11 Chapter 5

Analysis, Interpretation and Discussion of Results
CHAPTER-V
ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
In the preceding chapters, the theoretical framework of the problem, review of

related literature, the description of the tools used and method of the study were
discussed. The present chapter deals with the analysis of data. In order to arrive at
meaningful conclusions the analysis of data has been reported in four sections.
SECTION-A
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
A1 Descriptive statistics on the scores of Career Aspirations of total sample.
A2 Descriptive statistics on the scores of Self-Efficacy of total sample.
A3 Descriptive statistics on the scores of Peer Pressure of total sample.
SECTION-B
INFERENTIAL STATISTICS
B1 2X2X2 Analysis of Variance on Scores of Career Aspirations in Relation to
Type of School, Academic Stream and Self-Efficacy

Type of School, Academic Stream and Peer Pressure

Type of School, Academic Stream and Perceived Parenting Style (Mother)

Type of School, Academic Stream and Perceived Parenting Style (Father)

Self-Efficacy, Peer Pressure and Perceived Parenting Style (Mother)

Self-Efficacy, Peer Pressure and Perceived Parenting Style (Father)
117
SECTION-C
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
This section deals with the discussion of results based on the analysis of scores
on the variable of career aspirations.
SECTION-A
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Table 5.1 Showing frequency distribution of scores of Career Aspirations of
total sample
Class Interval Frequency
70-80 8
80-90 19
90-100 27
100-110 113
110-120 265
120-130 269
130-140 95
140-150 4
Total 800
118
Table 5.2 Showing mean, median, mode standard deviation and kurtosis of
scores of Career Aspirations of total sample
N Mean Median Mode SD Skewness Kurtosis
800 118.18 119 121 11.66 -0.808 1.305
Interpretation
Table 5.1 shows the frequency distribution and table 5.2 shows the descriptive
statistics of Career Aspirations of the total sample. The mean, median and mode of
Career Aspirations of total sample came out to be 118.18, 119 and 121 which are in
close proximity to each other. The skewness for the same was -0.808 showing the
curve as negatively skewed and the value of kurtosis was 1.305 showing the curve as
platykurtic. The distortions in both the values (0.00 for skewness and 0.263 for
kurtosis) were negligible. Therefore the distribution can be treated as normal.
Figure 5.1 Frequency polygon depicting `Career Aspirations of total sample
350
300
250
FREQUENCY
200
150
100
50
0
70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 120-130 130-140 140-150
SCORES
119
Table 5.3 Showing frequency distribution of scores of Self-Efficacy of total

sample
30-35 1
35-40 1
40-45 4
45-50 33
50-55 119
55-60 254
60-65 214
65-70 115
70-75 43
75-80 13
80-85 3
Total 800
scores of Self-Efficacy of total sample
800 60.77 60 60 6.55 0.199 0.721
120
Interpretation
statistics of Self-Efficacy of the total sample. The mean, median and mode of Self-
Efficacy of total sample came out to be 60.77, 60 and 60 which are in close proximity
to each other. The skewness for the same was 0.199 showing the curve as positively
skewed and the value of kurtosis was 0.721 showing the curve as platykurtic. The
distortions in both the values (0.00 for skewness and 0.263 for kurtosis) were
negligible. Therefore the distribution can be treated as normal.
Figure 5.2 Frequency polygon depicting Self-Efficacy of total sample
121
Table 5.5 Showing frequency distribution of scores of Peer Pressure of total

sample
20-30 22
30-40 67
40-50 137
50-60 187
60-70 174
70-80 120
80-90 64
90-100 21
100-110 8
Total 800
scores of Peer Pressure of total sample
800 60.63 60 59 16.14 0.195 -0.232
122
Interpretation
statistics of Peer Pressure of the total sample. The mean, median and mode of Peer
Pressure of total sample came out to be 60.63, 60 and 59 which are in close proximity
to each other. The skewness for the same was 0.195 showing the curve as positively
skewed and the value of kurtosis was -0.232 showing the curve as leptokurtic. The
distortions in both the values (0.00 for skewness and 0.263 for kurtosis) were
negligible. Therefore, the distribution can be treated as normal.
Figure 5.3 Frequency polygon depicting Peer Pressure of total sample
123
SECTION- B
INFERENTIAL STATISTICS
Before the summary of 2X2X2 Analysis of Variance on scores of Career
Aspirations following assumptions were tested.
 Normality of Distribution
 Randomness
 Homogeneity of Variance
 The contribution to total variance is additive
Normality of the distribution of Criterion Measure: The assumption that the
observations in experimentally homogeneous sets should be normally distributed was
tested through descriptive statistics. From the descriptive statistics, as discussed in
Section-A, the distribution can be taken as normal.
Randomness: As far as this assumption of assigning random and mutually exclusive

cases in each cell of 2X2X2 analysis of variance is concerned, the sampling within the
sets was done randomly.
Homogeneity: This assumption stating that the variances of scores in each of the
treatment groups should be homogeneous, that is, the variances of the individual
groups should be equal were tested with by applying Levene’s test of homogeneity of
variance as given below:
Table 5.7 Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variance for the Variable of
Career Aspirations in relation to Type of School, Stream and Self-
Efficacy
df1 df2 F Value
7 424 1.673NS
NS
Not significant at 0.05 level of significance
Interpretation
Table 5.7 shows that the value of F is 1.673 which is not significant at 0.05
level of confidence. This shows that the error variance of the dependent variable i.e.
Career Aspirations is equal across the groups. Hence the variance within the cells can
be treated as homogeneous.
124
Table 5.8 Means, standard deviations and number of students of career

aspirations in type of school, academic stream and self-efficacy
(2X2X2) (factorial design)
Type of School
Government Private
Total Total
Academic Stream Total Academic Stream
Sci. Hum. Sci. Hum.
M =121.05 M =114.46 M =117.76 M =121.04 M =122.02 M =121.53 M =119.64

High SD=8.72 SD=19.96 SD=15.69 SD=11.29 SD=14.66 SD=13.03 SD=14.51
N =54 N =54 N =108 N =54 N =54 N =108 N =216
Self-
Efficacy
M =68.29 M =67.68 M=67.99 M =116.74 M =68.79 M =92.77 M =80.38
Low SD=2.75 SD=3.60 SD=3.20 SD=11.60 SD=4.27 SD=25.60 SD=28.8
N =54 N =54 N =108 N =54 N =54 N =108 N =216
M =94.68 M =91.07 M =92.87 M =118.89 M =95.41 M =107.15

Total
SD=27.27 SD=27.50 SD=27.38 SD=11.59 SD=28.81 SD=24.87
N =108 N =108 N =216 N =108 N =108 N =216
M =106.78 M =93.24 M =100.01

Total SD=24.17 SD=28.18 SD=27.08
N =216 N =216 N =432
It may be seen from table 5.8 that the mean scores of students on career
aspirations ranges from a low score of 67.68 in case of government school students of
humanities stream with low self-efficacy to a high score of 122.02 in case of private
school students of humanities stream with high self-efficacy. The mean scores and
standard deviation of these 432 cases across career aspirations is 100.01 and 27.08
respectively.
On the basis of above data three way analysis of variance was carried out and
the results are recorded in table 5.9:
125
Table 5.9 Summary of 2X2X2 Analysis of Variance on Scores of Career

Aspirations in Relation to Type of School, Academic Stream and
Self-Efficacy
Source of Variation SS df MSS F-Value
Main Effects
A: Type of School 22002.06 1 22002.06 177.72*
B: Academic Stream 19804.69 1 19804.69 159.97*
C: Self-Efficacy 16649.86 1 166498.52 134.48*
First Order Interaction

A X B: (Type of School X 10670.39 1 10670.39 86.19*
Academic Stream)
11917.50 1 11917.50 96.26*
AXC: (Type of School X Self-
Efficacy) 12448.52 1 12448.52 100.55*
BXC: (Academic Stream X Self-

Efficacy)
Second Order Interaction

AXBXC: (Type of School X 20350.06 1 20350.06 164.37*
Academic Stream X Self-Efficacy
Within Group (Error) 52493.20 424 123.80
Total 431
*
Significant at 0.01 level of Confidence
F table (1,424) at 0.01 and 0.05 level of significance is 6.70 and 3.86 respectively
Main Effect A: Effect of Type of School (Government and Private) on the

variable of Career Aspirations
Table 5.9 reveals that the F-ratio for the difference between the mean scores of
Career Aspirations of government and private school students came out to be 177.72
which is significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It means that both the groups were
significantly different on the mean scores of Career Aspirations. The mean scores of
the government and private school students on the variable of Career Aspirations
found to be 92.87 and 107.15 respectively.
126
Main Effect B: Effect of Academic Stream (Science and Humanities) on the

