1

1.1 OVERVIEW OF PARENTING STYLE AND PROCRASTINATION:

This research provides an overview on parenting style and their impact on

adolescent development. Parenting style describes a parent’s attitude, beliefs and

values and is related to how parenting can be carried out best (Husenits, 2006)

Woolfolk (2010) describes parenting style as “It is an interaction with children to

make them disciplined”. Parents differ in how they control and socialize their children

and the degree to which they do it. The major concept that parents play is socializing,

teaching and guiding their children (Shaffer &Gordon 2005). This make them to

function as an adult even when the parents are not around with them and preparing the

children to live an adult live.

It is a stressful period for parents as wells as for adolescents. Research shows

that teens have number of developmental adjustments such as biological, cognitive,

emotional and social changes to make them as an adult. To navigate adolescence life

more smoothly understanding the different parenting styles and their impact on

parent-teen relationships may help them to work better on their healthy relationship.

Procrastination is postponing task that need to complete on a particular time

period. For 25% of students procrastination causes stress and harm performance.

Delay is part of structuring and prioritizing, whereas procrastination is needless

voluntary postponement of tasks undertaken in the knowledge but that may be

harmful to them it concerns their performance or feelings, (Thakkar., N (2010).

Because the delays are irrational, people end up voluntarily choosing a course of

action and they know it will not maximize their physical, psychological and material

well-being. Procrastination is occasionally used in a positive sense. Procrastination is

very common and takes place in everyday behaviors. Even though it has been
 2

growing for decades and is considered a serious problem today but that isn’t regarded

as a serious psychological problem so most of the psychologist ignored it. There are

several different theories as to what causes a person to procrastinate. “Studies show

that the procrastination trait comes from the kinds of interactions we have with our

parents when we are young.” Other reasons for procrastinating include poor time

management, inability to prioritize, and overload of tasks at a specific time, anxiety

about a task, difficulty concentrating, negative self-talk, and avoidance of things that

are disliked or difficult.

1.2. BALANCING THE PARENTING STYLES OF FATHERS AND

MOTHERS

Children need both the nurturing style that most mothers bring to the family as

well as a more challenging and real-world based style that seem to be innate to most

fathers. These parenting styles can be over generalized based on gender. In some

families, mothers can be more demanding and fathers more nurturing. But the

essential key is balancing the different parenting styles and getting the best impact

from it (Wayne 2018)

Mother's Style:

Mothers tend to find themselves play a nurturing role. They seem to have an

innate ability of having good judgement to their children. This style tends to manifest

itself in parenting where Mother offers more words of affirmation, tends to express

her expectations more clearly and to "talk out" issues involving discipline. Mothers

generally put their children's needs ahead of their own.

 3

A Father's Style

Fathers are generally more focused on having high expectations of their

children and encouraging them to work on it consistently. The emotional connection

that a mother has is not often replicated by fathers. Fathers tend to be more direct and

use fewer words. Fathers also tend to be less self-sacrificing, at some point time.

Their sacrifices tend to be more focused on the family as a whole and less care on

their children as individual.

TYPES OF PARENTING STYLE:

Researchers have identified 3 types of parenting style:

 Permissive

 Authoritative

 Authoritarian

So each style as its own characteristics and different approaches on raising children

AUTHORITATIVE:

Authoritative parents are warm but firm and they encourage their adolescents

to be independent by giving limits and controls on their actions. In this parenting

style, they willing to entertain, listen and consider their children’s view point. They

make discussions and debate with the teens to get aware on what their children feel

and think on certain situation although the ultimate responsibility given by the

parents. Authoritative parents are emotionally responsive, warm, listen and

communicate with their children. They want their teens to be an independent thinker.

Research demonstrates the teens of authoritative parents will learn how to negotiate
 4

irrelevant topics and have a proper discussion related to the topic. In such way they

analyse things well and understand their opinions are taken into consideration. These

teens have characteristics like resilience, responsible, autonomous and socially

competent, emotional health. They use positive reinforcement strategies to change the

behaviour in a disciplined manner and such methods are praise and rewards this is a

useful techniques to change the unwanted behaviour. The children’s of authoritative

parents will feel comfortable to express their opinions. And they seems to be happy

and successful in life and more likely they make decisions on their own through

analysing things with the problem pros and cons.

CHARACTERISTICTS OF AUTHORITATIVE PARENT:

EXPECTATION AND DEMANDS:

These parents set expectations and demands from their teens. Those demands

are reasonable and framed according to teen’s ability to perform.

VERBAL GIVE AND TAKE:

It helps both the parents and the teen to perform the task easier and they give

respect to their adolescent’s viewpoint.

INVOLVED AND UNDERSTANDING:

This kind of parents gives support for teens on their growth and progress. So

it helps to find out the teens weaknesses, strength and opportunities they have with

that these parents can analyse what they need to do give for their child.
 5

CRITICISM AND PRAISE:

They do not hesitate their rather than they criticize the child odd behaviour.

They don’t feel shy to praise their children this motivates them to work better.

GIVE FREEDOM BUT MONITOR:

These parents give reasonable freedom to make them comfortable and

independent, certain decisions were also taken into consideration. Freedom cannot be

provided because its age matters so it is given at appropriate phases. Hence they let

children be free but they monitor their teen’s actions as well.

LOVE AND LIMITS:

They express love to children this acts as reassurance especially for teens

when they are susceptible to vices then parents can set limits which child cannot

cross. This helps teenagers to walk on wrong path or hurt their parents feeling.

SPEND TIME:

They spent time with family and this shows family bonding is much more

important than work so they keep their relationship warm.

EFFECTS OF AUTHORITATIVE PARENTING CONTROL ON TEEN’S:

 They become independent and have self-confident to achieve their goals.

 They get along with the environment and perceiving things open minded.

 They keep their surroundings happy.

 At the early stage maturity play a major role in child’s life.

 They are good learner and speaker.

 6

POSITIVE APPROACH OF AUTHORITATIVE PARENTING:

REPHRASE IT:

Adolescent realise what good and worst things could happen in a situation.

And help them to imagine to take up the risk by rephrasing like “I don’t want to” into

“I wonder what will happen if”.

TEACH THEM MISTAKES ARE GOOD:

Let the adolescents understand how perfectionism stops their productivity

and explain them “not perfect” is doesn’t mean to “fail”. Their best effort is good

enough and makes them comfortable on what they do.

BREAK IT DOWN:

Outline the task with specific, concrete steps and make a goal sheet and at

the end of the day cross check whether they achieved their larger goal.

SUPPORT, NOT SMOOTHER:

Maintain firm rules on self-discipline, such as giving rewards when they

done their chores successfully. Be as supportive parent they allow them to finish the

task.
 7

AUTHORITARIAN:

This style of parenting has warmth but highly controlling. They insist their

adolescent to follow parental directions by restricting, punitive style and strict

disciplinary behaviour to avoid the unwanted behaviour. Authoritarian parents use

phrases like “you will do this because I said”, “because I’m the parent and you

aren’t”. And most likely they do not engage in discussion with their children and

family rules and set of standards are not discussed. And these parents will have set of

rules and practices which they follow and they want their teens to accept that without

raising any questions. Research shows adolescents of authoritarian parents learn

parental rules and adherence to strict the discipline is valued over independent

behaviour. And these adolescents can become rebellious or dependent. Those who

become rebellious may have aggressive behaviors. Adolescents who are submissive

are being dependent to their parents. These kinds of parents don’t allow their children

to solve problems and challenges instead they give some rules and enforce the

consequences with little regards for the child’s opinion. Instead of discipline these

parents may use punishments rather than teach them to make a better choice these

parenting making their teens to feel sorry for their mistakes. Those children who

grew up with authoritarian parents tend to follow rules as much as they can and their

obedience comes at a price. And the disadvantage is they have high risk development

on self-esteem problem because their opinions aren’t valued. These teens can become

hostile and can focus on the anger they feel towards their parents. And to avoid

certain situation they may grow to become good liars.

 8

CHARATERISTICS OF AUTHORITARIAN PARENTS:

 They posse’s strict rules and expectations to be followed.

 Delivering punishments for mistakes.

 They don’t respond to teen’s questions or request.

 Emotionally detached from their teens love.

 The absence of any semblance of choices.

ADOLESCENTS OF AUTHORITARIAN FAMILIES:

"Mirror-Image" Adolescent:

This group of individuals constantly conform to the rules and attitudes of their

families and tend to have little or no conflict with them. Nevertheless, if the demand

for conformity and the desire for autonomy reach a point of conflict, the adolescent

could develop emotional and social problems.

Aggressive- Violent Adolescent:

These adolescents conflict has reached the point where they no longer able or

willing to conform to the demands of their authoritarian family. Under these

circumstances their anger, which has been suppressed for a long time and that

manifests itself in the form of aggressive, destructive and violent behaviour. While in

boys this rebellion takes the form of aggressive and destructive behaviour, girls

convey their feelings of anger and resentment usually by sexual promiscuity, although

aggression and violence are becoming more common among females.

Withdrawn Apathetic Adolescent

These adolescents are fearful, shy, sickly, non-communicative, depressed and

self destructive. Adolescent inclined to withdraw from social activities and live a

schizoid life. They become dependent upon the use of drugs and alcohol, live in
 9

marginal groups and tend to sever their ties with family, friends and relatives. In

addition, many of these adolescents perform poorly at school and show little interest

in their future.

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS ON AUTHORITARIAN PARENTING STYLE:

ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY:

They have set of clear rules. Rather than taking an authoritarian stance they

show willingness to evaluate their child’s behaviour in the context of the

circumstances.

STRUGGLE TO TOLERATE OTHER PEOPLE’S LACK OF DISCIPLINE:

Strict parents usually face this problem because they frame certain rules and

if that doesn’t fall into their place they get aggressive so lose their tolerance level.

NAG A LOT:

Nagging parents prevent their teens to take responsibility from their own

behavior. If they constantly nag them they themselves won’t learn do their things by

their own.

THE FOCUS IS ALWAYS ON LEARNING:

Strict parents often turn every activity into a mandatory lesson. Their

children won’t get opportunities to imagine and use creativeness to some situations.

STRUGGLE TO TOLERATE OTHER PEOPLE’S LACK OF DISCIPLINE:

Strict parents usually face this problem because they frame certain rules and

if that doesn’t fall into their place they get aggressive so lose their tolerance level.
 10

ADOLESCENT MENTAL DEVELOPMENT:

 Since the adolescent behaviour is been punished or rewarded this is because

they believe the world is been surrounded with black and white background

and that make them fail to see the complexities and confusion that present in

life and in people.

 These teens have a narrow outlook on their life so these adolescents rarely use

their thought processes or philosophy in life. They live simple life by not

accompanying any new ideas and opinions to exit.

ADOLESCENT EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT:

 These teens control their emotion has much as they can and try to deny or

bottle up their feelings inside them.

 They think those negative emotions are bad and perceive themselves as an evil

person and they tend to project their frustration outwards as anger or if they try

to implode their feelings it may lead to depression.

 This emotional problem can cause lag in intimate relationships and they can

also make hidden plans.

 If these teens extremely self-criticise themselves it made to possess with

shame or guilt.

ADOLESCENT SOCIAL EFFECTS:

 Teens with authoritarian parents fail to develop intimate relationship or good

friendship. They view everything based on value and what they can get from

others.

 For their success they use physical power as a tool. So they can use it

overcome their weakness and feel good about themselves.

 11

 On the opposite side some adolescents wants to break rules and live with

antisocial elements that can cross those norms and disrespecting others or the

authority.

 These adolescents end up on having higher chance in getting to drug abuse

and suspiciousness.

