The Influence of Parenting Styles, Achievement Motivation, and

Self-Efficacy on Academic Performance in College Students

Erlanger A. Turner
Megan Chandler
Robert W. Heffer

Journal of College Student Development, Volume 50, Number

3, May/June 2009, pp. 337-346 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/csd/summary/v050/50.3.turner.html

Access Provided by University of Rochester at 12/14/11 3:48PM GMT

The Influence of Parenting Styles,
Achievement Motivation, and Self-Efficacy on
Academic Performance in College Students
Erlanger A. Turner   Megan Chandler   Robert W. Heffer

Parenting styles have consistently been shown to construct delineated by Baumrind (1966,
relate to various outcomes such as youth psycho­ 1967). Baumrind (1966) has identified three
pathology, behavior problems, and aca­demic parenting styles: authoritative, permissive,
performance. Building on the research in the and authoritarian. Authoritative parenting
parenting style literature, along with examining is characterized by high levels of nurturance,
components of self-determination theory, the pre­sent involvement, sensitivity, reasoning, and encour­
study examined the relations among authoritative agement of autonomy. Parents who direct
parenting style, academic per­formance, self-efficacy, the activities and decisions for their children
and achievement motiva­tion using a sample of through reasoning and discipline would
college students (N = 264). Results indicated that be described as authoritative. Conversely,
authoritative parenting continues to influence the permissive parenting is characterized by making
academic performance of college students, and both few demands, exhibiting noncontrolling
intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy predicted behaviors, and using minimal punishment. For
academic performance. Additionally, the study example, parents who do not establish rules and
tested the interaction between self-efficacy and guidelines for their child’s behavior would be
authoritative parenting, but the interaction was described as possessing a permissive parenting
not significant. Implications for future research style. Authoritarian parenting tends to fall
and applications are discussed. at the other end of the continuum. Parents
characterized as authoritarian exhibit highly
Parenting styles and techniques have con­sis­tently directive behaviors, high levels of restriction
been shown to relate to various outcomes such as and rejection behaviors, and power-asserting
child psychological problems (e.g., aggression) behaviors. These parents tend to have a
and academic performance (Baumrind, 1967, philosophy that “it’s my way or the highway.”
1991; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, A plethora of research exists building on
& Fraleigh, 1987; Querido, Warner, & Eyberg, the work of Baumrind (1966; e.g., Baumrind,
2002). Several conceptualizations of parenting 1991; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Querido et al.,
styles or characteristics have been delineated. 2002; Strage & Brandt, 1999). In general,
Most have focused on quantities and qualities an authoritative parenting style emphasizing
of warmth, responsiveness, and control in both responsiveness and demandingness
the parenting repertoire (e.g., Coolahan, appears superior in fostering higher academic
McWayne, & Fantuzzo, 2002). The majority performance (Reitman, Rhode, Hupp, &
of published studies on parenting styles have Altobello, 2002). Parenting styles and academic
used some variation of the parenting style performance have been studied primarily in

Erlanger A. Turner is a doctoral student of Psychology at Texas A&M University. Megan Chandler is a doctoral
student of Psychology at The University of Akron. Robert W. Heffer is a Clinical Associate Professor of Psychology at
Texas A&M University.

