Results and Discussion

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
4.3 HYPOTHESES TESTING

92
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter gives a detailed quantitative analyses of the responses obtained
from the participants of the study. The data were analyzed using descriptive and
inferential statistical methods by using the statistical package for social sciences
(SPSS version 13.0). The descriptive statistical method is the simplest method of
analysis which gives general view of the results by analyzing the responses in Mean,
frequency and percentage whereas inferential statistical method help to see the
relationship between two or more variables, the differences between them and make
generalizations beyond the specific sample of data.
The analyses are presented in two sections: (1) Descriptive statistics (2)
Hypotheses testing of parenting styles and emotional intelligence on academic
achievement, an analysis of independent and dependent variables as a function of
gender, geographical locale, socio economic status and family structure.
Parenting styles and emotional intelligence of adolescents has been measured,
assessed and discussed with the help of standardized questionnaires. Academic
achievement has been measured based on the aggregate percentage obtained in the
previous qualifying tenth grade public examinations. Hence this chapter addresses the
five research questions formulated in Chapter- III relating to parenting styles and
emotional intelligence on academic achievement of adolescents.

93
4.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
The parenting style predominantly adopted by father and mother as perceived
by adolescents and their level of Emotional intelligence and Academic achievement
was calculated based on the frequency and percentage obtained for the categories
mentioned for each of the variables. Mean and Standard Deviation was calculated to
examine the difference in parenting style, emotional intelligence and academic
achievement as a function of gender, geographical locale, socio economic status and
family structure.
Table 4.1
Frequency and Percentage of Perceived Parenting styles of Father and Mother
Parenting styles Parenting style –Father Parenting style-Mother

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Authoritarian 276 28.4 207 21.3
Authoritative 631 64.9 709 72.9
Permissive 66 6.8 57 5.9
Total 973 100 973 100
Figure 4.1. Frequency and percentage of parenting styles perceived by adolescents.

94
Majority of the fathers were perceived by the adolescents as adopting
authoritative style (64.9%) followed by authoritarian (28.4%). It is observed that a
very small percentage of fathers adopted the permissive style (6.8%). Looking at the
mothers parenting style most of the mothers as perceived by the adolescents adopted
an authoritative style (72.9%) followed by authoritarian (21.3%). Only a small
percentage of mothers adopted a permissive style (5.9%). The frequency and
percentage is also presented in graphical form. In summary a higher percentage of
parents both fathers and mothers as perceived by the adolescents predominantly used
an authoritative style of parenting.

95
Table 4.2
Frequency and Percentage of Components of Emotional Intelligence and Total
Emotional Intelligence Score
Intrapersonal Interpersonal Intrapersonal Interpersonal Total
Awareness Awareness Management Management Emotional
Intelligence
Frequ % Frequ % Frequ % Frequ % Frequ %
ency ency ency ency ency
Very 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Good
Good 120 12.3 70 7.2 147 15.1 86 8.8 93 9.6
Average 541 55.6 493 50.7 446 45.8 545 56.0 400 41.1
Poor 241 24.8 309 31.8 291 29.9 274 28.2 390 40.1
Very 71 7.3 101 10.4 89 9.1 68 7.0 90 9.2
Poor
Total 973 100.0 973 100.0 973 100.0 973 100.0 973 100.0
Figure 4.2.Frequency and percentage of components of emotional intelligence and the

total emotional intelligence score.
With regard to the level of emotional intelligence, out of the 973 respondents
an overwhelming number fell in the average category (41.1%) followed by poor level
of emotional intelligence (40.1%). Further a small proportion of respondents had good

96
level of emotional intelligence (9%) and very poor emotional intelligence (9.2).
Looking at the four components of emotional intelligence in intrapersonal awareness
55.6 percent were average, 24.8 percent were poor, 12.3 percent good and 7.3 percent
very poor. In interpersonal awareness 50.7 percent of adolescents had average
interpersonal awareness. Nearly 31.8 percent had poor interpersonal awareness. Those
with good interpersonal awareness were 7.2 percent and 10.4 percent had very poor
interpersonal awareness In intrapersonal and interpersonal management those with
average intrapersonal management was less (45.8%) than interpersonal management
(56.0%) and those with good intrapersonal management was more (15.1%) than
interpersonal management (8.8%). About 29.9 and 28.2 percent had poor
intrapersonal and interpersonal management while 9.1 and 7.0 percent had very poor
intrapersonal and interpersonal management. None of the respondents had very good
emotional intelligence. In essence total Emotional intelligence score revealed most of
the respondents as having average emotional intelligence whereas the level of the four
components that made up the total Emotional intelligence varied. The frequency and
percentage is also given in graphical form.

97
Table 4.3
Frequency and Percentage of Marks obtained in the Previous Qualifying Tenth Grade
Examinations
Percentage of marks Marks obtained

Frequency Percentage
70% and above 567 58.3
60% to 70 % 164 16.9
50% to 60 % 147 15.1
35% to 50 % 95 9.8
Total 973 100.0
Figure 4.3. Frequency and percentage of marks obtained in the previous qualifying
tenth grade examinations.
The percentage of marks obtained in the tenth standard qualifying examination
indicates out of the 973 participants 58.3 percent of participants had obtained a
percentage of 70 and above, 16.9 percent between 60 percent and 70 percent, 15.1
percent between 50 percent and 60 percent, and only 9.8 percent between 35 and 50
percent. The frequency and percentage is also presented in graphical form.

98
4.3 HYPOTHESES TESTING
Pearson’s Correlation and Multiple regression analyses were used to
determine the significant impact of parenting styles and emotional intelligence on
academic achievement. An additional Chi-Square test of association was performed to
find out the association between the categorical variables under study. Analysis of
Variance and‘t’ test was used to examine the differences in the independent and
dependent variables as a function of gender, socioeconomic status, geographical area
and family structure.
Tests of normality were performed to verify if the data collected from the sample
were independent and were normally distributed. As the assumptions were satisfied
Correlation was done using Pearson Correlation.
The results are discussed around each of the research hypotheses.

99
Hypothesis 1
H0 There is no significant impact of parenting style on academic achievement of

adolescents.
Table 4.4
Pearson Product Moment Correlations of Perceived Parenting styles of Father and
Mother with Academic Achievement of Adolescents (N=973)
Parenting styles Academic
Achievement
Authoritarian -.232**
Father Authoritative .505**
Permissive .416**
Authoritarian - .278**
Mother Authoritative .526**
Permissive .385**
**p <.01
Correlations between fathers parenting styles and academic achievement
indicated fathers r = -.232 authoritarian style was significantly inversely correlated
with academic achievement and positively correlated with authoritative style r = .505
and permissive style r = .416 at p < .01 significance level.
With regard to mothers parenting style and academic achievement mothers
authoritarian style, r = .278 was significantly inversely correlated with academic
achievement and positively correlated with authoritative style r = .526 and permissive
style r = .385 at p < .01 significance level.

100
Table 4.5
Multiple Regression for Perceived Parenting Styles Predicting Academic Achievement
of Adolescents
Variables Unstandardised Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Β Standard. Error Beta t
(constant) 18.819 2.764 6.808
Authoritarian Father -.221 .105 -.103 -2.111*
Authoritative Father .280 .123 .124 2.276*
Permissive Father .408 .138 .168 2.958**
Authoritarian Mother .174 .11 .078 1.567
Authoritative Mother .887 .133 .353 6.682**

Permissive Mother -.030 .139 -.012 -.212
Note: R = .559a, R2 = .313, Adjusted R2 = .308

a
predictors: (constant): parenting styles of father and mother
b
dependent variable: Academic achievement,
*p < .05, **p < .01
Regression analysis identified significant factors in the first stage. Multiple
regression analysis showed parenting style as adding significant increment to
academic achievement of adolescents. The predictors accounted for 31.3 % increment
in academic achievement. The contribution and significance of each of the parents’
three styles were determined by the beta weight and t ratio. Father’s authoritative (β =
.124, p < .05) and permissive style (β = .168, p < .01) showed significant positive
impact on academic achievement whereas authoritarian, (β = -.103, p < .05) style
showed significant negative impact on academic achievement. Among the mothers
three styles, only authoritative style (β = .353, p < .01) added increment to academic
achievement.
101
Table 4.6
Chi Square Estimate for Association between Perceived Parenting styles of Father
and Academic Achievement of Adolescents
Parenting Academic achievement – 10th Grade
styles of χ2
70%& 60%- 50%- 35% - Total
Father
above 70% 60% 50%
Authoritarian 128 58 58 32 276

(46.4%) (21.0%) (21.0%) (11.6%) (100.0%)
Authoritative 401 98 78 54 631

(63.5%) (15.5%) (12.4%) (8.6%) (100.0%)
26.621**
Permissive 38 8 11 9 66
(57.6%) (12.1%) (16.7%) (13.6%) (100.0%)
Total 567 164 147 95 973

(58.3%) (16.9%) (15.1%) (9.8%) (100.0%)
** p < .01
Chi square test of association showed a significant association between
between fathers parenting style and academic achievement (χ2 = 26.621, p < .01).
102
Table 4.7
Chi Square Estimate for Association between Perceived Parenting styles of Mother
and Academic Achievement Adolescents
Parenting Academic achievement –10th Grade
styles of 70% & 60%- 50%- 35% - Total χ2
Mother above 70% 60% 50%
(42.5%) (20.3%) (24.6%) (12.6%) (100.0%)

(61.9%) (16.6%) (12.8%) (8.6%) (100.0%) 36.650**
(70.2%) (7.0%) (8.8%) (14.0%) (100.0%)
Total 567 164 147 95 973

(58.3%) (16.9%) (15.1%) (9.8%) (100.0%)
** p < .01
between mothers parenting style and academic achievement (χ2 = 36.650, p < .01).
Correlation analyses indicated a significant relationship between perceived
mothers and fathers parenting style and academic achievement. The current findings
are not in concordance with earlier findings that authoritarian parenting style has
positive outcomes on academic achievement among Asians (Greenberger & Chen,
1996; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Leung et al., 1998) and mothers in India are
Authoritarian (Jambunathan & Counselman, 2002). One reason for this finding may
be as contended by other researchers the effect of parenting style on academic
achievement needs to be seen across different ethnic groups and culture (Steinberg et
al., 1992; Erlanger, Turner, & Heffer, 2005). Generalizations from a single culture
103
may not be valid in other cultural contexts (Gauvain, 2001, Rogoff, 2003), there may
be cultural variations in academic expectations of parents (Stevenson & Lee, 1990)
and parenting roles are changing in India (Chandra, 2010). Though parental
regulation and conformity is an acceptable norm in Indian family culture (Kapadia,
2008) the present finding is a reflection of change in the adolescents’ perception of
parents’ strictness and demand for obedience as restriction and dominance instead of
warmth and concern. This change could be attributed to their exposure to media, the
rapid changes in technology and western influence. Therefore this component of
domination which is implicit in authoritarian style as described by Baumrind (1971) is
not perceived as involvement and closeness by the present adolescent cohort in the
Indian context.
Though all the three parenting styles showed a significant relationship with
academic achievement, a larger positive correlation was between mothers and fathers
authoritative style and academic achievement. This is in line with the previous
findings (Dornbusch et al., 1987). It is also indicative of mothers and fathers leaning
towards more individualistic, democratic and responsive parenting. One possible
explanation for a larger correlation between authoritative style and academic
achievement could be the clear communication between parents and adolescents
regarding academic expectations, the supportive methods which enhanced their
confidence to complete academic assignments and the opportunity given to make
academic decisions which resulted in more self control. Consistent with the previous
findings maternal authoritative style had a positive significant relation with academic
achievement (Stevenson & Lee, 1990; Gonzales, Cause, Friedman and Mason, 1996;
Joussemet et al., 2005).