PERMISSIVE:

These parents are warm but undemanding. So there parenting can be passive

and indulgent. They believe that their children’s wishes and opinion are more

important than their opinion. And phrase they use such as “you do not need to do any

chores if you don’t feel like to do it”. This type of parenting style can be characterized

as low demands with high responsiveness. They are not interested to say no or

disappointing their children happiness. As a result the teens can make own decisions

without consulting parental input. In this parenting style, the parents see themselves as

resources, and the adolescents choose to seek advice and not viewing as an active

participant in shaping the teens behaviour. Research finding shows that adolescents of

permissive parents learn their boundaries and rules but the consequences are not likely

to be very serious. These teens have difficulty in self control and egocentric

tendencies are demonstrated but that can interfere with the development of peer

relationship. These parents play friends role rather than parent role the children’s have

liberty to talk about their problems but parents doesn’t show much effort on

discouraging bad behaviours or poor choices. The teens of permissive parents are

likely to struggle from academics, behavioural problems, low self-esteem and this

shows they may have lot sadness and they avoid on accepting rules or to appreciate

authority. These kinds of parents are opposite so called “HELICOPTER PARENTS”.

Instead of giving to many rules they rarely make or enforce rules or structure to
 12

follow by their teens. Those teens that brought up by permissive parent tend to have

struggle in self-regulation and self-control.

CHARCTERSITICS OF PERMISSIVE PARENT:

 Have few rules or standards of behavior

 When they have rules, they are often very inconsistent.

 May use bribery such as toys, gifts and food as a means to get child to behave

 Provide little in the way of a schedule or structure

 Ask their children's opinions on major decisions

 Rarely enforce any type of consequences

 They have friendly characteristics with their children rather than behaving as

parents.

 This parenting style would posses minimal or no control over on their children

growth.

 They do not have confrontation or conflicts with their children but they have

laid-back attitude towards parenting.

 They give too much freedom to their children and not holding the children

responsible for their action.

 They want their teens to be liked and adored by the way they behave to them.

So hence they agree their children’s likes dislikes or demands.

THE EFFECTS OF PERMISSIVE PARENTING:

Children raised by permissive parents tend to lack self-discipline, possess

poor social skills, may be self-involved and demanding, and may feel insecure due to

the lack of boundaries and guidance.

 13

RESEARCH EVIDENCE OF CHILDREN RAISED BY PERMISSIVE

PARENTS:

Display low achievement in many areas:

These parents have no or little expectation on the children and teens have

nothing to strive towards in life. Research shows permissive parenting leads to lower

academic achievement.

Make poor decisions:

Since these parents do not set or enforce any type of rules or guidelines

children struggle to learn on good problem- solving and decision making skills.

Display more aggression and less emotional understanding:

These parents don’t learn to deal with their emotions effectively and

particularly in situations where they do not get what they want. The children with

these kinds of parents may struggle when they face stressful or emotionally difficult

situations.

May be more prone to delinquency and substance use:

Children raised by permissive parents are more likely to engage in misconduct

and alcohol or substance use.

Unable to manage their time or habits:

Lack of structure and rules in their home make them never to learn their limits.

This might lead teens to watch television, play more video games and eating too
 14

much. These children never learn to limit their screen time or eating habits, which

may lead to unhealthy habits and obesity.

WAYS TO DISCIPLINE ADOLOSCENT WITHOUT YELLING:

 Establish clear rules

 Discuss negative consequences ahead of time

 Provide positive reinforcement

 Examine the reasons why parents yell at them

 Offer warnings when appropriate

1.3. DEFINITIONS OF PROCRASTINATION

Procrastination is typically taken as an irrational or a self-defeating delay, to

be worse off people start to putting off. Steel (2007) integrates procrastination is “to

voluntarily delay an intended course of action despite expecting to be worse off for

the delay.”

Researcher explains on why people procrastinate:

There are three things that influence the emergence of procrastination: firstly,

there are certain personality traits (e.g. high impulsivity) that determine the

vulnerability for procrastination. Secondly, self-regulation deficits play an important

role. The third issue that contributes to procrastination concerns situational factors

such as complexity, plausibility, structuralizing, and attractively of a task, anticipated

feedback, experienced autonomy, and social isolation.

 15

3 STYLES OF PROCRASTINATION

1. The Avoider

These kind of people put things off just because it makes them feel bad, the

specific emotion is anxiety, boredom or sadness. This is based on the pleasure

principle of Sigmund Freud state that people have a natural drive to seek what feels

good and to avoid whatever's painful. This strategy isn't always completely

successful. They can feel negative emotions because of the procrastination, such as

stress makes them to squeeze the work into a shorter time.

Avoider Characteristics:

 They convince others that there isn’t enough time to complete the given

agenda.

 They get anxious when others talk about their work on which they avoid.

 They give excuses about why they couldn’t finish their assigned work.

 They have trouble coming up with concrete plans, as they make completion

feasible.

2. The Optimist

This people consistently think a task isn't going to take much time to finish a

work. The research also suggests that some people actually perceive time

differently and feel like it passes more slowly.

Optimist Characteristics:

 They fail to see the pattern of times where their procrastination produced a

negative result.
 16

 They almost never create plan B to complete a task.

 Others perceive their behavior as over confident.

3. The Pleasure Seeker

They don't do what their supposed to do until they genuinely feel like doing it,

which doesn't always happen. But it is not about avoiding a work as it is deliberately

choosing something they like better.

Pleasure seeker Characteristics:

 Regularly they give ideas or ask for alternatives.

 They have little patience if they don’t have interest to perform the task.

 They have mindset to live at present and therefore they don't spend much time

on planning.

 Others describe them as lazy or inconsiderate, but not as incapable.

CAUSES OF PROCRASTINATION

 Acceptance of another’s goals

 Afraid to start on a work due to lack of perfectionism

 Anxiety develops due to what others think or feel about them.

 Fear of working into an unknown content.

 They think they do not have such skills or abilities to perform

 If they may unsure about the assignment

 Task may looks overwhelming

 Low tolerance/frustration level for unpleasant tasks.

 Then to build over confidence in their own skills

 17

CURES FOR PROCRASTINATION:

 Notice on self-talk or Self-Defeating Beliefs

 Give up perfectionism

 Make several reminders to complete the task

 Trick can be used to start on a task

 Be realistic about what they expect from own self

 Divide large tasks into smaller steps

 Action towards the task can automatically generate motivation.

 Announce one’s own intentions to other and make them as a support group.

 Focus on the task.

 Avoid choosing a difficult task.

 Deny the urge to delay

 Establish to do the task on routine.

 List out the things which need to be accomplished based on its priority.

 A lot some spaces do to recreational activities.

 Don’t threaten one own self.

 Give rewards when task is completed and to maintain the same behaviour.

 Remind the consequences of procrastination.

TREATMENT:

One of the oldest treatment ideas is the idea of behaviour control. Most

interventions have focused on either teaching self-management strategies (e.g., goal

setting, time management, planning, monitoring, creating the right environment for

studying) or implementing therapeutic strategies to tackle negative affect and

cognitions (e.g., cognitive restructuring).

 18

The counselling psychologists emphasize on irrational beliefs, such as

perfectionism and low self-esteem been presented in procrastinators. The

psychologists indicate that procrastination is primarily a self-regulation failure and an

impulse-related issue. Consequently, it focus on improving self-regulation skills and

situational or stimulus control.

Therapeutic strategies in overcoming procrastination pertain to techniques of

cognitive restructuring (to tackle negative cognitions), relaxation exercise (to tackle

negative affect), time restriction, and, paradoxical interventions. Anxiety based

treatments are likely to be most effective for the perfectionist or neurotic

procrastinator. On the other hand, the University of Münster (Germany) has built a

special outpatient clinic for procrastinators focusing on cognitive-behavioural therapy

that may be more broadly applicable. The methods they employ include realistic goal

setting, stimulus control, and self-motivation.

Most trainings aiming at overcoming procrastination foster strategies

concerning self-management such as goal setting, time management, planning,

monitoring, and creating the right environment for studying.

 19

1.4. NEED FOR THE STUDY:

The study focus on the influence of parenting style has any impact procrastination in

older adolescent. The parental behaviour and attitudes towards their children

determines their parenting style. This sort of parental behaviour has a strong influence

of the behaviour and attitudinal change of the adolescence children. In that note,

procrastinating behaviour sounds at a higher rate nowadays. On this way, the extent of

procrastinating behaviour could be linked to the parenting style in the way developed.

So procrastination has its adverse effects towards adolescent so it can be a barrier for

the adolescence development period. Hence, The purpose of the study is needed for

this society especially for adolescent groups and parents in order to avoid

procrastination in adolescent through their parenting style and make their life more

acceptable and approachable to meet the needs of them without any delay.
 20

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Zubizarreta, et.al (2019) determined how punitive parenting style has been

identified as a risk factors for the development of internalizing and externalizing

problem in childhood. The sample of 572 children and their parents participated in the

two ways of study. This longitudinal study assessed 3 temperamental traits (negative

affectivity, positive affectivity, and effortful control) as well as parental warmth

moderated the association between punishment and child internalizing and

externalizing problems. Results suggest that punishment is uniquely associated with

increase in externalizing and internalizing problems, even though some interaction

between temperament, warmth and punishment can diminish or exacerbate direct

association between punishment and children’s psychological symptoms.

Ko, et.al (2019) investigated the relationships among resilience, social anxiety

and procrastination in a sample of college students. The study applies structural

equation modelling analyses to examine the effect of resilience on procrastination and

to test the mediating effect of social anxiety. The results suggested that social anxiety

partially mediate the relationship between resilience and procrastination. Students

with higher level of resilience reported a lower frequency of procrastination behavior,

and resilience had an indirect effect on procrastination through social anxiety.

Asna, et.al (2018) conducted a study on perceived parenting styles and

development of resilience in higher secondary school students. The research explains

if there is any difference in resilience among adolescences based on parenting style.

The sample size is about 300 and from different higher secondary schools in Kerala

the students were chosen and the students were in the age group of 15- 17. The scale

which was used in the study is parenting scale (Gafoor& Kurukkam, 2014) and
 21

Connor–Davidson’s resilience scale. The perceived parenting style was found through

the parental responsiveness & parental scores and to find the resilience level in

children based on their parenting style ANOVA was used. The results shows there is a

significant difference and the post hoc test reveals that adolescents of authoritative

and authoritarian parenting style have more resilience compared to those with

negligent parenting style. Conclusion of the study is parent-child relationship in one

of the important factor for the development of child’s resilience.

Saini, et.al (2018) the study assessed on the impact of ecological perspectives

on paternal parenting style. The sample comprised of 100 fathers of children. The

results revealed that respondent occupation, education and caste were significantly

related to paternal parenting styles. This style significantly associated with composite

home environment and its aspects viz., encouragement of maturity, emotional climate,

learning materials and opportunities, enrichment, family companionship and family

integration which were perceived by their offspring. Hence the results shows that

most of the fathers were authoritative, followed by authoritarian and permissive

parenting style.

Firoze, et.al (2018) examined the impact of parenting styles on adolescent

resilience. The sample was collected from 140 adolescents that include 70 boys and

70 girls from different school in Calicut. The questionnaire used in the study was

Connor Davidson’s Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and Scale of Parenting Styles.

Pearson’s coefficient and t-test was used for statistical analysis. The results show

there is a relationship between dimensions of parenting styles. Based on gender,

resilience is higher in girls than boys. Authoritative parenting style has higher

resilience. The finding also indicates there is a difference in the dimensions of

parenting style among adolescent boys and girls.