M ay/June 2009  ◆  vol 50 no 3 337

 Turner, Chandler, & Heffer

children and adolescents. In several studies per­for­mance than do their counterparts (Peng
(e.g., Baumrind, 1991; Baumrind & Black, & Wright, 1994). Some have stated that Asian
1967), Baumrind has reported on the positive American parents view “parental control” as
associations between authoritative parenting a more organizational type of control that
style and academic performance. For example, fosters smooth family functioning and harmony
Baumrind (1991) found that children (ages 4-15 (Chao, 2001). Although the effects of parenting
years old) of parents who were characterized as styles have been shown to be inconsistent across
authoritative were the most motivated, the most ethnic groups, research has generally found a
competent, and the most achievement oriented. positive relationship between authoritative
In addition, Baumrind and Black (1967) found parenting and academic performance (e.g.,
that authoritative parenting was positively Baumrind, 1991, Ingoldby, Schvaneveldt,
associated with academic performance; and Supple, & Bush, 2003).
authoritarian and permissive parenting was Over the past few years, the relationship
negatively associated with grades. between parenting characteristics and academic
This relation between authoritative par­ performance has been examined in college
ent­ing style and academic performance in students, but inconsistent results have been
children has been found across ethnic groups. found. Strage and Brandt (1999) examined
However, some research has shown that this the role of parenting styles in the lives of
relation does not exist for Hispanic Americans college students and found that previous
and African Americans (e.g., Dornbusch parenting behaviors continue to be important
et al., 1987; Park & Bauer, 2002). Further in the lives of college students as with children
examination across ethnic groups have found and adolescents. They found that the more
that among African Americans, parenting autonomy, demand, and support parents
style was not a significant predictor of grades provided, the more students were confident
(Dornbusch, Ritter, & Steinberg, 1991). In and persistent academically. In other words,
one study using a sample of African American authoritative parenting was found to continue
adolescents (11-19 years old), Attaway and having an influence on students’ academic
Hafer-Bry (2004) found that parental beliefs performance. Conversely, researchers have
in high degrees of control predicted lower found that parenting styles and college stu­dents’
grades, but parental beliefs in responsiveness grade point average (GPA) are not related (Joshi,
did not contribute to adolescents’ grades. Ferris, Otto, & Regan, 2003). For the complete
Regarding associations between parenting style sample no significant relation was found, but
and Asian Americans, parenting styles may results in a sub-sample of European American
not have the same influence as generally seen students found a significant correlation between
in other ethnic/racial groups. Asian American academic performance (i.e., GPA) and parental
parents are often described as “controlling” or (i.e., mother and father) strictness and paternal
“authoritarian,” and these parenting behaviors involvement. However, the method in which
have typically been found to predict poor the study measured parenting styles was not
academic achievement (e.g., Attaway & Hafer- consistent with Baumrind’s (1966) prototypes,
Bry; Baumrind & Black, 1967; Chao, 1994). and this may have resulted in methodological
Given these findings one would expect Asian limitations.
American children to be less academically In conjunction with the effects of authori­
successful, but that is often not the case. Asian tative parenting on academic performance,
Americans generally show better academic students’ motivation and self-efficacy may

338 Journal of College Student Development

Parenting Styles and Academic Performance

also contribute to academic success. Self- the actions and success of individuals in many
determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, different areas, including overcoming fears,
1985) posits that intrinsic versus extrinsic success in the workplace, hard life transitions,
goal pursuits have positive effects on well- and academic performance (Bandura, 1986;
being (e.g., psychological health) and learning. Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001). Researchers
SDT delineates three types of motivation: have recently broadened their study of academic
(a) intrinsic motivation—doing an activity for self-efficacy to include the study of college
itself and the pleasure and satisfaction derived students. Pajares (1996) found academic
from participating; (b) extrinsic motivation— self-efficacy to be strongly associated with
performing an activity as a means to an end, academic performance in college students,
to satisfy an external demand, or reward with positive correlations ranging from r = .49
contingency; and (c) amotivation—being to r = .71. Chemers et al. have also found that
neither intrinsically nor extrinsically motivated academic self-efficacy is a significant predictor
to perform an activity. The SDT framework was of academic performance and expectations.
selected because it focuses on the interpersonal Additionally, researchers have found that as
environment and the effects of that environ­ students’ academic expectations and self-
ment on autonomous and controlled motiva­ efficacy increase, they are more likely to show
tion. Specifically, social contexts (e.g., home higher academic performance (Chemers et al.).
environment) are characterized in terms of Although research has not found a direct link
the degree to which they are autonomy- between parenting styles and self-efficacy per
supportive or “authoritative” versus controlling se, studies have shown that an authoritative
or “authoritarian,” with research confirming parenting style in a parent-child relationship
that autonomy-supportive contexts enhance predicts a child’s sense of mastery (i.e., belief
autonomous motivation whereas controlling in controlling one’s environment) early in life
contexts diminish autonomous motivation (Turner & Johnson, 2003).
and enhance controlled motivation (e.g., In the present study, the relations among
Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994). parenting style, academic performance, self-
Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, and efficacy, and achievement motivation were
Deci (2004) have noted that engaging in learn­ examined in a sample of college students.
ing behaviors with an intrinsic goal resulted in Building on the research of Baumrind and
academic success and better test performance others (e.g., Baumrind, 1991; Baumrind
than engaging in behaviors with an extrinsic & Black, 1967; Joshi et al., 2003; Strage
goal. Studies have also found that college & Brandt, 1999), along with examining
students’ GPA and self-efficacy in performing components of SDT, the following hypotheses
academically were positively related (e.g., Strage were examined: (a) authoritative parenting
& Brandt, 1999). will be a significant predictor of academic
A family environment created by a parti­ performance, (b) intrinsic motivation will be
cular parenting style may also influence one’s a significant predictor of academic perfor­
general sense of self-efficacy. Self-effi­cacy has mance, (c) authoritative parenting and self-
been defined as the belief in one’s capabilities to efficacy will be a significant predictor of
organize and execute courses of action required academic performance, and (d) whether there
to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997). is an interaction between self-efficacy and
Self-efficacy has been shown to be influential in authoritative parenting.