Career Aspirations of Science and Humanities students came out to be 159.97 which
is significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It means that both the groups were
the students having science and humanities stream on the variable of Career
Aspirations found to be 106.78 and 93.24 respectively.
Main Effect C: Effect of Self-Efficacy (High and Low) on the variable of Career
Aspirations
Career Aspirations of students having high and low self-efficacy came out to be
134.48 which is significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It means that both the groups
were significantly different on the mean scores of Career Aspirations. The mean
scores of the students having high and low Self-Efficacy on the variable of Career
Interactional Effect (AXB): Effect of Type of School and Academic Stream on

the variable of Career Aspirations
Table 5.9 reveals that the F-ratio for the difference between mean scores on
Career Aspirations of students due to interaction between Type of school and
academic stream came out to be 86.19 which is significant at the 0.01 level of
confidence. The results show that different groups scored different mean scores of
Career Aspirations for two types of schools and academic streams. It means that mean
scores due to interaction of type of school yielded different mean scores for students
with science and humanities streams.
To investigate further F–ratio was followed by t–test. t– ratios’ for the

difference in means of different combination pairs of type of schools and academic
streams were computed and have been recorded in table 5.10.
127
Table 5.10 The t-values testing significance of difference in career aspiration

scores in interaction of type of school and academic stream
Type of School t-value
Government Private
Mean = 94.68 Mean = 118.89

Science S.D. = 27.27 S.D. = 11.59 8.49 *
N = 108 N = 108
Stream
Mean = 91.07 Mean = 95.41
Humanities S.D. = 27.49 S.D. = 28.81 1.13NS
N = 108 N = 108
t-value 0.97NS 7.85 *

* Significant at 0.01 level; NS– non-significant at 0.05 level
Table 5.10 reveals that:
i. Type of school and career aspirations in terms of two types of academic

streams
The t-ratio showing significance of difference in career aspiration scores of

science stream students of government and private schools came out to be 8.49 which
is significant at 0.01 level. It leads to the conclusion that the students with science
stream of government and private schools have significantly different mean scores on
career aspirations. A comparison of the two means suggests that science stream
students of private schools have higher mean scores of career aspirations (Mean =
118.89) as compared to science stream students of government schools (Mean =
94.68).

humanities stream students of government and private schools came out to 1.13 which
is insignificant at 0.05 level. It leads to evolve that humanities stream students of
private schools and humanities stream students of government schools did not differ
significantly on the variable of career aspirations.
128
ii. Stream and career aspirations in terms of two types of schools

private school students having science and humanities streams came out to be 7.85
which is significant at 0.01 level. It leads to the conclusion that the students of private
schools with science and humanities stream have significantly different mean scores
on career aspirations. A comparison of the two means suggests that private school
students with science stream have higher mean scores of career aspirations (Mean =
118.89) as compared to private school students having humanities stream science
stream students of government schools (Mean = 95.41).

government school students with science and humanities stream came out to 0.97
which is insignificant at 0.05 level. It leads to evolve that government school students
with science and humanities stream did not differ significantly on the variable of
career aspirations.
Interactional Effect (AXC): Effect of Type of School and Self-Efficacy on the

Career Aspirations of students due to interaction between Type of school and Self-
Efficacy came out to be 96.26 which is significant at the 0.01 level of confidence. The
results show that different groups scored different mean scores on Career Aspirations
for two types of schools and two levels of Self-Efficacy. It means that mean scores
due to interaction of type of school yielded different mean scores for students with
high and low levels of Self-Efficacy.
To investigate further F–ratio was followed by t–test. t–ratios for the

difference in means of different combination pairs of type of schools and levels of
Self-Efficacy were computed and have been recorded in table 5.11.
129

scores in interaction of type of school and self-efficacy
Government Private
Mean = 117.76 Mean = 121.53

High S.D. = 15.68 S.D. = 13.03 1.92NS
N = 108 N = 108
Self-
Efficacy
Mean = 67.99 Mean = 92.77
Low S.D. = 13.20 S.D. = 25.60 8.94*
N = 108 N = 108
t-value 10.41* 25.23*

i. Type of school and career aspirations in terms of two levels of self-efficacy

high self-efficacy group students of government and private schools came out to be
1.92 which is insignificant at 0.05 level. It leads to the conclusion that the students
with high self-efficacy of government and private schools did not differ significantly

low self-efficacy group students of government and private schools came out to be
8.94 which is significant at 0.01 level. It leads to the conclusion that the students with
low self-efficacy of government and private schools have significantly different mean
scores on career aspirations. A comparison of the two means suggests that private
school students with low self-efficacy have higher mean scores of career aspirations
(Mean = 92.77) as compared to government school students having low self-efficacy
(Mean = 67.99).
130
ii. Self-efficacy and career aspirations in terms of two types of schools

government school students having high and low self-efficacy came out to be 10.41
which is significant at 0.01 level. It leads to the conclusion that the students of
government schools with high and low self-efficacy have significantly different mean
scores on career aspirations. A comparison of the two means suggests that
government school students with high self-efficacy have higher mean scores of career
aspirations (Mean = 117.76) as compared to government school students having low
self-efficacy (Mean = 67.99).

private school students having high and low self-efficacy came out to be 25.23 which
is significant at 0.01 level. It leads to the conclusion that the students of private
schools with high and low self-efficacy have significantly different mean scores on
career aspirations. A comparison of the two means suggests that private school
students with high self-efficacy have higher mean scores of career aspirations (Mean
= 121.53) as compared to private school students having low self-efficacy (Mean =
92.77).
Interactional Effect (BXC): Effect of Academic Stream and Self-Efficacy on the

Career Aspirations of students due to interaction between academic stream and Self-
Efficacy came out to be 100.55 which is significant at the 0.01 level of confidence.
The results show that different groups scored different mean scores on Career
Aspirations for two types of academic streams and two levels of Self-Efficacy. It
means that mean scores due to interaction of academic stream yielded different mean
scores for students with high and low levels of Self-Efficacy.

difference in means of different combination pairs of academic streams and different
levels of Self-Efficacy were computed and have been recorded in table 5.12.
131

scores in interaction of academic stream and self-efficacy
Academic Stream t-value
Science Humanities
Mean = 121.05 Mean = 117.99

High S.D. = 10.03 S.D. = 17.84 1.55NS
N = 108 N = 108
Self-Efficacy
Mean = 92.52 Mean = 66.74
Low S.D. = 25.74 S.D. = 13.97 9.15*
N = 108 N = 108
t-value 10.73* 23.51*

i. Academic Stream and career aspirations in terms of two levels of self-efficacy

high self-efficacy group students of science and humanities streams came out to be
1.55 which is insignificant at 0.05 level. It leads to the conclusion that the students
with high self-efficacy of science and humanities streams did not differ significantly

low self-efficacy group students of science and humanities streams came out to be
9.15 which is significant at 0.01 level. It leads to the conclusion that the students with
low self-efficacy of science and humanities streams have significantly different mean
scores on career aspirations. A comparison of the two means suggests that science
stream students with low self-efficacy have higher mean scores of career aspirations
(Mean = 92.52) as compared to humanities stream students with low self-efficacy
(Mean = 66.74).
132
ii. Stream and career aspirations in terms of two levels of self-efficacy

science stream students having high and low self-efficacy came out to be 10.73 which
is significant at 0.01 level. It leads to the conclusion that the students of science
stream with high and low self-efficacy have significantly different mean scores on
students with high self-efficacy have higher mean scores of career aspirations (Mean
= 121.05) as compared to science stream students having low self-efficacy (Mean =
92.52).

humanities stream students having high and low self-efficacy came out to be 23.51
which is significant at 0.01 level. It leads to the conclusion that the students of
humanities stream with high and low self-efficacy have significantly different mean
scores on career aspirations. A comparison of the two means suggests that humanities
stream students with high self-efficacy have higher mean scores of career aspirations
(Mean = 117.99) as compared to humanities stream students having low self-efficacy
(Mean = 66.74).
Interactional Effect (AXBXC): Effect of Type of School, Academic Stream and

Self-Efficacy on the variable of Career
Aspirations
Table 5.9 reveals that the F-ratio for the difference in mean scores on Career
Aspirations of students due to interaction between type of School, Academic Stream
and Self-Efficacy came out to be 164.37 which is significant at 0.01 level of
confidence. Hence, the null hypothesis Ho stating that there will be no significant
interaction between type of School, Academic Stream and Self-Efficacy on the
variable of Career Aspirations is rejected.
To investigate further F – ratio was followed by t – test. t– ratio for the

difference in means of different combination pairs of treatment were computed and
have been recorded in table 5.13.
133

scores in interaction of Type of School, academic stream and self-
efficacy
Type of School t-value on

basis of
Government t-value on Private Academic
basis of Stream
Academic Stream Academic Academic Stream
Stream
Science Humanities Science Humanities
Mean=121.05 Mean=114.46 Mean=121.04 Mean=122.02