104
The present findings showed more fathers were perceived as adopting an
authoritative style with positive impact on academic achievement. This is in sync with
earlier studies that fathers in India are becoming more nurturing (Roopnarine,
Krishnakumar & Vadgama, 2013). Therefore, their involvement and encouragement
which is characteristic of authoritative style have contributed to their academic
achievement.
Contrary to previous findings that permissive parenting promotes lower
academic outcomes (Dornbusch et al., 1987; Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch,
&Darling, 1992; Steinberg et al., 1994) both fathers and mothers permissive style
showed significant positive correlation with academic achievement. This may be
because one aspect of permissive parenting is being high on responsiveness which
provides lot of emotional support, less restriction and more acceptances. The
participants of the study belonged to the late adolescent stage and studies show
parental control declines as adolescence progresses (Shek, 2008), the style is more
autonomy giving with older children than one of control (Carter & Welch, 1981),
parenting style also changes according to the developmental stage (Sharma & Sandhu,
2006) and parental acceptance and encouragement is positively related to academic
success and competence (Lakshmi & Arora, 2006).
Results from regression analysis showed a positive significant impact of
father’s authoritative and permissive style and significant negative impact of
authoritarian style on academic achievement. But only mother’s authoritative style
added considerable increment to academic achievement. One possible explanation for
mother’s authoritative style having greater impact on academic achievement could be
in spite of globalization and women involved in work outside home, the patriarchal
105
culture expects the mother to nurture and monitor the physical, social, emotional and
academic needs of adolescents. Disciplining children, involvement in their activities,
is still seen as the responsibility of the mother (Phares, Fields, &Kamboukos, 2009;
Sevinc & Garip, 2010; Roopnarine, Krishnakumar & Vadgama, 2013). Maternal
authoritativeness help children to become aware of their emotions and know exactly
what they are experiencing at that moment. Mother’s authoritative style having
positive outcome for adolescents’ academic achievement is complemented by earlier
studies which showed maternal autonomy support (Joussemet et al, 2005) emotional
support, warmth and affection (Gonzales, Cause, Friedman & Mason, 1996) as
positively affecting academic achievement.
In sum though all the three perceived parenting styles showed significant
relationship with academic achievement, results reflect an overall trend towards
authoritative and permissive style indicative of societal trend towards a more
democratic and lenient style of parenting and change in the value systems. This is due
to the social changes like industrialization, urbanization, diversification of
occupations, migration, changing status of women, influence of mass media, and
emphasis on individualism. The results of the present study points towards positive
relationship between other styles of parenting and academic achievement.

106
Hypothesis 2
H0 There is no significant impact of emotional intelligence on academic achievement

of adolescents.
Table 4.8
Pearson Product Moment Correlations of Components of Emotional Intelligence,
Total Emotional Intelligence with Academic Achievement of Adolescents (N=973)
Emotional intelligence components Academic Achievement
Intrapersonal awareness .503**
Interpersonal awareness .650**
Intrapersonal Management .582**
Interpersonal Management .556**
Total Emotional intelligence .627**
**p<.01
Correlations between emotional intelligence and academic achievement
indicated significant positive relationship between intrapersonal awareness r = .503,
interpersonal awareness r = .650, intrapersonal management r = .582, and
interpersonal management r = .556, with academic achievement. On the whole
significant positive relation was found between total emotional intelligence and
academic achievement r = .627 at p < .01 significance level.

107
Table 4.9
Multiple Regression for Components of Emotional Intelligence Predicting Academic
Achievement of Adolescents
Β Standard. Beta t
Error
(constant) 31.902 1.555 20.518
Intrapersonal -.550 .161 -.152 -3.412**
Awareness
Interpersonal 1.968 .164 .531 11.989**
Awareness
Intrapersonal .788 .154 .233 5.103**
Management
Interpersonal .284 .168 .075 1.688ns
Management
a
Predictors (constant): Components of emotional intelligence
b
Dependent variable: Academic achievement
ns= not significant
**p<.01
Regression analysis identified significant factors in the first stage. The results
revealed emotional intelligence as adding 44.6 % increment to academic achievement.
The beta weight and significance of t estimates of each component of emotional
intelligence indicated a positive significant impact of interpersonal awareness (β =
.531, p < .01) and intrapersonal management (β = .233, p < .01) on academic
achievement. Intrapersonal awareness (β = -.152, p < .01) showed a significant
negative impact on academic achievement. Interpersonal management (β = .075) did
not show any significant impact on academic achievement of adolescents.

108
Table 4.10
Regression for Total Emotional Intelligence Predicting Academic Achievement of
Adolescents
Β Standard. Beta t
Error
(constant) 32.725 1.601 20.445
Total emotional .621 .025 .627 25.075**

intelligence
a
Predictors (constant): Total Emotional Intelligence
b
Dependent variable: academic achievement
**p <.01
Regression analysis identified significant factors in the first stage. Results
showed total emotional intelligence added 39.3% increment to academic achievement
of adolescents. The beta weight and t estimates indicated a positive significant impact
of total emotional intelligence (β = .627, p < .01) on academic achievement of
adolescents.
109
Table 4.11
Chi Square Estimate for Association between Intrapersonal Awareness and Academic
Intrapersonal Academic achievement –10th Grade
awareness 70% & 60% 50%- 35%- Total χ2
above 70% 60% 50%
Good 77 23 9 11 120
(64.2%) (19.2%) (7.5%) (9.2%) (100.0%)
Average 304 88 95 54 541
(56.2%) (16.3%) (17.6%) 10.0%) (100.0%)
Poor 139 43 36 23 241 10.984ns
(57.7%) (17.8%) (14.9%) (9.5%) (100.0%)
Very poor 47 10 7 7 71
(66.2%) (14.1%) (9.9%) (9.9%) (100.0%)
Total 567 164 147 95 973
(58.3%) (16.9%) (15.1%) (9.8%) (100.0%)
ns:not significant
Chi square test of association showed no association between intrapersonal
awareness and academic acheivement ( χ2=10.984, p > .05).

110
Table 4.12
Chi Square Estimate for Association between Interpersonal Awareness and Academic
Interpersonal Academic achievement – 10th Grade
awareness 70% & 60%- 50%- 35% - Total χ2
above 70% 60% 50%
Good 51 10 4 5 70
(72.9%) (14.3%) (5.7%) (7.1%) (100.0%)
Average 285 87 67 54 493
(57.8%) (17.6%) (13.6%) (11.0%) (100.0%)
Poor 164 54 61 30 309 18.567**
(53.1%) (17.5%) (19.7%) (9.7%) (100.0%)
Very poor 67 13 15 6 101
(66.3%) (12.9%) (14.9%) (5.9%) (100.0%)
Total 567 164 147 95 973
(58.3%) (16.9%) (15.1%) (9.8%) (100.0%)
**p <.01
interpersonal awareness and academic achievement (χ2=18.567, p < .01).

111
Table 4.13
Chi Square Estimate for Association between Intrapersonal Management and
Academic Achievement of Adolescents
Intrapersonal Academic achievement –10th Grade
management 70%& 60%- 50%- 35% - Total χ2
above 70% 60% 50%
Good 107 18 14 8 147
(72.8%) (12.2%) (9.5%) (5.4%) (100.0%)
Average 272 76 55 43 446
(61.0%) (17.0%) (12.3%) (9.6%) (100.0%)
Poor 141 56 64 30 291 34.680**
(48.5%) (19.2%) (22.0%) (10.3%) (100.0%)
Very poor 47 14 14 14 89
(52.8%) (15.7%) (15.7%) (15.7%) (100.0%)
Total 567 164 147 95 973
(58.3%) (16.9%) (15.1%) (9.8%) (100.0%)
**p <.01
intrapersonal management and academic achievement ( χ2=34.680, p < .01).

112
Table 4.14
Chi Square Estimate for Association between Interpersonal Management and
Interpersonal Academic achievement – 10th Grade
management 70%& 60%- 50%- 35% - Total χ2
above 70% 60% 50%
Good 58 12 10 6 86
(67.4%) (14.0%) (11.6%) (7.0%) 100.0%)
Average 333 81 80 51 545
(61.1%) (14.9%) (14.7%) (9.4%) (100.0%)
Poor 135 63 49 27 274
(49.3%) (23.0%) (17.9%) (9.9%) (100.0%) 21.028**
Very poor 41 8 8 11 68
(60.3%) (11.8%) (11.8%) (16.2%) (100.0%)
Total 567 164 147 95 973
(58.3%) (16.9%) (15.1%) (9.8%) (100.0%)
**p <.01
interpersonal management and academic achievement (χ2=21.028, p < .01).

