style is regarded as the finest parenting style because it gives parents partial freedom and chances to
understand their children. This has a noteworthy constructive effect on their children's self-esteem. In contrast,
however, all of the studies have demonstrated that the authoritarian parenting style constantly damages children's
self-esteem because it ends their self-confidence and makes them feel more apprehensive and inferior.
IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f622

www.ijcrt.org © 2023 IJCRT | Volume 11, Issue 5 May 2023 | ISSN: 2320-2882
In addition, male and female adolescents' levels of self-esteem in today's urban Indian context are not
significantly different. Today, we must select an effective and appropriate parenting method for our children's
upbringing to ensure their future security and foster their interdependence.
I.INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
“The sign of great parenting is not the child’s behavior, the sign of truly great parenting is the parent’s behavior.” -
Andy Smithson
Satisfaction with oneself is discussed as having self-esteem or a sense of one's own worth. In other words, it
refers to a person's perspective of both their physical and psychic selves. The evaluation of one's appreciation,
which manifests in one's attitude toward oneself, is known as self-esteem. Self-esteem is shaped and developed
by a number of factors, but parental attitudes and parenting practices are perceived as the primary ones.
Parenting practices and resistor methods are denoted as parenting styles and are used to designate how children
are raised by parents. It is a determining and significant factor that significantly impacts children's
psychopathology and development. The term "parenting style" refers to a broad area that includes both family
activities and parental behaviour-shaping.
For the purpose of their children's personal and social education, each family employs a distinct parenting style,
according to Baumrind's classification. These nurturing styles are classified as dictator, legitimate, and lenient.
The term "parenting style" emphasizes the actions and reactions of parents toward their kids, including their
principles, potentials, and morals regarding how parents provision, repair for, and correct their children.
Therefore, hereditary is not the only impact; instead, choosing the right parenting approach can significantly
impact children's development of healthy self-esteem. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the association
between adolescents' self-esteem and parenting styles in New Delhi and the NCR.
A) VARIABLES:
a) Parenting Styles:
Definition:
A parent's parenting style is demarcated as an assortment of their defiance and arrangements toward their children
as well as the sensitive atmosphere in which those activities are exhibited (Darling and Steinberg, 1993).

History of Parenting Styles
From the 1930s to the 1960s, researchers employed a variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives to
identify the major dimensions that underlie observer ratings of general parenting characteristics. In the archetypal
study, skilled spectators used Likert scales to rate parents using terms like strict, accepting, or harsh as general
traits. In addition, they spent a lot of time reading through large files or conducting interviews with or observing
parents. In most feature studies, the data from these predominantly middle-class European-American samples
typically revealed two extents of parent behaviour: The first one evaluates parental reception, warmness, or
sustenance, while the second one evaluates parental control. The labels for the first factor were created at this
point: Acknowledgment versus dismissal, close-to-home warmth versus aggression, warmth, love versus
antagonism, and warmth versus aggression.
Three common parenting styles were acknowledged by Diana Baumrind in the middle of the 1960s, even though
the majority of early childrearing investigators focused on classifying universal childrearing proportions and
their associates. She classified parents into various parenting styles by simultaneously examining how parents
contrasted on numerous extents, rather than self-sufficiently examining the correlates of numerous dimensions.
Her work will be briefly discussed here because it has become so important to studies of family socialization and
because many researchers only know about it from secondary sources.
Types of Parenting Styles
In the beginning, Baumrind thought of eight different kinds of parents: rejecting, ignoring, nonconforming,
authoritative, nonconforming, authoritarian, and so on.
They categorized parenting into four kinds based on receptiveness and demandingness (Maccoby and Martin,
1983; Baumrind, 1991).
The four parenting styles that have been identified by Baumrind and other researchers are:
1. The authoritarian parenting style:

a. Common Qualities: high demandingness, low responsiveness; imposes strict rules without giving
their child's feelings or social, emotional, and behavioral needs much thought; frequently
responds with "because I said so" when their child questions the logic of a rule or punishment;
The majority of statement is one-way, from the parent to the child.
b. To maintain whole control, authoritarian parents often engage in conversation with their children
shorn of seeking their children's input or feedback. They often justify their harsh discipline with
the phrase "tough love." (“A Psychologist Explains the 4 Types of Parenting ... - NBC 7 San
Diego”)

2. The authoritative parenting style:
a. Common Qualities: high level of responsiveness and exigency; establishing clear guidelines and
standards for their children while practicing adaptability and comprehension; imparting regularly;
listening to and considering the thoughts, feelings, and opinions of their children; allowing natural
costs, such as a child failing a test because they didn't study, but taking advantage of those
opportunities to help their children think critically and gain knowledge.
b. Authoritative parents are often sensitive to their teenagers' needs and support. By having honest
conversations with their children, they instill morals and logic in them. Children whose parents
are in charge typically have the capacity for independent thought and self-reliance.
3. The permissive parenting style:
a. Common Qualities: low demand and high responsiveness; openly communicates with their child
and typically lets them make their own decisions rather than giving them routes; guidelines and
assumptions are either not set or seldom authorized; typically goes to great lengths, sometimes at
their own expense, to ensure the happiness of their children.
b. Permissive guardians are guaranteed to take on a companionship job, as conflicting to a fostering
job, with their children. They often give in to their teenager’s requests at the initial sign of sorrow
as they wish to dodge conflict. These parents rarely provide their children with much direction or
direction at all.
4. The uninvolved parenting style:
a. Common Qualities: low responsiveness and low exigency; let their children mostly take care of
themselves, perhaps because they don't care about their needs or because they are too busy or
involved in too many other things; provides little love, direction, or attention; often has issues
with their self-esteem and has trouble forming close relationships.
b. This type of parenting is categorized by overall disinterest.
c. This parenting style is characterized by a general apathy. Rules are rarely enforced and parents
who neglect their children rarely interact with them. They may likewise be seen as cold and
inhumane; however, this isn't generally the case since they now and again battle with their issues.
Theories of parenting
According to Darling and Steinberg (1993), parenting practices can be demarcated as precise, noticeable
behaviours that parents use to interact with their children. Attending parent-teacher conferences or regularly
supervising homework helps demonstrate involvement in academic achievement-promoting parenting practices.
Discipline, problem-solving, and positive reinforcement are some other methods of parenting.
Most researchers settle on somewhere around two wide elements of nurturing, named parental help and parental
control. The sentimental nature of the relationship between parents and children is referred to as parental support

