“Make Your Parents Proud: The Relationship of

Perceived Parenting Style and Social Support to

College Student’s Self Efficacy”

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Problem and Its Background

Adolescence is remarkably known for changes in every aspect – biological, cognitive and

social development; identity development, changes in relationship with friends, family

relationships, particularly parent-adolescent relationship and school-life transitions (Hill,

Bromell, Tyson & Flint, 2007, p. 367). Moreover, parents tend to be the foundation of their

children; they play an important role for child’s development through the years. But as the

development occurs, there is no guarantee about constancy in one’s personality.

Self- efficacy refers to beliefs about one’s capabilities to achieve intended results

(Bandura, 1986, 1997). These beliefs are described as determinants of how people think,

motivate, behave and feel. Much research shows that self-efficacy influences academic

motivation, learning, and achievement (Bandura, 1997; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, &

Pastorelli,1996; Pajares, 1996).It is grounded in social cognitive theory, that states that

interactions between oneself, personal-factors and environmental factors determines human

learning and achievement (Schunk & Pajares, 2002). During childhood years, children tend to

have high regards with their parents that lead to influence behaviour (Salkind, 2004). As

adolescence stage occurs, interactions with the social world continue and overpower its

influences among adolescents. By determining their abilities, adolescents are able to assess

themselves through self-efficacy (Crain, 2005).

1
The most known parent-adolescent relationship model is introduced by Baumrind (2005).

It is based on responsiveness and demandingness category. Responsiveness refers to the parents’

attentive reaction and compliance to their children’s needs. Demandingness on the other hand, is

known for having standards and has high regards for discipline and orders. Individuals belong to

this can adapt well in societal rules (Baumrind, 2005). In combining the two constructs of

responsiveness and demandingness of parents, different parenting styles appear. Authoritative

style of parenting includes both high in responsiveness and demandingness, parents value their

children’s sense of independency but at the same time, parents implement rules that should be

followed. Authoritarian style of parenting has high demandingness and low in responsiveness.

Parents who fall in this category tend to be more disciplinarian as they more value obedience

than allowing their children express their intrinsic thoughts. Permissive parenting style is high in

responsiveness but low in demandingness. Parents do not have the control over their children In

the latter years, negligent or uninvolved parenting style was introduced. It is believed that it has

the most negative effect on children (Baumrind , 2005).

Meanwhile, the importance of social support in every different stages of life has

dominantly recognized in academic literature (Feldman & Cohen, 2000). Social support has

many benefits; one is the ability to have better dealing with life’s challenges, which may increase

ones’ sense of capabilities. In a study by Quimby & O’Brien (2004), it gave evidence that social

support has predictions of self-efficacy among 354 non-traditional college women.

This study attempts to find relationship of perceived parenting styles and social support

towards self-efficacy of college students.

2
Significance of the Study

In making a research, it is expected to be beneficial for individuals according to what was

the study is all about. It is also assumed that studies are made for answering inquiries for things

and phenomena that have to be explained with sufficient evidence that has proven as it had gone

a long and repetitive process with the researchers.

This study would be very appreciated and embraced as it involves human relations. The

parenting style and self efficacy are principles that are not new to the field of psychology, but

knowing what could be the possible relation of each of the principle and its underlying cause/s

may be the emergence or result of an another discovery in the field of it.

Another factor that would greatly benefit from the self-efficacy part is the college

students themselves. College students face a more complex environment than they were in high

school. College students are given much more difficult demands or tasks that might make them

disappointed and stressed, if one does not have enough self-efficacy, it would reflect on the way

he/she projects in front of the class. It is important for the college students to be well-prepared by

weighing and assessing their strengths and weaknesses before entering in the real world.

Social support is another factor that can benefit from self-efficacy. Encouragement from

other people, knowing that you have someone whom you can run to in times of need, when

someone tells you can do a task, accomplish work and achieve your dreams, those words of

wisdom can help you gain self-efficacy.

3
Review of Related Literature

Parenting Style

Family plays an important role in molding child’s view in life, whether it may be

physical, mental or in emotional aspect. Parenting styles are the ways of parents on how they

take care of their children in which it will have an effect on their children’s personality

development (Akhtar, 2012).

Authoritative Parenting

Parents who belong to authoritative style are more active in participating in their

children’s lives, show enough love and patience in contributing to their children’s psychological

growth. (Aunola, Stattin, & Nurmi, 2000). Parents who are high on acceptance, behavioral

control and psychological control fall under this style (Baumrind, 2013; Baumrind, Larzelere, &

Owens, 2010). Authoritative parenting style is defined in which parents’ attitudes towards their

children prioritize its needs and abilities while implying its maturity demands. (Kuczynski ,

2003). These parents value both autonomy among their children and commands discipline as

well. Authoritative parenting provides positive emotional effect on children. Parents under this

style are assertive but intrusive and restrictive; their way of bearing a child is both supportive and

being punitive. Thus, parents direct decisions for their children through discipline. (Turner,

Chadler & Heffer, 2009). In general terms, this parenting style focuses on both responsiveness

and demandingness that appears to be dominant in building higher academic performance

(Reitman, Rhode, Hupp & Altobello, 2002).

Authoritative parents encourage independence and at the same time, project and put

limits to the child’s behaviour. They consistently display the openness of parent-child

communication, warmth and support towards their child or children (Spera, 2005).