113
Table 4.15
Chi Square Estimate for Association between Total Emotional Intelligence score and
Total Academic achievement –10 Grade
Emotional 70% & 60%- 50%- 35% - Total χ2
intelligence above 70% 60% 50%
score
Good 65 15 9 4 93
(69.9%) (16.1%) (9.7%) (4.3%) 100.0%)
Average 252 63 44 41 400
(63.0%) (15.8%) (11.0%) (10.3%) (100.0%)
Poor 191 75 84 40 390 34.178**
(49.0%) (19.2%) (21.5%) (10.3%) (100.0%)
Very poor 59 11 10 10 90
(65.6%) (12.2%) (11.1%) (11.1%) (100.0%)
Total 567 164 147 95 973
(58.3%) (16.9%) (15.1%) (9.8%) (100.0%)
**p <.01
Chi square test of association showed a significant association between total
emotional intelligence and academic achievement (χ2= 34.178, p < .01).
The results of the present study indicate overall total emotional intelligence
significantly related to academic achievement. This strengthens the previous findings
(Goleman, 1995; Parker et al., 2004; Petrides et al., 2004; Adeyemo, 2007; Hassan,
Sulaiman & Ishak, 2009; Nwadinigwwe & Obeieke, 2012; Malik & Shujja, 2013)
which demonstrated a relationship between emotional intelligence and academic
achievement. Regression analysis shows the impact of total emotional intelligence on
academic achievement.
114
On components of emotional intelligence all the four components related with
academic achievement. This is in line with earlier findings (Nasir, 2012, Singh &
Singh, 2013). One possible explanation for this finding could be that those with good
intrapersonal awareness and interpersonal awareness have better understanding of
their own emotions as well as that of others and are motivated to overpower and self
regulate negative feelings to achieve academic goals. At the same time their capacity
for interpersonal and intrapersonal management makes it possible for them to
persevere their academic goals even when they are faced with difficulties and
frustrations posed by the environment. Furthermore, adolescence is a stage where they
are forming an identity of their own. The present findings are in concordance with
earlier findings (Coover & Murphy, 2000) that good social interaction and
communication, important aspects of emotional intelligence leads to better self
concept, higher self esteem, better understanding of their capacities and potentials and
thereby leading to higher academic achievement.
In the regression analysis though three components of emotional intelligence
showed a significant impact on academic achievement, only one component of
emotional intelligence such as interpersonal awareness had greater impact on
academic achievement. Interpersonal awareness is the capacity to perceive,
communicate and manage emotions in interpersonal relationships. One possible
explanation for this finding could be that higher interpersonal awareness enabled them
to have better self concept leading to a good amount of self confidence to achieve
academic goals. A higher capacity to perceive, communicate and manage emotions in
the interpersonal context might have helped them to respond to the daily challenges
more effectively and thus were able to focus on academic goals.

115
Hypothesis 3
H0 There is no significant impact of parenting style on emotional intelligence of

Adolescents
Table 4.16
Pearson Product Moment Correlations of Perceived Parenting styles of Father and
Mother with Emotional Intelligence of Adolescents (N=973)
Parenting Emotional intelligence Father Mother
Styles components
Authoritarian Intrapersonal awareness .027ns .063 ns
Interpersonal awareness .002 ns .035 ns
Intrapersonal management .010 ns .048 ns
Interpersonal management .021 ns .066*
Total Emotional intelligence .015 ns .058 ns
Authoritative Intrapersonal awareness .239** .281**
Interpersonal awareness .211** .266**
Intrapersonal management .243** .296**
Interpersonal management .269** .315**
Total Emotional intelligence .263** .317**
Permissive Intrapersonal awareness .164** .171**
Interpersonal awareness .165** .151**
Intrapersonal management .158** .157**
Interpersonal management .176** .171**
Total Emotional intelligence .181** .78**

ns: not significant, *p <.05, **p<.01
Correlations between parenting style of father and mother on four components
of emotional intelligence indicates no significant correlations between authoritarian
style of father and the four components of emotional intelligence such as

116
intrapersonal awareness r = .027, interpersonal awareness r = .002, intrapersonal
management r = .010 and interpersonal management r = .021 and also on total
emotional intelligence r = .015. No significant correlations were found between
authoritarian parenting style of mother and three components of emotional
intelligence such as intrapersonal awareness r = .063, interpersonal awareness r =
.035 and intrapersonal management r = .048. Significant positive correlation was
found with interpersonal management r = .066 at p < .05 significance. But on total
emotional intelligence no significant correlation was found with mother’s
authoritarian style r = .058.
Fathers authoritative style was positively correlated with intrapersonal
awareness r = .239, interpersonal awareness r = .211, intrapersonal management, r =
.243, interpersonal management, r = .269 and total emotional intelligence r = .263 at p
< .01 significance level. Mothers authoritative style was positively correlated with
intrapersonal awareness r = .281, interpersonal awareness r = .266, and intrapersonal
management, r = .296, interpersonal management r = .315 and total emotional
intelligence r = .317 at p < .01 significance level.
Significant correlations were found between fathers permissive style and
intrapersonal awareness r = .164, interpersonal awareness r = .165, intrapersonal
management r = .158, interpersonal management r = .176 and total emotional
intelligence r = .181 at p < .01 significance level. Significant correlations were found
between mothers permissive style and intrapersonal awareness r = .171, interpersonal
awareness r = .151, intrapersonal management r = .157, interpersonal management r
= .171 and total emotional intelligence r = .178 at p < .01 significance level.
117
Table 4.17
Multiple Regression for Perceived Parenting styles Predicting Emotional Intelligence
of Adolescents
Β Standard. Beta t
Error
(constant) 35.970 3.156 11.397
Authoritarian -.434 .130 -.197 -3.335**
Father
Authoritative .020 .142 .009 .138

Father
Permissive Father - .163 .159 .066 1.026

Authoritarian .091 .134 .040 .677
Mother
Authoritative .884 .152 .348 5.805**
Mother
Permissive Mother - .029 .161 -.011 -.181
Note: R = .350a, R2 =.122, Adjusted R2 =.117

a
Predictors: (constant): Parenting styles of father & Mother
b
Dependent Variable: Emotional intelligence
**p < .01
Regression analysis identified significant factors in the first stage. The results
revealed parenting styles of father and mother adding 12.2 % increment to emotional
intelligence of adolescents. The beta weight and t estimates showed a significant
negative impact of father’s authoritarian style (β = -.197, p < .01) on emotional
intelligence. Authoritative (β = -.009) and permissive style (β = -.066) did not show
any impact on emotional intelligence. Mothers authoritarian (β = -.040) style did not
show any impact on emotional intelligence but mothers permissive style (β = -.011, p
< .01) showed a negative impact on emotional intelligence. Mothers authoritative
style (β = -.348, p < .01) significantly positively contributed to emotional intelligence.

118
Table 4.18
and Intrapersonal Awareness Component of Emotional Intelligence of Adolescents
Parenting Intrapersonal Awareness
styles of Good Average Poor Very Total χ2
Father poor
(8.0%) (54.7%) (27.9%) (9.4%) (100.0%)
(14.9%) (56.7%) (22.3%) (6.0%) (100.0%) 19.909**
(6.1%) (48.5%) (34.8%) (10.6%) (100.0%)
Total 120 541 241 71 973
(12.3%) (55.6%) (20.8%) (73%) (100.0%)
**p <.01
Chi Square test of association showed significant association between
parenting style of father and intrapersonal awareness component of emotional
intelligence (χ2 = 19.909, p < .01).

119
Table 4.19
and Interpersonal Awareness Component of Emotional Intelligence of Adolescents
Parenting Interpersonal Awareness
Father poor
(4.0%) (45.3%) (36.6%) (14.1%) (100.0%)
(8.9%) (54.0%) (29.0%) (8.1%) (100.0%) 25.087**
(4.5%) (40.9%) (37.9%) (16.7%) (100.0%)
Total 70 493 309 101 973
(7.2%) (50.7%) (31.8%) (10.4%) (100.0%)
**p <.01
parenting style of father and interpersonal awareness component of emotion
lintelligence (χ2 = 25.087, p < .01).

120
Table 4.20
and Intrapersonal management Component of Emotional Intelligence of Adolescents
Parenting Intrapersonal Management
Father poor
(10.5%) (42.0%) (34.8%) (12.7%) (100.0%)
(17.6%) (47.5%) (27.4%) (7.4%) (100.0%) 18.277**
(10.3%) (48.3%) (32.8%) (8.6%) (100.0%)
Total 147 446 291 89 973
(15.1%) (45.8%) (29.9%) (9.1%) (100.0%)
**p < .01
parenting style of father and intrapersonal management component of emotional
intelligence ( χ2 =18.277, p < .01).

121
Table 4.21
and Interpersonal Management Component of Emotional Intelligence of Adolescents
Parenting Interpersonal Management
Father poor
(5.1%) (53.3%) (34.4%) (7.2%) (100.0%)
(10.6%) (59.1%) (24.1%) (6.2%) (100.0%) 28.293**
(7.6%) (37.9%) (40.9%) (13.6%) (100.0%)
Total 86 545 274 68 973
(8.8%) (56.0%) (28.2%) (7.0%) (100.0%)
** p < .01
parenting style of father and interpersonal management component of emotional
intelligence (χ2 =28.293, p < .01).

122
Table 4.22
and Total of Emotional Intelligence of Adolescents
Parenting Total Emotional Intelligence
Father poor
(3.6%) (36.2%) (47.8%) (12.3%) (100.0%)
(12.8%) (43.6%) (37.1%) (6.5%) (100.0%) 49.624**
(3.0%) (37.9%) (36.4%) (22.7%) (100.0%)
Total 93 400 390 90 973
(9.6%) (41.1%) (40.1%) (9.2%) (100.0%)
** p < .01
parenting style of father and total emotional intelligence (χ2 = 49.624, p < .01).
123
Table 4.23
Chi Square Estimate for Association between Parenting styles of Mother and
Intrapersonal Awareness Component of Emotional Intelligence of Adolescents
Parenting Intrapersonal Awareness
styles of
Good Average Poor Very Total χ2
Mother
poor
(8.2%) (51.7%) (28.0%) (12.1%) (100.0%)
Authoritative 100 401 167 41 709 18.140**
(14.1%) (56.6%) (23.6%) (5.8%) (100.0%)
(5.3%) (57.9%) (28.1%) (8.8%) (100.0%)
Total 120 541 241 71 973
(12.3%) (55.6%) (24.8%) (7.3%) (100.0%)
**p < .01
parenting style of mother and intrapersonal awareness component of emotional
intelligence (χ2 = 18.140, p < .01).