High SD=8.72 SD=19.96 2.22** SD=11.29 SD= 14.66 0.38NS
N = 54 N =54 N =54 N = 54
Self-
Efficacy Mean=68.29 Mean=67.68 Mean=116.74 Mean= 68.79
Low SD= 2.75 SD= 3.60 0.99NS SD= 11.60 SD= 4.27 28.51*
N =54 N =54 N = 54 N =54
t-value on basis
42.40* 16.94* 1.95 NS 25.62*
of Self-Efficacy
t-value on basis
of Type of 0.005 NS 2.24** 29.86* 1.46 NS
School
* Significant at 0.01 level; ** Significant at 0.05 level; NS– non-significant at 0.05 level
i Type of school, Academic Stream and career aspirations in terms of two

levels of self-efficacy
With Govt. and Sc.:
The t-ratio for the difference in mean scores on Career Aspirations of students
of government school with science stream and high Self-Efficacy and students of
government school with science stream and low Self-Efficacy came out to be 42.40
which is significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It leads to conclude that the
Govt./Sc./HSE and Govt./Sc./LSE groups did not achieve equal mean scores on
Career Aspirations. The mean scores of the Govt./Sc./HSE and Govt./Sc./LSE Groups
were found to be 121.05 and 68.29 respectively.
134
With Govt. and Hum.:
of government school with humanities stream and high Self-Efficacy and students of
government school with humanities stream and low Self-Efficacy came to be 16.94
Govt./Hum./HSE and Govt./Hum./LSE groups did not achieve equal mean scores on
Career Aspirations. The mean scores of the Govt./Hum./HSE and Govt./Hum./LSE
Groups were found to be 114.46 and 67.68 respectively.
With Pvt. and Sc.
The t-ratio for the difference in mean scores on Career Aspirations of the
students of private schools with science stream and high self-efficacy and the students
of private schools with science stream and low Self-Efficacy came out to be 1.95
which is insignificant at 0.05 level of confidence. It leads to conclude that the
Pvt./Sc./HSE and Pvt./Sc./LSE groups achieved equal mean scores on Career
Aspirations.
With Pvt. and Hum.:
of private schools with humanities stream and high Self-Efficacy and students of
private schools with humanities stream and low Self-Efficacy came out to be 25.62
and is significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It leads to conclude that the
Pvt./Hum./HSE and Pvt./Hum./LSE groups did not achieve equal mean scores on
Career Aspirations. The mean scores of the Pvt./Hum./HSE Group and
Pvt./Hum./LSE Group were found to be 122.02 and 68.79 respectively.
ii. Type of school, Self-Efficacy and career aspirations in terms of two types
of Academic Stream
With Govt. and HSE:
of government school with science stream and high Self-Efficacy and students of
government school with humanities stream and high Self-Efficacy came out to be
135
2.22 which is significant at 0.05 level of confidence. It leads to conclude that the
Govt./Sc./HSE and Govt./Hum./HSE did not achieve equal mean scores on Career
Aspirations. The mean scores of the Govt./Sc./HSE and Govt./Hum./HSE Groups
were found to be 121.05 and 114.46 respectively.
With Govt. and LSE:
of government school with science stream and low Self-Efficacy and students of
Govt./Sc./LSE and Govt./Hum./LSE groups achieved equal mean scores on Career
Aspirations.
With Pvt. and HSE:
of private schools with science stream and high Self-Efficacy and students of private
schools with humanities stream and high Self-Efficacy came out to be 0.38 and is
insignificant at 0.05 level of confidence. It leads to conclude that the Pvt./Sc./HSE
and Pvt./Hum./HSE groups did not achieve equal mean scores on Career Aspirations.
With Pvt. and LSE:
of private schools with science stream and low Self-Efficacy and students of private
schools with humanities stream and low Self-Efficacy is 28.51 which is significant at
0.01 level of confidence. It leads to conclude that the Pvt./Sc./LSE and
Pvt./Hum./LSE groups did not achieve equal mean scores on Career Aspirations. The
mean scores of the Pvt./Sc./LSE Group and Pvt./Hum./LSE Group were found to be
116.74 and 68.79 respectively.
iii. Academic Stream, Self-Efficacy and career aspirations in terms of two

types of school
136
With Sc. and HSE:
of private schools with science stream and high Self-Efficacy and students of
government school with science stream and high Self-Efficacy came to be 0.005 is
insignificant at 0.05 level of confidence. It leads to conclude that the Pvt./Sc./HSE
and Govt./Sc./HSE groups achieved equal mean scores on Career Aspirations.
With Hum. and HSE:
of private schools with humanities stream and high Self-Efficacy and students of
government school with humanities stream and high Self-Efficacy came to be 2.24
Pvt./Hum./HSE and Govt./Hum./HSE groups did not achieve equal mean scores on
Career Aspirations. The mean scores of the Pvt./Hum./HSE and Govt./Hum./HSE
Groups were found to be 122.02 and 114.46 respectively.
With Sc. and LSE:
of private schools with science stream and low Self-Efficacy and students of
government school with science stream and low Self-Efficacy came to be 29.86 which
is significant at 0.05 level of confidence. It leads to conclude that the Pvt./Sc./LSE
and Govt./Sc./LSE groups did not achieve equal mean scores on Career Aspirations.
The mean scores of the Pvt./Sc./LSE and Govt./Sc./LSE Groups were found to be
116.74 and 68.29 respectively.
With Hum. and LSE:
of private schools with humanities stream and low Self-Efficacy and students of
Pvt./Hum./LSE and Govt./Hum./LSE groups achieved equal mean scores on Career
Aspirations.
137

aspirations in type of school, academic stream and peer pressure
Type of School
Government Private
Total Total
Academic Stream Academic Stream
Sci. Hum. Total Sci. Hum.
M =107.64 M =105.24 M =106.14 M =117.63 M =104.93 M =111.28 M =108.71
High SD=7.90 SD=15.10 SD=12.23 SD=11.00 SD=15.72 SD=13.51 SD=7.90
Peer N =54 N =54 N =108 N =54 N =54 N =108 N =216
Pressure
M =113.23 M =107.37 M =110.30 M =122.50 M =112.92 M =117.71 M =114.00
Low SD=9.05 SD=21.00 SD=16.40 SD=11.02 SD=9.29 SD=10.22 SD=9.05

N =54 N =54 N =108 N =54 N =54 N =108 N =216
M =110.43 M =106.31 M =111.57 M =120.06 M =108.93 M =114.50

Total
SD=8.91 SD=18.32 SD=14.63 SD=11.23 SD=13.46 SD=12.38
N =108 N =108 N =216 N =108 N =108 N =216
M =115.25 M =107.62 M =111.35
Total SD=10.13 SD=16.49 SD=13.72
N =216 N =216 N =432
aspirations ranges from a low score of 107.37 in case of government school students
of humanities stream having low peer pressure to a high score of 122.50 in case of
private school students of science stream with low peer pressure. The mean scores and
standard deviation of these 432 cases across career aspirations is 111.35 and 13.72
respectively.
the results are recorded in table 5.15.
138
Table 5.15 Summary of 2 X 2 x 2 Analysis of Variance on Scores of Career

Peer Pressure
Main Effects
A: Type of School 2115.59 1 2115.593 12.18*
B: Academic Stream 717.49 1 717.49 4.13**
D: Peer Pressure 3445.37 1 3445.370 19.83*

AXB: (Type of School X Academic 1102.08 1 1102.083 6.34**
Stream)
AXD: (Type of School X Peer 66.89 1 66.898 0.38NS
Pressure)
BXD: (Academic Stream X Peer
Pressure) 18.75 1 18.750 0.11NS

AXBXD: (Type of School X 142.37 1 142.370 0.82NS
Academic Stream X Peer Pressure
Total 81269.32 431

*
Significant at 0.01 level of Confidence
F table (1,424) at 0.01 and 0.05 level of significance is 6.70 and 3.86 respectively

Table 5.15 reveals that the F-ratios for the difference between the mean scores
of Career Aspirations of government and private school students came out to be 12.18
significantly different on the mean scores of Career Aspirations. The means of the
government and private school students on the variable of Career Aspirations were
found to be 111.57 and 114.50 respectively.
139

of Career Aspirations of Science and Humanities students came out to be 4.13 which
science and humanities group students were found to be 115.25 and 107.62
respectively.
Main Effect D: Effect of Peer Pressure (High and Low) on the variable of Career
Aspirations
of Career Aspirations of students having high and low Peer Pressure came out to be
were significantly different on the mean scores of Career Aspirations. The means of
the high and low Peer Pressure groups were found to be 108.71 and 114.00
respectively.

confidence. The results show that different groups scored different mean scores on
Career Aspirations for two types of schools and academic streams. It means that mean
scores due to interaction of type of school yielded different mean scores for students
with science and humanities streams.

140

Government Private
Mean = 110.43 Mean = 120.06

Science S.D. = 12.91 S.D. = 11.23 5.85*
N = 108 N = 108
Academic
Stream Mean =106.31 Mean =108.93
Humanities S.D. = 18.32 S.D. = 13.46 1.19NS
N = 108 N = 108
t-value 1.91NS 6.59*

* Significant at 0.01 level, NS-non-significant at 0.05 level
Table 5.16 reveals that the

i. Type of school and career aspirations in terms of two types of academic
streams

students of private schools have higher mean scores of career aspirations (Mean =
120.06) as compared to science stream students of government schools (Mean =
110.43).

141
ii. Academic Stream and career aspirations in terms of two types of schools

career aspirations.