4
Authoritarian Parenting

This type of parenting implies “relative neglect of the child’s needs in favor of the

parent’s agenda, strong demands for child compliance and forceful methods for gaining

compliance and punishing infractions” (p. 58) (Kuczynski, 2003). Parents under this style exhibit

high directive behavior, have high levels on both restriction and rejection behaviours and power-

asserting behaviours in children. They tend to have a philosophy that “it’s my way or the

highway” (Turner, Chandler & Heffer, 2009). Also, it is considered as coercive and domineering

type of parenting style (Baumrind, 2012). Parents also give their children punishments to follow

their commands (Aunola, Stattin, & Nurmi, 2000). Their style has less positive child outcomes,

including lower-self-efficacy (Baumrind, Larzelere, & Owens, 2010).

Parents in this style place limitations to the extent of being restrictive and they do not

have tolerance for inappropriate behaviour. The acts of discipline are harsh, punitive measures in

complying rules and standards (Bush & Peterson, 2007). They also have high expectations to

their children. Even a little verbal exchange is not encouraged and display of affection is limited

between parent-child relationships (Spera, 2005).

Permissive Parenting

Permissive parents allow children’s psychological autonomy and exhibit insufficient

behavioural control (Baumrind, 2013; Baumrind, Larzelere, & Owens, 2010). They do not

restrict them for social activity as well as give them a chance to make decisions based on their

interests (Sattler & Hoge, 2006). Also permissive parenting is known for having little demand

and using minimal form of punishment. Parents are warm and responsible but they are not

aiming for a high standard and do have only few expectations from their children as they do not

set rules and regulations (Turner, Chandler & Heffer, 2009).

5
It is widely known that permissive has mostly negative outcomes when it comes to

parenting, but in a study in Spain, the results stated that permissive is associated with positive

academic performance, and a only a little chances of having behavioural problems, it is assumed

that there is a factor that differentiate the outcomes, hence, one factor is cultural differences

(Garcia & Gracia 2009).

Uninvolved Parenting

Uninvolved parenting style is perceived for having the most negative effect on

adolescents’ development compare to the first three parenting styles (Hoskins, 2014). Parents in

this category usually fail to monitor their children’s behaviour and do not encourage self-

regulation. They are described as having low on both responsiveness and demandingness. In

other words, these parents do not engage in responsibilities in bearing their own children

(Baumrind, Larzelere, & Owens, 2010). They do not demand for control over their child and

often resulted into lack of closeness among parents and children (Hoeve, Dubas, Eichelsheim,

Van der Laan, Smeenk, & Gerris, 2009).

Social Support

Social support refers to close contact with people and it can provide assistance to people

when they are in times of difficulties and struggles (St Jean Trudel, Guay & Marchand, 2009).

Humans are all social beings; therefore, their lives depend largely through interpersonal

relationships with others (Burke, 2005). There are wide published articles that mainly focus on

the influence of interpersonal relationship in people’s psychological and physical health and

emphasized its beneficial part within the influence of social support (Feldman & Cohen, 2000).

Its primary functions are to cope in times of stress and to increase physical and psychological

well-being. Moreover, people with high level of social support tend to be more enjoyed and can

6
face difficult situation. Today, it is widely known in the field of research that social support has

beneficial effects that increase people’s ability to cope to such stress (Feldman & Cohen, 2000).

As a result, it shows that supportive interpersonal relationships have great impact for having

belief in oneself, especially abilities. Social connectedness refers to a group of caring persons

that give sufficient guidance and opportunities for oneself, therefore, allowing social supports

can in still a sense of personal efficacy. (Bandura, 1997).

Self-Efficacy

Self- efficacy refers to beliefs about one’s capabilities to achieve intended results

(Bandura, 1986, 1997). These beliefs are described as determinants of how people think,

motivate, behave and feel. Much research show that self-efficacy influences academic

motivation, learning, and achievement (Bandura, 1997; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, &

Pastorelli,1996; Pajares, 1996). Self-efficacy should not be linked to confidence, as it has a broad

assessment of oneself in three complex areas such as motivation, resources and action, unlike

being confident is just an assessment applicable to only one’s aspect (Muretta, 2004).

Self-efficacy is based in a theoretical framework known as social cognitive theory that

suggests that human achievement depends on interactions between one’s behaviors, personal

factors (containing beliefs, thoughts, self-perceptions), and environmental conditions (Schunk &

Pajares, 2002) that are believed to interact in the process of learning, and all factors influenced

each other (Woolfolk, 2001). Self-efficacy has been particularly distinguished in studies of

educational constructs like, problem solving, goal setting, motivation and academic achievement.

They set themselves difficult challenges and maintain strong commitment. There are four

sources of self-efficacy identified by Bandura namely mastery experiences (direct experiences),

7
vicarious experiences (accomplishments modeled by others), and physiological and emotional

arousal, and social persuasions (specific performance feedback).

In contrast, people who doubt themselves or their capabilities ponder from difficult task

that they view as personal threats. This people have weak commitment to the goals they set and

dwell on their personal deficiencies and all those unfavorable outcomes instead of focusing on

how to perform better and successfully causing them to be an easy victim to stress and

depression (Bandura, 1994).