 22

Constanin, et.al (2018) conducted a study on the role of negative repetitive

thought in the links between anxiety and procrastination, depression and

procrastination. The sample was 91 undergraduate students completed self –report

measures on anxiety, depression, worry, brooding rumination and procrastination. The

results shows procrastination was positively correlated and it moderately affects

anxiety and depression, largely effects on rumination and small effect on worry. The

conclusions suggest that rumination plays a larger role in between anxiety,

depression, and procrastination than worry. Thus students have high level of anxiety

and depression and that engage more in repetitive thoughts.

Sangauri, et.al (2018) examined whether parenting styles also affect children’s

behavioural problems indirectly when mediated through children’s academic self-

concept (ASC). The subject was 199 Kurdish primary school children. The

questionnaires measures were parenting styles (Child version of Alabama Parenting

questionnaire, assessed Children’s ACS (Myself- As-Learner Scale) and Strengths

and difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Process analysis was used to perform mediation

analysis. The results show positive and negative parenting composites indirect

relation to Childs internalising behaviour problem. Academic Self Concept partially

mediated the relationship between the negative parenting and prosocial behaviour.

Lian, et.al (2018) examined the mediating role of social networking site

fatigue and the moderating role of effortful control. The participants are 1,085

Chinese undergraduate students. The scale measures social networking site, addition

scale, social networking service fatigue scale, effortful control scale and irrational

procrastination scale. Results shows social networking site addiction, fatigue and

irrational procrastination are positively correlated and negatively correlated with

effortful control. Further analyses reveal that SNS addiction has direct relationship
 23

effect on irrational procrastination and SNS fatigue mediated relationship between

SNS addiction and irrational procrastination.

Podana, et.al. (2018) examined the impact of parenting style on fear of crime

among adolescent girls and boys. While considering gender differences it analyse

parental attachment, parental supervision and parental support of adolescent

autonomy. The data collected through self-report survey for 1500 Czech adolescents,

and hierarchical regression analysis is used. The results suggest that higher parental

supervision and lower parental support of adolescent autonomy associated with

increased fear of crime in adolescents. The gender effect on parental attachment

decreases fear of crime for boys and increased in girls.

Mukhtar, et.al. (2018) examined the moderating role of perceived support

between perceived parenting styles and relational aggression. The sample of 400 was

selected through stratified sampling from public and private school and colleges. The

adolescents were 200 boys and girls and they completed Demographic Performa,

Early memories of upbringing for children to measure perceived parenting styles,

Social Support Questionnaire, Diverse Adolescent Relational Scale. Finding indicates

that perceived social support strengthens negative relationship between perceived

father’s overprotection parenting and RA. Results also showed that perceived social

support strengthens positive relationship between perceived father’s Anxious Rearing

parenting and RA. And that perceived social support strengthens the positive

relationship between perceived mother’s Rejection parenting and RA.

Miller, et.al(2017) The study explores relationship among gender, perceived

parenting style, the personality traits of conscientiousness & neuroticism,

Perfectionism and performance goal orientation in high young adult population. The
 24

data collected from Honors college students; the path model suggests that neuroticism

and conscientiousness are positively related to self-oriented perfectionism. Whereas

neuroticism and authoritarian parenting style are positively associated to socially

prescribed perfectionism. Both self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism are

positively related to performance goal orientation. The results show that personality

traits and parenting styles do not have relationships with performance goal

orientation.

Nunes, et.al (2017) examined a study on the role of parenting styles in the

development of suicidal ideation in adolescents. The study tested the mediating role

of attachment to parents in the association between authoritative, authoritarian and

permissive parenting and suicidal ideation. The sample was about 604 individuals, in

the age between 15 and 18. The data measures, the Styles & Dimensions

Questionnaire: Father/Mother Attachment Questionnaire and the Suicidal Ideation

Questionnaire. This states that emotional maladjustment being positively associated

with suicidal ideation. The results suggest the adoption of authoritative parenting

styles, since they seem to facilitate the development of the quality of attachment to the

parents. In taking consideration of attachment theory the importance of parenting style

processes inherent to suicidal ideation in adolescents.

Sharma, et.al (2017) Investigate the role of parenting style and decision

making style among diffused adolescents. The sample of 500 adolescents of 11th and

12th class from English medium of jaipur city had a purposive sampling technique.

Among them 110 adolescents identified as diffused and it comprised of 50 boys and

60 girls. The correlation design was used and the objective measures Ego Identity

Status (EOMEIS-2); parental authority questionnaire (Buri, 1991); and General

Decision Making Style Inventory (Scott&Bruce, 1995). The results shows that
 25

identity diffusion negatively correlates with authoritative parenting style, (mother

&father) and rational decision style. And positively correlates with authoritarian style

(mother &father), mother permissive style is intuitive and avoidant style of decision

making

Waterman, et.al. (2017) conducted study on parenting and academic

engagement in emerging adulthood. A diverse sample of college students

(N=633).The study measures about mothers and fathers parenting style, Parent-

offspring relationship quality, Academic attitudes, Academic behaviour and

academic performance. The results show that mother’s authoritarian parenting and

permissive parenting and relationship quality with father were differentially related to

academic engagement depending on emerging adult’s gender. Both mothers and

fathers parenting characteristics may affect the academic engagement of emerging

adults.

Chen, et.al (2017) examined the associations between adolescents

procrastination and their attachment relationship with both mother and fathers, to

explore the potential mediation role of self-worth. The sample was 384 Chinese

adolescents (49.6% boys) from public school shanghai china. They completed self

report measures of 3 dimensions of parental attachment (i.e., trust, communication&

alienation), general self-worth and procrastination. The results shows both paternal &

maternal trust and parental communication negative association with higher level of

procrastination whereas both paternal, maternal alienation positively associated with

procrastination. The conclusion is self-worth mediates association on 3 dimensional

parental attachment and procrastination.

 26

Abdullah, et.al (2017) investigated the relationship between procrastination

and mental health with regarding the variable of gender and developmental stage. The

participant selected from teaching school in Aleppo city from 4th, 5th grade of male &

female students and 7th, 8th, 9th grade of males& female adolescents. The sample size

is about (268) students (133 males & 135 females). The questionnaire used in the

study was Procrastination Scale and Mental Health Scale. The results shows there is

significant difference between males & female in procrastination and the study shows

males procrastinate more than the female . The conclusion reveals adolescent have

higher procrastination than children.

Rogacz, et.al (2017) analysed the relationship between individual

characteristics, self-esteem, self-efficiency and procrastination among students. The

participants of 140 were employed (75 females and 65 males). The scale used in the

study is procrastination questionnaire, Personality Inventory (NEO-FFI), Self-

Assessment Scale and Generalised Effectiveness Scale. The results shows no gender

difference found in procrastination. Most important predictive factor of

procrastination was conscientiousness and some other factors are time management,

being systematic, strong will, awareness of procrastination, procrastination as trait and

lack of punctuality. Weak predictors were significant in extroversion, neuroticism,

openness, self-esteem and self-efficiency.

Mishra, et.al (2017) explored the impact of parenting style on the submissive

behavior among adolescents. The sample of 120 school students (60 boys &60 girls)

was selected from various schools. The battery of tests applied to a group of children

between the age of 13 and 18 years. The questionnaire used was Allan and Gilbert

scale to assess submissive behavior. The study used oneway analysis of variance

(ANOVA). The research reveal parenting style has significant impact on submissive
 27

behavior on adolescents. The result shows authoritarian parenting style has positive

correlation with submissive behavior. Parenting style has negative correlation with

submissive behavior. Finally, there is a significant difference between boys and girls

on measures of submissive behaviors.

Moghaddam, et.al. (2017) investigate the relationship between mothers

parenting style and child’s self –esteem in children. The population of this cross-

sectional, descriptive study include primary school children of Zahedan city. The

questionnaire used in the study was Coppersmith Self- esteem Inventory and Diana

Baumrind Parenting Style. To describe data mean, standard deviation and frequency

is used. Multivariate regression test, Pearson correlation coefficient and SPPSS were

applied in data analysis. Results show that there was significant relationship between

self-esteem and authoritative parenting style. The conclusion of the study states

children of parents with authoritative parenting style have significantly higher self-

esteem.

Barton, et.al (2016) conducted a study on permissive parenting and mental

health in college students mediating effects of academic procrastination. The authors

examined the role of academic entitlement as a mediator of the relationship between

permissive parenting and psychological functioning. This study consists of totally 524

undergraduate students who belong to a single institution. Cross sectional design was

used in this study. Online self-report method was used to collect data from the

participants on parenting styles, academic entitlement, stress, depressive symptoms,

and well being. Results show that permissive parenting associated with greater

academic entitlement and in turn to have more perceived stress and poorer mental

health. At the same time, this study also reveals that mother/father parenting styles
 28

differences were found in some cases. Conclusion of the study was permissive

parenting partially explain academic entitlement and it affects students mental health.

Yip, et.al (2016) the study investigates the impact of perceived parenting style

on self-regulated learning and academic procrastination with mediating effect of

achievement emotion. The sample consists of 218 undergraduates through convenient

sampling from the University of Hong Kong. The collected data measures parenting

authority questionnaire, academic emotion questionnaire, and motivated strategies for

learning questionnaire and procrastination scale. To analyze the data, reliability was

investigated by Cronbach’s alpha, correlation, path analysis and structural equation

modelling was also conducted. Results show perceived parenting style significantly

associated with achievement emotion. And achievement emotion is significantly

associated with self-regulated learning and academic procrastination. Structural

equation modelling results shows perceived authoritative parenting style has impact

on positive achievement emotion and succession affect the self-regulated learning and

academic procrastination. The conclusion of the study is significant to Hong Kong

parent should aware there is an effect of parenting style on children’s learning

strategies and procrastination style. And enhancing students self-regulated learning

behaviors will reduce student’s academic procrastination.

Aziz, et.al (2016) aimed to Relative Importance Index (RII) in ranking of

Procrastination factors among University Students. A multistage sampling technique

was used in selecting the sample. Identify the procrastination factors in completing

assignments among three groups of undergraduate students. Since procrastination is

the action of delaying something such as making a decision or starting or completing

some task or activities. The procrastination factors were quantified by RII method
 29

prior to ranking. The results show that “too many works in one time’ is one of the top

three factors contributing to procrastination in all groups.

Loona, et.al (2016) assessed the predictive association between procrastination

and self-compassion among first born and last born university students; second to

assess the difference on the variable of procrastination between first born and last

born university students. The sample of 200 students (100 boys and 100 girls) was

taken from different universities. The questionnaire used on The Procrastination Scale

(Lay, 1986) and Self-compassion Scale (Neff, 2003). The data was analysed using

Regression Analyses and t-test. The result shows that Self-compassion and its sub-

scales of isolation and mindfulness significant to procrastination in first born

university students. Self-compassion is found to be insignificant to procrastination in

last born university students. The study concludes that on the variable of

procrastination the difference between first born and last born university students are

found to be insignificant.

Ping, et.al (2016) investigated the impact of state anxiety on behavioral

procrastination. The participant’s among China and US were induced into high or low

anxiety state and then they given 12 min period to practice for the upcoming test or

entertain themselves (e.g., watching videos). The results shows the participants in a

high anxiety state spent more time on practicing for test than participants in low

anxiety state. Impulsivity found to be positively correlated with both trait

procrastination and dilatory behaviors.

Sumiullah, et.al (2016) determined the influence of parents and their parenting

styles on children’s behavior. The study examine different parenting styles to

understand which style leads the children to become juvenile delinquent, and it makes
 30

children as low academic achievers. A qualitative paradigm was preferred using in-

depth interviews with two mothers of children with delinquent behavior. The result

shows authoritarian parenting style leads the children to become more rebellious and

adopt problematic behavior. And the finding suggests that authoritative parenting

style is effective in children, it encourages to moderate parenting style. The

demonstration needed to the literature is that parents who spend maximum time with

their children reduce the probability of developing delinquent behavior among their

children.