120.06) as compared to private school students having humanities stream science
stream students of government schools (Mean = 108.93).
Interactional Effect (AXD): Effect of Type of School and Peer Pressure on the
Career Aspirations of students due to interaction between type of school and Peer
Pressure came out to be 0.38 which is insignificant at the 0.05 level of confidence.
The results show that different groups achieved equal mean scores on Career
Aspirations for two types of schools and two levels of Peer Pressure.
Interactional Effect (BXD): Effect of Academic Stream and Peer Pressure on the
Career Aspirations of students due to interaction between academic stream and Peer
The results show that different groups did not achieve different mean scores on Career
Aspirations for two types of academic streams and two levels of Peer Pressure.
142
Interactional Effect (AXBXD): Effect of Type of School, Academic Stream and

Peer-Pressure on the variable of Career
Aspirations
and Peer Pressure came out to be 0.82 which is insignificant at 0.05 level of
confidence. The results show that different groups did not achieve different mean
scores on Career Aspirations for two types of schools, two types of academic streams
and two levels of Peer Pressure.
aspirations in type of school, academic stream and perceived
parenting style (mother) (2X2X2) (factorial design)
Type of School
Government Private
Total Total
Sci. Hum. Total Sci. Hum.
M =123.84 M =120.94 M =122.30 M =120.92 M =119.67 M =119.98 M =121.19

Authn SD=11.27 SD=12.91 SD=12.04 SD=7.67 SD=16.02 SD=15.62 SD=14.90
Perc. .
Par. N =23 N =26 N =49 N =11 N =34 N =45 N =94
Style
M =125.03 M =122.88 M =123.75 M =118.05 M =115.51 M =116.67 M =119.92
(M)
Auth. SD=16.64 SD=9.13 SD=12.67 SD=7.63 SD=16.02 SD=12.92 SD=12.27
N =30 N =44 N =74 N =40 N =47 N =87 N =161
M =121.43 M =116.74 M =119.22 M =115.00 M =114.76 M =114.89 M =117.09
Perm. SD=12.15 SD=10.59 SD=11.43 SD=10.03 SD=14.77 SD=12.39 SD=9.98
N =147 N =130 N =277 N =149 N =119 N =268 N =545
M =115.93 M =115.77 M =115.85 M =122.45 M =118.63 M =120.55
Total
SD=9.53 SD=16.16 SD=13.48 SD=12.83 SD=10.71 SD=11.80
N =200 N =200 N =400 N =200 N =200 N =400
M =119.11 M =117.20 M =118.16

Total SD=14.99 SD=10.19 SD= 11.66
N=400 N =400 N =800
143
aspirations ranges from a low score of 114.76 in case of private school students of
humanities stream having permissive parenting style (mother) to a high score of
125.03 in case of government school students of science stream having authoritative
parenting style (mother). The mean scores and standard deviation of these 800 cases
across career aspirations is 118.16 and 11.66 respectively.
Table 5.18 Summary of 2 X 2 X 2 Analysis of Variance on Scores of Career

Perceived Parenting Style (Mother)
Main Effects
A: Type of School 3679.129 1 3679.129 24.48*
E: Perceived Parenting Style (Mother) 3077.959 2 1538.98 10.24*
AXB: (Type of School X Academic 933.446 1 933.446 6.21**

Stream)
AXE: (Type of School X Perceived 714.545 2 357.272 2.38NS

Parenting Style (Mother))
BXE: (Academic Stream X Perceived

Parenting Style (Mother)) 678.056 2 339.028 2.26NS
AXBXE: (Type of School X Academic 654.539 2 327.269 2.18NS

Stream X Perceived Parenting Style
(Mother)
Total 799
*
Significant at 0.01 level of Confidence.
F table (1,788) at 0.01 and 0.05 level of significance is 3.85 and 6.66 respectively.
144

government and private school students were found to be 115.85 and 120.55
respectively.

science and humanities stream groups were found to be 119.11 and 117.20
respectively.
Main Effect E: Effect of Perceived Parenting Style (Mother) (High and Low) on
of Career Aspirations of students having high and low Perceived Parenting Style
(Mother) came out to be 10.24 which is significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It
means that the groups with different parenting styles (mother) were significantly
different on the mean scores of Career Aspirations.

difference in means of students with different parenting styles (mother)
were computed on the variable of career aspirations and have been recorded in
table 5.19.
145
Table 5.19 t-ratio for difference between Mean Scores on Career Aspirations
of students with different parenting style (mother)
Parenting Style
Authoritative Authoritarian Permissive
Mean = 121.19 Mean = 119.92 Mean = 117.09

SD = 14.90 SD = 12.27 SD = 9.98
N = 94 N = 161 N = 545
Authoritative - 0.70NS 2.57*
Authoritarian - - 2.68*
Permissive - - -

Authoritative Vs. Authoritarian
The t-ratio for the difference in mean scores on the career Aspirations of
students having Authoritative and Authoritarian Perceived Parenting Style (mother)
came out to be 0.70 which is insignificant at 0.05 level of confidence. It leads to
conclude that the students with Authoritative and Authoritarian Perceived Parenting
Style (mother) achieved equal mean scores on the variable of Career Aspirations.
Authoritative Vs. Permissive
students having Authoritative and Permissive Perceived Parenting Style (mother)
came out to be 2.57 which is significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It leads to
conclude that the students with Authoritative and Permissive Perceived Parenting
Style (mother) did not achieve equal mean scores on the variable of Career
Aspirations. The mean scores of the students having Authoritative and Permissive
Perceived Parenting Style (mother) on the variable of career aspirations were found to
be 121.19 and 117.09 respectively.
Authoritarian Vs. Permissive
students having Authoritarian and Permissive Perceived Parenting Style (mother)
146

conclude that the students with Authoritarian and Permissive Perceived Parenting
Aspirations. The mean scores of the students having Authoritarian and Permissive

Career Aspirations for two types of schools and academic streams.


Government Private
Mean:115.93 Mean : 122.45

Science S.D. : 9.53 S.D. : 12.83 5.77*
N : 200 N : 200
Academic
Stream
Mean: 115.77 Mean: 118.63
Humanities S.D. : 16.16 S.D. : 13.71 1.90NS
N : 200 N : 200
t-value 0.12NS 2.88*
* Significant at 0.01 level, NS-non-significant at 0.05 level
147
i. Type of school and career aspirations in terms of two types of stream

students of private schools have higher mean scores of career aspirations
(Mean =122.45) as compared to science stream students of government schools
(Mean = 115.93).

ii. Stream and career aspirations in terms of two types of schools

career aspirations.

122.45) as compared to private school students having humanities stream (Mean =
118.63).
148
Interactional Effect (AXE): Effect of Type of School and Perceived Parenting

Style (Mother) on the variable of Career
Aspirations
Perceived Parenting Style (Mother) came out to be 2.38 which is insignificant at the
0.05 level of confidence. The results show that different groups did not achieve
different mean scores on Career Aspirations for two types of schools and two levels of
Perceived Parenting Style (Mother).
Interactional Effect (BXE): Interactional effect of Academic Stream and

Perceived Parenting Style (Mother) on the variable
of Career Aspirations
Career Aspirations of students due to interaction between academic stream and
Perceived Parenting Style (Mother) came out to be 2.26 which is insignificant at the
different mean scores on Career Aspirations for two types of academic streams and
two levels of Perceived Parenting Style (Mother).
Interactional Effect (AXBXE): Effect of Type of School, Academic Stream and

Perceived Parenting Style (Mother) on the
and Perceived Parenting Style (mother) came out to be 2.18 which is insignificant at
different mean scores on Career Aspirations for two types of schools, two types of
academic streams and two levels of Perceived Parenting Style (Mother).
149

aspirations in type of school, academic stream and perceived
parenting style (father) (2X2X2) (factorial design)
Type of School
Government Private
Sci. Hum. Total Sci. Hum. Total Total
M =124.86 M =119.52 M =123.16 M =126.97 M =120.83 M =124.00 M =123.62

Perc. Authn. SD=15.29 SD=9.59 SD=12.48 SD=11.92 SD=10.44 SD=11.20 SD=11.95
Par. N =30 N =14 N =44 N =27 N =25 N =52 N =96
Style
M =117.89 M =117.40 M =117.67 M =121.92 M =120.22 M =121.00 M =119.12
(F) Auth. SD=16.91 SD=9.37 SD=14.48 SD=16.72 SD=9.90 SD=13.52 SD=14.34
N =54 N =42 N =96 N =34 N =40 N =74 N =170
M =112.73 M =114.93 M =113.94 M =121.71 M =117.85 M =119.81 M =116.95
N =116 N =144 N =260 N =139 N =135 N =274 N =534
M =115.94 M =115.77 M =115.85 M =122.45 M =118.63 M =120.55

Total
SD=9.53 SD=16.16 SD=13.48 SD=12.83 SD=10.71 SD=11.80
N =200 N =200 N =400 N =200 N =200 N =400
M =119.11 M =117.20 M =118.20

Total SD=14.99 SD=10.19 SD=11.66
N=400 N =400 N =800
aspirations ranges from a low score of 112.73 in case of government school students
of science stream having permissive parenting style (father) to a high score of 126.97
in case of private school students of science stream having authoritative parenting
style (father). The mean scores and standard deviation of these 800 cases across career
aspirations is 118.20 and 11.66 respectively.
150

Aspirations in Relation to Type of School, Stream and Perceived
Parenting Style (Father)
Main Effects
A: Type of School 3631.680 1 3631.680 23.91*
F: Perceived Parenting Style (Father) 3775.533 2 1887.767 12.43*

A X B: (Type of School X Academic 601.287 1 601.287 3.96**
Stream)
435.925 2 217.962 1.44NS
AXF: (Type of School X Perceived
Parenting Style (Father))
BXF: (Academic Stream X Perceived 732.06 2 366.03 2.41NS

AXBXF: (Type of School X Academic
Stream X Perceived Parenting Style
(Father) 111.719 2 55.859 0.368NS
Total 799
*
Significant at 0.01 level of Confidence.