(Cummings et al.). It is demonstrated by showing involvement, acceptance, emotional availability, warmth, and
responsibility. 2000). Positive developmental outcomes in children, including the deterrence of alcohol abuse,
deviance, depression, and criminal activity (Bean et al., 1992), have been linked to the factor of parental support.
2006), and delinquent behaviour’s externalization (Shaw et al. 1994). Parenting behaviour that tries to control,
manage, or regulate a child's behaviour is a part of the parental control behavioural dimension (Barber, 2002).
Demands and rules, methods for disciplining children, control over rewards and punishments, and supervisory
roles are all ways to enforce parenting behavior (Maccoby 1990; 1990, Steinberg).
Baumrind’s Parenting Styles
Research into parenting styles was pioneered by Baumrind (1966, 1967, and 1971). She described the differences
between archetypal parenting behaviours by introducing three parenting types: parenting styles that are
permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian. According to Baumrind (1971), authoritarian parents attempt to
influence, resist, and assess their children's behaviour per a comprehensive set of standards. Interestingly, lenient
guardians are hotter, less controlling, and award more independence. Baumrind believed that parenting with
authority fell somewhere in between those two extremes.
Maccoby and Martin identified four parenting styles by combining the two dimensions of responsiveness and
demandingness. authoritative (i.e., highly responsive and demanding); authoritarian (i.e., with a lot of demand
but not enough people responding); indulgent (highly responsive but not overly demanding); and careless (i.e.,
not demanding enough and not responding enough). Parental support and behavioural control are similar to these
parenting dimensions. This research reliably proved that children with authoritative parents had the best
developmental conclusions; Negative developmental effects were found in children of neglectful parents, while
authoritarian and permissive parenting had the worst results. Different specialists have likewise recreated these
affiliations.
● An authoritative parenting style is linked to positive youth developmental outcomes like academic
achievement and psychosocial competence (maturity, resilience, optimism, self-reliance, social
competence, and self-esteem) (Lamborn et al., 1991). 1994 Steinberg).
● Both internalizing (such as anxiety, depression, reserved behaviour, and bodily grievances) and voicing
(such as institute misbehaviour and felony) communal services, self-confidence, self-understanding, and
active problem-solving have been inconsistently connected to permissive and indulgent parenting (such
as Lamborn et al.). 1991; 1994; Steinberg and others 2009, Williams and others; (Wolfradt et al., 2003)
● Bad developmental outcomes like aggression, destructive behaviour, physical complaints, reification,
and nervousness have always been associated to an authoritarian parenting style (Hoeve et al., for
instance. 2008; 1994 Steinberg; 2009, Williams and others; (Wolfradt et al., 2003)

● Low self-control and social responsibility, low self-reliance and social competence, low school
competence, antisocial behaviour, delinquency, anxiety, depression, and physical complaints are among
the worst outcomes for children of negligent parents (e.g., Baumrind 1991; Hoeve and co. 2008; Lamborn
and co 1991; Steinberg et al. 1994)
Impact of Parenting Styles
Research recommends that nurturing styles can have a scope of consequences for kids. The following factors
have the potential to affect a child's life now and in the future:
● Studies: Parenting styles can have an impact on academic success and motivation.
● Mental wellness: The mental health of children can also be affected by parenting styles. Kids raised by
tyrant, lenient, or uninvolved guardians will quite often encounter more tension, discouragement, and
other psychological well-being issues.
● Confidence: Kids raised by guardians with a legitimate style will generally areas of strength for have
regard than kids raised by guardians with different styles.
● Social connections: How children interact with others can be impacted by parenting styles. For instance,
children whose parents are permissive are more likely to be bullied, whereas children whose parents are
authoritarian are more likely to bully others.
● Grown-up connections: Additionally, it may be more likely for children of strict, authoritarian parents to
experience emotional abuse in adult romantic relationships, according to research.
Current trends
For instance, it has been demonstrated that authoritative parenting helps young children and adolescents mature
influential capability, considered by psychosocial adulthood, assistance by peers and grown-ups, accountable
individuality, and theoretical accomplishment (Baumrind, 1971–1991). The current methods used to descend
Baumrind's three key classifications have numerous limitations.
The significance of parenting styles over time is the subject of one study by Wentzel (1994). Wentzel's outcomes
show the significance of nurturing style at first increments during the earliest stages of preschool. Liable on the
parent's emphasis, the status of childrearing style can change when the youngster reaches elementary school. The
significance of nurturing style could increment assuming the focal point of the youngster is on discipline or
instruction, or diminishing if significance is put on responsiveness or awareness. If the parental emphasis is
solely on the child's overall well-being or safety, the status level may also remain the equivalent as it was during
the preschool years. The vitality of parenting graces and methods eventually diminishes as the child crosses t he