Sources of self-efficacy

There are four main sources of influence that can develop people’s beliefs about their

efficacy according to Bandura (1994). The first and foremost source of self-efficacy is through

mastery of experiences/performance accomplishments. Success builds a strong belief in one’s

personal efficacy whereas failure pushes away that efficacy belief. To have an elastic sense of

efficacy demands experience in overcoming obstacle through perseverant effort. Our setbacks

and difficulties serve as a useful tool to teach us that success requires a sustained effort. The

second source that strengthens self- efficacy is through vicarious experiences delivered by social

models, our observation of people around us or those people that we call our role models. Seeing

people similar to oneself succeed through sustained effort boost the observers’ belief or

confidence that they also have those capabilities to master the activities needed to succeed.

However, seeing other people fail despite the high effort they have sustained lowers the

observer’s opinion of their own efficacy and wash away their effort. The third source of self-

efficacy is through social persuasion. Influential people in their lives strengthen people’s beliefs

that they have what it takes to succeed. Being persuaded verbally that they possess the

capabilities to success or to master certain activity are likely to provide greater effort and sustain

8
in when problems arise. The fourth source of strengthening self-efficacy is through emotional

and physiological arousal. This points out that we can enhance self-efficacy by minimizing

emotional arousal like fear and stress since they are associated with decreased performance and

reduced success. Emotional arousal can be lessen with repeated symbolic exposure that allows

people to practice how to deal with stress and relaxation techniques (Bandura, 1997).

Attachment, Parenting, and the Development of Self-Efficacy

It is undeniable that self-efficacy started in the family as they are considered as the first

mentor of their own children. (Pajares, 2002). Parents who provided their children with enough

care, showed full of responsibility tend to be have high levels of self efficacy. It is also evident

that family influences self-efficacy has long term throughout life. Parents are primary sources of

mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, physiological aspect and persuasion which Bandura

introduced as self-efficacy beliefs. It also suggested that the more you are exposed to the social

model, the higher the tendency of greater impact on self-efficacy. (Bandura, 1997).

Social Support in Relation to Self-Efficacy

Only few researchers investigated the study of social support relating to one’s self

efficacy, and one of them is Quimby & O’ Brien (2004) who found out that having social support

and resources have relationship with self-efficacy. They investigated the predictors of students

and career decision-making self efficacy, covering social support and perceived career barriers to

354 non-traditional college women. Results appear that both perceived social support and career

barriers were responsible for career decision-making self-efficacy to those non-traditional

college women. Although both were responsible for the prediction of self-efficacy, social support
9
has above or higher contribution over perceived career barriers, indicating that having social

support contributes to one’s self-efficacy (Quimby & O’ Brien, 2004).

Theoretical Framework

Attachment Theory

Attachment theory in Psychology was rooted from the work of John Bowlby who worked

at Child Clinic in London as a psychiatrist in 1930’s (Mcleod, 2009). Attachment theory is a

concept in developmental psychology in which it emphasizes the importance of attachment.

According to Bowlby to keep the child close to the mother attachment is one of the way, hence it

will improve the survival of the child. He also believed that earliest foundation with the caregiver

might go throughout the life, There are some traditional definitions coined by the theorists John

Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, the two earliest theorist to study attachment (Mooney, 2010): “An

affectional tie that one person or animal forms between himself and another specific one—a tie

that binds them together in space and endures over time”. (Ainsworth 1967) “The dimension of

the infant-caregiver relationship involving protection and security regulation. Within this

theoretic framework, attachment is conceptualized as an intense and enduring affectional bond

that the infant develops with the mother figure, a bond that is biologically rooted in the function

of protection from danger” (Bowlby 1982).

Baumrind’s Typology

Closely related to attachment and the development of self-efficacy beliefs, parents play

an important role in his/her child’s development. It refers to specific parental behaviours that

have great influence to child’s own perceptions (Baumrind, 1967; 1991). Popularly known as

“Parenting Styles”, which consists of a level of degree – responsiveness and demanding

(Darling, 1999). Baumrind introduced three major components of styles, namely the

10
Authoritative parenting is warm and involved. This seems to be more secured, which is

associated more with confidence. Authoritarian is the opposite of authoritative parenting. Parents

and guardians in this type are demanding, more of a disciplinarian and unresponsive. It may view

as an avoidant; similarly to Bowlby’s attachment theory. Lastly, the Permissive parenting, which

refers to inconsistency parenting and no specific need for response and demand.

Social Cognitive Theory

A theory that is introduced by Albert Bandura, postulates that human learning and

achievement is determined through interaction within oneself (personal factor) and its social

factors (environmental factors). Social cognitive theory emphasizes the role of self-beliefs

whether may it be in human cognition, motivation and behaviour. (Bandura, 1997, Pajares,

2002).

In 1977, Bandura has widened his theory by adding self-efficacy as a component of

social cognitive theory. Likewise, self-efficacy refers to perception of one’s abilities to perform

such things (Glanz, Rimer, & Lewis, 2002). The theory states that human behavior is the

association of three different elements: personal factors, the environment, and behavior

(Bandura, 1977, 1986). These elements are always influencing each other, which Bandura named

as reciprocal determinism.

11
Conceptual Framework

Parenting Styles

 Authoritative
 Authoritarian
 Permissive
 Uninvolved

Self-Efficacy

Social Support

 Family
 Friends
 Significant other

This study focuses on the relationship of perceived parenting styles (authoritative,

authoritarian, permissive and uninvolved) to college students’ self –efficacy. Likewise, the

researchers want to find the relationship between social support subscales (family, friends and

significant other) and self-efficacy beliefs of college students and if these subscales predict self-

efficacy.