significantly different on the mean scores of Career Aspirations. The mean score of
government and private school students were found to be 115.85 and 120.55
respectively.
151
Main Effect B: Effect of Stream (Science and Humanities) on the variable of

Career Aspirations
significantly different on the mean scores of Career Aspirations. The mean score of
science and humanities stream groups were found to be 119.11 and 117.20
respectively.
Main Effect F: Effect of Perceived Parenting Style (Father) on the variable of

Career Aspirations
(Father) came out to be 12.43 which is significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It
means that the groups with different parenting styles (father) were significantly
different on the mean scores of Career Aspirations.
difference in means of students with different parenting styles (father) were computed
on the variable of career aspirations and have been recorded in table 5.19.
of students with different parenting style (father)
Parenting Style
Mean = 123.62 Mean = 119.12 Mean = 116.95

SD = 11.94 SD = 14.34 SD = 13.26
N = 96 N = 170 N = 534
Authoritative - 2.74* 4.95*
Authoritarian - - 1.74NS
Permissive - - -
152
students having Authoritative and Authoritarian Perceived Parenting Style (father)
Style (father) did not achieve equal mean scores on the variable of Career Aspirations.
The mean scores of the students having Authoritative and Authoritarian Perceived
Parenting Style (father) on the variable of career aspirations were found to be 123.62
and 119.12 respectively.
students having Authoritative and Permissive Perceived Parenting Style (father) came
out to be 4.95 which is significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It leads to conclude that
the students with Authoritative and Permissive Perceived Parenting Style (father) did
not achieve equal mean scores on the variable of Career Aspirations. The mean scores
of the students having Authoritative and Permissive Perceived Parenting Style (father)
on the variable of career aspirations were found to be 123.62 and 116.95 respectively.
students having Authoritarian and Permissive Perceived Parenting Style (father) came
out to be 1.74 which is insignificant at 0.05 level of confidence. It leads to conclude
that the students with Authoritarian and Permissive Perceived Parenting Style (father)
achieved equal mean scores on the variable of Career Aspirations.

153
Career Aspirations for two types of schools and academic streams.

streams were computed and have already been recorded in table 5.20.
Interactional Effect (AXF): Effect of Type of School and Perceived Parenting

Style (Father) on the variable of Career Aspirations
Perceived Parenting Style (Father) came out to be 1.44 which is insignificant at the
different mean scores on Career Aspirations for two types of schools and different
Parenting Styles (Father).
Interactional Effect (BXF): Effect of Academic Stream and Perceived Parenting

Perceived Parenting Style (Father) came out to be 2.41 which is insignificant at 0.05
level of confidence. The results show that different groups did not achieve different
mean scores on Career Aspirations for two types of academic streams and two levels
of Perceived Parenting Style (Father).
Interactional Effect (AXBXF): Effect of Type of School, Academic Stream and

Perceived Parenting Style (Father) on the
and Perceived Parenting Style came out to be 0.37 which is insignificant at 0.05 level
of confidence. The results show that different groups did not achieve different mean
scores on Career Aspirations for two types of schools, two types of academic streams
and two levels of Perceived Parenting Style (Father).
154

aspirations in self-efficacy, peer pressure and perceived parenting
style (mother) (2X2X2) (factorial design)
Self-Efficacy
High Low
Total Total
Peer Pressure Peer Pressure
High Low Total High Low
M =122.78 M =125.67 M =122.48 M =111.23 M =116.00 M =112.82 M =119.14

Perc. Par.
N =7 N =10 N =17 N =8 N =4 N =12 N =29
Style
M =120.21 M =120.80 M =118.33 M =109.82 M =119.86 M =112.75 M =116.54
(M)
Authn. SD=16.67 SD=6.97 SD=15.03 SD=11.29 SD=10.28 SD=11.75 SD=13.47
N =19 N =5 N =24 N =17 N =7 N =24 N =48
M =107.28 M =120.30 M =113.06 M =102.63 M =113.25 M =107.57 M =110.96
N =33 N =49 N =82 N =40 N =35 N =75 N =157
M =115.28 M =121.18 M =118.34 M =105.56 M =114.49 M =109.26

Total
SD=13.59 SD=11.64 SD=12.74 SD=12.67 SD=11.81 SD=12.68
N =59 N =64 N =123 N =65 N =46 N =111
M =110.20 M =118.38 M =114.03

Total SD=13.43 SD=11.83 SD=13.02
N =124 N =110 N =234
aspirations ranges from a low score of 102.63 in case of students with low self-
efficacy, high peer pressure and permissive parenting style to a high score of 125.67
in case of students with high self-efficacy, low peer pressure and authoritative
parenting style. The mean scores and standard deviation of these 234 cases across
career aspirations is 114.03 and 13.02 respectively which is comparable to the mean
of 118.18 and standard deviation of 11.66 of career aspirations of total sample (Table
5.2).
155

Aspirations in Relation to Self-Efficacy, Peer pressure and Perceived
Parenting Style (Mother)
Main Effects
C: Self-Efficacy 599.98 1 599.98 3.98**
D: Peer Pressure 1493.93 1 1493.93 9.91*
E: Perceived Parenting Style (Mother) 1438.29 2 719.15 4.77*

C X D: ( Self-Efficacy X Peer Pressure ) 68.00 1 68.0 0.45NS
CXE: (Self-Efficacy X Perceived 259.55 2 129.77 0.86NS
Parenting Style (Mother))
DXE: (Peer Pressure X Perceived
Parenting Style (Mother)) 354.35 2 177.17 1.18NS

CXDXE: (Self-Efficacy X Peer Pressure 148.24 2 74.12 0.49NS
X Perceived Parenting Style (Mother)
Total
*Significant at 0.01 level of Confidence. ** Significant at 0.05 level of Confidence. NS Not
significant at 0.05 level of Confidence
Main Effect C: Main effect of Self-Efficacy (High and Low) on the variable of
Career Aspirations
Table 5.25 reveals that the F-ratio for the difference between the mean scores
of Career Aspirations of students having high and low self-efficacy came out to be
156
Aspirations
respectively.
Main Effect E: Effect of Perceived Parenting Style (Mother) (High and Low) on
Table 5.25 reveals that the F-ratio for the difference between the mean scores
(Mother) came out to be 4.77 which is significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It means
that the groups with different parenting styles (mother) were significantly different on
the mean scores of Career Aspirations.

difference in means of students with different parenting styles (mother) were
computed on the variable of career aspirations and have been recorded in table 5.26.
of students with different parenting style (mother)
Parenting Style
Mean = 119.14 Mean = 116.54 Mean = 110.96

SD = 12.86 SD = 13.47 SD = 11.13
N = 29 N = 48 N = 157
Authoritative - 0.84NS 3.21 *
Authoritarian - - 2.61**
Permissive - - -
*Significant at 0.01 level of Confidence. NS Not significant at 0.05 level of Confidence
157
students having Authoritative and Authoritarian Perceived Parenting Style (mother)
Style (mother) achieved equal mean scores on the variable of Career Aspirations.
students having Authoritative and Permissive Perceived Parenting Style (mother)
Aspirations. The mean scores of the students having Authoritative and Permissive
students having Authoritarian and Permissive Perceived Parenting Style (mother)
Aspirations. The mean scores of the students having Authoritarian and Permissive
Interactional Effect (CXD): Effect of Self-Efficacy and Peer Pressure on the

Career Aspirations of students due to interaction between Self-Efficacy and Peer
158
Aspirations for two levels of Self-Efficacy and two levels of Peer Pressure.
Interactional Effect (CXE): Effect of Self-Efficacy and Perceived Parenting Style

(Mother) on the variable of Career Aspirations
Career Aspirations of students due to interaction between Self-Efficacy and Perceived
Parenting Style (Mother) came out to be 0.86 which is insignificant at 0.05 level of
scores on Career Aspirations for two levels of Self-Efficacy and different Perceived
Parenting Styles (Mother).
Interactional Effect (DXE): Effect of Peer Pressure and Perceived Parenting

Style (Mother) on the variable of Career
Aspirations
Career Aspirations of students due to interaction between Peer Pressure and Perceived
Parenting Style (Mother) came out to be 1.18 which is insignificant at 0.05 level of
scores on Career Aspirations for two levels of Peer Pressure and different Perceived
Parenting Styles (Mother).
Interactional Effect (CXDXE): Effect of Self-Efficacy, Peer Pressure and

Perceived Parenting Style (Mother) on the
Aspirations of students due to interaction between Self-Efficacy, Peer Pressure and
Perceived Parenting Style (Mother) came out to be 0.49 which is insignificant at 0.05
mean scores on Career Aspirations for two levels of Self-Efficacy, two levels of Peer
Pressure and two levels of Perceived Parenting Style (Mother).
159
Table 5.27 Means, standard deviations and number of students of career aspirations
in self-efficacy, peer pressure and perceived parenting style (father)
Self-Efficacy
High Low
Total Total
Peer Pressure Peer Pressure
Total
High Low High Low
M =118.37 M =125.22 M =120.65 M =120.34 M =118.51 M =118.16 M =119.45