offset of puberty and onset of maturity threshold (Wentzel, 1994). These findings demonstrate that parenting
styles should adapt to the needs of the child at various ages.
b) Self-esteem
Definition:
Your idiosyncratic awareness of your value is your self-esteem. It is parallel to self-worth in that it designates
your poise in your capabilities and assets.
There are many different kinds of self-esteem to study in the field of self-esteem research. According to
Lightfoot, Cole, & Cole (2009), one's assessment of one's self-worth is the broad definition of the term "self-
esteem." Taking into account both internal and external factors, this broad definition can be referred to as one's
universal self-esteem. The terms "internal factors" and "external factors" denote to a person's feelings, inherited
makeup, and character. However, there are a few distinct types of self-esteem covered by that definition. The
amount of respect we have for ourselves over time is referred to as trait self-esteem (Gilovich, Keltner, & Nisbett,
2006). According to Block & Robins (1993), this kind of self-esteem has a tendency to stay the same throughout
a person's life, which is why some people refer to it as a part of a person's personality. One more sort of
confidence is state confidence. According to Heatherton and Polivy (1991), state self-confidence is much more
unsolidified and is exaggerated by emotional state and circumstances. It has to do with how one is feeling about
oneself at one point in time. Academic self-esteem, for example, is a more specialized type of self-esteem in
which one's sense of self-worth is somewhat influenced by one's academic performance (Valizadeh, 2012).
Importance of Self-Esteem
● Your self-esteem impacts your relationships, emotional well-being, decision-making process, and overall
well-being. Individuals with a solid, peppy perspective on themselves perceive their actual capacity and
might be inspired to take on new difficulties. This likewise affects inspiration.
Healthy self-esteem has four key characteristics:
● Strong comprehension of one's capacities
● The ability to keep up with sound associations with others because of having a solid relationship with
oneself
● Individual assumptions that are proper and given the real world
● Comprehension of one's requirements and the capacity to communicate those necessities
As they progress through higher academic institutes and come across new and more complex circumstances in
the speculative, voluptuous, radical, and interactive domains, teens entail enhanced abilities and possessions. It
is commonly believed that people can better cope with adversity if they have self-esteem and hope (Cheavens,
2000; 2007 by Ciarrochi, Heaven, and Davies; Updegraff and Umana-Taylor, 2007). Confidence is a notable
build and spotlights on assessments of worldwide self-esteem, though trust centres around the conviction that
one can accomplish significant objectives throughout everyday life. Recent study has demonstrated that self-
esteem and confidence do not foresee the same outcomes, despite being somewhat related (Ciarrochi et al., 2007).
Theories of Self-Esteem
The Theory of Self-Esteem by Stanley Coopersmith: The prevalent belief in this day and age is that a foundation
of trust, unreserved love, security, and security is established in early childhood. As natural life grows, a mix of
optimistic and undesirable assessments has an impact on self-esteem. The self-evaluation scale developed by
Stanley Coopersmith (1967; cited in Seligman, 1996, p. 32) measured children's self-esteem and assessed the
child-rearing practices of those with high self-esteem. The study concluded that parents' clear rules and limits
were the source of high self-esteem.
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) declares that the birth of a person is with an inherent drive to investigate,
comprehend, and dominate his environment and that factual self-esteem (Deci & Ryan, 1995, cited in Ryan &
Deci, 2004) occurs when the fundamental emotional wants or desires of the lifecycle (understanding, aptitude,
and independence), are in steadiness (Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2004).
Because it plays a role in healthy human development, self-esteem is important. Self-esteem was one of Abraham
Maslow's elementary human incentives. According to his philosophy of the order of desires, esteem is near the
top. Primary is actual requirements, for example, food and rest, then, at that point, security or well-being needs,
next friendly necessities, significant dear and fondness from others surveyed by regard requirements, an
impression of individual wealth and achievement, trailed exclusively by self-completion, where one can at long
last live up to their maximum capacity (Maslow, 1987). A child's level of self-esteem can be used to gauge the
parenting style's success based on this hierarchy of needs. Self-esteem can be viewed in a variety of ways and a
variety of settings.
Classification of Self-Esteem according to Rosenberg
A person with a lower sense of self-esteem is more likely than one with a higher sense of self-esteem to engross
in self-destructive behaviors, according to the Basic Behavioral Science Task Force (Basic Behavioral Science
Task Force, 1996).
Unfortunate confidence remains commonly connected with uneasiness in addition to hopelessness (Dumont and
Executive, 1999) and expanded degrees of pity in youths (Ciarrochi et al., 2007), whereas those with high self-
esteem score exceedingly on alteration guides, such as idiosyncratic security measures (DeNeve & Cooper,
1998), professional accomplishment measures (Elliott, 1996), encouraging aristocrat support measures (Paulhus,
1998), and dynamic surviving approaches measures (Dumont & Provost, 1999). According to Deater-Deckard,

Ivy, & Smith (2006), people with high self-esteem have the tools and possessions to shield themselves from
stressors (Showers, Buswell, Kling, and Hyde, 1999).
A) POPULATION:
Definition:
Adolescence or teenagers is a life stage between childhood and adulthood. It lies in the middle age groups of 10
and 19 years. Here, most of the foundation for good health and communication is laid. It is also considered a
one-of-a-kind period in human development.
B) PRESENT STUDY
a) Statement of the problem:
a. Effect of authoritarian parenting on adolescent male and female Self-esteem

b. Effect of authoritative parenting on adolescent male and female Self-esteem
c. Effect of permissive parenting on adolescent male and female Self-esteem
b) Aim:
This research aims to investigate the impact of different parenting styles on adolescent males and females’ self-
esteem.
c) Objectives:
The objectives of this study are:
1. To determine how various parenting styles affect female adolescents’ self-esteem.

2. To determine how various parenting styles affect male adolescents’ self-esteem.
3. To compare the impact of parenting styles on male and female adolescents’ self-esteem.
RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
According to Steinberg & Morris (2001), adolescence is a period of fast transformation, a time of promise, and
a time of "disruption and transition" (Larson, Moneta, Richards, & Wilson, 2002, p. 1152), when teenagers and
their parents face new challenges. These are among the most stressful years for many parents (Smetana et al.,
2006), and even though the majority of teenagers successfully navigate these transitions, this time also marks an
increase in adverse emotive conditions (Ciarrochi, Heaven, & Supavadeeprasit, 2008; Larson and other, 2002)
and decreases in confidence (Robins and Trzesniewski, 2005).
Pullman et al. (2006), Roberts (2000), DelVecchio (2000), and Trzesniewski et al. (2003) concluded that rank -
request for self-esteem and strength was significant at 0.50. Robins and Trzesniewski (2005) found that the
sample’s mean self-esteem would be lower in the future. They also concluded that the mean hope would reduce
over time as a result of this failure. It was also predicted that perceptions of permissiveness and authoritarianism

would be linked with less expectation in addition to self-esteem; whereas perceptions of authoritative parenting
would be linked with increase in hope and self-esteem (Heaven & Ciarrochi, 2000, 2006; McDermott &
Hastings, 2000; Stern, 2000). Lastly, it was also investigated that gender of the kid and the parenting style would
be connected to the development of self-esteem and hope.
The study's primary objective was to investigate the connection between a teen's self-esteem at two distinct
points and the three distinct parenting styles. The goal of this research is to ascertain the effect of parenting styles
on different adolescent age groups. It also assumes that self-esteem will be impacted across the age group 13 to
19 years by different parenting styles. It is estimated that the lenient nurturing style will be connected with the
most elevated confidence levels at all ages tried. Teens who report reliable parenting flairs may have higher self-
esteem, according to another hypothesis. The study's final hypothesis is that children will have higher levels of
self-esteem when their parents are less controlling.
II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Variables:
1. Independent variable:
a. Parenting Styles:
Conceptual definition: Nurturing style is characterized as a star grouping of caretakers' approaches and ways
of performing toward youngsters and a familial atmosphere in which the caretakers' ways of comporting yourself
are linked (Dear and Steinberg, 1993). The four parenting styles that have been identified by Baumrind and other
researchers are – authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and uninvolved or neglected parenting styles.
Operational definition: Survey of parental authority containing 30 items each for mother and father ranging
from permissive to authoritative parenting. The meaning-making assessments of a parent’s command over their
child are the sources of each of these scores.
b. Self-esteem:
Conceptual definition: Your idiosyncratic insight of your value or worth is your self-esteem. It is comparable
to self-respect in that it designates how confident you are in your abilities and qualities.
Operational definition: Item response theory was used to investigate the widely used self-report instrument
known as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, which measures an individual's self-esteem. The Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale's 10 items are not correspondingly discriminating and are differentially related to self-esteem,
conferring to the test of significance, which showed that the unimpeded typical well fits the data. The content of
the items was examined in terms of their pattern of functioning, and the findings have implications for validating
and developing new personality instruments.