Ghazi, et.al (2016) explored the role of gender, perfectionism and self-esteem

on procrastination in academic setting. The data collected from 100 young adult

students (50 males & 50 females) studying in college and universities of Delhi. The

result shows gender is a significant predictor on procrastination. And males were

found to be higher on procrastination and perfectionism than females. Self-esteem is

significantly influenced in procrastination as in negative direction. In addition the

adaptive perfectionism positively correlates with procrastination. Moreover

maladaptive perfectionism factors did not show significant difference in

procrastination.

Bronte, et.al (2016) investigated father–child-relationship and father’s

parenting style and adolescents risk behaviours in intact families. The data taken from

national longitudinal study of youth 1997, in round 1 to 3 (N=5,345) adolescents were

intact families. Discrete time logistics regressions indicate more father - child

relationship predicts reduced the risk of engaging into multiple risky behaviours. The

result shows Father’s on authoritarian parenting style associated with an increased

risk of engaging in delinquent activity and substance use. And when the authoritarian

fathers have positive relationship with their adolescent they tend to reduce negative
 31

effect of risk behaviours. Permissive parenting also predicts less risky behavior when

father-child relationship is positive. The conclusion is the positive influence of father-

child relationship on risk behavior is stronger for male than for female adolescents.

Tripati, et.al (2015) explored the study on academic procrastination behaviour

among college going students. The sample of 150 undergraduate students was from

Delhi University. The study measures academic procrastination, hope and self-

efficacy for self-regulation. The results shows there is a relationship between self-

efficacy for self-regulation and academic procrastination; higher the level of hope,

and lesser the procrastination.

Rozental, et.al (2015) examined on differentiating procrastinators on each

other: cluster Analysis. The participant of 710 treatment seeking individual through

screening process they were recruited to a randomized controlled trail on Internet

based cognitive behavior therapy for procrastination. The participants completed self

–report measures on procrastination, depression, anxiety, and quality of life. The

result shows they might have five clusters of procrastinators: Mild procrastinators

(24.93%), Average procrastinators (27.89%), Well adjusted procrastinators (13.94%),

Severe procrastinators (21.69%) & Primarily depressed (11.55%). Hence there is

difference among procrastinators in terms of levels of severity, as well as the

subgroups on procrastinatory problems are primarily related to depression.

Hajiazizi, et.al (2015) the study investigated on direct and indirect influences

of self-compassion on procrastination among university students in Thailand. The

sample consisted of 200 respondents in that 37% male and 63% female. The

questionnaire used for the study is State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI- form Y) to

measure anxiety, level of academic procrastination (Procrastination Assessment

 32

Scale) for students, Self- Conscious Affect-3 (TOSCA-3) to measure level of shame.

Results from path analysis indicated that the higher level of self-compassion, the

lower was reported level of academic procrastination. It was also found that self-

compassion had a negative influence on the participants and reported as low level of

anxiety. The level of self-compassion was not found to have any significant influence

on their level of shame. The study finally concluded that neither, shame nor anxiety

had a significant influence on academic procrastination.

Soysa, et.al(2014) investigated the study on using self reports the perceived

authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles in mothers and fathers, academic

procrastination, maladaptive perfectionism, affective and cognitive text anxieties

among 206 undergraduates in that women are 160 and men are 46. The result shows

that 1) Academic procrastination and maladaptive perfectionism concurrently

mediated the positive relationship between perceived authoritarian fathering and both

affective and cognitive test anxieties. 2) Maladaptive perfectionism mediated the

positive relationship between perceived authoritarian mothering and both affective

and cognitive test anxieties. 3) Academic procrastination and maladaptive

perfectionism concurrently mediated the inverse relationship between perceived

authoritative parenting in mother and father separately and both affective and

cognitive text anxieties.

Ferrari, et.al (2014) examined procrastination and mental health coping

suggest that poor adjustment may be directly associated by stress results to worrying

/anxiety, and indirectly by the tendency to put off the coping behaviors. The

participants were 80 women & 24 men; age ranges from 18-33. The study measures

Spanish version of coping behaviors related to mental health and procrastination

inventory. Results shows that procrastinators compared to non-procrastinators

 33

reported significantly low positive actions &expression feelings. Significant

predictors of procrastination by students were low positive actions, expressing

feelings and assertiveness.

Khan, et.al (2014) investigated the academic procrastination among male and

female university and college students. The sample consists of 200 students (100

college & university students) from Islamabad. The questionnaire used Tuckman

Procrastination Scale (TPS, 1991). Results show significant difference on

demographic variables of age, gender, and education. There is a significant difference

found in male and female on academic procrastination. Further results indicate college

students tend to procrastinate more than university students.

Sylvester, et.al (2014) investigated the influence of self-esteem, parental

monitoring and parenting styles on adolescents’ risky sexual behaviour in Ibadan. The

sample of 194 participants selected from three secondary schools and cross sectional

research design is used. The study used t-test and regression analysis. The result

indicates low self-esteem has significant of having high sexual behaviour than those

with high self-esteem. Additionally, adolescents with low parental monitoring

significantly have high risk of sexual behavior than those with high parental

monitoring. Furthermore result shows authoritarian parenting styles has no effect on

adolescents risk of sexual behaviour while, adolescent with high permissive parenting

style have high risk of sexual behaviour compare to low permissive parenting style

The results shows there was no gender effect on adolescent risky sexual behaviour.

The conclusion of the study is self-esteem, parental monitoring and parenting styles

predicted as adolescent’s risky behaviour.

 34

Uzun, et.al (2014) investigated intercorrelation among affective, cognitive and

behavioural components of procrastination. The participants of 402 undergraduate

students (115 males, 286 female, 1 not indicated). The study measures General

Procrastination Scale, Depression, Anxiety and Stress scale, Frost Multidimensional

Perfectionism Scale and Self-regulation Inventory. The finding shows

multicorrelation among variables, range from 14 to 58. Squared multiple correlation

coefficients of procrastination reveals that endogenous and mediator variable explains

33% of total variance in procrastination. The result explains the importance of affect,

cognition and behaviour on problematic delay referred to as procrastination.

Masayo, et.al (2014) examined the children’s later mental health in Japan was

influenced by parents authoritative, authoritarian &permissive parenting style. The

participants of 1320 are from Japan it includes company employee, university

students and hospital staff members. The questionnaire used is the Japanese version

of Parenting Authority Questionnaire. To verify the three-factor structure of PAQ

confirmatory factor analyses is used. The result shows that regardless of gender,

participants evaluated their mother has more authoritative than their fathers. The

impact of parenting styles on respondent’s mental health shows maternal &paternal

authoritarian parenting styles is worsened and it includes symptomatic problems, risk

to self and others, life functioning and psychological well-being. Finally maternal &

paternal authoritative parenting has beneficial impacts on respondent’s later mental

health.

Ismail, et.al (2014) examined the effects of student workload and academic

procrastination on attitude to plagiarize. A convenience sample of 163 diploma

students was used to elicit responses pertaining to student workload, academic

procrastination, and attitude to plagiarize. Data was analysed using partial least
 35

squares modelling technique. The results show that student’s workload has both direct

and indirect effects through academic procrastination.

Muhtadie, et.al (2013) investigates the additive and interactive relations of

parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian) and child temperament

(anger/frustration, sadness, and effortful control) to children’s internalizing problem.

Using longitudinal data 425 Chinese students were taken as sample from Beijing.

Through structural equation modelling the result suggest that (1) children with low

effortful control may be partially susceptible to the effect of authoritarian parenting

(2) the benefits of authoritative parenting may be especially important for children

with high anger/frustration.

Berkien, et.al (2012) examined the relationship between children’s perception

of dissimilarity in parenting styles, internalizing and externalizing problem in

children. The sample of 658 children reported on the level of emotional warmth,

rejection, and over protection of both parenting. The questionnaire used in the study is

child version of Egna Minnen Betraffande Uppfostran (EMBU-C) and mothers

completed child behaviour checklist (CBCL). Interclass correlation was used to

measure this study. The results show that there are negative consequences of

perceived dissimilarity between parents. Thus on the whole children have more

internalizing and externalizing problems when they perceive their parents as more

dissimilar in parenting styles.

Strunk, et.al (2011) determined the relative contributions of self-efficacy, self-

regulation and self- handicapping on student’s procrastination. The sample of

undergraduate college students of 138 participated; (40 men and 97 women, one not

reporting sex). The study measures self-efficacy, self-regulation and self-

 36

handicapping all predicted scores on procrastination scale. Hierarchical regression

method is used in this study. The results suggest self-regulation and self-handicapping

predicts procrastination independently.

Daniel, et.al (2010) examined adolescent’s perceptions of paternal and

paternal parenting styles in Chinese school students. The sample consists of 429

Chinese secondary school students. The instruments measured their perception of

parent’s global parenting styles and specific parenting practice. The results show there

is a difference between maternal & paternal parenting characteristics. Fathers

perceived as less responsive, less demanding, less concerned and harsher. Adolescent

girl’s perception on father’s parenting characteristics did not differ from those of

boys, but girls perceive their mothers as more demanding but less harsh.

Gracia, et.al (2009) investigated which parenting style is associated with youth

outcomes among adolescents of Spanish families. A sample of 1,416 teenagers of

whom 57.2% were female, reported on their parents child-rearing practices. The

teenagers parents classified into four groups (authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, or

neglectful). The adolescent gave four different outcomes: (1) Self-esteem (academic,

social, emotional, family and physical); (2) psychosocial maladjustment (hostility,

negative self-esteem, negative self-adequacy, and emotional irresponsiveness); (3)

personal competence (social competence, grade point average); (4) problem

behaviours (school misconduct, drug abuse). The results show that both indulgent and

authoritative parenting styles associated with better outcomes than authoritarian and

neglectful parenting.

McKinney, et.al (2008) examined the relationship between late adolescent’s

perceptions of their mothers and fathers parenting styles and their own emotional
 37

adjustment. Finding of this study suggest that mothers and father use different

parenting styles for their sons and daughters. Late adolescents who have at least one

authoritative parent showing better adjustment than those who don’t have such a

parent. The conclusion of parent-adolescent relationships suggests that having one

authoritative parent may be a protective factor for late adolescents.

Simons, et.al (2007) investigated mother- father difference in parenting to a

typology of family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. At the time of study the

sample of 451 families with a child in eighth grade were taken as participants. And it

was a longitudinal study. On the first visit each family member completed a set of

questionnaires focus on family processes, individual family member characteristics,

and socio-economic circumstances. During second visit, began with a short

questionnaire to identify issues on disagreements within the family. The result shows

that both parenting style display same style of parenting. And having two

authoritative parents is associated with positive outcomes for adolescents. In absences

of this optimal family parenting style, having one authoritative parent can buffer a

child to deleterious consequences.

Bui, et.al (2007) examined the effects of evaluation apprehension and trait

procrastination on behaviors. The sample taken from private university students from

southern California (N= 72) on two independent variable: evaluation threat

(manipulate), trait procrastination (non-manipulated). The results show there is a

significant interaction effect between type of evaluation threat and level of trait

procrastination to complete the assigned essay. Post hoc analyses shows high trait

procrastinators in high evaluation threat group significantly delayed in returning the

essay. The conclusion of the study states that low evaluation threat group, low trait

procrastinators delayed more than the high trait procrastinators.