Perc.
Par. N =10 N =5 N =15 N =5 N =9 N =14 N =29
Style
M =109.75 M =125.64 M =114.50 M =114.70 M =112.76 M =113.80 M =114.17
(F)
Authn. SD=13.13 SD=10.19 SD=13.68 SD=13.93 SD=8.04 SD=11.51 SD=11.73
N =21 N =9 N =30 N =14 N =12 N =26 N =56
M =118.31 M =121.17 M =119.69 M =98.97 M =112.87 M =106.27 M =112.21

N =34 N =32 N =66 N =40 N =43 N =83 N =149
M =115.55 M =122.48 M =118.34 M =104.51 M =113.64 M =109.26

Total
SD=12.67 SD=11.81 SD=12.68 SD=13.59 SD=11.63 SD=12.75
N =65 N =46 N =111 N =59 N =64 N =123
M =110.20 M =118.38 M =114.03

Total SD=13.43 SD=11.83 SD=13.02
N =124 N =110 N =234
aspirations ranges from a low score of 98.97 in case of students with low self-
efficacy, high peer pressure and permissive parenting style (father) having to a high
score of 125.64 in case of students with high self-efficacy, low peer pressure and
authoritarian parenting style (father). The mean scores and standard deviation of these
234 cases across career aspirations is 114.03 and 13.02 respectively.
160
Table 5.28 Summary of 2X2X2 Analysis of Variance on Scores of Career

Aspirations in Relation to Self-Efficacy, Peer pressure and
Perceived Parenting Style (Father)
Source of Variation SS Df MSS F-Value
Main Effects
C: Self-Efficacy 451.45 1 451.45 3.14**
D: Peer Pressure 1919.19 1 1919.19 13.36*
F: Perceived Parenting Style (Father) 2590.46 2 1295.23 9.02*

C X D ( Self-Efficacy X Peer Pressure ) 54.70 1 54.70 0.38NS
CXF (Self-Efficacy X Perceived 720.39 2 360.19 2.51NS
DXF (Peer Pressure X Perceived
Parenting Style (Father)) 326.15 2 163.07 1.13NS

CXDXF
(Self-Efficacy X Peer Pressure X 323.40 2 162.70 1.98NS
Perceived Parenting Style (Father)
Total
*
Significant at 0.01 level of Confidence. ** Significant at 0.05 level of Confidence. NS Not
significant at 0.05 level of Confidence
Main Effect C: Main effect of Self-Efficacy (High and Low) on the variable of
Career Aspirations
of Career Aspirations of students having high and low self-efficacy came out to be
161
Aspirations
respectively.
Main Effect F: Effect of Perceived Parenting Style (Father) (High and Low) on
(father) came out to be 9.02 which is significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It means
that the groups with different parenting styles (father) were significantly different on
the mean scores of Career Aspirations.

difference in means of students with different parenting styles (mother) were
computed on the variable of career aspirations and have been recorded in table 5.23.
of students with different parenting style (father)
Parenting Style
Mean = 119.45 Mean = 114.17 Mean = 112.21

SD = 11.21 SD = 11.73 SD = 12.14
N = 29 N = 56 N = 149
Authoritative - 2.02** 3.13*
Authoritarian - - 1.05NS
Permissive - - -
*Significant at 0.01 level of Confidence. NS Not significant at 0.05 level of Confidence
162
The t-ratio for the difference in mean scores on the career Aspirations
of students having Authoritative and Authoritarian Perceived Parenting Style (father)
The mean scores of the students having Authoritative and Authoritarian Perceived
of students having Authoritative and Permissive Perceived Parenting Style (father)
The mean scores of the students having Authoritative and Permissive Perceived
of students having Authoritarian and Permissive Perceived Parenting Style (father)
Style (father) achieved equal mean scores on the variable of Career Aspirations.
Interactional Effect (CXD): Effect of Self-Efficacy and Peer Pressure on the

163
Aspirations for two levels of Self-Efficacy and two levels of Peer Pressure.
Interactional Effect (CXF): Effect of Self-Efficacy and Perceived Parenting Style

(Father) on the variable of Career Aspirations
Parenting Style (Father) came out to be 2.51 which is insignificant at 0.05 level of
scores on Career Aspirations for two levels of Self-Efficacy and different Perceived
Interactional Effect (DXF): Effect of Peer Pressure and Perceived Parenting

Parenting Style (Father) came out to be 1.13 which is insignificant at 0.05 level of
scores on Career Aspirations for two levels of Peer Pressure and different Perceived
Interactional Effect (CXDXF): Effect of Self-Efficacy, Peer Pressure and

Perceived Parenting Style (Father) on the
Perceived Parenting Style (Father) came out to be 1.98 which is insignificant at 0.05
mean scores on Career Aspirations for two levels of Self-Efficacy, two levels of Peer
Pressure and two levels of Perceived Parenting Style (Father).
164
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Tables 5.9, 5.15, 5.18 and 5.22 reveals that the F-ratios for the difference
between the mean scores of Career Aspirations of government and private school
students are significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It means that both the groups were
significantly different on the mean scores on the variable of Career Aspirations.
Hence the null hypothesis H1 stating that there will be no significant difference
between Career Aspirations scores of government and private school students is
rejected. It may be inferred that the mean scores of government and private school
students on the variable of Career Aspirations may not be considered equal and are
different beyond the contribution of chance.
From tables 5.8, 5.14, 5.17 and 5.21 an examination of the means of two
groups suggests that private school students have higher mean score on the variable of
Career Aspirations as compared to government school students. It means that private
school students have higher Career Aspirations as compared to government school
students.
The above result has been found to be supported by a Green, Parsons, Sullivan
and Wiggins (2015). In their study they concluded that private school pupils had
substantially higher job quality aspirations as well as occupational aspirations as
compared to state school pupils in Britain. Thus far, our findings are in line with
widely held perceptions.
The result seems to be justified as there is a big distinction between the two
kinds of schools in terms of the quality of resources including teachers, learning
resources and infrastructural facilities. Their cognition in terms of academic
outcomes, motivations and career future prospects is bound to be influenced. No
doubt some of private school teachers have lower levels of formal education and
training than their government counterparts and earn significantly less but private
schools have better measures of teaching effort, lower teacher absence, higher teacher
activity and longer school days. They also have adequate resources and appropriate
teacher-pupil ratio. Hence they provide safe, secure and comfortable atmosphere for
learning which leads to better aspirations for the career of the students. Due to the
availability of funds and also to command goodwill in the society private schools
165
organise various career related guidance programmes for the students. Private schools
also appoint counsellors which guide the students on their career path and help them
to have higher career aspirations. On the other hand government schools lack in basic
infrastructural facilities. Majority of students in government schools are from low
income group or marginalized community which may be the reason behind low career
aspirations.
Main Effect B: Effect of Stream (Science and Humanities) on the variable of

Career Aspirations
Tables 5.9, 5.15, 5.18 and 5.22 reveals that the F-ratios for the difference
between the mean scores of Career Aspirations of Science and Humanities students
are significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It means that both the groups were
significantly different on the mean scores of Career Aspirations. Hence the null
hypothesis H2 stating that there will be no significant difference between Career
Aspirations scores of students of different academic streams viz:
Science/Mathematics and Social science/language is rejected. It may be inferred that
the mean scores of students of different academic streams viz: Science/Mathematics
and Social science/language on the variable of Career Aspirations may not be
considered equal and are different beyond the contribution of chance.
From tables 5.8, 5.14, 5.17 and 5.21 an examination of the means of two
groups suggests that science stream students have higher mean score on the variable
of Career Aspirations as compared to humanities stream students. It means the
students of science stream have higher career aspirations than the students of
humanities stream.
The above result has been found to be supported by a research study by Singh
and Dogra (2015) which concluded that vocational aspirations of muslim girls
belonging to science and commerce stream do not significantly differ from each other
but the science group students had significantly higher vocational aspirations as
compared to arts group.
The result seems to be justified as there is a common perception that science

stream is suitable for the students with high level of intelligence. It is as evergreen
field with high prestige associated and it follow plenty of career options in future.
Whereas arts subjects are considered for the students who don’t want to study too
166
hard. Francis (2000) observes that there has been a hierarchical subject status with the
sciences associated with high status and the arts associated with low status. Following
this association, he further demonstrates that the sciences have been seen as objective
and rational while the arts have been seen as subjective and less rational. Science
stream students have technical and logical bent of mind. They are more focused
towards the achievement of their goals. The science students are more clear and
confident about their career aspirations as studying science equips them with the basic
skills which makes them employable in future. Science stream also develop their
skills and prepares them in advance for various competitive exams. It provides a
strong foundation for their future achievements. It hones the power of analysis and
logical reasoning. The science students have more confidence to start their
professional career. Moreover, the science related jobs provide more earnings than the
professions related with arts. Also the careers are always judged through financial
success and graduates from humanities make less money as compared to their science
graduates. It has been highlighted in the report by Business, Innovation and Skill
Department of the year 2011 that the arts and humanities subjects are at the bottom of
the pay scale. Moreover the teachers may also fail to instill in the students an
understanding of the importance of all subjects. So, the science students have higher
career aspirations than the students of humanities.
Main Effect C: Effect of Self-Efficacy (High and Low) on the variable of Career
Aspirations
Table 5.9, 5.25 and 5.28 reveals that the F-ratios for the difference between
the mean scores of Career Aspirations of students having high and low self-efficacy
areas significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It means that both the groups were
significantly different on the mean scores of Career Aspirations. Hence the null
hypothesis H3 stating that there will be no significant difference between Career
Aspirations scores of students with high and low Self-Efficacy is rejected. It may be
inferred that the mean scores of students with high and low levels of Self-Efficacy on
the variable of Career Aspirations may not be considered equal and are different
beyond the contribution of chance.
167
From tables 5.8, 5.24 and 5.27, an examination of the means of two groups
suggests that students with high level of Self-Efficacy have higher mean score on the
variable of Career Aspirations as compared to students with low level of Self-
Efficacy. It means the students with high self-efficacy have higher career aspirations
than the students having low self-efficacy.
The above result has been found to be supported by a study by Cho and Ryu
(2016) which has shown that for those who have high self-efficacy had higher career
expectations and the increasing self-efficacy should be the pre-requisite to help in
development of their careers.
The result seems to be justified as self-efficacy refers to the knowledge about