2. Controlled variables: Age range of the participants will be restricted to 13 to 19 years of age and
individuals residing only in Delhi and NCR region will be included in the study.
Hypotheses:
1. Parents with an authoritarian parenting style will have adolescents with poor self-esteem.
2. Parents with an authoritative parenting style will have adolescents with higher self-esteem.
3. Parents with a permissive parenting style will have adolescents with higher self-esteem.
Method:
This study measures the influence of different parenting styles on the self-esteem in adolescents.
Sample criteria:
The sample for this study was taken from Delhi & NCR. Both males and females were involved in the study.
The age bracket was 13 to 19 years of age. A total of 109 individuals were used for the study. The selected age
range is called adolescents.
a) Inclusion criteria:
a. Individuals from the age range 13 to 19 years were included in the study.
b. Both males and females were included in the study.
c. Population belonging to majorly Delhi and NCR regions were involved in the research.
b) Exclusion criteria:
a. Individuals below the bracket of 13 and above the age of 19 were excluded from the study.
b. Population with severe mental illness were excluded from the study.
c. Individuals from other cities were excluded from the study.
Sampling method:
Systematic sampling method: This method is chosen for selecting from a target group, e.g., every 4 th person in
the list could be used in the sample. It doesn’t give each individual in the target group an equal chance of
selection.
Procedure:
Before the start of the study, a consent letter was drafted and distributed to the participants following approval
of the research proposal. The research could only involve those who had given their consent. Additionally, it
was made distinct to each participant that their input in the study is entirely intentional, that they are free to pull
out at any time if they feel uneasy, and that no personal information will be shared with anyone. Version 26 of
SPSS was used to analyze the data. A debriefing of the research was conducted with people ranging in age from
13 to 19 years. The participants were given access to three standard questionnaires. The authoritarian,

authoritative, and permissive parenting styles were the 3 types of parenting styles examined in the first
questionnaire. The questionnaire was given by John Buri. Post this, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was shared
to study the self-esteem in males & females in the study. The study would require 100 participants as its sample
size. The collected data will be calculated and analysed through multiple regression and compared via t-test.
After all the data and results have been calculated, hypotheses testing will be done to measure whether to accept
or reject the null hypotheses.
a) Tools to be used:
a. Consent form
b. Socio-demographic details
c. Parental Authority Questionnaire by John Buri: It has 30 items individually for parents, and scores
for the mother and father array from permissive to authoritative; The intentionality estimations of
the parents' command over their children are the foundation of these scores.
d. Self-Esteem Scale: The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Item response theory was used to
investigate a widely used self-report instrument for assessing individual self-esteem. According
to the assessment of meaning, which revealed that the unrestrained model well matched the data,
the 10 things of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale are not equally discriminating and are
distinctively connected to self-esteem. The findings have implications for validating and
developing new personality instruments and were examined in terms of the items' functioning
patterns.
b) Experimental design:
This is a correlational design with two variables – one independent variable and one dependent variables.
c) Statistical method:
Multiple regression analysis will be calculated by SPSS version 26.
III. RESULTS
Preparation of the data
After approval of the research proposal, an informed consent form was completed and given to participants prior
to the initiation of the study. Only participants who gave informed consent were allowed to participate in the
study. Each participant was informed that their information would not be shared with anyone and that they could
pull out from the study at slightly discomfort. Signing a confidentiality consent form was required. The pilot
study's data were analyzed with the help of SPSS version 26. A debriefing of the research was conducted with
people ranging in age from 13 to 19 years.
was made distinct to each participant that their involvement in the study is entirely intentional, that they are free
to take out at any time if they feel uneasy, and that no personal information will be shared with anyone. Version
26 of SPSS was used to analyze the data. A debriefing of the research was conducted with people ranging in age
from 13 to 19 years.
The participants each received two standard questionnaires. The authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive
parenting styles were the three types of parenting styles examined in the first questionnaire. The questionnaire
was given by John Buri. Post that, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was shared to study the self-esteem in males
& females in the study. The study would require 100 participants as its sample size. After all the data has been
coded and calculated, the results will then be compared to the hypotheses to measure whether to accept or reject
the null hypotheses. In addition, the participants were given an email address in case they wanted to get in touch
with the researcher about the study. The questionnaire was scored and recorded after each participant completed
it, with no mention of their identities.
The statistical analysis used was Multiple Regression. They were done using SPSS version 26. Several
descriptive statistics and frequency tables were also made use of.
This chapter gives an in-detailed overview of the results found via Regression of Parenting Styles and Self-
Esteem of Adolescents.
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for the Age of the Participants
Age Frequency Percent (%)

13 13 11.8
14 16 14.5
15 19 17.3
16 17 15.5
17 13 11.8
18 18 16.4
19 14 12.7
Total 110 100
The above-drawn table shows that there were 110 participants for the study. The Mean was 16.01 and the SD
was 1.94.

Fig. 1: Pie-Chart for the descriptives statistics of Age of the Participants
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Gender of the Participants
Gender Frequency Percent (%)
Female 60 54.5
Male 50 45.5
Total 110 100
The above-drawn table shows that there more females than males. The Mean was 1.55 and the SD was 0.50.