M ay/June 2009  ◆  vol 50 no 3 339

 Turner, Chandler, & Heffer

Table 1. Method
Sample Demographic Characteristics Participants
(N = 264)
Participants in the current study were 264
Variable n %
undergraduate students enrolled in psychology
Ethnicity courses at a major university in the southwestern
  European American 179 67.8 United States. The sample reflected the
  Hispanic American 48 18.2 ethnic composition of the campus, composed
  Asian American 14 5.3 primarily of European Americans (n = 179,
  African American 13 4.9 67.8%), African Americans (n = 13, 4.9%),
 Biracial 7 2.7 Hispanic Americans (n = 48, 18.2%), Asian
 Other 3 1.1 Americans (n = 14, 5.3%), self-identified as
biracial (n = 7, 2.7%), and self-identified as
Gender
“Other” (n = 3, 1.1%). Slightly less than two-
  Male 92 34.8 thirds (n = 172, 65.2%) of participants were
  Female 172 65.2 female. Sixty-eight percent (n = 179) of the
Year in College sample were freshman, with the next highest
  Freshman 179 67.8 percentage being sophomores (n = 36, 13.6%),
  Sophomore 36 13.6 followed by juniors (n = 25, 9.5%) and seniors
  Junior 25 9.5 (n = 24, 9.1%). The majority (n = 206;
  Senior 15 5.7 78.4%) of participants reported being raised in
 Other 9 3.4 a two-parent home. See Table 1 for additional
demographic information.
Raised in a Two-Parent Home
  Yes 206 78.0 Procedure
  No 58 22.0 Researchers recruited participants from
Mother’s Education Level under­graduate psychology courses. Students
  Some High School 6 2.3 voluntarily signed up to participate online
  High School Graduate 43 16.3 using the psychology department’s website and
  Some College/Tech School 59 22.3 received course credit for their participation.
  Associates Degree 22 8.3 Following informed consent, participants
 Bachelors Degree 81 30.7 completed the study measures. Measures
  Masters Degree 36 13.6
were counter-balanced, with the demographic
 Doctoral Degree 10 3.8
questionnaire always administered first. Data
were collected in group administrations with
Father’s Education Level approximately 10-30 participants per session.
  Some High School 18 6.8 The duration of each student’s participation
  High School Graduate 32 12.1 was approximately 30-60 minutes.
  Some College/Tech School 45 17.0
  Associate’s Degree 16 6.1 Measures
 Bachelor’s Degree 82 31.1 Demographic Variables. A demographic
  Master’s Degree 49 18.6 questionnaire was used to gather data on the
 Doctoral Degree 15 5.7 participants’ gender, age, ethnicity, year in
school, study skills habits, GPA, and parenting