124
Table 4.24
Interpersonal Awareness Component of Emotional Intelligence of Adolescents
Parenting Interpersonal Awareness
Mother poor
(3.4%) (44.0%) (36.9%) 15.9% 100.0%
(8.5%) (53.2%) (29.9%) (8.5%) (100.0%) 21.550**
(5.3%) (43.9%) (36.8%) (14.0%) (100.0%)
Total 70 493 309 101 973
(7.2%) (50.7%) (31.8%) (10.4%) (100.0%)
**p < .01
parenting style of mother and interpersonal awareness component of emotional
intelligence (χ2 = 21.550, p < .01).

125
Table 4.25
Intrapersonal Management Component of Emotional Intelligence of Adolescents
Parenting Intrapersonal Management
Mother poor
(10.1%) (39.6%) (36.7%) (13.5%) (100.0%)
(16.9%) (48.0%) (27.2%) (7.9%) (100.0%) 20.247**
(10.5%) (42.1%) (38.6%) (8.8%) (100.0%)
Total 147 446 291 89 973
(15.1%) (45.8%) (29.9%) (9.1%) (100.0%)
** p < .01
parenting style of mother and intrapersonal management component of emotional
intelligence (χ2 = 20.247, p < .01).

126
Table 4.26
Interpersonal management Component of Emotional Intelligence of Adolescents
Parenting Interpersonal Management
Mother poor
(5.8%) (46.9%) (36.7%) (10.6%) (100.0%)
(9.9%) (59.4) (25.0%) (5.8%) (100.0%) 23.664**
(7.0%) (47.4%) (36.8%) (8.8%) (100.0%)
Total 86 545 274 68 973
(8.8%) (56.0%) (28.2%) (7.0%) (100.0%)
**p < .01
parenting style of mother and interpersonal management component of emotional
intelligence (χ2 = 23.664, p < .01).

127
Table 4.27
Chi Square Estimate for Association between Parenting styles of Mother and Total
Emotional Intelligence of Adolescents
Parenting Total Emotional Intelligence
Mother poor
(4.8%) (29.5%) (51.2%) (14.5%) (100.0%)
(11.4%) (44.4%) (36.7%) (7.5%) (100.0%)
Permissive 2 24 24 7 57 35.983**
(3.5%) (42.1%) (42.1%) (12.3%) (100.0%)
Total 93 400 390 90 973
(9.6%) (41.1%) (40.1%) (9.2%) (100.0%)
**p < .01
parenting style of mother and total emotional intelligence (χ2 = 35.983, p < .01).
Correlation analyses showed statistically significant results between parenting
style and emotional intelligence. Although studies directly supporting the relationship
between parenting style and emotional intelligence are not found, some studies refer
to the various traits and abilities that make up emotional intelligence such as socio
emotional adjustment, interpersonal communication, high self esteem; self regulated
learning, self reliance and social competence (Kaufmann, et al., 2000; Slicker et al.,
2005; Erden & Uredi, 2008; McKinney & Renk, 2008; Ulutas & Omeroglu,2008; De,
Souza & Paul,2013) reflected and measured in the present study as intrapersonal
awareness, intrapersonal management and interpersonal awareness and interpersonal
management. As hypothesized by previous research that parenting style contributes to
better self awareness and being able to manage one’s own emotions and also others
128
emotions (Kaufmann et al., 2000; Slicker et al., 2005; Rebecca, 2006; Erden & Uredi,
2008), the present study also reflects the importance of this hypothesized relationship.
In the present study the correlational analysis showing the relationship
between perceived mothers and fathers parenting style on total emotional intelligence
and the various components of emotional intelligence are discussed separately for
father and mother. Both fathers and mothers authoritarian style did not show any
influence on intrapersonal awareness, interpersonal awareness, interpersonal
management and intrapersonal management. But mother’s authoritarian style showed
significant influence on interpersonal management though the magnitude is
statistically very low. On the whole both fathers and mothers authoritarian style
showed no relationship with total emotional intelligence.
Authoritative and permissive style showed positive influence on all the four
components of emotional intelligence and total emotional intelligence. But when
authoritative and permissive styles were compared a larger correlation was seen
between authoritative style and the four components of emotional intelligence such as
intrapersonal and interpersonal awareness, intrapersonal management and
interpersonal management. This is in consonance with Baumrind’s (1971) theoretical
model and also earlier research which showed authoritative style and positive mother-
adolescent relationship (Steinberg, 2001; Bynum & Kotchick, 2006) as contributing to
altruism, independence, self awareness, motivation and self regulated learning (Erden
& Uredi, 2008) which are related to the four components of emotional intelligence
undertaken in the present study. Studies show the type of parenting style
predominantly adopted is reflective of the society’s culture like Authoritative style
reflects individualistic culture and authoritarian reflects collectivistic culture (Kim,

129
Triandis, Kaagitcibasi, Chi, &Yoon, 1994). Though traditionally India is
predominantly collectivistic, the present finding is indicative of change in the
society’s trend towards more authoritative style of parenting which may be due to
multi culturalisation (Patel-Amin & Power, 2002).
One possible explanation for this finding could be that when parents adopt an
authoritative style they not only make known the do’s and don’ts to adolescents but
also make sure the rules are enforced and sanctions used whenever necessary. They
relate to the feelings of their children and use the emotional situation to understand
what exactly is upsetting them and show them alternative ways of responding to the
situation. At the same time adolescents are given the freedom to express emotions and
help them to see reason in what they are doing. The specific features of authoritative
style such as warmth, emotional support, combination of freedom and control,
acceptance and involvement (Chen, Lin & Tu, 2006, Davis, 1999; Markazi,
Badrigargari & Vahedi, 2011; Zakeri & Karimpour, 2011), creates an emotional
climate that enables adolescents to deal with their own feelings as well as that of
others. It helps them to become aware of the feelings communicated by the parents.
Thus self awareness results in autonomous regulations of one’s emotions. Thus
intrapersonal awareness and management will lead to interpersonal awareness and
management.
Results of the multiple regression analysis showed mother’s authoritative style
has greater impact on emotional intelligence. This may be due to despite economic
and social changes occurring in the Indian families’ mothers still take the major share
of responsibility of bringing up children (Roopnarine, Krishnakumar & Vadgama,

130
2013) and mothers recognize the affective bond with children (Sachdeva & Mishra,
2008). Therefore, the emotional bonding and contact is more with the mother.
Results of regression analysis showed negative impact of father’s
authoritarian style on emotional intelligence. This is in consonance with the
theoretical model given by Baumrind (1967) which showed authoritarian style as
having negative outcome. Earlier studies also showed the negative impact of
authoritarian style on self esteem, motivation, and self awareness (Erlanger, Turner &
Heffer, 2005; Slicker, et al., 2005; Spera, 2006; Erden & Uredi, 2008). It is possible
that though in traditional India authoritarian behavior of father was seen as warmth
and concern it is no longer perceived so by the present adolescent cohort who view
themselves in the broader context rather than solely in the context of their own culture
due to the influence of technology and shared information. Therefore, extreme control
which is a hallmark of authoritarian style perhaps restricts the development of
interpersonal and intrapersonal skills.

131
Hypothesis 4
H0 There is no significant integrated impact of parenting style and emotional

intelligence on academic achievement of Adolescents
Table 4.28
Multiple Regression for Integrated Impact of Parenting styles and Emotional
Intelligence Predicting Academic Achievement of Adolescents
Β Standard Beta t
Error
(constant) .737 2.416 .3051
Authoritarian -.028 .094 -.013 -.300
Father
Authoritative .279 .102 .124 2.748**
father
Permissive father .316 .114 .130 2.771**
Authoritarian .151 .096 .068 1.563
mother
Authoritative .435 .111 .173 3.911**
mother
Permissive -.004 .115 .002 -.038
mother
Total emotional .504 .023 .509 21.543**
intelligence
Note. R =.735a, R2 =.540, Adjusted R2 =.537
a
Predictors: (constant): Parenting styles of father & mother
b
Predictors: (constant) emotional intelligence
c
Dependent Variable: Academic achievement
** p < .01
Multiple Regression analysis indicates emotional intelligence and parenting
style together have an impact on academic achievement of adolescents. Together the

132
predictors added 54 % increment to academic achievement. The contribution and
significance of each of the variables were determined using beta weight and t- ratio.
Fathers and mothers authoritarian style and mother’s permissive style did not show
significant impact on academic achievement. However, fathers authoritative (β = .124,
p < .01) and permissive style (β = .130, p < .01) and mothers (β = .173, p < .01)
authoritative style significantly and positively contributed to academic achievement.
Compared to parenting styles, emotional intelligence (β = .509, p < .01) added
significant increment to academic achievement.
R2= .331
Parenting
Style Academic
R2=.540 Achievement
R2 = .122
R2 = .446
Emotional
Intelligence
Note: Single arrow shows regression coefficients
Figure 4.4. Path diagram showing the independent and integrated relationship
between parenting style, emotional intelligence and academic
achievement.
Path diagram shows the relationship between parenting style, emotional
intelligence and academic achievement. The direct relationship between parenting
style and academic achievement is 33.1%, emotional intelligence and academic

133
achievement is 44.6%, parenting style and emotional intelligence is 12.2%. The
integrated impact of parenting style and emotional intelligence accounted for 54.0%
increment in academic achievement. However, the influence of emotional intelligence
is more on academic achievement of adolescents than parenting styles.
Results indicate the integrated impact of parenting style and emotional
intelligence on academic achievement of adolescents. In the present findings, among
the parenting styles, fathers authoritative and permissive style and mothers
authoritative style added increment to academic achievement of adolescents. This
strengthens the previous findings which claimed authoritative style as the best
predictor of academic achievement (Dornbusch, et al., 1987; Steinberg et al., 1989.,
1992; Cohen & Rice, 1997; Kaufmann, et al., 2000; Bynum & Kotchick, 2006).
However, fathers’ permissive style too showed significantly influencing academic
achievement of adolescents. One possible reason for this finding could be because one
aspect of permissive parenting is being high on responsiveness which provides lot of
emotional support, less restriction and more acceptances and studies show parental
acceptance and encouragement is positively related to academic success (Lakshmi &
Arora, 2006). The present finding showed emotional intelligence as a stronger
predictor of academic achievement than parenting style. This could be because at the
late adolescent stage adolescents are fairly equipped to independently monitor and
regulate emotions in the face of academic stress and pressure with very minimal
support from parents regarding academic related activities. Though parental support is
necessary it is more subtle and sought only when required. Therefore, adolescents
equipped with average to good emotional intelligence, are confident and realistic
about their abilities, are able to handle emotions, maintain a high degree of
134
motivation, and manage stress and anxiety related to examinations. Good
interpersonal skills results in cooperative learning, seeking help from teachers and
peers, are able to independently regulate emotions in the face of frustration and
academic pressures.
135
Hypothesis 5
H0There is no significant difference in parenting style, emotional intelligence and

academic achievement of adolescents as a function of gender, socio economic
status, geographical locale and family structure.
H01 There is no significant difference in parenting styles of father and mother based
on gender
Table 4.29
Mean, SD & t Value of Perceived Fathers and Mothers Parenting styles with
Adolescents Gender (Male, n = 464, Female, n = 509)
Parenting styles Gender Mean SD t value
Authoritarian Father Male 32.00 6.76
Female 32.69 6.41 1.611ns
Authoritative Father Male 36.12 6.44
Female 37.64 5.86 3.786**
Permissive Father Male 29.98 5.87
Female 30.22 5.47 .671ns
Authoritarian Mother Male 31.43 6.16
Female 32.80 6.36 3.414**
Authoritative Mother Male 37.24 5.65
Female 38.28 5.66 2.839**
Permissive Mother Male 29.89 5.34
Female 30.21 5.62 .908ns
ns: not significant, **p <.01