Fig. 2: Pie-Chart for the Descriptive Statistics of Gender of the Participants
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Location of the Participants
Location Frequency Percent (%)
Delhi 43 39.1
NCR 35 31.8
Outside Delhi 32 29.1
Total 110 100
The above-drawn table shows that most of the participants were from the state of Delhi. The Mean was 2.10 and
the SD was 0.82.
Fig. 3: Pie-Chart for the Descriptive Statistics of Location of the Participants

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for Urban or Rural location of the Participants
Location Area Frequency Percent (%)
Urban 59 53.6
Rural 51 46.4
Total 110 100
The above-drawn table shows that major of the participants was situated in the urban parts of Delhi. The Mean
was 1.54 and the SD was 0.50.
Fig. 4: Pie-Chart for the Descriptive Statistics of the Location Area of the Participants

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Male Participants and their Self-Esteem
Gender Self-Esteem Score Frequency Percent (%)

22 2 4
23 3 6
24 7 14
25 7 14
26 2 4
Male 27 5 10
28 6 12
29 5 10
30 6 12
31 2 4
32 5 10
Total 50 100
The above-drawn table shows that majority of the male participants scored 24-25 on the self-esteem scale. The
Mean was 27.16 and the SD was 2.95.
Fig. 5: Pie-Chart for Descriptive Statistics of Self-Esteem Scores of Male Participants

Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for Female Participants and their Self-Esteem
Gender Self-Esteem Score Frequency Percent (%)
21 2 3.3
22 2 3.3
23 6 10
24 7 11.7
25 14 23.3
Female
26 7 11.7
27 9 15
28 7 11.7
29 3 5
30 3 5
Total 60 100
The above-drawn table shows that the majority of the female participants scored 25 on the self-esteem scale. The
Mean was 25.67 and the SD was 2.19.
Fig. 6: Pie-Chart for Descriptive Statistics of Self-Esteem Scores of Female Participants

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for Age-13 and their Self-Esteem
Age Self-Esteem Score Frequency Percent (%)
23 3 23.1
24 2 15.4
25 2 15.4
27 1 7.7
13
28 1 7.7
29 1 7.7
30 2 15.4
32 1 7.7
Total 13 100
The above-drawn table shows that most of the 13-year-olds scored 23 on their self-esteem scale. The Mean was
26.38 and the SD was 3.12.
Fig. 7: Pie-Chart for Descriptive Statistics of Age 13 and their Self-Esteem Scores

Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for Age-14 and their Self-Esteem
21 1 6.3
23 1 6.3
24 3 18.8
25 2 12.5
26 2 12.5
14
27 1 6.3
28 2 12.5
29 1 6.3
30 2 12.5
32 1 6.3
Total 16 100

Table 9: Descriptive Statistics for Age 15 and their Self-Esteem
23 1 5.3
25 5 26.3
26 1 5.3
27 4 21.1
15
28 2 10.5
29 2 10.5
30 3 15.8
31 1 5.3
Total 19 100

24 2 11.8
25 5 29.4
26 2 11.8
28 3 17.6
16
29 2 11.8
30 1 5.9
31 1 5.9
32 1 5.9
Total 17 100

22 2 15.4
24 4 30.8
25 2 15.4
17 27 2 15.4
28 1 7.7
29 1 7.7
32 1 7.7
Total 13 100

21 1 5.6
23 2 11.1
24 2 11.1
25 3 16.7
18 27 3 16.7
28 4 22.2
29 1 5.6
30 1 5.6
32 1 5.6
Total 18 100

22 2 14.3
23 2 14.3
24 1 7.1
19
25 2 14.3
26 4 28.6
27 3 21.4
Total 14 100

Multiple regression
The association between numerous autonomous or predictor factors and one dependent or principal factor is
explained by multiple regression. The constant term is used to model a dependent variable as a purpose of more
than a few independent factors with conforming portions. Numerous retrogressions require two or further
indicator factors, and therefore it's called different retrogression. Retrogression models are used to describe
connections between variables by correcting a line to the observed data. Retrogression allows you to evaluate
how a dependent variable changes as the independent variables change.
Table 13 (a): Multiple Regression for Father’s Authoritative Parenting Style and Male Adolescents’ Self-
Esteem
Parenting Style Gender T F Sig. value
Father’s Male 2.50 6.28 0.01
Authoritative adolescents
Style
The above-drawn table shows the data for father’s authoritative parenting style towards male adolescents. The p
value was found significant at 0.05 level. The mean for Father’s Authoritative Parenting Style was 30.70 and the
SD was 5.21. The mean for male adolescents’ self-esteem was 27.16 and the SD was 2.95.
Table 13 (b): Multiple Regression for Father’s Authoritative Parenting Style and Female Adolescents’
Self-Esteem
Father’s Female 1.05 1.12 0.29
Style
The above-drawn table shows the data for father’s authoritative parenting style towards female adolescents. The
p value was found not significant at 0.05 level. The mean for Father’s Authoritative Parenting Style was 30.25
and the SD was 4.37. The mean for female adolescents’ self-esteem was 25.67 and the SD was 2.19.

Table 13 (c): Multiple Regression for Father’s Authoritative Parenting Style, Adolescents’ Self-Esteem
Parenting Style Age T F Sig. Value
13 -0.19 0.03 0.85
14 3.65 13.35 0.01
Father’s 15 0.08 0.01 0.93
Authoritative 16 0.04 0.02 0.96
Parenting Style 17 3.33 11.14 0.01
18 0.33 0.11 0.74
19 0.01 0.02 1.00
The above-drawn table shows the data for father’s authoritative parenting style towards 13 to 19 -year-old
adolescents. The p value for ages 14 and 17 was found significant at 0.05 level. The Mean and the SD for the
age groups were as follows:
Age 13 (Father’s Authoritative Parenting Style Mean = 28.85, SD = 4.29; 13-year-old’s Mean = 26.38, SD =
3.12)
2.96)
2.22)
2.51)
2.87)
2.78)
1.81)

Table 14 (a): Multiple Regression for Father’s Authoritarian Parenting Style and Male Adolescents’ Self -
Esteem
Father’s Male -0.50 0.25 0.61
Authoritarian adolescents
Style
The above-drawn table shows the data for father’s authoritarian parenting style towards male adolescents. The p
value was found not significant at 0.05 level. The mean for Father’s Authoritarian Parenting Style was 29.82 and
the SD was 4.89. The mean for male adolescents’ self-esteem was 27.16 and the SD was 2.95.
Table 14 (b): Multiple Regression for Father’s Authoritarian Parenting Style and Female Adolescents’
Self-Esteem
Father’s Female -0.87 0.77 0.38
Style
The above-drawn table shows the data for father’s authoritarian parenting style towards female adolescents. The
p value was found not significant at 0.05 level. The mean for Father’s Authoritarian Parenting Style was 30.68