12
Statement of the Problem
The study aims to provide answers to the following questions:

1. How can the perceived parenting styles of students be described in terms of:

A. Authoritative

B. Authoritarian

C. Permissive

D. Uninvolved

2. How can the social support of the students be described in terms of:

A. Family

B. Friends

C. Significant others

3. Is there a significant relationship between perceived parenting style subscales to self-

efficacy?; And social support subscales to self-efficacy?

4. Which social support subscales is the highest predictor of self-efficacy belief?

Hypothesis

Ha1: The authoritative parenting style has significant relationship to self-efficacy

Ha2: The authoritarian parenting style has significant relationship to self-efficacy

Ha3: The permissive parenting style has significant relationship to self-efficacy

13
Ha4: The uninvolved parenting style has significant relationship to self-efficacy

Ha5: Family has significant relationship to self-efficacy

Ha6: Friends have significant relationship to self-efficacy

Ha7: Significant other has significant relationship to self-efficacy

Definition of Terms

Perceived parenting style is an opinion of children or adolescents about different ways of

parental behaviours during childhood years (Abdollahi, Talib & Motalebi, 2013).

Social support is the process in which help is given to others (Feldman & Chen, 2000).

Self-efficacy refers to people’s belief about their capabilities to perform behaviours and tasks

(Bandura, 1994).

Responsiveness refers to degree in which parents accept and attend their children’s emotional

and developmental needs.

Demandingness refers to degree in which parents control their children’s behaviour and restricts

demands for their maturity.

Significant other is a person who is important to one’s well being; especially a spouse or one in a

similar relationship.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The scope of the study is to determine which among the four perceived parenting styles

and social support subscales do have relationship towards self-efficacy and which social support

predicts self-efficacy only. The limitations of the study are the number of participants and

14
location where the study has been conducted. A total of 201 college students from three different

colleges and universities in Baliwag, Bulacan participated in this study. In addition, three types

of instruments were utilized to gather the participants’ response.

CHAPTER II

METHOD

Research Design: Descriptive - Correlational

This research design attempts to determine the relationship between two or more

variables. (Jackson, 2006). It determines if there is a connection between two or more variables

and weighs the strength of its relationship (Graciano, Raulin, 2007).

Participants and Sampling Procedure

The respondents in the study were college students from Baliuag University, Bulacan

State University, and Baliwag Polytechnic College. It consists of 201 college students - 162

females and 39 males with ages ranging from 17-28 years old and who are currently enrolled for

the school year 2017-2018. Participants were chosen through cluster sampling method.

Instrumentation

Parenting Style Scale

This measurement was taken from the study of Gafoor and Kurukkan (2014). Few of the

instruments measuring parenting style mostly consist of only three styles, such as Parental

Authority Questionnaire proposed by Baumrind; where parenting style scale is different from the

other instruments as it has included the fourth style named as uninvolved parenting. It is consists

of 40-item questions but to keep balance, the item number 2 and 39 which is both responsiveness

15
item, were removed. The final item of the test is 38 items. The respondents will answer by

putting a mark on a five-point Likert scale as, “always true”, “almost true”, “sometimes true”,

“sometimes false”, “almost false”, and “always false”. Half of the items are in responsive item

and the other half belongs to control item. The scoring of responsiveness and control are

separated at first. The items for each parent are scored separately at first, and then the overall

scores of both parents are added. The instrument comes in six separate scores namely mother’s

responsiveness, father’s responsiveness, mother’s control, father’s control, parental

responsiveness and parental control. A parent who rated as high in both responsiveness and

control (above the median), is considered as authoritative parent. A parent who rated as low in

both responsiveness and control (below the median), is considered as uninvolved parent. A

parent who rated as high in responsiveness and low in control, is considered as permissive

parent. A parent who rated as low in responsiveness and high in control, is considered as

authoritarian parent.

The items in this scale adopted some of the items in Baumrind’s PAQ since it has

constructed validity to parenting style. By correlating the scores of Scale of Parenting Style with

the Scale of Parenting Style by Usha and Majusha (2006), criterion related validity was found

out. The validity coefficient for responsiveness is .80 and for control subscale is .76. The sample

questions numbers 1 and 2 are: 1. “Does whatever I tell” and 2. “Spends free time with me”.

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS)

A 12-item self-report instrument by Gregory Zimet, Nancy Dahlem, Sara Zimet and

Gordon Farley (1988) is designed to subjective perceptions of social support adequacy coming

from specific groups, namely, family, friends, and significant others. 5-point Likert scale which

is answerable by “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2), “neutral” (3), “agree” (4), and strongly

16
agree (5) have been used for the study. The MSPSS yields a total score of perceived social

support adequacy, and contains the three subscales with four items each which gets the scores of

perceived social support from family, friends, significant others separately. The instrument has

shown satisfactory internal, and test-retest reliability, factorial validity, and construct validity

(Dahlem, Zimet, & Walker, 1991; Zimet;, Dahlem,; 1988; Zimet, Farley, 1988; Zimet, Powell,

Farley, Wekman & Berkoff, 1990). Test retest reliability was .85 for the entire MSPSS scale, .72

for the significant other subscale, .85 for the family, and .75 for the friends, which means it

shows good test retest reliability. The sample questions item 1 and 2 are as follows:

1. “There is a special person who is around when I am in need.”

2. “There is a special person with whom I can share my joys and sorrows.”