136
45
40
35
30
Mean 25
20
15
Male
10
5 Female
0
Figure 4.5. Difference in parenting styles of father and mother based on adolescents
gender.
An independent t-test showed fathers adopted a statistically significant higher
authoritative style towards females (M = 37.64, SD= 5.86) than males (M = 36.12, SD
= 6.44), t (971) = 3.786, p < .01.
Parenting style adopted by mothers showed a significant difference towards
gender in both authoritarian and authoritative style. t- test showed mothers adopted a
statistically significant higher authoritarian style towards females (M = 32.80, SD =
6.36) than males (M = 31.43, SD = 6.16), t (971) = 3.414, p < .01.
Mothers also adopted a statistically significant higher authoritative style
towards females (M=38.28, SD= 5.66) than males (M = 37.24, SD = 5.65), t (971) =
2.839, p < .01. The results are also presented in graphical form.
Results showed a significant difference between mothers and fathers parenting
style towards males and females, as perceived by adolescents. Therefore the null
hypothesis is rejected. Fathers were perceived as more authoritative towards females

137
than males and mothers were perceived as both authoritative and authoritarian
towards females than males. Previous research indicates mothers and fathers use
different parenting style with boys and girls (McKinney & Renk, 2008), use mixed
pattern of authoritarian and authoritative style (Dwairy et al., 2006) and mothers are
both authoritative and authoritarian (Sevin & Garip,2010). This is in agreement with
earlier studies which showed different socialization goals for boys and girls
(Chao,2000) and mothers in India were authoritarian (Jambunathan &Counselman ,
2002), a reflection of Hindu values of respect for duty and respect towards one’s
parents (Sarawathi & Pai, 1997). Therefore the finding is indicative of gendered
socialization.
Fathers being perceived as more authoritative towards females and mothers
being perceived as showing a combination of authoritative and authoritarian style
indicate a change in the parenting style from one of totally being authoritarian to one
of autonomy granting style. Such a change has been validated by earlier studies which
showed fathers in India becoming more involved and nurturing (Roopnaraine, et al.,
1990). The mixed pattern seen in mothers may be due to the fact that bringing up
children is still seen as the responsibility of mothers (Sevin & Garip, 2010) and they
spend more time with the children than fathers (Phares, Fields, & Kamboukos,
2009).Thus the present adolescents perception of parenting styles of fathers and
mothers indicates a change especially of the fathers towards more democratic style of
parenting.
138
on geographical locale
Table 4.30
Mean, SD & t value of Perceived Fathers and Mothers Parenting styles with
Adolescents’ Geographical Locale (Urban, n=524, Rural, n = 449)
Parenting Geographical Mean SD t value
styles locale
Authoritarian Father Urban 32.41 6.47
Rural 33.47 6.55 4.83**
Authoritative Father Urban 37.01 6.38
Rural 36.79 5.96 .54ns
Permissive Father Urban 30.29 6.04
Rural 29.88 5.19 1.09ns
Authoritarian Mother Urban 31.22 6.35
Rural 33.23 6.06 5.01**
Authoritative Mother Urban 37.91 5.81
Rural 37.64 5.52 .75ns
Permissive Mother Urban 30.06 6.00
Rural 30.05 4.82 .03ns
ns : not significant, **p < .01

139
40
35
30
25
Mean
20
15
10 Urban
5 Rural
0
Figure 4.6. Difference in parenting styles of father, mother based on geographical

locale.
An independent t- test showed fathers adopted a significantly higher
authoritarian style towards adolescents in rural area (M = 33.47, SD = 6.55) than
urban area (M = 32.41, SD = 6.47), t (971) = 4.83, p < .01.
Mothers also adopted a significantly higher authoritarian style towards
adolescents living in rural area (M = 33.23, SD = 6.06) than urban area (M = 31.22,
SD = 6.35), t (971) = 5.01, p < .01. The results are also presented in graphical form.
Results indicate significant differences in parenting styles of parents living in
different geographical areas. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. Variation is
seen in fathers and mothers authoritarian style. Parents are perceived to be more
authoritarian in rural areas than urban areas. This is in consonance with the earlier
findings that in rural areas the economic hardship faced by the families which mostly
depend on agricultural income makes them less child centered and less nurturing
(Lempers, Lempers, & Simon, 1989). One possible explanation for this finding may
be due to change in the parents collectivistic and individualistic orientations brought

140
about by globalization. Therefore globalization has not affected rural areas as much as
it has the urban areas. This is substantiated by the present findings that parents are
more authoritative in urban areas than rural areas. The disparity in parenting style may
be attributed to the fact that cultural transition as a result of globalization which is a
new phenomenon may not have exerted its influence yet on parenting practices in the
rural areas.
141
H0 3There is no significant difference in parenting styles of father and mother based

on socio economic status
Table 4.31
Mean & SD for Perceived Parenting styles of Father and Socio Economic Status
(Lower, n=460, Middle, n=314, Upper, n=199)
Parenting Socio economic status Mean SD
styles of father
Authoritarian Lower economic status 34.38 5.87
Middle economic status 31.38 6.57
Upper economic status 29.44 6.68
Authoritative Lower economic status 37.03 5.82
Permissive Lower economic status 30.54 5.13

142
Table 4.32
One way ANOVA for Perceived Parenting styles of Father and Socio Economic Status
Parenting styles of father Sum of df Mean square F ratio
squares
Authoritarian Between 3749.675 2 1874.838 47.44**
groups
Within 37106.478 939 39.517
groups
Total 40856.153 941
Authoritative Between 297.377 2 148.689 3.89*
groups
Within 35839.132 939 38.167
groups
Total 36136.510 941
Permissive Between 270.240 2 135.120 4.22*
groups
Within 30002.716 939 31.952
groups
Total 30272.955 941
*p < .05 , **p < .01
One way analysis of variance showed a statistically significant difference
between fathers three styles of parenting and socio economic status: F(2, 939) =
47.44, p < .01, F (2, 939) = 3.89, p < .05 and F (2, 939) = 4.22, p < .05 level
respectively.
143
Table 4.33
Post Hoc Bonferroni Comparisons for Perceived Parenting styles of Father and Socio
Economic Status
Dependent Socio Socio Mean Standard Bonferroni
variable economic economic difference error p value
status(I) status (J)
Authoritarian Lower Middle 2.996 .467 .001**

Father economic economic
status status
Upper
economic 4.935 .539 .001**
status
Middle Upper 1.939 .571 .002**

economic economic
status status
Authoritative Lower Middle .828 .459 .215ns

status status
-.707 .529 .546ns
Upper
economic
status
Middle Upper -1.535 .562 .019*

economic economic
status status
Permissive Lower Middle .429 .420 .920ns

status status
1.409 .484 .011*
Upper
economic
status
Middle Upper .979 .514 .171ns

economic economic
status status
ns:not significant, *p < .05 , ** p < .01
Post- hoc comparisons using Bonferroni test indicated that fathers were more
authoritarian towards adolescents in lower economic status group (M = 34.38, SD =

144
5.87), compared to middle economic status group (M = 31.38, SD = 6.57).When the
middle and upper economic status group was compared fathers were more
authoritarian towards adolescents in middle economic status group (M =31.38, SD =
6.57) than upper economic status group (M = 29.44, SD = 6.68).This indicated higher
the economic status lower the authoritarian style among fathers. Fathers authoritative
parenting style showed fathers were less authoritative among the middle economic
status group (M = 36.20, SD = 6.49) compared to lower economic status group (M =
37.03, SD = 5.82) and upper economic status group (M = 37.74, SD = 6.42). In terms
of permissiveness fathers were less permissive among upper economic status group
(M = 29.13, SD = 6.42) compared to lower economic status group (M = 30.54, SD =
5.13) and middle economic status group (M = 30.11, SD = 5.81).

145
Table 4.34
Mean & SD for Perceived Parenting styles of Mother and Socio Economic Status
Parenting styles Socio economic status Mean SD
Authoritarian Mother Lower economic status 34.20 5.29
Authoritative Mother Lower economic status 37.89 5.41
Permissive Mother Lower economic status 30.64 4.89

146
Table 4.35
One way ANOVA for Perceived Parenting styles of Mother and Socio Economic
Status
Parenting styles Sum of df Mean square F ratio
squares
Authoritarian Between 3929.348 2 135.120 54.98**
Mother groups
Within groups 34482.024 965 31.952
Total 38411.372 967
Authoritative Between 314.513 2 35.733 4.90**
Mother groups
Within groups 30911.334 965 157.257
Total 31225.847 967
Permissive Between 296.230 2 148.115 4.95**
Mother groups
Within groups 28895.601 965 29.913
Total 29191.830 967
**p <.01
One way analysis of variance showed significant difference in mothers’ three
parenting styles for the three socio - economic groups: F (2,965) = 54.98, p < .01, F
(2,965) = 4.90, p < .01, F (2,965) = 4.95, p < .01.