an individual’s potential and abilities. If a person has a firm and clear knowledge
about himself, he can successfully pursue his goals, carry out the right course of
action, and complete his tasks as well as can attain the desired career goals. The
students having higher self-efficacy have higher competitive spirit, determine his
career aspirations, can make out effective and planned strategies to achieve his goals.
He can take decision regarding his future career as he has concrete knowledge about
his strengths, weaknesses, skills and potentialities. It has been rightly said by Bandura
(1997) that people who have higher self-efficacy are more likely to attempt and
successfully execute tasks whereas those with low self-efficacy find it difficult to
achieve them as they are often fighting self-doubt. The students who have high self-
efficacy can make a wise and informed career decision in accordance with his interest
capabilities and potentials.
Interactional Effect (AXB): Interactional effect of Type of School and Academic

Stream on the variable of Career Aspirations
Table 5.9, 5.15, 5.18 and 5.22 reveals that the F-ratio for the difference
between mean scores on Career Aspirations of students due to interaction between
Type of school and academic stream are significant at the 0.01 level of confidence.
The results show that different groups scored different mean scores on Career
Aspirations for two types of schools and two types of academic streams. Hence the
null hypothesis H4 stating that there will be no significant interaction between type of
school and academic stream with respect to Career Aspirations is rejected. It means
that mean scores due to interaction of type of school yielded different mean scores for
168
students with different academic streams.
The t-ratio for the difference in means of different combination pairs of type
of school and type of academic stream have been recorded in tables 5.10, 5.16 and
5.20. Results show that when the type of school is fixed there is significant difference
between the career aspirations of students of science stream of government and
private school only whereas humanities stream students of both type of schools did
not show significant difference on career aspirations. But on the other hand when
academic stream is fixed there is significant difference between the career aspirations
of science and humanities stream students of private schools only but government
school students of science and humanities stream did not show significant difference.
The discussion helps to conclude that science stream becomes operative on

career aspirations only when it is combined with private schools and similarly private
schools shows significant effect on career aspirations only when it is coupled with
science stream. In the absence of such a condition the two variables become
ineffective in improving career aspiration scores of students.
Interactional Effect (AXC): Interactional effect of Type of School and Self-

Efficacy on the variable of Career Aspirations
Career Aspirations of students due to interaction between Type of school and Self-
Efficacy is significant at the 0.01 level of confidence. The results show that different
groups scored different mean scores on Career Aspirations for two types of schools
and two levels of Self-Efficacy. Hence the null hypothesis H5 stating that there will
be no significant interaction between type of school and Self-Efficacy with respect to
Career Aspirations is rejected. It means that mean scores due to interaction of type of
school yielded different mean scores for students with high and low levels of Self-
Efficacy.
The t–ratios for the difference in means of different combination pairs of type
of schools and levels of Self-Efficacy have been recorded in table 5.11. Results show
that when the type of school is fixed there is significant difference between the career
aspirations of students of having high self-efficacy and low self-efficacy for both type
of schools. But on the other hand when self-efficacy is fixed there is no significant
difference between the career aspirations of government and private school students
169
of high self-efficacy group however students of low self-efficacy group of

government and private schools were significantly different on career aspirations.
The discussion helps to conclude that type of school becomes operative on

career aspirations only when it is combined with low self-efficacy but on the other
hand self-efficacy remain operative for both type of schools. In the absence of such a
condition the type of school becomes ineffective in improving career aspiration scores
of students.
Interactional Effect (BXC): Interactional effect of Academic Stream and Self-

Efficacy on the variable of Career Aspirations
Career Aspirations of students due to interaction between academic stream and Self-
Efficacy is significant at the 0.01 level of confidence. The results show that different
groups scored different mean scores on Career Aspirations for two types of academic
streams and two levels of Self-Efficacy. Hence the null hypothesis H6 stating that
there will be no significant interaction between academic stream and Self-Efficacy
with respect to Career Aspirations is rejected. It indicates that mean scores due to
interaction of academic stream yielded different mean scores for students with high
and low levels of Self-Efficacy.
The t–ratios for the difference in means of different combination pairs of

academic stream and levels of Self-Efficacy have been recorded in table 5.12. Results
show that when the academic stream is fixed there is significant difference between
the career aspirations of students of having high self-efficacy and low self-efficacy for
both types of streams. But on the other hand when self-efficacy is fixed there is no
significant difference between the career aspirations of science and humanities stream
students of high self-efficacy group however students of low self-efficacy group with
science and humanities streams were significantly different on career aspirations.
The discussion helps to conclude that academic stream becomes operative on

career aspirations only when it is combined with low self-efficacy but on the other
hand self-efficacy remain operative for both type of streams. In the absence of such a
condition the academic stream becomes ineffective in improving career aspiration
scores of students.
170
Interactional Effect (AXBXC): Interactional effect of Type of School, Academic

Stream and Self-Efficacy on the variable of
Career Aspirations
and Self-Efficacy is significant at 0.01 level of confidence. Hence, the null hypothesis
H7 stating that there will be no significant interaction between type of School,
Academic Stream and Self-Efficacy on the variable of Career Aspirations is rejected.
The t–ratios for the difference in means of different combination pairs of

treatment have been recorded in table 5.13. An examination of the results from table
5.22 shows that academic stream become operative on career aspirations of
government school students with high level of self-efficacy only but for low level of
self-efficacy it becomes inoperative whereas for private school students it is operative
for students of low level of self-efficacy but becomes inoperative for high level of
self-efficacy. Also self-efficacy becomes operative for science stream students of
private schools only and humanities stream students of government as well as private
schools but for private school science stream students it becomes inoperative. As far
as the type of school is concerned it becomes operative for students of humanities
stream with high self-efficacy and students of science stream with low self-efficacy.
But for other combinations, it becomes inoperative. Therefore the variables type of
school, academic stream and self-efficacy become operative in certain combination
pairs but in other they become inoperative.
Aspirations
of Career Aspirations of students having high and low Peer Pressure is significant at
0.01 level of confidence. It means that both the groups were significantly different on
the mean scores of Career Aspirations. Hence the null hypothesis H8 stating that there
will be no significant difference between Career Aspirations scores of students with
high and low Peer Pressure is rejected. It may be inferred that the mean scores of
students with high and low Peer Pressure on the variable of Career Aspirations may
not be considered equal and are different beyond the contribution of chance.
An examination of the means of two groups suggests that students with high
171
Peer Pressure have lower mean score on the variable of Career Aspirations as
compared to students with low Peer Pressure. It means students with low peer
pressure have high career aspirations than the students who have high peer pressure.
The above result has been found to be supported by a study conducted by

Alika, Henrietta Ijeoma(2010) which had concluded that there was no significant
relationship between parental and peer group influence on career choice in
engineering among adolescents.
It may be argued peer pressure means a person is being pushed or influenced

to do things which sometimes he is not willing to do it. The pressure can be negative
or positive which depends upon the purpose of the group. When the peer pressure is
negative, then it may lead to the loss of individuality. The attitude of the student
becomes casual. He loses his original thoughts and conduct. He starts behaving
irresponsibly and cannot take independent decisions. They distract from their goals
and may indulge themselves in many anti-social activities. The student due to
negative peer pressure may feel unhappy, lonely, depressed and uncomfortable.
Negative impacts may force them to involve in smoking, drinking and deteriorates
their independent decision-making. They start following the lifestyle of their peers
and so their career growth is adversely effected. The students with negative (more)
peer pressure have worse attitude towards school. So, the students who have low peer
pressure, they feel confident, happy and healthy. It also helps them to aspire about
their career growth. Thus, the students with low peer pressure have high career
aspirations.
Interactional Effect (AXD): Interactional effect of Type of School and Peer

Pressure on the variable of Career Aspirations
Career Aspirations of students due to interaction between type of school and Peer
Pressure is insignificant at the 0.05 level of confidence. The results show that
different groups achieved equal mean scores on Career Aspirations for two types of
schools and two levels of Peer Pressure. Hence the null hypothesis H9 stating that
there will be no significant interaction between type of school and Peer-Pressure with
respect to Career Aspirations is accepted.
172
Interactional Effect (BXD): Interactional effect of Academic Stream and Peer

Career Aspirations of students due to interaction between academic stream and Peer
different groups did not achieve different mean scores on Career Aspirations for two
types of academic streams and two levels of Peer Pressure. Hence the null hypothesis
H10 stating that there will be no significant interaction between academic stream and
Peer Pressure with respect to Career Aspirations is accepted.
Interactional Effect (AXBXD): Interactional effect of Type of School, Academic