Table 14 (c): Multiple Regression for Father’s Authoritarian Parenting Style, Adolescents’ Self-Esteem
13 0.58 0.34 0.57
14 -0.39 0.15 0.69
Father’s 15 0.01 0.01 0.98
Authoritarian 16 -1.58 2.52 0.13
Parenting Style 17 -1.18 1.40 0.26
18 -0.58 0.34 0.56
19 0.04 0.02 0.96
The above-drawn table shows the data for father’s authoritarian parenting style towards 13 to 19-year-old
adolescents. The p value were found not significant at 0.05 level. The Mean and the SD for the age groups were
as follows:
Age 13 (Father’s Authoritarian Parenting Style Mean = 29.69, SD = 3.92; 13-year-old’s Mean = 26.38, SD =
3.12)
2.96)
2.22)
2.51)
2.87)
2.78)

1.81)
Table 15 (a): Multiple Regression for Father’s Permissive Parenting Style and Male Adolescents’ Self-
Esteem
Father’s Male 2.09 4.38 0.04
Permissive adolescents
Style
The above-drawn table shows the data for father’s permissive parenting style towards male adolescents. The p
value was found significant at 0.05 level. The mean for Father’s Permissive Parenting Style was 30.28 and the
SD was 3.69. The mean for male adolescents’ self-esteem was 27.16 and the SD was 2.95.
Table 15 (b): Multiple Regression for Father’s Permissive Parenting Style and Female Adolescents’ Self-
Esteem
Father’s Female 0.92 0.85 0.36
Style
The above-drawn table shows the data for father’s permissive parenting style towards female adolescents. The p
value was found not significant at 0.05 level. The mean for Father’s Permissive Parenting Style was 30.43 and
the SD was 4.15. The mean for female adolescents’ self-esteem was 25.67 and the SD was 2.19.

Table 15 (c): Multiple Regression for Father’s Permissive Parenting Style and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem
13 0.83 0.70 0.42
14 0.81 0.66 0.42
Father’s 15 1.09 1.01 0.32
Permissive 16 -0.76 0.57 0.45
18 1.74 3.06 0.01
19 1.43 2.06 0.17
The above-drawn table shows the data for father’s permissive parenting style towards 13 to 19-year-old
adolescents. The p value for age 18 was found significant at 0.05 level. The Mean and the SD for the age groups
were as follows:
Age 13 (Father’s Permissive Parenting Style Mean = 31.08, SD = 5.07; 13 -year-old’s Mean = 26.38, SD = 3.12)
Age 14 (Father’s Permissive Parenting Style Mean = 30.94, SD = 3.21; 14-year-old’s Mean = 26.38, SD = 2.96)
Age 16 (Father’s Permissive Parenting Style Mean =29.82, SD = 3.20; 16-year-old’s Mean = 27.06, SD = 2.51)
Age 18 (Father’s Permissive Parenting Style Mean = 29.67, SD = 4.21; 18-year-old’s Mean = 26.33, SD = 2.78)

Table 16 (a): Multiple Regression for Mother’s Authoritative Parenting Style and Male Adolescents’ Self-
Esteem
Mother’s Male -1.63 2.66 0.10
Style
The above-drawn table shows the data for mother’s authoritative parenting style towards male adolescents. The
p value was found not significant at 0.05 level. The mean for Mother’s Authoritative Parenting Style was 30.68
and the SD was 3.60. The mean for male adolescents’ self-esteem was 27.16 and the SD was 2.95.
Table 16 (b): Multiple Regression for Mother’s Authoritative Parenting Style and Female Adolescents’
Self-Esteem
Mother’s Female 0.09 0.09 0.92
Style
The above-drawn table shows the data for mother’s authoritative parenting style towards female adolescents.
The p value was found not significant at 0.05 level. The mean for Mother’s Authoritative Parenting Style was
29.20 and the SD was 3.67. The mean for female adolescents’ self-esteem was 25.67 and the SD was 2.19.

Table 16 (c): Multiple Regression for Mother’s Authoritative Parenting Style and Adolescents’ Self-
Esteem
13 -2.29 5.26 0.04
14 -0.37 0.13 0.71
Mother’s 15 0.19 0.03 0.84
Authoritative 16 0.58 0.34 0.56
Parenting Style 17 1.48 2.19 0.16
18 0.16 0.02 0.86
19 -1.70 2.91 0.11
The above-drawn table shows the data for mother’s authoritative parenting style towards 13 to 19-year-old
adolescents. The p value for 13 was found significant at 0.05 level. The Mean and the SD for the age groups
were as follows:
Age 13 (Mother’s Authoritative Parenting Style Mean = 30.31, SD = 3.44; 13-year-old’s Mean = 26.38, SD =
3.12)
2.96)
2.22)
Age 16 (Mother’s Authoritative Parenting Style Mean =29.88, SD = 4.48; 16-year-old’s Mean = 27.06, SD =
2.51)
2.87)
2.78)

1.81)
Table 17 (a): Multiple Regression for Mother’s Authoritarian Parenting Style and Male Adolescents’ Self-
Esteem
Mother’s Male -0.39 0.15 0.69
Style
The above-drawn table shows the data for mothers’ authoritarian parenting style towards male adolescents. The
p-value was found not significant at 0.05 level. The mean for Mother’s Authoritarian Parenting Style was 29.22
and the SD was 4.72. The mean for male adolescents’ self-esteem was 27.16 and the SD was 2.95.
Table 17 (b): Multiple Regression for Mother’s Authoritarian Parenting Style and Female Adolescents’
Self-Esteem
Mother’s Female -0.50 0.25 0.61
Style
The above-drawn table shows the data for mother’s authoritarian parenting style towards female adolescents.
The p value was found not significant at 0.05 level. The mean for Mother’s Authoritarian Parenting Style was
30.90 and the SD was 4.76. The mean for female adolescents’ self-esteem was 25.67 and the SD was 2.19.