147
Table 4.36
Post hoc Bonferroni Comparisons for Perceived Parenting styles of Mother and Socio
Economic Status
variable difference error p value
economic economic
status(I) status (J)
Lower Middle 3.27 .438 .001**

economic economic
status status
Authoritarian 4.83 .508 .001**
Mother Upper
economic
status
Middle Upper 1.55 .542 .012*

economic economic
status status
Lower Middle .801 .415 .162 ns

economic economic
status status
Authoritative -.786 .481 .309 ns
Mother Upper
economic
status
Middle Upper -1.58 .513 .006 ns

economic economic
status status
Lower Middle 1.06 .411 .024*

economic economic
status status
Permissive 1.17 .464 .036*
Upper
Mother
economic
status
Middle Upper .108 .495 1.000 ns

economic economic
status status
ns :not significant, * p <.05 , **p <.01
Post -hoc comparisons using Bonferroni test showed that mothers were more
authoritative in upper economic status group (M = 38.67, SD = 5.67) when compared

148
to lower economic status group (M = 37.89, SD = 5.41) and middle economic status
group (M = 37.08, SD = 5.98).With regard to the mothers authoritarian style the
mothers were more authoritarian in lower economic status group (M = 34.20, SD =
5.29) than middle economic status group (M = 30.92, SD = 6.54). When the middle
economic status group was compared with the upper economic status group the
mothers were more authoritarian in the middle economic status group than in the
upper economic status group (M = 29.36. SD = 6.49). Mothers were more permissive
in the lower economic status group (M = 30.64, SD = 4.89) than middle (M = 29.58,
SD = 5.09) and upper economic status group (M = 29.47, SD = 7.05).
Results indicate significant mean differences between mothers and fathers
parenting styles and socio economic status. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected.
Additional post -hoc test using Bonferroni was performed which showed fathers and
mothers were perceived more authoritarian in lower economic status group and the
style altered as they climbed up the socio economic ladder as found in the previous
study (Dwairy et al, 2006).
Among the upper economic group the fathers were perceived less authoritarian
and more permissive. The finding of the present study supports the earlier research
that parenting style is influenced by economic contexts (Okagaki & Frensch, 1998).
Parents from poor socio economic background tend to stress on obedience, respect for
authority and are authoritarian (Maccoby, 1980; Mcloyd, 1998).When parents are
economically distressed they experience prolonged discomfort about life’s conditions
which decreases their capacity to be warm and supportive (Park et al, 2004), less
nurturing and uninvolved in the lives of their children (Vuchinich, Bank & Patterson,
149
1992). The prime focus of parenting becomes providing the basic necessities and not
the feelings communicated through their disciplining style.
Authoritative style was perceived to be adopted more in the higher economic
group and mothers were perceived to be more permissive in the lower economic
group. This may be due to a patriarchal system where fathers are considered as bread
winners of family. Therefore, the onus and stress of providing the basic necessities
rests on the father.

150
on family structure
Table 4.37
Mean, SD &‘t’ Value for Perceived Parenting styles of Father, Mother in Nuclear
and Extended Family (Nuclear, n=705, Extended, n=268)
Parenting styles Family type Mean SD t value
Authoritarian father Nuclear 32.38 6.58 .24ns
Extended 32.26 6.62
Authoritative father Nuclear 36.84 6.20 .55ns
Extended 37.09 6.17
Permissive father Nuclear 30.16 5.74 .55ns
Extended 29.94 5.48
Authoritarian Mother Nuclear 32.20 6.23 .43ns
Extended 32.01 6.48
Authoritative Mother Nuclear 37.78 5.64 .10ns
Extended 37.81 5.78
Permissive Mother Nuclear 30.00 5.55 .55ns
Extended 30.22 5.33
ns : not significant
151
40
35
30
25
Mean
20
15
Nuclear
10
Extended
5
0
Figure 4.7. Difference in parenting styles of father, mother in nuclear and extended
family.
Independent t-test showed no significant difference in father’s authoritarian
style in nuclear (M = 32.38, SD = 6.58) and extended family (M = 32.26, SD = 6.62), t
(971) = .24, p >.01, Authoritative style in nuclear (M = 36.84, SD = 6.20) and
extended family (M = 37.09, SD = 6.17) t (971) = .55, p > .01 and permissive style in
nuclear (M = 30.16, SD = 5.74) and extended family (M = 29.94, SD = 5.48) t (971) =
.55, p >.01.
Similarly Independent t-test showed no significant difference in mothers
authoritarian style in nuclear (M = 32.20 SD = 6.23) and extended family (M = 32.01
SD = 6.48), t (971) = .43, p > .01, authoritative style in nuclear (M = 37.78, SD =
5.64) and extended family (M = 37.81, SD = 5.78) , t (971) = .10, p >.01 and in
permissive style in nuclear (M = 30.00, SD = 5.55) and extended family (M = 30.22,
SD = 5.33) , t (971) = .55, p > .01. Results are also presented in graphical form.
152
Table 4.38
Mean, SD & t Value for Perceived Parenting styles of Father and Mother in Two
Parents and Single Parent Family (Two Parent, n=864, Single parent ,n=109).
Parenting styles Family type Mean SD t value
Authoritarian father Two parent 32.43 6.53 1.22ns
Single parent 31.48 7.13
Authoritative father Two parent 37.03 5.93 2.06*
Permissive father Two parent 30.19 5.52 1.49ns
Authoritarian Mother Two parent 32.20 6.36 .79ns
Authoritative Mother Two parent 37.68 5.70 1.60ns
Permissive Mother Two parent 29.95 5.53 1.81ns
ns: not significant, *p <.05

153
45
40
35
30
Mean 25
20
15
10 Two Parent
5 Single Parent
0
Figure 4.8. Difference in parenting styles of father and mother in two parent and
single parent family.
Independent t- test showed fathers were more authoritative in two parent
families (M = 37.03, SD = 5.93) than single parent families (M = 35.52, SD = 8.52), t
(971) = 2.06, p < .05.
No significant difference was found between parenting style and family type
for authoritarian in two parent families (M = 32.43, SD = 6.53) and single parent
families (M = 31.48, SD = 7.13), t (971) = 1.22, p > .05, for permissive style in two
parent families (M = 30.19, SD = 5.52) and single parent families (M = 29.19, SD =
7.08), t (971) = 1.49, p > .05.
Similarly there was no significant difference in mothers authoritarian style in
two parent (M=32.20, SD= 6.36) and single parent families (M = 31.69, SD = 5.80), t
(971) = .79, p > .05, for authoritative style in two parent (M = 37.68, SD = 5.70) and
single parent families (M = 38.62, SD = 5.44), t (971) = 1.60, p > .05, for permissive
style in two parent (M = 29.95, SD = 5.53) and single parent families (M = 30.98, SD
= 5.03), t (971) = 1.81, p > .05.

154
The findings showed that majority of the adolescents came from nuclear
families indicating a shift in family type. Just as family has seen changes during
different periods of history (Conger & Elder, 1994, Elder and Conger, 2000) the
present findings also indicate the present social conditions as a catalyst of change in
the family structure. Secondly, majority of the adolescents belonged to two parent
families, which are not in accordance with the previous study that there is an increase
in the single parent families (Amato, 2000, Hetherington& Kelly, 2001).
There was a significant difference in the fathers’ authoritative parenting style
in single parent and two parent family. Results showed fathers were perceived to be
more authoritative in two parent families than single parent families. This could be
because in two parent families the responsibility of children is shared which gives the
parents’ opportunities for communication unlike in single parent households where
they are overwhelmed with responsibilities.
No significant difference was found between nuclear and extended family.
One possible reason could be though the nuclear families seem to enjoy more
autonomy in playing the parental roles, the extended families, a useful adaptation to
modern life too is exercising the same autonomy and open approach towards child
rearing methods.
155
H05 There is no significant difference in emotional intelligence of adolescents based

on gender
Table 4.39
Mean, SD & t Value for Adolescents Emotional Intelligence based on Gender
(Male, n =464, Female, n=509)
Emotional intelligence Gender Mean SD t value
components
Intrapersonal awareness Male 15.82 3.67 3.368**
Female 15.02 3.70
Interpersonal awareness Male 14.24 4.11 1.737ns
Female 13.81 3.60
Intrapersonal management Male 16.12 4.25 .088ns
Female 16.14 3.80
Interpersonal management Male 15.41 3.57 4.403**
Female 16.30 2.73
Total emotional Male 61.60 11.74 .441ns
intelligence Female 61.29 10.22
ns:not significant, **p <.01

156
70
60
50
40
Mean
30 Male
20 Female
10
0
Awareness awareness Management Management Emotional
Intelligence
Figure 4.9. Difference in Emotional intelligence of male and female adolescents.
Among the four components of emotional intelligence independent t- test
indicated a higher level of intrapersonal awareness among males (M = 15.82, SD=
3.67) than females (M=15.02, SD = 3.70), t (971) = 3.368, p <.01.
In the area of interpersonal management females had a significantly higher
interpersonal management (M = 16.30, SD = 2.73) than males (M = 15.41, SD = 3.57),
t (971) = 4.403, p <.01.
No significant difference was found between gender in the components of
interpersonal awareness (M = 14.24, SD = 4.11), (M = 13.81, SD = 3.60), t (971) =
1.737, p >.01 intrapersonal management (M =16.12, SD = 4.25), (M =16.14,
SD=3.80), t (971) =.088, p > .01.and total emotional intelligence (M = 61.60, SD =
11.74), (M = 61.29, SD = 10.22), t (971) =.441, p >.01.
Results showed gender differences in emotional intelligence. Therefore the
null hypothesis is rejected. Gender difference was found only on two components of
emotional intelligence such as intrapersonal awareness and interpersonal management

157
with males having a higher intrapersonal awareness and females having higher
interpersonal management (Dunn, 2002). In contrast to earlier study (Katyal
&Awasthi 2005; Hassan, Sulaiman & Ishak, 2009 ; Nandwana & Joshi, 2010) no
significant difference was found between males and females on total emotional
intelligence. But significant difference in some components of emotional intelligence
is supported by previous study which shows females as more perceptive, empathic
and adaptable than males (Petrides & Furnham, 2000). This disparity between males
and females on two components may be attributed to the Indian society which
socializes the two genders differently where girls experience better emotional warmth
and high self esteem and boys experience more rejection from their fathers (Rai,
Pandey & Kumar, 2009). Girls are traditionally socialized to fit into the needs of the
larger society (Menon, 2000) and understanding, accepting and adjusting is an
important cultural value (Raval & Martini, 2011) that is ingrained in Indian cultures
everyday interpersonal interactions which makes girls adept at interpersonal skills. In
Indian families parents emphasize on relational socialization which is understood in
terms of interdependence and relatedness (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Kagitcibasi,
2005). In these cultures emotions are experienced but expression is avoided keeping
in view the larger goal of maintaining harmonious social relation and also a sense of
self from being disturbed. (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Therefore in the present study
males have a higher intrapersonal awareness which means they have higher
understanding of their own emotions and females have higher ability to manage the
emotions in interpersonal relationships. No significant difference was found between
males and females in the components of intrapersonal management and interpersonal
awareness and also total emotional intelligence.