340 Journal of College Student Development

Parenting Styles and Academic Performance

variables (e.g., level of education, parents in (to do something in order to experience

the household, general influence of parents, stimulating sensations). The three types of EM
educational influence of parents). described include: external regulation (to do
Parenting Style. The Parental Authority something because of rewards or constraints),
Questionnaire (PAQ; Buri, 1991) was used introjected regulation (to do something
to measure Baumrind’s (1966) permissive, because one forces him or herself to do it),
authoritarian, and authoritative parenting and identified regulation (to do something
styles. The scale consists of 30 items, and each because one has decided to do it although it
item was scored on a Likert-type scale from is not enjoyed). Conversely, amotivation is
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The described as being neither instrinsically nor
measure was slightly adapted to be applicable extrinsically motivated. These individuals
to participants of either a single- or two- are described as perceiving their behavior as
parent home. The original measure consists being controlled by things out of their own
of sepa­r ate measures for both fathers and control. For the current study, the IM–to
mothers. In the current study, participants know and IM–to accomplish subscales were
self-identified about which parent they would combined to create a mean score. Additionally,
complete the measure. Scores on the PAQ the amotivation and external regulation (i.e.,
range from 10 to 50 with higher scores extrinsic motivation) scales were used in study
indicating a greater level of the parenting analyses. Internal consistency for the AMS–C
style prototype measured. The reliability in the current study suggests good reliability
coefficients for the current study suggest for the individual scales with alpha coefficients
good reliability for the three PAQ subscales as ranging from .77 to .92.
follows: authoritarian (α = .87), authoritative Self-Efficacy and Study Skills. The Self-
(α = .81), and permissive (α = .76), similar Efficacy and Study Skills Questionnaire
to the original measure which ranged from (SESS) was used to measure students’ beliefs
α = .74 to α = .87 (Buri). in their abilities to complete academic tasks
Academic Motivation. The Academic (e.g., how well can you motivate yourself
Motivation Scale–College Version (AMS–C; to do your assignments; how well can you
Vallerand et al., 1992) was used to measure remember information presented in class). The
students’ motivation toward education. The SESS was developed by Gredler and Garavalia
scale is composed of seven subscales measuring (1997, cited in Watson & Tharp, 2002). The
three types of intrinsic motivation (IM), SESS consists of 32 items rated on a Likert-
three types of extrinsic motivation (EM), and type scale from 1 (not well at all) to 5 (very
amovitation (see Vallerand et al. for a complete well) with scores ranging from 32 to 160.
description). The measure consists of 28 items, Higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy.
with each item scored on a scale from 1 (not Internal consistency for the SESS scale in the
correspond) to 7 (corresponds exactly). The current study was α = .80, indicating good
three types of intrinsic motivation described reliability.
include: IM–to know (to do something for the Academic Performance. For the current
satisfaction experienced while learning), IM–to study, academic performance was measured
accomplish (to do something for the pleasure using each student’s self-reported GPA.
experienced while trying to accomplish The mean GPA for participants was 2.91
things), and IM–to experience stimulation (SD = .62), ranging from 1.33 to 4.0.

M ay/June 2009  ◆  vol 50 no 3 341

 Turner, Chandler, & Heffer

Table 2. entered first to control for variance related to

Descriptive Statistics for those variables. This method was used because
Study Variables (N = 264) the sample was slightly biased towards females
and European Americans as noted in Table 1.
Variable M SD
Age 19.27 1.51 Bivariate Correlations for Study
Measures
Year in College 1.63 1.08
GPA 2.91 0.62 Pearson correlations were conducted to
determine the relations among parenting
Number of Credits 14.02 2.95
styles, achievement motivation, academic
Hours Study per Week 13.14 9.56 self-efficacy, and academic performance.
Correlations were also conducted for other
Results important study variables. See Table 3 for
correlations of major study variables.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were examined to allow Authoritative Parenting, Motivation,
for the appropriate interpretations of the
and Self-Efficacy as Predictors of
Academic Performance
distribution and analyses. See Table 2 for
descriptive statistics. For all inferential statistics, Several questions were examined to test the
the alpha level was .05. Linear regression relations among the study variables. First, we
analyses were conducted to examine the examined whether authoritative parenting
relations between study variables. For all style would predict academic performance.
regression analyses, gender and ethnicity were Regression analyses indicated that authoritative