 38

Pychyl, et.al (2002) examined the main effects and interactions between

gender, maternal and paternal parenting style, and global self-worth in the prediction

of procrastination in adolescence. The sample of 105 adolescents (60 females)

completed the measures of self- perception profile for adolescent Harter (1988),

parental authority Buri (1999) and general procrastination lay (1986). Results

revealed there is a significant interaction between parenting styles, adolescent gender

and self-worth. And result shows that female only has the effects of maternal

authoritative and authoritarian parenting on procrastination was mediated through the

self-system. The conclusion of the study was the paternal parenting style has a direct

relation with procrastination.

Judith, et.al (1995) examined parenting styles and conceptions of parental

authority during adolescence. The parenting style were assessed in 110 primarily

white, middle-classes sixth, eighth & tenth grades adolescent and their parents of 108

mothers and 92 fathers. Parents judged the legitimacy of parental authority and rated

family conflicts and rules regarding 24 hypothetical moral, conventional, personal,

multifaceted, and prudential and friendship issues. The result shows that adolescents

perceived their parents as more permissive and more authoritarian. But parents

viewed themselves as more authoritative. Parents parenting style differentiated their

conception of parental authority but adolescent didn’t perceived. The conclusion

states that parental authority and parenting styles both significantly contribute to

emotional autonomy and adolescents- parental conflict.

Ferrari, et.al (1989) examined the relationship between adolescents

“perception of parent” authority style and decisional procrastination. The sample

comprised of late adolescents females (N=86). They completed reliable and valid self-

report measures on the perception of both parent’s authority style and their tendency
 39

towards decisional procrastination. Results shows that daughters perceived both

parents as high authoritarian were significantly more likely to raise daughters with

strong indecision tendencies than parents with low authoritarian. Mothers and fathers

perceived as high authoritative and high permissive did not have significant difference

in daughter’s self-reported decisional procrastination. The conclusion suggests that

parental authority characterized by stern inflexibility and over control has greater

influence on daughters to develop chronic indecision.

Parsons, et.al (1988) investigated the perceived causes of procrastination by

sport administrators. The sample of 63 in Canadian sport governing bodies to

determine why these administrators procrastinate or avoid decisions and actions for

which there are responsible. The questionnaire comprises of 25 likert statements and 7

open ended questions. Results indicate (1) important cause of procrastination is

inability to say no to various requests for one’s own time. (2) The evidence shows that

sport administrators tend to attribute the cause of procrastination to the organizational

environment rather than to them. (3) Another important cause of procrastination

appear to be unpleasant aspects of the task, heavy workloads assigned with no

guidelines or too many options given for task completion, no fixed deadlines or time

limits.

Dornbusch, et.al (1987) the study tests a reformation of baumrind’s typology

so it examined the authoritarian, permissive and authoritative parenting styles in the

context of adolescent school performance. Using a large and a diverse sample of San

Francisco Bay Area high school students (N = 7,836). Parenting styles generally

showed the expected grades across gender, age, parental education, ethnic, and family

structures. The results that authoritarian and permissive parenting styles were

negatively associated with grades and authoritative parenting were positively

 40

associated with grades. Conclusion of the study is authoritarian parenting tended to

have a stronger association with grades. Pure authoritative families had the highest

mean grades. Families that combine authoritarian parenting with other parenting style

had the lowest grades.

 41

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. AIM:

The aim is to study the difference and relationship of parenting style and
procrastination among older adolescence.

3.2. OBJECTIVES:

1. To find the mean difference of low, moderate, high scores on procrastination,

permissive, authoritarian, authoritative parenting style among older
adolescences.
2. To find the relationship between procrastination and perceived mother
parenting style.
3. To find the relationship between procrastination and perceived father
parenting style.
4. To find the difference between boys and girls in procrastination.
5. To find the difference between boys and girls on perceived mother parenting
style.
6. To find the difference between boys and girls on perceived father parenting
style.

3.3. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION:

Parenting style: Darling and Steinberg (1993), parenting style is considered a

characteristic of the parent that is stable overtime and constitutes the environmental
and emotional context for child-rearing and socializing. Therefore, parenting style
may have a greater impact on shaping a child’s daily activities, eating behaviours, and
emotional functioning.

Authoritative parenting style: It is defined as the parenting style in which the parent
provides clear and firm direction for the child, characterized by warmth, reason,
flexibility and verbal give and take.

Authoritarian parenting style: It is defined as the parenting style in which the

parent is highly directive and values unquestioning obedience from the child. The
 42

style is characterized by parental detachment, lack of parental warmth and parental

use of punitive measures of control over the child.

Permissive parenting style: It is defined as the parenting style characterized by few

parental demands of the child and the belief that the child can regulate his or her own
activities. Permissive parents are noncontrolling and tend to use a minimum of
punishment. These parents may be warm and loving or neglectful, depending on the
nature of the parent.

Procrastination: Ferrari (1992), it is a tendency to put off, avoid or delay activities. It

has also been characterized as “delaying task completion to the point of experiencing
subjective discomfort”.

3.4. HYPOTHESIS:

1. There will be no significant relationship between procrastination and

perceived permissive parenting (mother) among older adolescence.
2. There will be no significant relationship between procrastination and
perceived authoritarian parenting (mother) among older adolescence.
3. There will be no significant relationship between procrastination and
perceived authoritative parenting (mother) among older adolescence.
4. There will be no significant relationship between procrastination and
perceived permissive parenting (father) among older adolescence.
5. There will be no significant relationship between procrastination and
perceived authoritarian parenting (father) among older adolescence.
6. There will be no significant relationship between procrastination and
perceived authoritative parenting (father) among older adolescence.
7. There will be no significant difference between boys and girls in
procrastination.
8. There will be no significant difference between boys and girls in perceived
permissive parenting (mother).
9. There will be no significant difference between boys and girls in perceived
authoritarian parenting (mother).
10. There will be no significant difference between boys and girls in perceived
authoritative parenting (mother).
 43

11. There will be no significant difference between boys and girls in perceived
permissive parenting (father).
12. There will be no significant difference between boys and girls in perceived
authoritarian parenting (father).
13. There will be no significant difference between boys and girls in perceived
authoritative parenting (father).

3.5. DESCRIPTION OF THE TOOL:

AUTHOR: Dr. John R. Buri

NAME OF THE TOOL: Parental authority questionnaire
YEAR OF PUBLISHING: 1991
MEASURES: Parenting style
DESCRIPTION: The PAQ is designed to measure parental authority, or disciplinary
practices, from the view point of the child (of any age).
NUMBER OF ITEMS: 30
RELIABILITY:

1. Authoritativeness: r = 0.78, 0.92

2. Authoritarian: r = 0.86, 0.85
3. Permissive: r = 0.81, 0.77

The scale has acceptable internal consistency (0.74 to 0.87); retest reliability is 0.77 to
0.92.

Parental authority questionnaire was designed to measure adolescent’s

perceptions of parental authority or disciplinary practices; the total number of items in
the questions is 30. It is a 5 point likert type scale. It comprised of 3 subscales.

VALIDITY:

The content validity is high. Discriminant validity in authoritarian is inversely

related to permissiveness with r = -0.38, P < .0005 and authoritative is r = -0.48. And
the criterion validity is inherent the authoritative mother is r = 0.56, P < .0005 and
authoritative father is r = 0.68. The authoritarian mother is r = -0.36 and authoritarian
father is r = -0.53. The permissive mother is r = 0.4 and permissive father is r = 0.13
 44

SCORING:
The PAQ is scored easily by summing the individual items to comprise the
Subscale scores. Scores on each subscale range from 10 to 50.
The PAQ has three subscales:
Permissive (P: items 1, 6, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24 and 28), authoritarian (A: items 2,
3, 7, 9, 12, 16, 18, 25, 26 and 29), and authoritative/flexible (F: items 4, 5, 8, 11, 15,
20, 22, 23, 27, and 30). Parent and father forms of the assessment are identical except
for references to gender.
INTERPRETATION:

The parenting style is interpreted based on subscale and compare the 3

subscale scores and the one highest score is meant to be the parenting style. E.g. If the
authoritarian parenting score is highest means the parenting style is authoritarian.

NAME OF THE AUTHOR: Tuckman

NAME OF THE TOOL: Tuckman procrastination scale

YEAR OF PUBLICATION: 1991

MEASURES:

The procrastination scale (PS) that purpose to measure task avoidance to

academic activities. One of the Tuckman’s major goals was to develop an easily
adaptable self-report instrument which identifies academic procrastinators.

VARIABLE: Procrastination

RELIABILITY:

The test-retest reliable alpha is 0.86

VALIDITY:

The validity for the scale was Concurrent in nature.

ITEMS NO:

The total number of items in procrastination scale is 16 from an original item

pool of 72 items.
 45

SCORING:

Reverse scoring items 7, 12, 14, and16, as 4, 3, 2, and 1 and other than this it
was scored directly as 1, 2, 3, and 4.

INTERPRETATION:

The total score ranging between 16 and 64.Smaller score indicates a greater tendency
to procrastinate.

3.6 SAMPLE DESIGN:

The sample design was used is purposive sampling.

SAMPLE:

The sample study was taken from the older adolescence (14 -16) years.

SAMPLE SIZE:

The sample of about 200 was taken for the study. In that 100 boys and 100
girls were taken as sample size.

3.7 RESEARCH DESIGN:

The research design which was used is correlation and comparative study.

3.8 ADMINISTRATION AND CONSTRUCTION:

The study was conducted to the older adolescence and it measures the state of
feelings towards their parents. The samples of older adolescence been assessed
through questionnaire. They were instructed that it doesn’t have any time limit to
complete the questionnaire. And there is no right or wrong responses, make sure that
answer all the questions. Try to read and think about each statement clearly and
choose one best option that suits them a lot. And fill the questionnaire more honestly
and they were told that this will be kept more confidential.

3.9 STATISTICAL DESIGN:

The statistics used for the study is mean comparison and correlation.
 46

GRAPH 4.1

Mean difference on procrastination among boys and girls

PROCRASTINATION
40
39.45
39.5
39
38.5
38
37.5
Mean score
37
36.49
36.5
36
35.5
35
GIRLS BOYS

The above graph 4.1 shows the mean scores of girls and boys on

procrastination. From the above graph it can be observed that girls have a mean score

of 39.45 and boys have a mean score of 36.49. The standard deviation score of girls

have been identified as 6.03 and boys score is 3.92. According to the mean score it

clearly explains that both girl and boys do procrastination. This indicates that those

students who procrastinate have physical and mental problems, because they face too

much stress from their family and external environment. To minimize their frustration

they use procrastination as a helpful tool. By comparing the mean score of girls and

boys it shows that girls have find to be more procrastinate than boys, indicates that

girls have poor time management, difficulty in regulating their emotions, distractions

towards social media or they may feel task were overwhelming and it negatively

affects their happiness.

 47

GRAPH 4.2

Mean difference on mother parenting style among boys and girls.

MOTHER PARENTING STYLE

40

35

30

25

20 BOYS
GIRLS
15

10

0
PERMISSIVE AUTHORITARIAN AUTHORITATIVE

The above graph 4.2 shows the mean scores of boys and girls on mother

parenting style. From the above graph it can be observed that the mean score of

permissive parenting style on boys 27.13 and girls have 31.04. The mean score of

authoritarian parenting style on boys is 28.57 and girls have 32.34. The mean score of

authoritative parenting style on boys is 28.28 and girls have 34.31. From all the mean

scores of parenting style indicates that girls are comparatively higher in perceiving

their mothers as permissive, authoritarian and authoritative than boys. Both these

mean scores of boys and girls shows they have difference but to a small extent.
 48

GRAPH 4.3

Mean difference on father parenting style among boys and girls.