158
H06 There is no significant difference in emotional intelligence based on geographical

locale
Table 4.40
Mean, SD & t value for Adolescents Emotional Intelligence based on Geographical
Locale (Urban, n=524, Rural, n=449)
Emotional intelligence Geographical Mean SD t value
components Locale
Intrapersonal awareness Urban 15.55 3.83 1.41ns
Rural 15.22 3.55
Interpersonal awareness Urban 14.25 4.13 2.07*
Rural 13.74 3.51
Intrapersonal Urban 16.45 4.04 2.70**
management Rural 15.75 3.96
Interpersonal Urban 16.01 3.23 1.41ns
management Rural 15.72 3.14
Total emotional Urban 62.34 11.30 2.79**
intelligence Rural 60.38 10.37
ns: not significant, * p <.05, **p <.01
70
60
50
40
Mean
30 Urban
20 Rural
10
0
Awareness Awareness Management Management emotional
Intelligence
Figure 4.10. Difference in Emotional intelligence of urban and rural adolescents.

159
Independent t-test indicates urban adolescents have significantly higher
interpersonal awareness (M=14.25, SD = 4.13) than that of rural adolescents (M =
13.74, SD = 3.51), t (971) = 2.07, p < 05. In the component of intrapersonal
management urban adolescents were significantly higher (M = 16.45, SD = 4.04) than
that of rural adolescents (M =15.75, SD = 3.96), t (971) = 2.70, p <.01. Overall total
emotional intelligence was significantly higher among urban adolescents (M = 62.34,
SD = 11.30), than rural adolescents (M = 60.38, SD = 10.37), t (971) = 2.79, p < .01.
No significant difference was found between urban and rural adolescents in
the component of intrapersonal awareness (M = 15.55, SD = 3.83), (M = 15.22, SD =
3.55), t (971) = 1.41, p > .05. Results are also shown in graphical form.
Results show higher emotional intelligence among urban adolescents than
rural adolescents. This is in consonance with earlier studies (Mimrot, 2011; Punia &
Sangwan, 2011; Akbar, Shah, Khan, Akhter, 2011). Therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected.
On components of emotional intelligence urban adolescents had better
interpersonal awareness and intrapersonal management. A possible explanation for
this finding might be due to more exposure to social activities in urban areas which
gives them opportunities for expression and management of variety of emotions.
Since the present study shows parents are more authoritative in urban set up,
the authoritative parenting style allows the adolescents to experience and manage
emotions freely thereby leading to a higher emotional intelligence among them.

160
H07 There is no significant difference in emotional intelligence based on socio

economic status
Table 4.41
Mean & SD for Adolescents Emotional Intelligence based on Socio Economic Status
Emotional intelligence Socio economic status Mean SD
components
Intrapersonal awareness Lower economic status 15.77 3.58
Interpersonal awareness Lower economic status 14.15 3.48
Lower economic status 15.81 3.97
Intrapersonal management Middle economic status 15.75 3.96
Interpersonal management Lower economic status 15.92 3.01
Total emotional intelligence Lower economic status 61.57 10.32
161
Table 4.42
One way ANOVA for Adolescents Emotional Intelligence on Socio Economic Status
Emotional intelligence Sum of df Mean F ratio
components squares Square
Intrapersonal Between 137.832 2 68.916
awareness groups 5.039**
Within 13253.883 969 13.678
groups
Total 13391.715 971
Interpersonal Between 156.872 2 78.436
awareness groups 5.297**
Within 14362.631 970 14.807
groups
Total 14519.503 972
Between 446.209 2 223.104
Intrapersonal groups 14.169**
management Within 15273.688 970 15.746
groups
Total 15719.897 972
Interpersonal Between 130.556 2 65.278
management groups 6.462**
Within 9798.375 970 10.101
groups
Total 9928.931 972
Total Between 2352.568 2 1176.284
emotional groups 9.947**
intelligence Within 14707.3 970 118.255
groups
Total 117059.9 972
**p < .01
One way analysis of variance indicates significant difference in emotional
intelligence for the three socio economic groups: F (2, 970) = 5.03, p < .01, F (2, 970)
= (5.297, p =.008 < 0.01, F (2, 970) =14.169, p < .01, F (6.462), p < .01, F (2, 970) =
9.947, p < .01.

162
Table 4.43
Post hoc Bonferroni Comparisons for Adolescents Emotional Intelligence and Socio
Economic Status
status(I) status(J) (I-J)
Intrapersonal Lower Middle .854 .270 .005**
awareness economic economic
status status
Upper .454 .313 .443 ns
economic
status
Middle Upper -.399 .335 .701 ns

economic economic
status status
Interpersonal Lower Middle .664 .281 .055 ns
awareness economic economic
status status
Upper -.415 .326 .610 ns
economic
status
Middle Upper -1.08 .348 .006**
economic economic
status status
Intrapersonal Lower Middle .052 .290 1.000 ns
management income income
group group
Upper -1.65 .336 .001**
income
group
Middle Upper -1.70 .359 .001**
income income .
group group
Cont…
163
Interpersonal Lower Middle .486 .232 .110 ns

management economic economic
status status
Upper -.541 .269 .135 ns
economic
status
Middle Upper
economic economic -1.02 .287 .001**
status status
Total Lower Middle 1.94 .796 .044*
emotional economic economic
intelligence status status
Upper -2.43 .922 .025*
economic
status
Middle Upper
economic economic -4.38 .985 .001**
status status
ns :not significant, *p <.05 , **p <.01
Post- hoc comparisons using Bonferroni test showed those adolescents who
belonged to lower economic status (M =15.77, SD = 3.58) had higher intrapersonal
awareness compared to lower economic status (M = 14.91, SD = 3.69) and upper
economic status (M = 15.31, SD = 3.95). On interpersonal awareness adolescents
from upper economic status (M = 14.56, SD = 4.09) had higher interpersonal
awareness compared to middle economic status. (M = 13.48, SD = 4.17), while
adolescents from middle economic status had higher interpersonal awareness than
lower economic status (M = 14.15, SD = 3.48). In the area of intrapersonal
management the adolescents from upper economic status had higher intrapersonal
management (M = 17.46, SD = 3.96) compared to lower economic status (M = 15.81,
SD = 3.97) and middle economic status (M = 15.75, SD = 3.96). On interpersonal
management the adolescents from upper economic status (M = 16.46, SD = 3.34) had
164
higher interpersonal management than lower economic status (M = 15.92, SD = 3.01)
and middle economic status (M = 15.43, SD = 3.30). Looking at total emotional
intelligence adolescents from upper economic status had higher total emotional
intelligence (M = 64.00, SD = 11.32) than lower economic status (M = 61.57, SD =
10.32). When middle economic status was compared with lower economic status,
lower economic status had higher emotional intelligence (M = 61.57, SD = 10.32)
than middle economic status (M = 59.62, SD = 11.36).
Differences were found across different socio economic status with
adolescents from higher socio economic status showing higher emotional intelligence
compared to middle and lower economic status. Therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. This is in line with the earlier studies which found significant difference in
socio - economic status and emotional intelligence (Namdar, Sahebihagh, Ebrahimi,
and Rahmani, 2008) and higher emotional intelligence among adolescents from better
socio - economic status (Akbar, Shah, Khan, Akhter, 2011). The poor economic
condition does not provide a stimulating and conducive environment for social
contact (Nandwana & Joshi, 2010) for the development of emotional skills among
adolescents who belong to poor economic conditions. Studies show poor economic
conditions causes frustrations both at the personal and social level which accounts for
poor emotional intelligence (Henry & Mishra, 2006).

165
H08 There is no significant difference in emotional intelligence based on family type
Table 4.44
Mean, SD & t value for Emotional Intelligence Components and Total Emotional
Intelligence of Adolescents in Nuclear and Extended Family (Nuclear, n=705,
Extended, n=268)
Emotional intelligence Family type Mean SD t value
components
Intrapersonal awareness Nuclear 15.47 3.64 1.02ns
Extended 15.20 3.88
Interpersonal awareness Nuclear 13.97 3.89 .63ns
Extended 14.14 3.79
Intrapersonal management Nuclear 16.03 4.03 1.24ns
Extended 16.39 3.98
Interpersonal management Nuclear 15.74 3.22 2.14**
Extended 16.23 3.08
Total emotional intelligence Nuclear 61.26 10.96 .79ns
Extended 61.89 10.99
ns: not significant, **p <.01
166
70
60
50
40
Mean
30 Nuclear
20 Extended
10
0
Awareness Awareness Management Management emotional
Intelligence
Figure 4.11. Difference in Emotional intelligence of adolescents in nuclear and

extended family.
Results indicate significant difference in emotional intelligence based on
family type. Among the four components of emotional intelligence, significant
difference was found only in the component of interpersonal management.
Adolescents from extended family (M = 16.23, SD = 3.08) had significantly higher
interpersonal management compared to adolescents from nuclear family (M = 15.74,
SD = 3.22), t (971) = 2.14, p < .01. Results are also presented in graphical form.
167
Table 4.45
Mean, SD & t value for Emotional Intelligence Components and Total Emotional
Intelligence of Adolescents in Two Parent and Single Parent Family (Two parent,
n=864, Single parent, n=109)
Emotional intelligence Family type Mean SD t value
components
Intrapersonal awareness Two parent 15.42 3.68 .63ns
Interpersonal awareness Two parent 13.97 3.84 1.04 ns

Intrapersonal management Two parent 16.14 4.00 .31 ns

Interpersonal management Two parent 15.83 3.17 1.28 ns

Total emotional Two parent 61.36 10.92 .57 ns

intelligence Single parent 62.00 11.39
ns :not significant
70
60
50
40
Mean
30
20
10 Two parent
0 Single parent
Figure 4.12. Difference in emotional intelligence of adolescents in two parent and