Table 3.
Bivariate Correlations for Major Study Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. GPA — –.07 .13* –.03 .07 –.18** .12 .25** .16** .28** .25**
2. AT — –.37** –.53** .07 .01 –.04 .02 .01 –.04 –.12
3. ATT — .12 .13* –.10 .17** .16** .07 .18** .21**
4. PER — –.08 .09 –.08 –.13* –.05 –.03 –.12
5. EM — –.52** .46** .35** .21** –.03 .08
6. AM — –.34** –.38** –.18** –.01 –.13*
7. IM — .46** .25** –.06 .02
8. SE — .31** .09 .21**
9. STU — –.11 .08
10. MEd — .57**
11. FEd —

Note. GPA = academic performance, AT = authoritarian, ATT = authoritative, PER = permissive, EM = extrinsic

motivation, AM = amotivation, IM = intrinsic motivation, SE = self–efficacy, STU = study time (in hours),
MEd = mother’s education, FEd = father’s education.
*p < .05.  **p < .01.

342 Journal of College Student Development

Parenting Styles and Academic Performance

parenting significantly predicted students’ and the interaction term (self-efficacy ×

academic performance, F = 3.26, p = .022, authoritative parenting) was significant,
R 2  = .037, β = .127. Second, to test the F = 6.88, p < .001, R 2  = .074. However,
hypothesis that intrinsic motivation would academic self-efficacy was the only significant
predict academic performance, regression predictor in this model, β = .24, t(3) = 3.98,
analyses were conducted. Results indicated that p < .001. See Table 4 for regression analyses.
intrinsic motivation was a significant predictor
of academic performance, F = 2.93, p = .034, Discussion and Conclusion
R 2 = .033, β = .094. Finally, authoritative
parenting style and academic self-efficacy, The results of the current study corroborate
serving together in a model, were found the findings of previous research (e.g., Strage
to be significant predictors of academic & Brandt, 1991) concluding that parenting
performance, F = 5.53, p < .001, R2 = .080. characteristics such as supportiveness and
However, academic self-efficacy was the only warmth continue to play an important role in
significant predictor in this model, β = .24, influencing a student’s academic performance
t(3) = 3.47, p = .001. even after entering college. However, it should
As mentioned above, regression analyses be noted that in the current study females,
indicated that both authoritative parenting European Americans, and first-year college
and academic self-efficacy were significant stu­d ents were overrepresented compared
predictors of academic performance. Given that to males, non-European Americans, and
both self-efficacy and authoritative parenting students beyond the first year. The current
individually predicted academic performance, study found that authoritative parenting style
we also examined the interaction between significantly predicted academic performance,
those variable. Results indicated that the model and no relation was found for permissive
including self-efficacy, authoritative parenting, and authoritarian parenting styles. Findings

Table 4.
Regression Analysis for Predictors of Academic Performance
Variable(s) F p R2 β

Model 1
  ATT 3.26 < .05 .037 .127
Model 2
  IM 2.93 < .05 .033 .094
Model 3 5.53 < .001 .080
  ATT — — — ns
  SE — — — .240
Model 4 6.88 < .001 .074
  ATT — — — ns
  SE — — — .240
  ATT × SE — — — ns

Note. ATT = authoritative, IM = intrinsic motivation, SE = self-efficacy, ns = not significant.