FATHER PARENTING STYLE

40

35

30

25

20 BOYS
GIRLS
15

10

0
PERMISSIVE AUTHORITARIAN AUTHORITATIVE

The above graph 4.3 shows the mean scores of boys and girls on father

parenting style. From the above graph it can be observed that the mean score of

permissive parenting style on boys 27.56 and girls have 26.56. The mean score of

authoritarian parenting style on boys is 29.06 and girls have 31.88. The mean score of

authoritative parenting style on boys is 28.98 and girls have 34.2. From the mean

scores of parenting style indicates that girls are comparatively higher in perceiving

their father as authoritarian and authoritative than boys. But the mean score of

permissive parenting style indicates that boys tend to perceive higher than girls. So

both these mean scores of boys and girls shows they have difference but to a small

extent.
 49

TABLE 4.4

Hypothesis 1: There will be no significant relationship between procrastination

and perceived permissive parenting (mother) among older adolescents.

Variable N Correlation Co-Efficient

Procrastination

Perceived permissive parenting style 200 0.16*

(mother)

* - p < 0.05 significant

Table 1 shows the N and correlation coefficient of procrastination and

perceived permissive parenting (mother). From the above table we observe that the r

(198) = 0.16, p< 0.05, which is a positive mild correlation. This shows that older

adolescents who perceive their parents to be permissive (mother) tend to procrastinate

more to small extent.

The above result appears to be consistent with other research study of Barton

et.al (2016) and the study found it is a moderate correlation between permissive

parenting and mental health in students

Barton et.al (2016) conducted a study between permissive parenting and

mental health: mediating effects of academic entitlement in college students and

conclude that permissive parenting associated with greater academic entitlement and

in turn to have more perceived stress and poorer mental health. This affects student’s

mental health.
 50

Permissive parents are characterized by having high responsiveness and low

demandingness. These parents don’t set too many rules and once their children

reached adolescence they stop monitoring and these children becomes less engaged

and less positively oriented towards their work. These factors may cause low self-

esteem and affects the children to procrastinate their assigned work.

Therefore Hypothesis 1 which states that “There will be no significant

relationship between procrastination and perceived permissive parenting (mother)

among older adolescents” is not accepted.

 51

TABLE 4.5

Hypothesis 2: There will be no significant relationship between procrastination

and perceived authoritarian parenting (mother) among older adolescents.

Variable N Correlation Co-Efficient

Procrastination

Perceived authoritarian parenting 200 0.19**

style (mother)

** - p< 0.01 significant

Table 2 shows the N and correlation coefficient of procrastination and

perceived authoritarian parenting (mother). From the above table we observe that the r

(198) = 0.19, p< 0.01, which is a positive mild correlation. This shows that older

adolescents who perceive their parents to be authoritarian (mother) tend to

procrastinate more to small extent.

The above result appears to be consistent with the research study of Pychyl

et.al (2002) and the study found there is weak correlation between gender, maternal

and paternal parenting style, self-worth in procrastination

Pychyl et.al (2002) examined the effects and interactions between gender,

maternal and paternal parenting style, and global self-worth in the prediction of

procrastination in adolescence and it concludes that maternal authoritarian parenting

has effect on adolescent procrastination and it was mediated through self-system.

 52

Authoritarian parenting styles are characterized by having high responsiveness

and low demandingness. These style of parent’s emphasis on obedience and expect

their rules should be obeyed without explanation by their children. They avoid open

communication and engage strict rules so these factors affect the children to exhibit

poor social skills, low self-esteem and their view point doesn’t have that much

priority to this parenting style. When adolescent start to be forced on to do a work

without their interest they may procrastinate.

Therefore the hypothesis 2 which states that “There will be no significant

relationship between procrastination and perceived authoritarian parenting (mother)

among older adolescents” is not accepted.

 53

TABLE 4.6

Hypothesis 3: There will be no significant relationship between procrastination

and perceived authoritative parenting (mother) among older adolescents.

Variable N Correlation Co-Efficient

Procrastination

Perceived authoritative parenting 200 0.13(NS)

style (mother)

NS – Not Significant

Table 3 shows the N and correlation coefficient of procrastination and

perceived authoritative parenting (mother).

From the above table we observe that the r (198) = 0.13, not significant. This

shows that older adolescents who perceive their parents to be authoritative (mother)

tend to procrastinate more to small extent.

Authoritative parents are characterized by high responsiveness and

demandingness. These parents encourage verbal give and take, explain the reasons

behind rules. If mother is authoritative they have higher self-esteem and life

satisfaction, the response is monitoring adolescent and increase demand on adolescent

independent decision making. So with the parents guidance and monitoring their

children will find their own decision and parents after analyse the consequences make

it for implementation. This creates good understanding between the parent-child

relationship and shows positive outcome, no procrastinate behavior is been found in

adolescents.
 54

Therefore the hypothesis 3 which states that “There will be no significant

relationship between procrastination and perceived authoritative parenting (mother)

among older adolescents” is accepted.

 55

Table 4.7

Hypothesis 4: There will be no significant relationship between procrastination

and perceived permissive parenting (father) among older adolescents.

Variable N Correlation Co-Efficient

Procrastination

Perceived permissive parenting style 200 0.19**

(father)

** - p<0.01 significant

Table 4 shows the N and correlation coefficient of procrastination and

perceived permissive parenting (father).

From the above table we observe that the r (198) = 0.19, p< 0.01, which is a

positive mild correlation. This shows that older adolescents who perceive their parents

to be permissive (father) tend to procrastinate more to small extent.

The above result appears to be consistent with other research studies like

(Barton, (2016); Pychyl (2002) the Barton research study found a moderate

correlation between permissive parenting style and its mental health & the Pychyl

research study found a week correlation between genders, parenting style, global self-

worth in procrastination.

Barton et.al (2016) conducted a study on permissive parenting and mental

health: mediating effects of academic entitlement in college students and conclude

that permissive parenting associated with greater academic entitlement and in turn to

have more perceived stress and poorer mental health. This affects student’s mental

health. Pychyl et.al (2002) examined the effects and interactions between gender,
 56

maternal and paternal parenting style, and global self-worth in the prediction of

procrastination in adolescence. The study concludes that paternal parenting style has a

direct relation with procrastination.

This style of parents is characterized by having high responsiveness and low

demandingness. These parents don’t set too many rules and once their children

reached adolescence they stop monitoring and these adolescent becomes less engaged

and less positively oriented. The permissive parents in fathers show more leniency

towards their children and they make their own decisions without asking any view

points of their parents. To avoid confrontation with adolescent parents behave more

friendly. As time passes by these factors may cause low self-esteem and affects the

children to procrastinate their assigned work.

Therefore the hypothesis 4 which states that “There will be no significant

relationship between procrastination and perceived permissive parenting (father)

among older adolescents” is not accepted.

 57

Table 4.8

Hypothesis 5: There will be no significant relationship between procrastination

and perceived authoritarian parenting (father) among older adolescents.

Variable N Correlation Co-Efficient

Procrastination

Perceived authoritarian parenting style 200 0.18*

(father)

*- p<0.05 significant

Table 5 shows the N and correlation coefficient of procrastination and

perceived authoritarian parenting (father).

From the above table we observe that the r (198) = 0.18, p< 0.05, which is a

positive mild correlation. This shows that older adolescents who perceive their parents

to be authoritarian (father) tend to procrastinate more to small extent.

The above result appears to be consistent with other research study of Pychyl

et.al (2002) and this found to be a weak correlation. It examined the effects and

interactions between gender, maternal and paternal parenting style, and global self-

worth in the prediction of procrastination in adolescence. The study concludes that

paternal parenting style has a direct relation with procrastination.

Authoritarian parenting styles are characterized by having high responsiveness

and low demandingness. These style of perceived parent’s emphasis on obedience and

expect their rules should be obeyed without explanation by their children. And they

punish their children if they do any mistakes. They avoid open communication and

engage strict rules so these factors affect the children to exhibit poor social skills, low
 58

self-esteem and children view point doesn’t have that much priority to this parenting

style. When adolescent start to be forced on to do a work, they have less hope on

themselves or without their interest they perform a work makes them to procrastinate.

Therefore the hypothesis 5 which states that “There will be no significant

relationship between procrastination and perceived authoritarian parenting (father)

among older adolescents” is not accepted.

 59

Table 4.9

Hypothesis 6: There will be no significant relationship between procrastination

and perceived authoritative parenting (father) among older adolescents.

Variable N Correlation Co-Efficient

Procrastination

Perceived authoritative parenting style 200 0.08(NS)

(father)

NS - Not Significant

Table 6 shows the N and correlation coefficient of procrastination and

perceived authoritative parenting (father).

From the above table we observe that the r (198) = 0.08, not significant. This

shows that older adolescents who perceive their parents to be authoritative (father)

tend to procrastinate more.

In fathers also authoritative style works better because they provide adequate

warmth and support. If children fail to accomplish the task these parents forgive them

rather than punishing. It helps the adolescent to avoid procrastination. Authoritative

parents are characterized by high responsiveness and demandingness. These parents

encourage verbal give and take, explain the reasons behind rules. So with the parents

guidance and monitoring their children will find their own decision and parents after

analyse the consequences make it for implementation. This creates good

understanding between the parent-child relationship and shows positive outcome, no

procrastinate behavior is been found in adolescents.

 60

Therefore the hypothesis 6 which states that “There will be no significant

relationship between procrastination and perceived authoritative parenting (father)

among older adolescents” is accepted.

 61

Table 4.10

Hypothesis 7: There will be no significant difference between boys and girls in

procrastination.

Variable Gender N Df Mean SD ‘t’ value

Girls 100 39.35 6.03

Procrastination 198 3.97**
Boys 100 36.49 3.92

** - p<0.01 Significant

Table 7 shows the N, df, M, SD, and‘t’ value among boys and girls in

procrastination.

From the above table we observed that the critical value t (198) = 3.97, p< 0.

01. This indicates that girls have higher procrastination than boys.

The above results shows some research studies have a difference between

procrastination and mental health(Abdullah, (2017), academic procrastination and

adolescent gender Khan, (2014), procrastination between gender, perfectionism and

self- esteem Ghazi, (2016)

This study is contradictory to current finding shows that Abdullah et.al (2017)

investigated the relationship between procrastination and mental health with regarding

the gender and developmental stage. The results shows there is significant difference

between males & female in procrastination and the study shows males procrastinate

more than the female. It reveals that adolescent have higher procrastination than

children.
 62

Khan et.al (2014) investigated the academic procrastination among male and

female university and college students. Results indicate college students tend to

procrastinate more than university students.

Ghazi et.al (2016) explored the role of gender, perfectionism and self-esteem

on procrastination in academic setting. It concludes that males were found to be

higher on procrastination and perfectionism than females.

The result shows girls have higher procrastination than boys. These adolescent

may have low self-esteem and they tend to engage in procrastination relevant

behaviors. And these kinds of behaviors may be triggered by a difficult task which

makes them feel that they are not capable enough to do it.

Therefore the hypothesis 7 which states that “There will be no significant

difference between boys and girls in procrastination” is not accepted

 63

Table 4.11

Hypothesis 8: There will be no significant difference between boys and girls in

perceived permissive parenting (mother).

‘t’
Variable Gender N Df Mean SD
value

Perceived permissive parenting Girls 100 31.04 5.82

198 5.21**
(mother) Boys 100 27.13 4.73

** - p<0.01 Significant

Table 8 shows the N, df, M, SD, and ‘t’ value among boys and girls in

perceived permissive parenting (mother).

From the above table we observed that the critical value t (198) = 5.21,

p<0.01. This indicates that girls tend to perceive their mother as more permissive than

boys do.