168
An independent t-test showed no significant difference in emotional
intelligence of adolescents in two parent and single parent families in the components
of intrapersonal awareness (M = 15.42, SD = 3.68), (M = 15.19, SD =3.95) t (971) =
.63 p > .01, interpersonal awareness(M = 13.97, SD = 3.84), (M = 14.38, SD =4.05) t
(971) = 1.04 p > .01 , Intrapersonal Management(M = 16.14, SD = 4.00), (M = 16.04,
SD =4.19) t (971) = .31 p > .01, interpersonal management (M = 15.83, SD = 3.17),
(M = 16.24, SD =3.33) t (971) = 1.28 p > .01and total emotional intelligence (M =
61.36, SD = 10.92), (M = 62.00, SD =11.39) t (971) = .57 p > .01.
Significant difference in emotional intelligence according to family structure
was found only in one component of emotional intelligence such as interpersonal
management in nuclear and extended families. Adolescents from extended families
showed significantly higher interpersonal management than those from nuclear
families. A possible explanation for this finding could be that more number of
members in the family gives them an opportunity to express and manage emotions.
169
H09 There is no significant difference in academic achievement based on gender
Table 4.46
Mean, SD & t value for Adolescents Academic Achievement based on Gender (Male,
n= 464, Female, n =509)
Academic Gender Mean SD t value
Achievement
Male 74.02 16.26 3.429**
Female 70.62 14.64
**p<.01
100
90
80
Academic Achievement
70
60
50 Male
40 Female
30
20
10
0
Male Female
Figure 4.13. Difference in Academic achievement of male and female adolescents.
Independent t-test shows males have a significantly higher achievement (M
=74.02, SD =16.26) than females (M = 70.62, SD = 14.64), t (971) = 3.429, p <.01.
The results showed males have significantly higher academic achievement
than females thus rejecting the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences
in the academic achievement of males and females. This is in line with previous
findings (Dutta & Bandopadhyay, 2004) that gender differences are evident in India
due to biases and stereotypes with more academic opportunities given to boys than
170
girls. Boys are also encouraged to achieve more and are rewarded for their
achievements. Parents also have greater expectations regarding achievement from
males (Rothbert & Rothbert, 1976; Block, 1983).

171
H010 There is no significant difference in academic achievement based on

geographical locale
Table 4.47
Mean, SD & t value for Adolescents Academic Achievement based on Geographical
Locale (Urban, n=524, Rural, n=449)
Academic Geographical Mean SD t value
Achievement locale
Urban 75.47 16.03 7.18**
Rural 68.48 14.02
**p<.01
Figure 4.14. Difference in academic achievement of urban and rural adolescents.
Independent t-test showed academic achievement is significantly higher
among adolescents from urban area (M = 74.47, SD = 16.03) than rural area (M =
68.48, SD = 14.02), t (971) = 7.18, p < .01. Results are also presented in graphical
form.
172
Results show significant difference in academic achievement of rural and
urban adolescents which is in consonance with earlier findings (Nagaraj et al., 2003;
Joshi & Srivastava, 2009). Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. This may be
because urban adolescents are exposed to better learning resources, learning
infrastructure, authoritative parenting style and higher emotional intelligence.

173
H011 There is no significant difference in academic achievement based on socio

economic status
Table 4.48
Mean & SD for Adolescents Academic Achievement based on Socio Economic Status
Academic Socio economic status Mean SD
Achievement Lower economic status 63.56 13.47
Table 4.49
One way ANOVA for Adolescents’ Academic Achievement on Socio Economic Status
Academic Achievement Sum of df Mean F ratio
Squares Square
Between 75185.821 2 37592.910
groups 229.242**
Within groups 158904.5 969 163.988
Total 234090.3 971
**p <.01
One way analysis of variance indicated statistically significant difference in
academic achievement for the three socio - economic groups: F (2,969) = 229.242, p
< .01.
174
Table 4.50
Post hoc Bonferroni Comparisons for Adolescents Academic Achievement on Socio
Economic Status
status (I) status (J) (I-J)
Academic Lower Middle -13.104 .937 .001**
achievement economic economic
status status
Upper -12.857 1.932 .001**
economic
status
Middle Upper
economic economic -8.752 1.085 .001**
status status
** p <.01
Post –hoc comparisons using Bonferroni test showed adolescents from upper
economic status (M = 85.41, SD = 8.41.) had significantly higher academic
achievement than adolescents from middle socio - economic status (M = 76.66, SD =
14.02) and lower socio - economic status (M = 63.56, SD = 13.47) at p < .01.
Null hypothesis is rejected as significant difference is found in academic
achievement of adolescents belonging to different socio - economic status.
Adolescents from upper economic status had higher academic achievement than those
belonging to middle or lower economic group. The results are in line with previous
findings that students with high level of socio economic status perform better than the
middle economic class students and the middle economic class students perform
175
better than the students from lower socio - economic status (Garzon, 2006;
Kahlenberg, 2006; Kirkup, 2008; Alam, 2009; Mohanty, 2009). This may be because
children from poor families are likely to attend poor schools with fewer resources to
offer to their students (Eamon 2005). Poor neighborhoods often lack positive role
models, adult supervision, and connections to good schools. This kind of environment
often prevents students from creating healthy social net works, which in turn leads to
lack of motivation and low academic performance.

176
H0 12There is no significant difference in academic achievement based on family type
Table 4.51
Mean, SD & t value for Academic Achievement of Adolescents in Nuclear and
Extended Family (Nuclear, n=705, Extended, n=268)
Academic Family type Mean SD t value
achievement
Nuclear 72.43 5.42 .61ns
Joint/extended 71.75 15.80
ns: not significant
100
90
80
Academic achievement
70
60
50 Nuclear
40 Extended
30
20
10
0
Nuclear Extended
Figure 4.15. Difference in academic achievement of adolescents in nuclear and

extended family.
Independent t- test showed no significant difference in academic achievement
of adolescents from nuclear family (M =72.43, SD = 15.42) and extended family (M
= 71.75, SD = 15.80), t (971) = .61, p > .01.

177
Table 4.52
Mean, SD & t value for Academic Achievement of Adolescents in Two Parent and
Single Parent Family (Two parent, n=864, Single parent, n=109).
Academic Family type Mean SD t value
Achievement
Two parent 72.53 15.52
1.62ns
ns : not significant
100
90
80
Academic Achievement
70
60
50 Two Parent
40 Single Parent
30
20
10
0
Two Parent Single Parent
Figure 4.16. Difference in academic achievement of adolescents in two parent and

An independent t-test showed no statistically significant difference in
academic achievement between two parent family (M = 72.53, SD = 15.52) and single
parent family (M = 69.98, SD = 15.44), t (971) = 1.62, p > .01.
Results indicate no significant difference between academic achievement of
adolescents and family structure. Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. This is in
line with previous research which showed family structure was not an important
factor for academic achievement (Thomson et al., 1994). A possible reason for such a
178
finding could be the decrease in the number of children in nuclear- extended and two
parents or single parent families. Thus access to academic resources and opportunities
could be the same across different family structures.

Results and Discussion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Results and Discussion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

4.3 HYPOTHESES TESTING

This chapter gives a detailed quantitative analyses of the responses obtained

generalizations beyond the specific sample of data.

Hypotheses testing of parenting styles and emotional intelligence on academic

achievement, an analysis of independent and dependent variables as a function of

gender, geographical locale, socio economic status and family structure.

Parenting styles and emotional intelligence of adolescents has been measured,

assessed and discussed with the help of standardized questionnaires. Academic

emotional intelligence on academic achievement of adolescents.

4.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

The parenting style predominantly adopted by father and mother as perceived

by adolescents and their level of Emotional intelligence and Academic achievement

examine the difference in parenting style, emotional intelligence and academic

achievement as a function of gender, geographical locale, socio economic status and

Parenting styles Parenting style –Father Parenting style-Mother

Figure 4.1. Frequency and percentage of parenting styles perceived by adolescents.

Majority of the fathers were perceived by the adolescents as adopting

authoritative style (64.9%) followed by authoritarian (28.4%). It is observed that a

an authoritative style (72.9%) followed by authoritarian (21.3%). Only a small

percentage of mothers adopted a permissive style (5.9%). The frequency and

percentage is also presented in graphical form. In summary a higher percentage of

an authoritative style of parenting.

Figure 4.2.Frequency and percentage of components of emotional intelligence and the

of emotional intelligence (40.1%). Further a small proportion of respondents had good

Looking at the four components of emotional intelligence in intrapersonal awareness

very poor. In interpersonal awareness 50.7 percent of adolescents had average

interpersonal awareness In intrapersonal and interpersonal management those with

average intrapersonal management was less (45.8%) than interpersonal management

emotional intelligence. In essence total Emotional intelligence score revealed most of

percentage is also given in graphical form.

Percentage of marks Marks obtained

The percentage of marks obtained in the tenth standard qualifying examination

percent. The frequency and percentage is also presented in graphical form.

4.3 HYPOTHESES TESTING

Pearson’s Correlation and Multiple regression analyses were used to

determine the significant impact of parenting styles and emotional intelligence on

academic achievement. An additional Chi-Square test of association was performed to

dependent variables as a function of gender, socioeconomic status, geographical area

and family structure.

Correlation was done using Pearson Correlation.

The results are discussed around each of the research hypotheses.

H0 There is no significant impact of parenting style on academic achievement of

Correlations between fathers parenting styles and academic achievement

indicated fathers r = -.232 authoritarian style was significantly inversely correlated

and permissive style r = .416 at p < .01 significance level.

With regard to mothers parenting style and academic achievement mothers

authoritarian style, r = .278 was significantly inversely correlated with academic

style r = .385 at p < .01 significance level.

Authoritative Mother .887 .133 .353 6.682**

Note: R = .559a, R2 = .313, Adjusted R2 = .308

Regression analysis identified significant factors in the first stage. Multiple

regression analysis showed parenting style as adding significant increment to

academic achievement of adolescents. The predictors accounted for 31.3 % increment

in academic achievement. The contribution and significance of each of the parents’

impact on academic achievement whereas authoritarian, (β = -.103, p < .05) style

showed significant negative impact on academic achievement. Among the mothers

Authoritarian 128 58 58 32 276

Authoritative 401 98 78 54 631

Total 567 164 147 95 973