General Self-Efficacy Scale

It is a perceived general self-efficacy scale by Jerusalem and Schwarzer (1979) which

consists of 10-item self-report measure that is designed for the assessment of the perceived

general self-efficacy. The GSE is answerable by responding on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging

from 1 = not at all true to 5 = very true. By adding the responses to all ten items, the GSE gets a

total score with a range of 10 to 40. Higher scores on the GSE indicate a higher sense of general

self-efficacy. The GSE is regarded for psychometrically approved research tool since it is used

by a lot of research studies and its Cronbach’s alphas ranges from .75 to .91

The sample questions are as follows: 1. “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try

hard enough”., 2. “If someone opposes me, I can find means and ways to get what I want.”

17
Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers have acquired permission from different colleges and universities for the

conduct of the study by disseminating letter of request signed by the adviser, university deans,

and university presidents proving that researchers are authorized for the administration of the

survey.

The researchers administered the test personally and informed the participants for the

clarity of instructions before the starting period of answering the test questionnaire dated from

August 9 and 22, 2017. They also assured that the responses made will remain its confidentiality

and is used for research purposes only.

Data Analysis and Statistical Treatment

With the aid of Statistical Package for the Social Sciences or SPSS, all data collected by

the test questionnaire will be analyzed furtherly, interpreted and coded through the mean which

is the sum of all scores divided by the number of scores that is used to measure the center of

scores distribution and standard deviation for how near the scores are in the center around the

mean. Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used in getting the relationship between two

variables and regression analysis will be used to test the highest predictor among the parenting

styles.

Ethical Considerations

The researchers maintained and applied its ethical rules in conducting the study, from

acknowledging the authors in the reference section whom actually contributed to make this

research be possible up to the instruments used were properly utilized. The data and results made

by the respondents were used only for the study and will not be available for other purposes.

18
Participants voluntarily answered the questionnaire and were willing to ask questions for

further clarifications. After finishing the test, researchers debriefed the students about the study

and if such concerns would arise, the researchers then assured them that the collected

information will remain its utmost confidentiality.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1.
Mean and Standard Deviation of Perceived Parenting Styles Subscales
Variables N Mean SD Verbal Description

Authoritative 135 3.88 .40 Mostly right

Authoritarian 30 3.21 .22 Sometimes right/wrong

Permissive 31 2.95 .39 Sometimes right/wrong

Uninvolved 5 2.54 .49 Sometimes right/wrong

Table 1 represents descriptive statistics of different perceived parenting styles of college

students. The results shows that authoritative parenting style has the highest mean (M = 3.88, SD

= .40). 135 out of 201 college students fell with/categorized their parents’ way of nurturing their

child as authoritative style.

According to (Kuczynski , 2003) Authoritative parenting style is defined in which

parents’ attitudes towards their children prioritize its needs and abilities while implying its

19
maturity demands. These parents value both autonomy among their children and commands

discipline as well.

Table 2.
Mean and Standard Deviation of Social Support Subscales
Variables N Mean SD Verbal Description

Significant other 201 4.13 .89 Agree

Family 201 3.91 .88 Agree

Friends 201 4.05 .87 Agree

Global score 201 1.84 1.06

Table 2 indicates the descriptive results of social support subscales showing that

significant others has the highest mean (M = 4.13, SD = .89).

Based from the instrument used in social support, the term “significant others” pertains to

a special someone (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet & Farley, 1988).

Table 3.
Mean and Standard Deviation of General Self-Efficacy
Variable N Mean SD Verbal Description

Self-efficacy 201 3.83 .55 Moderately true

20
Table 3 shows the descriptive result of general self efficacy of college students with a

value of (M = 3.83, SD = .55).

It states that self- efficacy refers to beliefs about one’s capabilities to achieve intended

results (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Self-efficacy suggests that human achievement depends on

interactions between one’s behaviors, personal factors (containing beliefs, thoughts, self-

perceptions), and environmental conditions (Schunk & Pajares, 2002) that are believed to

interact in the process of learning, and all factors influenced each other (Woolfolk, 2001).

Table 4.
Correlation of Perceived Parenting Styles Subscales towards Self-Efficacy
Variables r. Sig. Verbal Description

Authoritative -.016 .852 No relationship

Authoritarian -.016 .932 No relationship

Permissive .351 .053* Weak relationship

Uninvolved -.762 .134 Strong negative relationship

* Correlation is significant at 0.05 level

Table 4 indicates that permissive parenting style has weak relationship to self-efficacy

with a value of r. = .351. The results also shows that uninvolved parenting style has strong

negative relationship to self-efficacy with a value of r. = -.762

Permissive parenting is described as parents do not restrict their child/children for social

activity and give them a chance to make decisions based on their interests (Sattler & Hoge,

2006). Additionally, permissive parenting appears to be somehow contributing to positive

academic performance and only little behavioural problems based on the study in Spain (Garcia

21
& Gracia, 2009), which states that it does not guarantee that permissive and uninvolved parents

causes only negative effects on the child.

Table 5.
Correlation of Social Support Subscales towards Self-Efficacy
Variables r. Sig. Verbal Description

Significant others .327 .000* Moderate relationship

Family .397 .000* Moderate relationship

Friends .385 .000* Moderate relationship

* Correlation is significant at 0.05 level

Table 5 shows all social support subscales (significant others, family and friends) have

relationship towards self-efficacy with a value of r = .327 for significant others, r = .397 for

family and r = .385 for friends.