Table 17 (c): Multiple Regression for Mother’s Authoritarian Parenting Style and Adolescents’ Self-
Esteem
13 0.05 0.03 0.95
14 0.39 0.15 0.70
Mother’s 15 0.65 0.43 0.52
Authoritarian 16 -1.92 3.69 0.04
18 -2.01 4.05 0.05
19 0.49 0.24 0.63
The above-drawn table shows the data for mother’s authoritarian parenting style towards 13 to 19-year-old
adolescents. The p value were found not significant at 0.05 level. The Mean and the SD for the age groups were
as follows:
Age 13 (Mother’s Authoritarian Parenting Style Mean = 31.00, SD = 4.76; 13-year-old’s Mean = 26.38, SD =
3.12)
2.96)
2.22)
Age 16 (Mother’s Authoritarian Parenting Style Mean =30.76, SD = 5.58; 16-year-old’s Mean = 27.06, SD =
2.51)
2.87)

2.78)
1.81)
Table 18 (a): Multiple Regression for Mother’s Permissive Parenting Style and Male Adolescents’ Self-
Esteem
Mother’s Male -0.58 0.34 0.56
Style
The above-drawn table shows the data for mother’s permissive parenting style towards male adolescents. The p
value was found not significant at 0.05 level. The mean for Mother’s Permissive Parenting Style was 29.18 and
the SD was 5.06. The mean for male adolescents’ self-esteem was 27.16 and the SD was 2.95.
Table 18 (b): Multiple Regression for Mother’s Permissive Parenting Style and Female Adolescents’ Self-
Esteem
Mother’s Female 0.49 0.24 0.62
Style
The above-drawn table shows the data for mother’s permissive parenting style towards female adolescents. The
p value was found not significant at 0.05 level. The mean for Mother’s Permissive Parenting Style was 29.82

Table 18 (c): Multiple Regression for Mother’s Permissive Parenting Style and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem
13 0.22 0.05 0.82
14 -0.21 0.04 0.83
Mother’s 15 -0.12 0.01 0.90
Permissive 16 -0.66 0.44 0.51
18 -1.06 1.13 0.30
19 1.00 1.00 0.33
The above-drawn table shows the data for mother’s permissive parenting style towards 13 to 19 -year-old
adolescents. The p value was found not significant at 0.05 level. The Mean and the SD for the age groups were
as follows:
Age 13 (Mother’s Permissive Parenting Style Mean = 30.08, SD = 5.34; 13-year-old’s Mean = 26.38, SD = 3.12)
Age 16 (Mother’s Permissive Parenting Style Mean =30.35, SD = 5.49; 16-year-old’s Mean = 27.06, SD = 2.51)
Age 19 (Mother’s Permissive Parenting Style Mean = 29.21, SD = 4.45; 19-year-old’s Mean = 24.93, SD = 1.81.

IV. CONCLUSION
After approval of the research proposal, an informed consent form was completed and given to participants prior
to the initiation of the study. The study could only be conducted with informed consent from participants. Each
participant was informed that their information would not be shared with anyone and that they could pull out
from the research at any time if they felt uneasy. Signing a confidentiality consent form was required. The pilot
study's data were analyzed with the help of SPSS version 26. A debriefing of the research was conducted with
people ranging in age from 13 to 19 years.
was made distinct to each participant that their contribution in the study is entirely intentional, that they are free
to pull out at any time if they feel uneasy, and that no personal information will be shared with anyone. Version
26 of SPSS was used to evaluate the data.
The participants each received two standard questionnaires. The first survey, Parental Authority, examined three
parenting styles: authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive in both the mother's and father's domains. The
questionnaire was given by John Buri. Post that, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was shared to study the self-
esteem in males & females in the study. The study would require 100 participants as its sample size. After all
the data has been coded and calculated, the results will then be compared to the hypotheses to measure whether
to accept or reject the null hypotheses. The participants were also provided with an email address if at any point
they want to contact the researcher about the study. After all the participants had filled out the questionnaire, it
was scored and recorded with no mention of their personal identities anywhere.
The statistical analyses used was Multiple Regression. They were done using SPSS version 26. Several
descriptive statistics and frequency tables were also made use of.
The summary of the research includes that there were more of females in the study than males. The total number
of participants were 110. The data was collected majorly from the urban sections of Delhi & NCR. It was
concluded that male participants had a higher sense of self-esteem than females. Moreover, fathers who were
perceived to be authoritative, the male adolescents had a higher sense of self-esteem than females. But, at the
same time, with mothers being perceived as authoritative, both males and females had a lower sense of self-
esteem. Only, the start of teens, i.e., 13-year-olds had an inclination towards a higher sense of self-esteem. The
parents who were perceived to be authoritarian, both males and females had a lower sense of self-esteem. The
fathers who had a permissive style of parenting, the male adolescents had a much better sense of self-esteem
than females. Males showed a higher sense of self-esteem whereas females showed a moderate sense of self-
esteem. For mothers who were perceived as having a permissive style of parenting, both the males and females
had a lower sense of self-esteem.

While testing the hypotheses, it was found that one out of the three was accepted. In hypothesis 1, the null
hypothesis was accepted and the alternative was rejected, which stated that authoritarian style of parenting had
a poor sense of self-esteem. In hypothesis 2, the alternative hypothesis was accepted and the null was rejected,
which stated that authoritative style of parenting had a higher sense of self-esteem. In hypothesis 3, the null
hypothesis was accepted and the alternative was rejected, which stated that permissive style of parenting had
moderate to higher sense of self-esteem.
Implications
This study's findings may notify interposition approaches aimed at lowering the prevalence of highly perilous
behaviour among adolescents and unfortunate psychological well-being that may be caused by low self-esteem.
Through well-being instruction and statistics, all revelries could hypothesize self-esteem, the significance of
strong self-esteem, the hazards of low self-esteem, and the significance of decent parenting.
Taking into account the unique characteristics of the study population, the cultural context and the adolescent's
age, gender, and other characteristics should all be taken into consideration when designing programs.
Because it demonstrates that authoritative parenting is associated with constructive progressive results, this study
makes a significant involvement to the ground of parenting studies in some parts of India but cannot be
generalized to the entire country.
Limitations
The study was set only in one region of the state. It may not have included participants from different regions.
Thus, the data cannot be used to test out casual hypotheses.
The study was not longitudinal. It could not study the cross-section for either the growth or decline of self-esteem
in males and females.
The study had a very less sample size. Thus, none of the results can be generalized to other parts of India.
Despite a few creators in nurturing research having found comparable outcomes when guardians completed the
actual evaluation (Aunola et al.,), the way that the youngsters revealed their folks' way of behaving may have
affected the outcomes. 2000; Kim, 2001).
In addition, the adolescents' self-reports of how they perceive their parents' parenting styles were the only data
used in this study. As a result, memory biases may have an impact on the current conclusion regarding the recall
of adolescents.