The above result appears to be consistent with other research study Judith

(1995) found there is a difference between parenting styles and parental authority.

Judith et.al (1995) examined parenting styles and conceptions of parental

authority during adolescence. The result shows that adolescents perceived their

parents as more permissive but parents perceive themselves as authoritative.

Some adolescent girls feel their mothers as more permissive than boys because

these children perceived their parents are not an active participant in shaping their

children behaviour and they may not force the adolescent to do the chores they don’t

like to do to avoid disappoint they behave friendly.

 64

Therefore the hypothesis 8 which states that “There will be no significant

difference between boys and girls in perceived permissive parenting (mother)” is not

accepted.
 65

TABLE 4.12

Hypothesis 9: There will be no significant difference between boys and girls in

perceived authoritarian parenting (mother).

‘t’
Variable Gender N Df Mean SD
value

Perceived authoritarian parenting Girls 100 32.34 6.25

198 4.81**
(mother) Boys 100 28.57 4.73

** - p<0.01 Significant

Table 9 shows the N, df, M, SD, and‘t’ value among boys and girls in

perceived authoritarian parenting (mother).

From the above table we observed that the critical value t (198) = 4.81, p< 0.

01. This indicates that girls tend to perceive their mother as more authoritarian than

boys do.

The above result appears to be consistent with other research studies like

(Sumiullah, (2016); Judith (1995). The studies found that there is a difference

between parenting and children behaviour, parenting style and parental authority in

adolescent.

Sumiullah et.al (2016) determined the influence of parents and their parenting

styles on children’s behavior. The result shows authoritarian parenting style leads the

children to become more rebellious and adopt problematic behavior. So the finding

suggests that authoritative parenting style is effective in children. Judith et.al (1995)

examined parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence.

 66

The result shows that adolescents perceived their parents as more authoritarian. But

parents viewed themselves as more authoritative.

Few adolescent girls perceived their mothers as authoritarian than boys

because their parents display little warmth and high controlling behavior. And

children follow strict disciplines, parental directions or if not followed they given

punishments and those characteristics made adolescent to fall under authoritarian

parenting style.

Therefore the hypothesis 9 which states that “There will be no significant

difference between boys and girls in perceived authoritarian parenting (mother)” is

not accepted.
 67

TABLE 4.13

Hypothesis 10: There will be no significant difference between boys and girls in

perceived authoritative parenting (mother).

‘t’
Variable Gender N Df Mean SD
value

Perceived authoritative parenting Girls 100 34.31 6.18

198 7.66**
(mother) Boys 100 28.28 4.88

** - p<0.01 Significant

Table 10 shows the N, df, M, SD, ‘t’ value among boys and girls in perceived

authoritative parenting (mother).

From the above table we observed that the critical value t (198) = 7.66, p< 0.

01. This indicates that girls tend to perceive their mother as more authoritative than

boys do.

The above results appear to be consistent with other research studies like

(Masayo, (2014); Gracia (2009). And the studies found that there is a difference

between children mental health and parenting styles, parenting style and adolescent

outcome.

Masayo et.al (2014) examined the children’s later mental health in Japan was

influenced by parents authoritative, authoritarian &permissive parenting style. The

result shows that their mother has more authoritative than their fathers. Gracia et.al

(2009) investigated which parenting style is associated with youth outcomes among

adolescents. The results show that both indulgent and authoritative parenting styles

associated with better outcomes than authoritarian and neglectful parenting.

 68

And some girls perceived their mother as more authoritative than boys

because their parents maintained a warm but a firm relationship with them. Parents

encourage their adolescent to be independent but they maintain limits and controls on

their actions. So this characteristics fall under authoritative parenting style.

Therefore the hypothesis 10 which states that “There will be no significant

difference between boys and girls in perceived authoritative parenting (mother)” is

not accepted.
 69

TABLE 4.14

Hypothesis 11: There will be no significant difference between boys and girls in

perceived permissive parenting (father).

Variable Gender N Df Mean SD ‘t’ value

Perceived permissive parenting Girls 100 26.56 5.95

198 1.53(NS)
(father) Boys 100 27.86 5.99

NS – Not Significant
Table 11 shows the N, df, M, SD and ‘t’-value among boys and girls in

perceived permissive parenting (father).

From the above table we observed that the critical value t (198) = 1.53, not

significant. This indicates that both the adolescents have no significant difference

between perceived permissive parenting (father).

Both the older adolescent did not find any difference on permissive parenting

(father) it may be because their parents would have granted them more autonomy and

provide a limited control to their children action.

Therefore the hypothesis 11 which states that “There will be no significant

difference between boys and girls in perceived permissive parenting (father)” is

accepted.
 70

TABLE 4.15

Hypothesis 12: There will be no significant difference between boys and girls in

perceived authoritarian parenting (father).

‘t’
Variable Gender N Df Mean SD
value

Perceived authoritarian parenting Girls 100 31.88 5.82

198 3.28**
(father) Boys 100 29.06 6.30

** - p<0.01 Significant

Table 12 shows the N, df, M, SD, ‘t’ value among boys and girls in perceived

authoritarian parenting (father).

From the above table we observed that the critical value t (198) = 3.28, p< 0.

01. This indicates that girls tend to perceive their father as more authoritarian than

boys do.

The above result appears to be consistent with the other research studies like

(Bronte, (2016); Sumiullah, (2016); Judith, (1995). This study finds the difference

between father- child relationships, parenting style and risk behaviour, parents

influence and parenting style, parenting style and parental authority.

Bronte et.al (2016) investigated father–child-relationship and father’s

parenting style and adolescents risk behaviours and conclude that authoritarian fathers

have positive relationship with their adolescent they tend to reduce negative effect of

risk behaviours. Sumiullah et.al (2016) determined the influence of parents and their

parenting styles on children’s behavior and the result shows that authoritarian

parenting style leads the children to become more rebellious and adopt problematic
 71

behavior. Judith et.al (1995) examined parenting styles and conceptions of parental

authority during adolescence. The result shows that adolescents perceived their

parents as more authoritarian.

Some girls perceived their father as more authoritarian than boys it because

the nature of strong willed and self indulgent of adolescent fathers may tend to use

power as their authority and they exert their will over their children.

Therefore the hypothesis 12 which states that “There will be no significant

difference between boys and girls in perceived authoritarian parenting (father)” is not

accepted.
 72

TABLE 4.16

Hypothesis 13: There will be no significant difference between boys and girls in

perceived authoritative parenting (father).

‘t’
Variable Gender N Df Mean SD
value

Perceived authoritative parenting Girls 100 34.2 6.97

198 5.82**
(father) Boys 100 28.98 5.64

** - p<0.01 Significant

Table 13 shows the N, df, M, SD, ‘t’ value among boys and girls in perceived

authoritative parenting (father).

From the above table we observed that the critical value t (198) = 5.82, p< 0.

01. This indicates that girls tend to perceive their father as more authoritative than

boys do.

The above result appears to be consistent with the other research studies like

(Gracia (2009); Sumiullah (2016); Masayo (2014). However most of the studies

found that there is correlation between parenting and adolescent outcomes, parents

and parenting styles on child’s behaviour, children mental health and parenting style.

Gracia et.al (2009) investigated which parenting style is associated with youth

outcomes among adolescents and concluded that. The results show that both indulgent

and authoritative parenting styles associated with better outcomes than authoritarian

and neglectful parenting. Sumiullah et.al (2016) determined the influence of parents

and their parenting styles on children’s behavior and concludes that authoritative

parenting style is effective in children. Masayo, et.al (2014) examined the children’s
 73

later mental health in Japan was influenced by parents authoritative, authoritarian

&permissive parenting style and the result shows their mother has more authoritative

than their fathers. Finally, paternal authoritative parenting has beneficial impacts on

respondent’s later mental health.

A few adolescent girls perceived their fathers more authoritative than boys do

so this shows that these parents guidance and their goal is to socialize with their

children. And they consider children viewpoint after analysing the consequences then

they tend to adjust their expectations to the needs of the child.

Therefore the hypothesis 13 which states that “There will be no significant

difference between boys and girls in perceived authoritative parenting (father)” is not

accepted.
 74

5.1. SUMMARY:

The aim of the study is to analyse the role of parenting style on procrastination

among older adolescence. Ex-post facto design was used for the current study. The

sample of the study consists of 200 older adolescent were, 100 boys and 100 girls.

The sample was collected by using purposive sampling technique. Parental authority

questionnaire which was developed by Dr. John R. Buri (1991) were used to measure

the parenting style. It consists of 30-item scale that measure 3 subscales such as

permissive, authoritarian, authoritative parenting style. All these items are answered

using 5 point likert scale that ranges from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Tuckman procrastination scale was developed by Tuckman (1991). It consists of 16-

items scale and that measures procrastination. These items were answered using 4

point likert scale that ranges from that’s not me for sure to that’s me for sure. Pearson

product moment of co-efficient of correlation was used to find out the relationship

between procrastination and perceived parenting style on mother and father and t-test

was used to find out the difference in older adolescent procrastination and parenting

style. The result shows there is a significant relationship found between

procrastination and perceived permissive parenting style mother, significant

relationship between procrastination and perceived authoritarian parenting style

mother, No significant relationship between procrastination and perceived

authoritative parenting style mother, significant relationship between procrastination

and perceived permissive parenting style father, significant relationship between

procrastination and perceived authoritarian parenting style father, No significant

relationship between procrastination and perceived authoritative parenting style father

from Pearson product moment of co-efficient of correlation. Significant difference

found in older adolescent, significant difference found in perceived permissive

 75

parenting style mother, significant difference found in perceived authoritarian

parenting style mother, significant difference found in perceived authoritative

parenting style mother, no significant difference found in perceived permissive

parenting style father, significant difference found in perceived authoritarian

parenting style father, significant difference found in perceived authoritative parenting

style father.

5.2. CONCLUSION:

1. There is significant relationship between procrastination and perceived

permissive parenting (mother) among older adolescence.
2. There is significant relationship between procrastination and perceived
authoritarian parenting (mother) among older adolescence.
3. There is no significant relationship between procrastination and perceived
authoritative parenting (mother) among older adolescence.
4. There is significant relationship between procrastination and perceived
permissive parenting (father) among older adolescence.
5. There is significant relationship between procrastination and perceived
authoritarian parenting (father) among older adolescence.
6. There is no significant relationship between procrastination and perceived
authoritative parenting (father) among older adolescence.
7. There is significant difference between boys and girls in procrastination.
8. There is significant difference between boys and girls in perceived permissive
parenting (mother).
9. There is significant difference between boys and girls in perceived
authoritarian parenting (mother).
10. There is significant difference between boys and girls in perceived
authoritative parenting (mother).
11. There is no significant difference between boys and girls in perceived
permissive parenting (father).
12. There is significant difference between boys and girls in perceived
authoritarian parenting (father).
 76

13. There is significant difference between boys and girls in perceived

authoritative parenting (father).

5.3. LIMITATIONS:

 Inability to carry out the study on a larger population due to limitations of

finance and time.

 The sample of the size is too small.

 The geographical area was restricted to state (Chennai).

 Random sampling method can be used.

5.4. SUGGESTION:

 To conduct the similar study on a large population.

 Some other variables can be included.

 To conduct the study in different age group.

5.5. IMPLICATIONS:

The study shows that there is a significant relationship between parenting style

and procrastination. Parents can be given training under parental warmth to

understand their adolescent psychological adjustment. And it may promote the

adolescent psychological well-being. The study also shows there is significant

difference on parenting style. Therapeutic strategies to overcome procrastination such as

cognitive restructuring (to tackle negative cognitions), relaxation exercise (to tackle negative

affect) and time restriction. Anxiety based treatments are likely to be most effective.
 77

7. BIBILIOGRAPHY

Amy Morin, LCSW. (2018). 6 Ways to Discipline kids without yelling, Get your c

Wayne, P., (2018). Balancing the Parenting Styles of Fathers and Mothers, Live

About.com

Aarohi, A., (2018). Permissive parenting style- characteristics, effects & more

published by in big kid, preschooler, Firstcry parenting.com.