It is believed that social persuasion and role models are factors in contributing people’s

beliefs that they have the capability to succeed, wherein it is also widely known that initial

efficacy experiences are critical in the family. However as the child grows, it is believed that

social world and peers become increasingly important for the child’s development (Bandura,

1994).

Table 6.
Regression Analysis of Social Support Subscales towards Self-Efficacy
Variables B β r. t Sig.

22
Significant others -.059 -.096 .327 -.742 .459

Family .167 .268 .397 2.618 .010

Friends .166 .264 .385 1.974 .050

Table 6 shows that family and friends are both significant and predictors of self-efficacy with a

value of Sig. = .010 for “family” and Sig. = .050 for “friends”

Interpersonal relationship and interactions with parents and primary caregivers are

undoubtedly contributing to the development of one’s identity (Bandura, 1997), the quality of

parent-child relationship is essential for the self-efficacy of the child (Burke, 2005).

The present study uses a quantitative method to gather information from the selected

educational college students from Baliuag Polytechnic College, Bulacan State University, and

Baliuag University. This method was used to determine if the perceived parenting styles

(authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and uninvolved) have a relationship towards college

students’ self-efficacy. This study also aims to know if social support (significant others, friends,

and family) predicts the self-efficacy of college students.

According to the descriptive results, out of the four parenting styles, authoritative has the

highest mean. A total of 135 out of 201 participants have an authoritative parent. This type of

parenting was determined by the study of Kuczynski (2003) where authoritative parents

prioritize the child’s needs and abilities while implying its maturity demands. Authoritative

parents are more supportive than punitive.

The descriptive statistic results for social support subscales (significant others, friends,

and family) shows that the significant others (special someone) has the highest mean.

23
For the descriptive statistics of general self-efficacy the result revealed its mean (M=3.83,

SD=.55). Significant others were described as special persons (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet & Farley,

1988) and may be considered as a partner, anyone with close contact with the participants. Self-

efficacy is described appropriately as someone who has belief in his/her capability to achieve

desired results (Bandura, 1986, 1997).

Meanwhile, the results for correlating the perceived parenting styles and self-efficacy,

with the use of Pearson Product Moment Correlation, the only parenting style that has a positive

relationship with self-efficacy is permissive parenting style, which means that indulging a child

may have a positive side in it, where they have the freedom to make decision for themselves,

while uninvolved parenting has a negative high relationship, meaning that having uninvolved

parents may not totally be considered as unhealthy for the child.

In determining which social support subscales were significant, 2 out of 3 subscales

predict self-efficacy – family and friends both predict self-efficacy of college education students.

It is stated that self-efficacy started in the family as they are considered as the first mentor of

their own children. (Pajares, 2002). And according to Bandura (1994), as the child grows, it is

believed that social world has importance for the child’s development.

24
CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study aimed to determine if perceived parenting styles and social support has a

significant relationship towards college student’s self-efficacy and if there is significant

relationship which among the perceived parenting styles and social support subscales correlates

self- efficacy.

Based on the results, most of the participants fall under Authoritative parenting style and

Uninvolved parenting style is the least one, among the four parenting styles namely as

Authoritarian, Authoritative, Permissive and later added, the Uninvolved, the Permissive

parenting style which is high in responsiveness and low in demandingness is the only parenting

style that has significant positive relationship towards self-efficacy however it has a weak

relationship, on the other hand Uninvolved parenting style which is both low in responsiveness

and demandingness or simply, the parents do not care about his/her child has a strong negative

relationship to college student’s self- efficacy, it only means that if the child was neglected by

the parents it implies high self-efficacy, while the two remaining parenting style which are

Authoritarian and Authoritative have no significant relationship towards college student’s self-

efficacy. The results also shows that all the social support coming from their significant others,

25
family and friends have a significant relationship towards their self- efficacy, meanwhile family

and friends predict their self-efficacy and the social support coming from the family is the

highest predictor of self-efficacy , meaning having a social support from them may arise self-

efficacy. The researcher conclude that, if a child fall under Uninvolved parenting style his/her

self-efficacy arises even though they were neglected or rejected by their parents as well as when

a child experienced indulgent parenting style, it may also strengthens self-efficacy and social

support as a big part in building self efficacy.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the future researchers use or explore participants not just college

students but to utilize the junior and senior high school students as well and maximize the

number of participants. The researchers recommend to use other variables that may predict self-

efficacy. It will be better for the future researchers to specify the people who belong to

significant others. It is highly recommended that this study be conducted to other

universities/schools/colleges to get more diverse findings. A clear explanation of the procedure

in the questionnaire is a must for the future researchers in order for them to avoid errors when

encoding and to get a better and accurate results. The instrument used in this study is complex,

hence, it will be better for the future researches to utilize other instrument possible for this study.

26
References:

Abdollahi, A., Talib, M., & Motalebi, S. (2013). Perceived parenting styles and emotional

Intelligence among Iranian boy students. Asian Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities,

2 (3), 461.

Akhtar, Z. (2012). The effect of parenting style of parents on the attachment styles of

undergraduate students. www.languageinindia.com.

Aunola, K., Stattin, H., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents’ achievement

strategies. Journal of Adolescence, 23 (2), 205–222.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychology

Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human

behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H.

Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. Harvard Mental Health Letter, 13 (9), 4-6.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of

self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206-1222.

27
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Baumrind, D. (2005). Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Directions

for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 61–69.