M ay/June 2009  ◆  vol 50 no 3 343

 Turner, Chandler, & Heffer

also supported previous research based on Based on the relation between authoritative
SDT, which posits the relation between parenting, intrinsic motivation, and academic
students being intrinsically motivated and performance, the results of the current study
academically successful. Although intrinsic could be applied to educational program
motivation significantly predicted participants’ development to improve the academic success
academic performance, amotivation (i.e., lack of students. For example, one application
of motivation) was also negatively associated could be promoting parenting programs that
students’ performance. encourage home environments of warmth
Report of higher academic self-efficacy and autonomy throughout adolescence to
was, as hypothesized, significantly correlated help students be more academically successful
with report of GPA. This supports the idea that throughout their education. This would
the more a student believes she/he is capable enable students to develop skills that an
of achieving in her/his academic studies, authoritative home environment imparts, such
the more likely she/he is to actually succeed as elements of mastery and persistence, which
academically. This may prove to be a cycle of are important for success in college (Strage
ever-improving performance in that the more & Brandt, 1999). Although these strategies
a student succeeds, the more confident he/ may particularly benefit young children and
she will become of succeeding in the future. teenagers, alternative methods to increase
Also, the current study found that reports motivation and self-efficacy may also be
of longer amounts of time spent each week implemented at the college level. For example,
studying significantly correlated with academic college administrators could play a role by
self-efficacy. Of course when students study encouraging students to enroll in study skills
more, they are more likely to be confident in enhancement courses during their first year of
their knowledge of the material, which may college. This may improve their motivation
also increase their academic success. However, and self-efficacy, which may promote academic
when students spend little time studying, they success. Some researchers have suggested that,
are more likely to doubt their grasp of the in order to enhance students’ motivation for
material. learning, it is useful to point out the relevance
The results of this study demonstrate that of the learning material, especially in cases in
parental influence plays an important role in which students have low spontaneous interest
young adults’ academic performance even in the material (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci
during a time of transition to life away from 2006). Considering difficulties associated with
home. Although university students venture out first generation students entering college, this
on their own, previous experiences with their could especially benefit those students.
parents seem to continue to affect the students’
success in college. For example, students Limitations
who viewed that their parents encouraged Although the present study supported several
their development of communication skills findings relating authoritative parenting,
and autonomy while providing a set of intrinsic motivation, and academic perfor­
boundaries to work within (i.e., authoritative mance, some caveats exist regarding the
parenting style) were predicted to have interpretation of these results. First, the
better academic success. These students not majority of participants were raised in a two-
only tended to report higher GPAs, but also parent household, and their parents were
tended to have a higher academic self-efficacy. highly educated. These characteristics, such as

344 Journal of College Student Development

Parenting Styles and Academic Performance

having a parent with a college education, may intrinsic motivation and academic self-efficacy
have influenced how these students performed moderates the relation between authoritative
academically and how they were motivated parenting and academic performance should be
to succeed. Second, the participants in the tested with samples of ethnic minority students
current study consisted mostly of European (e.g., African American, Hispanic American,
American students, and these results may not Asian Americans). Hall and Bracken (1996)
generalize to other ethnic groups. Some studies found different parenting style trends between
have found that authoritative parenting style European Americans and African Americans.
is associated with academic performance in In their study, students completed the PAQ to
minority students (e.g., Attaway & Hafer- report perceptions of their mothers’ parenting
Bry, 2004, Taylor, Hinton, & Wilson, 1995), styles, and 41.1% of African American
whereas others have found that this relation students classified an authoritarian parenting
does not exist (Dearing, 2004). Another style versus 18.2% of Caucasian students.
potential limitation is the way in which self- Some researchers have argued that differences
efficacy was measured. Although the SESS arise because the influence of authoritative
demonstrated good reliability in the current parenting styles is not the same across cultures
study, future studies may use a self-efficacy (Chao, 1994; Hill, 1995). It is possible that
measure with more established psychometric students from certain ethnic groups may not
properties. be negatively influenced by an authoritarian
parenting style and authoritarian parenting
Future Directions may act as a protective or motivational factor
Future research may examine the potential to academic success.
ethnic differences in parenting style and aca­
demic performance in college students. Due to Correspondence concerning this article should be
limited participants from ethnic backgrounds in addressed to Erlanger A. Turner, Texas A&M University,
the current study, ethnic differences could not Department of Psychology, TAMU 4235, College Station,
be examined. Additionally, examining whether Texas 77843-4235; erlangerturner@tamu.edu