Amy, M., (2018). Signs you are too strict with your child. Very well family.com

Anisha Nair (2018). Characteristics of authoritarian parenting and its effects you and

your child, published by in big kid, preschooler, Parenting.firstcry.com articles

Asna, (2018). Perceived parenting styles and development of resilience in higher

secondary school students, SSRN Research publication, Euro Asia.

Aziz, M., Zain, Z., Raja, M.Z., Aini, M.M., Nur, H.M.N.,& Nik, F.N.L. (2016).

Relative Importance Index (RII) in Ranking of Procrastination Factors Among

University Students. AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol 1761 (1), 1-4.

Barton, A. L., & Hirsch, J. K. (2016). Permissive parenting and mental health in

college students: Mediating effects of academic entitlement. Journal of American

College Health, 64(1), 1–8.

Berkien, M., Louwerse, A., Verhulst, F., & Ende, F.(2012). Children's perceptions of
dissimilarity in parenting styles are associated with internalizing and externalizing
behavior. European Child & Adoloscent Psychiatry, Vol 21(2) 79-85.

Bhavana navuluri, (2017). Authoritative parenting style – characteristics and effects,

momjunction.com
 78

Bornte, T. J.,Moore, K. A., & Jennifer, C. (2006). The Father-Child Relationship,

Parenting Styles and Adolescent Risk Behaviors in Intact Families, Journal of Family,

Vol 27(6), 850-881.

Bui, N.H., (2007). Effect of Evaluation Threat on Procrastination Behavior, Journal of

Social Psychology, Vol 147 (3), 197-210.

Burka, J. B., Yuen, L. M. (2008). Procrastination: Why you do it, what to do about it.

Reading, MA: Da Capo.

Chen, B. B., (2017). Parent–adolescent attachment and procrastination: The mediating

role of self-worth. Journal of self- worth, Vol 178(4), 238-245.

Constantin, K., English, M.M. & Mazmanian, D. J. (2018). Rat-Emo Cognitive

Behav Ther Vol 36 (15)

Daniel, T. L. (2010). Adolescent’s perceptions of paternal and maternal parenting

styles in a Chinese Context, pp 527-537.

Dembo, M. (2004). Adapted, in part from How to Beat Procrastination, UW-Stout:

Counseling Center, and Motivation and Learning Strategies for College Students.

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J.

(1987). The Relation of Parenting Style to Adolescent School Performance. Child

Development, 58(5), 1244.

Ferrari, J. R., (2010). Still procrastinating: The no-regrets guide to getting it done.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Ferrari, J. R., Diaz- Morales, J. F. (2014). Procrastination and mental health coping: A
Brief Report related to students. Individual Difference Research, Vol 12(1) 8-11.
 79

Ferrari, J. R.,& Olivette, M. J. (1989). Perception of parental control and the

development of indecision among late adolescent females. Adolescence, Vol 28(112)-
963

Firoze, H. (2018). Impact of parenting Styles on adolescents resilience. Indian Journal

of Health & Wellbeing, Vol 9(7) 937-944.

García, F., & Gracia, E. (2009). Is Always Authoritative the Optimum Parenting

Style? Evidence from Spanish Families. Adolescence, Vol 44(173), 101–131.

Ghazi, (2016). Procrastination Among Students: The Role of Gender, Perfrectionism

and Self-esteem. The Indian Journal of Social Work, Vol 77(2), 191-210.

Hajiazizi, A., & HO, R. (2015). The Relationship between Self-Compassion and

Academic procrastination Being Mediated by Shame and Anxiety. The International

Journal of Indian Psychology, Forthcoming 15 Pages.

Hoshiar, S., John, A., & Nadja, R. (2018). The impact of parenting styles on children

developmental outcome: The role of academic self‐concept as a mediator.

International Journal of Psychology, Vol 53(5) ,379-387.

Hossain, B.,& Danesh, M.D. (1978). The authoritarian family and its adolescent,

Canadian psychiatric association journal, vol. 23(7), 481- 482.

Ismail I.R., Zulkifli N., Pauzi S.F.M., Hadi K.A.A., & Najid N.A. (2014) Effects

of Student Workload and Academic Procrastination on Attitude to Plagiarize: A

Partial Least Squares Application. Springer, Singapore.

Joanna, P. R., Grazyna, P. (2017). Individual Traits and a tendency to procrastinate

among students, Vol 54(12), 108-121. DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0011.7859

Judith, G. S. (1995). Parenting styles and Conceptions of Parental authority during

Adolescence, Vol 66(2) 299-316.

Julie, N., (2014). Parenting styles predicts procrastination in children,

Shutterstock.com
 80

Khan, M. J., Hafsa, A.,Syeda, S. M., & Sidra, M. (2014).

Academic Procrastination among Male and Female University and College Students,

Journal of Social Sciences, Vol 8(2), 65-70.

Ko, C. A.,& Chang, Y. (2019). Investigating the Relationships Among Resilience,

Social Anxiety, and Procrastination in a Sample of College Students. Psychologiacl

Report, Vol 122(1) 231-245.

Lian, S., Sun, X., Zhou, Z.K., Fan, C. Y., Niu, G. F., & Liu, Q. Q. (2018). Social
networking site addiction and undergraduate students irrational procrastination: The
mediation role of social networking site fatigue and the moderating role of effortful
control.

Loona, M. I., & Khan, M. J. (2016). Self-Compassion and Procrastination among First

Born and Last Born University Students, Pakistan Journal of Psychology, Vol 47(2),

45-59.

Maysayo, U.(2014). The impact of Authoritative, Authoritarian and Permissive

Parenting Styles on Children’s Later Mental Health in Japan: Focusing on Parent and
child Gender.

McKinney, C., & Renk, K. (2008). Differential Parenting Between Mothers and

Fathers: Implications for Late Adolescents. Journal of Family, Vol 29(6), 806–827.

Miller, A. L., & Neumeister, K. L. S. (2017). The Influence of Personality, Parenting

Styles, and Perfectionism on Performance Goal Orientation in High Ability

Students. Journal of Advanced Academics, Vol 28(4), 313–344.

Moghaddam, M. F., Validad, A., Rakhshani, T., & Assareh, M. (2017). Child self-

esteem and different parenting styles of mothers: a cross-sectional study. Archives of

Psychiatry & Psychotherapy, Vol 19(1), 37–42.

 81

Mohammad, Q. A. (2017). Procrastination and its relationship with Mental Health

among Children and Adolescents, Department of Counseling Psychology, University
of Aleppo, Syria Submission.

Muhtadie, L., Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N.,& Wang, Y.(2013). Predicting internalizing
problems in Chinese children: The unique and interactive effects of parenting and
child temperament. Development& Psychopathology, Vol 25(3), 653-667.

Mukhtar, S., & Mahmood, Z. (2018). Moderating Role of Perceived Social Support

between Perceived Parenting Styles and Relational Aggression in

Adolescents. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, Vol 27(8), 831–845.

Nunes, F.,& Catarina, M. Parental Style and Suicidal Ideation in Adolescents:

Mediating Effect of Attachment. Journal of Child & Family studies, Vol 26(3), 734-

747.

Parsons, C. A., (1988).Perceptions of the Causes of Procrastination by Sport

Administrators. Journal of Sport Management, Vol 2(2), 129-139.

Pinki, M., (2017). Praenting style and its impact on Submissive Behavior among
Adolescents. International Journal of Research, Vol 4(17) 607-616.

Podana, Z., & Eva, K. (2018). The impact of parenting style on fear of crime among

adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Youth Studies, Vol 21(8), 1077-1094

Pychyl, T. A., Coplan, R. J., & Reid, P. A. M. (2002). Parenting and procrastination:

gender differences in the relations between procrastination, parenting style and self-

worth in early adolescence. Personality & Individual Differences, 33(2), 271.

Rozental, A. Forsell, E., Svensson, A., Andersson, G.,& Carlbring, P. (2015).

Differentiating procrastinators from each other: A Cluster Analysis, Cognitive
Behaviour Therapy, Vol 44(6) 480-490.
 82

Saini, V., Dhanda, B. (2018). Ecological Perspectives and Paternal parenting style – A

study Impact: International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Literature,

Vol. 6 (251-256)

Samiullah, S., (2016). Infuluence of parenting style on Children’s Behaviour. Journal

of Education and Development, Vol 3(2).

Sharma, T., & Mittal, U. (2017). Identity diffusion: Role of parenting style and

decision making style among adolescents. Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing, Vol

8(7), 624–628.

Simons, L.G. (2007). Linking mother-father differences in parenting to a typology of

family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. Vol 28(2) 212-241.

Soysa, C. K., & Weiss, A. (2014). Mediating perceived parenting styles-test anxiety

relationships: Academic procrastination and maladaptive perfectionism. Learning &

Individual Differences, Vol 34 (77-85).

Steel, P. (2012). The procrastination equation: How to stop putting things off and start

getting things done. Published: Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

Steel, P., & Klingsieck, K. (2015). Procrastination. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), the

international encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences Vol.2 (19), (73-78).

Strunk, K., Steele, M. R. (2011). Relative Contributions of self-efficacy, self-

regulation, and self- handicapping in predicting Student procrastination.
Psychological Report, Vol 109(3) 983-989.

Sylvester, O. A. (2014). Influence of Self-Esteem, Parenting Style and Parental

Monitoring on Sexual Risk Behaviour of Adolescents in Ibadan. Gender &

Behaviour, Vol 12(2), 6341–6353.

Tigist, M. T., (2013).The relationship between parenting style, self regulated learning

and academic achievement in selected primary schools in Ethiopia by submitted in

 83

accordance with the requirements for of doctor of education in the subject

psychology of education at the university of south africa . promoter: prof s.schulze

Tripathi, S.R., Pragyendu, Kochar, A.,& Dara, P. (2015). Role of self-efficacy and

hope in academic procrastination among undergraduate students. Indian Journal of

Positive Psychology, Vol 6(4), 376-379.

Uzun Ozer, B., O’Callaghan, J., Bokszczanin, A., Ederer, E., & Essau, C. (2014).

Dynamic interplay of depression, perfectionism and self-regulation on

procrastination. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol 42(3), 309–319.

Wanda, T., (2018). 3 styles of procrastination, According to Psychology. Published:

Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Child to listen without raising your voice, Very well

family.com

Waterman, E. A., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2017). Are Mothers’ and Fathers’ Parenting

Characteristics Associated With Emerging Adults’ Academic Engagement? Journal of

Family, Vol 38(9), 1239–1261.

Xu, P., Gonzalez, V. C.,& Xiong, Z. (2016). State anxiety reduces procrastination
behavior, Motivation & Emotion, Vol 40(4) 625-637.

Yip KY., Leung MT. (2016). The Structural Model of Perceived Parenting Style as

Antecedent on Achievement Emotion, Self-regulated Learning and Academic

Procrastination of Undergraduates in Hong Kong. In: Leung MT., Tan L. (eds)

Applied Psychology Readings (171-190). SCAP 2016. Springer, Singapore

Zubizarreta, A., Calvete, E., & Hankin, B. L. (2019). Punitive Parenting Style and
Psychological Problems in Childhood: The Moderating Role of Warmth and
temperament. Journal of Child& Family Studies, Vol. 28(1), 233-244.