Baumrind, D. (2012). Differentiating between confrontive and coercive kinds of parental

power-assertive disciplinary practices. Human Development, 55, 35-51. doi:

10.1159/000337962

Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Owens, E. B. (2010). Effects of preschool parents' power

assertive patterns and practices on adolescent development. Parenting: Science and

Practice, 10, 157-201. doi:10.1080/15295190903290790

Baumrind, D. (2013). Authoritative parenting revisited: History and current status. In R. E.

Larzelere, A. S. Morris, & A. W. Harrist (Eds.) Authoritative parenting: Synthesizing

nurturance and discipline for optimal child development (pp. 11-34). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association Press. doi:10.1037/13948-002

Burke, M. (2005). Familial influence on self-efficacy: Exploring the relationship between

perceived parenting style, current social support, and self-efficacy beliefs in a sample of

non-traditional college students. Retrieved from

http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/ER/detail/hkul/3841071

Bush, K. R., & Peterson, G. W. (2007). Family influences on child development. In

T. P. Gullotta & G. M. Ramos (Eds.). Handbook of childhood behavioural issues:

Evidence-based approaches to prevention and treatment (pp. 43-68). New York:

Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Cavanaugh, J. C. (1998). Friendships and social networks among older people. In I. H. Nordhus,

and G. R. VandenBos (Eds.), Clinical geropsychology (pp. 137-140). Washington, DC:

28
American Psychological Association.

Crain, W. (2005). Theories of development: Concepts and applications (5th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, G. D., & Walker, R. R. (1991). The multidimensional scale of perceived

social support: A confirmation study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47 (6), 756- 761.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.

Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487

Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle; Selected papers, with a historical introduction

by David Rapaport. New York: International University Press.

Feldman, P. J., & Cohen, S. (2000). Social support. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

psychology, Vol. 7 (pp. 373-376). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Four Parenting Styles – Characteristics and Effects. Retrieved from

https://www.parentingforbrain.com/4-baumrind-parenting-styles/

García F and Gracia E. (2009). Is always authoritative the optimum parenting style? Evidence

from Spanish families. Adolescence. 44(173):101-31.

Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K., & Lewis, F.M. (2002). Health behavior and health education. Theory,

research, and practice.San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons.

Hill, N. E., Bromell, L., Tyson, D. F., & Flint, R. (2007). Developmental commentary:

Ecological perspectives on parental influences during adolescence. Journal of

Clinical and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 367–377.

Hoare, C. H. (2002). Erikson on development in adulthood: New insights from the unpublished

papers. New York: Oxford University Press.

29
Hoeve, M., Dubas, J.S., Eichelsheim, V.I., Van der Laan, P.H., Smeenk, W. & Gerris, J.R.

(2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency. J. Abnormal. Child

Psychology, 37, 749–775.

Hoskins, D. (2014). Consequences of parenting on adolescent outcomes. Societies, 4, 506–531;

doi:10.3390/soc4030506

Kuczynski, L. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook of dynamics in parent-child interactions. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage.

Mcleod, B. S. (2009). Attachment Theory.

Mooney, C. G. (2010). An Introduction to Bowlby, Ainsworth, Gerber, Brazelton, Kennell, and

Klaus. 10 Yorkton Court: Readleaf Press.

Muretta, R., Jr. (2004). Exploring the four sources of self-efficacy. Retrieved from

https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/EffMuretta.pdf

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational

Research, 66, 543-578.

Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved April 15,

2005 from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html.

Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Self and self-belief in psychology and education: A

historical perspective. In J. Aronson & D. Cordova (Eds.), Psychology of education:

Personal and interpersonal forces (pp. 1-19). New York: Academic Press.

Quimby, J. L., & O’Biren, K. M. (2004). Predictors of student and career decision-making

selfefficacy among nontraditional college women. The Career Development Quarterly,

52, 323-339.

Reitman, D., Rhode, P., Hupp, S. D. A., & Altobello, C. (2002). Development and Validation of

30
The Parental Authority Questionnaire - Revised. Journal of Psychopathology and

Behavioral Assessment, 24, 119-127.

Salkind, N. J. (2004). An introduction to theories of human development. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Sattler, J. M., & Hoge, R. D. (2006). Assessment of children: Behavioral, social and clinical

foundations. La Mesa, CA: Publisher Inc.

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A. Wigfield

& J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation. San Diego, CA: Academic

Press.

Significant other (n.d.) In Merriam-Webster’s dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/significant%20other

Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles and

adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17 (2), 125-

146. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-3950-1

St Jean Trudel, E., Guay, S. & Marchand, A. (2009). The relationship between social support,

psychological stress and the risk of developing anxiety disorders in men and women;

results of a national study. Can J Public Health; 100: 148-152.

Turner, E. A., Chandler, M. and Heffer, R. W. (2009). Influence of parenting styles, achievement

motivation, and self-efficacy on academic performance in college students. Journal of

College Student Development, 50 (3), 337-346.

Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational psychology (8th Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: A Pearson

Education Company.

31
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale

of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Asessment, 52 (1), 30-41

Zimet, G. D., Powell, S. S., Farley, G. K., Werkman, S., & Berkoff, K. A. (1990). Psychometric

characteristics of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 55 (3&4), 610-617.

32
APPENDICES

Appendix I:

Measures / Instruments

33
Dear Respondent,

Good day!

We, the Fourth Year students taking Bachelor of Science major in Psychology of Baliuag
University, will be conducting a study entitled: “Make Your Parents Proud: The Relationship
of Perceived Parenting Style and Social Support to College Student’s Self Efficacy” as a
requirements to our course.