REFERENCES
Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, London:
Sage Publications
Akanksha D and Mamta C. Parenting styles and its effects on adolescents’ self-esteem. Int J Innov Eng Technol
2013; 2: 310–315.
Aluja, A., del Barrio, V., & García, L.F. (2005). Relationships between adolescents’ memory of parental rearing
styles, social values and socialisation behavior traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 903-912.
Amato, P.R., & Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices, child adjustment, and family diversity. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 64, 703-716.
Aremu, T. A., John-Akinola, Y. O., & Desmennu, A. T. (2018). Relationship between parenting styles and
adolescents’ self-esteem. International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 39(2), 91-
99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272684x18811023
Barber, B.K., Chadwick, B.A., & Oerter, R. (1992). Parental behaviors and adolescent self-esteem in the United
States and Germany. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 128-141.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better
performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 4, 1–44.
Baumrind, D. (1978). Reciprocal rights and responsibilities in parent-child relations. Journal of Social Issues,
34, 179-196.
Baumrind, D. (1983). Rejoinder to Lewis’ reinterpretation of parental firm control effects: Are authoritative
families really harmonious? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 132-142.
Buri JR. Parental authority questionnaire. J Pers Soc Assess 1991; 57: 110–119.
Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988). Effects of parental authoritarianism and
authoritativeness on self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 271–282.

Chao, R.K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting
through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111-1119.
Chao, R., & Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asian. In Bornstein, M.H.(Ed.) Handbook of Parenting. (p.59 -87).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Chao, R.K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and
European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832-1843.
Chua, A. (2011). Battle hymn of the tiger mother. Retrieved from http://amychua.com/
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman.
Culture and Psychology by L D Worthy; T Lavigne; and F Romero is licensed CC BY -NC-SA California
Department of Education, Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Program Guidelines, Second Edition by
the California Department of Education is used with permission.
Driscoll LC. Parenting styles and self-esteem. Scripps senior theses (Paper 155),
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_ theses/155 (2013, accessed 23 October 2018).
Felson, R.B., & Zielinski, M.A. (1989). Children’s self-esteem and parental support. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 51, 727- 735.
Fleming, J.S.,Courtney, B.E. (1984) The dimensionality of self-esteem: II. Hierarchical facet model for revised
measurement scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46
Garaigordobil, M., Durá, A., & Pérez, J.I. (2005). Psychopathological symptoms, behavioural problems, and
selfconcept/ self-esteem: A study of adolescents aged 14 to 17 years old. Annuary of Clinical and Health
Psychology, 1, 53-63.
Gecas, V., & Schwalbe, M.L. (1986). Parental behavior and adolescent self-esteem. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 48, 37-46.
Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem.
Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 60(6), 895-910. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.895

Heaven, P., & Ciarrochi, J. (2008). Parental styles, gender and the development of hope and self‐ esteem.
European Journal of Personality, 22(8), 707-724. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.699
Kausar R and Shafique N. Gender differences in perceived parenting styles and socioemotional adjustment of
adolescents. Pak J Psychol Res 2008; 23: 93–105.
Kuppens, S and Ceulemans, E. Parenting Styles: A Closer Look at a Well-Known Concept.
Child Characteristics is adapted from "The Developing Parent" by Marisa Diener, licensed CC BY NC SA
Martínez, I., & García, J. F. (2007). Impact of parenting styles on adolescents' self-esteem and internalization of
values in Spain. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10(02), 338-348.
Martínez, I., García, J. F., & Yubero, S. (2007). Parenting styles and adolescents' self-esteem in Brazil.
Psychological reports, 100(3), 731-745.
Niaraki, F. R., & Rahimi, H. (2013). The impact of authoritative, permissive and authoritarian behavior of parents
on self-concept, psychological health and life quality. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences,
2(1805-3602).
Parenting and Family Diversity Issues by Diana Lang and Marissa L. Diener is licensed under a CC BY -NC-SA
Rosenberg M. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1965.
Yang, F., & Liang, N. (2008). A study on the influence of early experiences on adolescents' implicit self-esteem.
Psychological Science (China), 31(3), 556-561.
Zakeri, H., & Karimpour, M. (2011). Parenting styles and self-esteem. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
29, 758-761.

IJCRT21X0093

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IJCRT21X0093

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IJCRT21X0093

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.ijcrt.

PARENTING STYLES AND SELF-ESTEEM IN

*Aaliya Sethi 1, Dr.Pankaj Singh 2

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f622

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f623

Types of Parenting Styles

1. The authoritarian parenting style:

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f624

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f625

Baumrind’s Parenting Styles

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f626

Impact of Parenting Styles

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f627

Healthy self-esteem has four key characteristics:

● Strong comprehension of one's capacities

● Comprehension of one's requirements and the capacity to communicate those necessities

Classification of Self-Esteem according to Rosenberg

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f629

a) Statement of the problem:

a. Effect of authoritarian parenting on adolescent male and female Self-esteem

The objectives of this study are:

1. To determine how various parenting styles affect female adolescents’ self-esteem.

RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f630

II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f631

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f632

Multiple regression analysis will be calculated by SPSS version 26.

Preparation of the data

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for the Age of the Participants

Age Frequency Percent (%)

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f634

Fig. 1: Pie-Chart for the descriptives statistics of Age of the Participants

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Gender of the Participants

Gender Frequency Percent (%)

Total 110 100

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f635

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Location of the Participants

Location Frequency Percent (%)

Outside Delhi 32 29.1

Total 110 100

the SD was 0.82.

Fig. 3: Pie-Chart for the Descriptive Statistics of Location of the Participants

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f636

Location Area Frequency Percent (%)

Total 110 100

was 1.54 and the SD was 0.50.

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f637

Gender Self-Esteem Score Frequency Percent (%)

Fig. 5: Pie-Chart for Descriptive Statistics of Self-Esteem Scores of Male Participants

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f638

Gender Self-Esteem Score Frequency Percent (%)

Fig. 6: Pie-Chart for Descriptive Statistics of Self-Esteem Scores of Female Participants

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f639

Age Self-Esteem Score Frequency Percent (%)

26.38 and the SD was 3.12.

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f640

Age Self-Esteem Score Frequency Percent (%)

26.38 and the SD was 2.96.

IJCRT21X0093 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org f641