M ay/June 2009  ◆  vol 50 no 3 345

 Turner, Chandler, & Heffer

References
Attaway, N., & Hafer-Bry, B. (2004). Parenting style and adolescents’ interpersonal relationships. School Psychology
Black adolescents’ academic achievement. Journal of Black International, 17, 253-267.
Psychology, 30, 2, 229-247. Hill, N. E. (1995). The relationship between family environment
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A and parenting style: A preliminary study of African American
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. families. Journal of Black Psychology, 21(4), 408-423.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New Ingoldby, B., Schvaneveldt, B., Supple, A., & Bush, K.
York: Freeman. (2003). The relationship between parenting and behaviors
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of Authoritative Parental Control and adolescent achievement and self-efficacy in Chile and
on Child Behavior, Child Development, 37, 4, 887-907 Ecuador. Marriage and Family Review, 35(3), 139-159.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding Joshi, A., Ferris, J., Otto, A., & Regan, P. (2003). Parenting
three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology styles and academic achievement in college students.
Monographs, 75, 43-88. Psychological Reports, 93, 823-282.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy in academic settings. Review of
adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Educational Research, 66, 543-578.
Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95. Park, H., & Bauer, S. (2002). Parenting practices, ethnicity, socio­
economic status and academic achievement in adolescents.
Baumrind, D., & Black, A.E. (1967). Socialization practices
School Psychology International, 23(4), 386-396.
associated with dimensions of competence in preschool boys
and girls. Child Development, 38, 291-327. Peng, S. S., & Wright, D. (1994). Explanation of academic
achievement of Asian American students. Journal of
Buri, J. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of
Educational Research, 87(6), 346-352.
Personality Assessment, 57(1), 110-119.
Querido, J., Warner, T., & Eyberg, S. (2002) Parenting
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian
styles and child behavior in African American families of
parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through
preschool children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65,
31(2), 272-277.
1111-1119.
Reitman, D., Rhode, P., Hupp, S. D. A., & Altobello, C. (2002).
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic Development and validation of the Parental Authority
self-efficacy and first-year college student performance Questionnaire–Revised. Journal of Psychopathology and
and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), Behavioral Assessment, 24, 119-127.
55-64.
Strage, A., & Brandt, T. S. (1999). Authoritative parenting and
Coolahan, K., McWayne, C., & Fantuzzo, J. (2002). Validation college students’ academic adjustment and success. Journal
of multidimensional assessment of parenting styles for low- of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 146-456.
income African-American families with preschool children.
Taylor, L., Hinton, I., & Wilson, M. (1995). Parental influence
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(3), 356-373.
on academic performance in African-American students.
Dearing, E. (2004). The developmental implications of Journal of Child and Family Studies, 4(3), 293-302.
restrictive and supportive parenting across neighborhoods Turner, L. A., & Johnson, B. (2003). A model of mastery
and ethnicities: Exceptions are the rules. Journal of Applied motivation for at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Educational
Developmental Psychology, 25, 555-575. Psychology, 95(3), 495-505.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. Vallerand, R., Pelletier, L., Blais, M., Brière, N., Senècal, C.,
(1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination & Vallières, E. (1992). A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic,
perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142. and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and Measurement, 52, 1003-1017.
self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic
Dornbusch, S., Ritter, P., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D., & versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory:
Fraleigh, M. (1987). The relation of parenting style to Another look at the quality of academic motivation.
adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19-31.
1244-1257. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M.,
Dornbusch, S., Ritter, P., & Steinberg, L. (1991). Community & Deci, E. L. (2004).Motivating learning, performance,
influences on the relation of family statuses to adolescent and persistence: The synergistic role of intrinsic goals
school performance: Differences between African Americans and autonomy-support. Journal of Personality and Social
and Non-Hispanic Whites. American Journal of Education, Psychology, 87, 246-260.
99, 4, 543-567. Watson, D. L., & Tharp, R. G. (2002). Self-directed behavior:
Hall, W. N., & Bracken, B. A. (1996) Relationship between Self-modification for personal adjustment (8th ed.). Pacific
maternal parenting styles and African American and White Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

346 Journal of College Student Development