The researchers are asking for your full cooperation by answering the following questions
honestly. All responses have made will remain confidential and results will be used for research
purposes only.

This questionnaire has been designed according to what information is being needed to the study.
The following questions are answerable based from your own experiences. Therefore, there are
no right or wrong answers.

Name: Gender:

Course and Year: Age:

I. Perceived Parenting Style Scale

The following statements are based on different parenting styles. Kindly put a check () which
styles you think were applicable to your own experiences with parents.

5 – Very right

4 – Mostly right

3 – Sometimes right, sometimes wrong

2 – Mostly wrong

1 – Very wrong

Statement Mother Father

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Eg: Enquires about my

 
matters with teachers

34
1. Does whatever I
tell.
2. Points out my
mistakes in the matter
that I understand.
3. Discusses the
benefits and
detriments of my
learning topics.
4. Controls my game
when in excess.
5. Enquires the reason
for my failure.
6. Confers
responsibilities in
accordance with my
growth.
7. Enquires the
reasons for reaching
home late.
8. Takes care of my
dressing.
9. Makes me aware
that the responsibility
of what I do is mine
itself.
10. Tells how I should
behave with their
friends.
11. Tries to frame my
likes and dislikes.
12. Punishes for my
mistakes.
13. Enquires who my
friends are.
14. Organizes time for
my play.
15. Demands me to be
systematic in studies.

16. Advices me.

35
17. Discourages
unhealthy foods.
18. Inquires how I
spend money.
19. Enquires how I
spend my free time.
20. Spends free time
with me.

21. Gives money for

my needs.

22. Considers my likes

in food.

23. Shows love to me.

24. Helps me in
studying.

25. Has faith in me.

26. Accepts my
privacy.

27. Fulfils my desires

with available means.

28. Accepts when I

say no to what I
dislike.

29. Talks to me
praising about their
friends.

30. Appreciates when

I try to become
independent.

31. Shows love when I

do mistake.

32. Has given me

36
freedom to select the
subject for study.

33. Gives priorities to

my preferences in
studies.

34. Emphasizes my
successes.

35. Celebrates in my
successes with me.
36. Gets anxious when
I am late to reach
home.
37. Buy dresses for me
according to the latest
trends.
38. Gives me timely
advices.

II. Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support

Each statement requires you to put a check () on the box that tells about you think you received
social support, whether it may come from your family, friends or significant others.

5 – Strongly agree

4 – Agree

3 – Neutral

2 – Disagree

1 – Strongly disagree

Statement 1 2 3 4 5
1. There is a special person who is around when I
am in need.
2. There is a special person with whom I can I
share my joys and sorrows.
3. I have a special person who is a real source of
comfort to me.

37
4. There is a special person in my life that cares
about my feelings.
5. My family really tries to help me.

6. I get the emotional help and support I need from

my family.

7. I can talk about my problems with my family.

8. My family is willing to help me make decisions.

9. My friends really try to help me.

10. I can count on my friends when things go

wrong.

11. I have friends with whom I can share my joys

and sorrows.

12. I can talk about my problems with my friends.

III. General Self-Efficacy Scale

The last part of the test also requires you to put a check () on the box that is based on your own
capacity on how well do you deal with different situations.

5 – Exactly true

4 – Moderately true

3 – Neutral

2 – Barely true

1 – Not at all

Statement 1 2 3 4 5
1. I can always manage to solve difficult
problems if I try hard enough.
2. If someone opposes me, I can find means and
ways to get what I want.

38
3. I am certain that I can accomplish my goals.

4. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with

unexpected events.
5. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I can handle
unforeseen situations.
6. I can solve most problems if I invest the
necessary effort.
7. I can remain calm when facing difficulties
because I can rely on my coping abilities.
8. When I am confronted with a problem, I can
usually find several solutions.
9. If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a good
solution.

10. I can handle whatever comes my way.

39
Appendix II

Permission Letter

40
41
42
43
44
45
ELAIZA CLARISSE G. SANTOS

1526 Aldama St. Sta. Barbara, Baliwag, Bulacan

09752842327

[email protected]

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Age : 21

Date of Birth : June 27, 1996

Place of Birth : Baliwag, Bulacan

Civil Status : Single

Citizenship : Filipino

Religion : Roman Catholic

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT:

Tertiary:

Baliuag University (2017-2018)

Secondary:

Marian College (2013-2014)

Primary:

Marian College (2009-2010)

46
LEIRY ANN D. RAPANAN

Sampaguita St. Sulivan, Baliuag, Bulacan

09436804071

[email protected]

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Age : 19

Date of Birth : May12, 1998

Place of Birth : Baliuag, Bulacan

Civil Status : Single

Citizenship : Filipino

Religion : Iglesia Ni Cristo

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Tertiary:

Baliuag University (2017-2018)

Secondary:

Baliuag University (2013-2014)

Primary:

Virgen Delas Flores Elementary School (2009-2010)

47
ELIZABETH A ALCANTARA

#057 San Agustin, San Rafael, Bulacan

09209740266

[email protected]

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Age : 19

Date of Birth : December 31, 1997

Place of Birth : San Rafael, Bulacan

Civil Status : Single

Citizenship : Filipino

Religion : Roman Catholic

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Tertiary:

Baliuag University (2017-2018)

Secondary:

Carlos F. Gonzalez High School (2013-2014)

Primary:

Maguinao Elementary School (2009- 2010)

48