Stream and Peer-Pressure on the variable of
Career Aspirations
and Peer Pressure is insignificant at 0.05 level of confidence. The results show that
types of schools, two types of academic streams and two levels of Peer Pressure.
Hence the null hypothesis H11 stating that there will be no significant interaction
among type of school, academic stream and Peer-Pressure with respect to Career
Aspirations is accepted.
Main Effect E: Effect of Perceived Parenting Style (Mother) on the variable of

Career Aspirations
Table 5.18 and 5.25 reveals that the F-ratios for the difference between the
mean scores of Career Aspirations of students having high and low Perceived
Parenting Style (Mother) is significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It means that the
groups with different parenting styles (mother) were significantly different on the
mean scores of Career Aspirations. Hence the null hypothesis H12 stating that there
will be no significant difference between Career Aspirations scores of students with
different Perceived Parenting Styles (mother) is rejected.
t–ratios for the difference in means of students with different parenting styles
(mother) were computed on the variable of career aspirations and have been recorded
in tables 5.19 and 5.26.
173
The t-ratios help to conclude that there exist no significant difference between
the career aspirations of students who perceived their mothers as authoritative and
authoritarian. But students who perceived their mothers as authoritative or
authoritarian show significantly better score on the variable of career aspirations as
compared to students who perceived their mother as permissive.
The above result has been found to be supported by the study conducted by
Rujeko (2012) that had shown that maternal parenting was a significant predictor for
both intrinsic and extrinsic goals and aspirations and both parents predicted a stronger
association. Both maternal and paternal authoritative parental styles were positively
related to intrinsic as well as extrinsic goals and aspirations whereas maternal and
paternal permissive parental styles were significantly related to only extrinsic goals.
The result seems to be justified as for achieving the family solidarity, children
require the nurturing style that can be brought by mothers. They seem to have an
innate ability to remain tuned with the child’s specific needs. There is an emotional
connection between mother and the child. They are more verbal, offer more words of
affirmation, tends to express her expectations more clearly and easily talk out issues
involving discipline. Generally, they put their child’s needs ahead of their own and
are pre-wired with self- sacrifice. Our study has concluded that there is no significant
difference between career aspirations of children who perceived their mother as
authoritative or authoritarian but their career aspirations are higher than those children
who perceived their mother as permissive. In a study by Glenys Conrade & Robert Ho
(2007) it was concluded that Fathers were perceived by male respondents to be more
likely to use an authoritarian styles. Mothers were perceived to be more likely to use
an authoritative style by female respondents and permissive by male respondents.
Generally, mothers take an approach that reflects their concern with their kids’
feelings. Mostly permissive mothers find it difficult to say no to their children. They
tend to raise demanding children who have little respect for adult authority. They have
overly impulsive and immature kids. Unlike permissive mothers, who are
undemanding and unresponsive, authoritative mothers are both demanding and
responsive. They allow their children to practice making major decisions of their life.
Their children tend to become autonomous and respectful of authority. The
authoritative mothers tend to incorporate their children in designing the firm limits,
encourage them to understand, how these limits are beneficial. They are firm with
174
their children, allows themselves to be open for discussion and encourage her children
to be active in expressing their needs.
Interactional Effect (AXE): Interactional effect of Type of School and Perceived

Parenting Style (Mother) on the variable of Career
Aspirations
Perceived Parenting Style (Mother) is insignificant at the 0.05 level of confidence.
Aspirations for two types of schools and two levels of Perceived Parenting Style
(Mother). Hence the null hypothesis H13 stating that there will be no significant
interaction between type of school and Perceived Parenting Styles (mother) with
Interactional Effect (BXE): Interactional effect of Academic Stream and

Perceived Parenting Style (Mother) on the variable
of Career Aspirations
Perceived Parenting Style (Mother) is insignificant at the 0.05 level of confidence.
Aspirations for two types of academic streams and two levels of Perceived Parenting
Style (Mother). Hence the null hypothesis H14 stating that there will be no significant
interaction between academic streams and Perceived Parenting Styles (mother) with
Interactional Effect (AXBXE): Interactional effect of Type of School, Academic

Stream and Perceived Parenting Style (Mother)
on the variable of Career Aspirations
and Perceived Parenting Style (mother) is insignificant at 0.05 level of confidence.
Aspirations for two types of schools, two types of academic streams and two levels of
175
Perceived Parenting Style (Mother). Hence the null hypothesis H15 stating that there
will be no significant interaction among type of school, academic streams and
Perceived Parenting Styles (mother) with respect to Career Aspirations is accepted.
Main Effect F: Effect of Perceived Parenting Style (Father) on the variable of

Career Aspirations
Table 5.22 and 5.28 reveals that the F-ratios for the difference between the
mean scores of Career Aspirations of students having high and low Perceived
Parenting Style (Father) are significant at 0.01 level of confidence. It means that the
groups with different parenting styles (father) were significantly different on the mean
scores of Career Aspirations. Hence the null hypothesis H16 stating that there will be
no significant difference between Career Aspirations scores of Government and
private school students with different Perceived Parenting Styles (father) is rejected.
t–ratios for the difference in means of students with different parenting styles
(mother) were computed on the variable of career aspirations and have been recorded
in tables 5.23 and 5.29.
The t-ratios help to conclude that, students who perceived their father’s
parenting style as authoritative parenting style performed significantly better on career
aspirations as compared to those who perceived their father’s parenting style as
authoritarian or permissive. But there exist no significant difference between students
perceiving their father’s parenting style as authoritarian or permissive.
The above result has been found to be supported by the study conducted by O’
Brien (2001) that concluded that the adolescents of the authoritative parents have
shown high level of academic performance and aspirations as compared to those
adolescents who were from authoritarian and permissive parents.
It may be argued that the authoritative parents always encourage independence

among their children. They encourage their children to discuss various options. They
want their children to utilize reasoning and work independently. Mohamed Hasni
(2000), features an authoritative, is firm but loving and consistent. This type of
parents love to explain the reasons for each rule are held. Authoritative upbringing is
also appropriate manner to be practiced by the parent. This can strengthen the
relationship between parents and children, thus it helps to avoid the problem of
misconduct and immorality among their children. On the other hand the authoritarian
176
parents are very strict. They utilize punishment with no or little explanation to their
kids whereas permissive parents have few rules or standards of behaviour. Their rules
are very inconsistent. They are very friendly with their kids. The permissive parents
are not much involved in their child’s activities. They are passive parents so they can
seldom guide their children for career choice. They don’t give children choices or
options to their kids. So in nut shell authoritative parents are very responsive to the
needs of their children and thus guide them properly to pursue career of their choice.
Interactional Effect (AXF): Interactional effect of Type of School and Perceived

Parenting Style (Father) on the variable of Career
Aspirations
Perceived Parenting Style (Father) is insignificant at the 0.05 level of confidence. The
results show that different groups did not achieve different mean scores on Career
Aspirations for two types of schools and different Parenting Styles (Father). Hence
the null hypothesis H17 stating that there will be no significant interaction between
type of school and Perceived Parenting Styles (father) with respect to Career
Interactional Effect (BXF): Interactional effect of Academic Stream and

Perceived Parenting Style (Father) on the variable of
Career Aspirations
Perceived Parenting Style (Father) is insignificant at 0.05 level of confidence. The
Aspirations for two types of academic streams and two levels of Perceived Parenting
Style (Father). Hence the null hypothesis H18 stating that there will be no significant
interaction between academic streams and Perceived Parenting Styles (father) with
Interactional Effect (AXBXF): Interactional effect of Type of School, Academic

Stream and Perceived Parenting Style (Father)
177
and Perceived Parenting Style is insignificant at 0.05 level of confidence. The results
show that different groups did not achieve different mean scores on Career
Aspirations for two types of schools, two types of academic streams and two levels of
Perceived Parenting Style (Father). Hence the null hypothesis H19 stating that there
will be no significant interaction among type of school, academic streams and
Perceived Parenting Styles (father) with respect to Career Aspirations is accepted.
Interactional Effect (CXD): Interactional effect of Self-Efficacy and Peer

levels of Self-Efficacy and two levels of Peer Pressure. Hence the null hypothesis H20
stating that there will be no significant interaction between Self-Efficacy and Peer
Pressure with respect to Career Aspirations is accepted.
Interactional Effect (CXE): Interactional effect of Self-Efficacy and Perceived

Parenting Style (Mother) on the variable of
Career Aspirations
Parenting Style (Mother) is insignificant at 0.05 level of confidence. The results show
that different groups did not achieve different mean scores on Career Aspirations for
two levels of Self-Efficacy and different Perceived Parenting Styles (Mother). Hence
Self-Efficacy and Perceived Parenting Styles (mother) with respect to Career
Interactional Effect (DXE): Interactional effect of Peer Pressure and Perceived

Parenting Style (Mother) on the variable of Career
Aspirations
178
Parenting Style (Mother) is insignificant at 0.05 level of confidence. The results show
two levels of Peer Pressure and different Perceived Parenting Styles (Mother). Hence
Peer Pressure and Perceived Parenting Styles (mother) with respect to Career
Interactional Effect (CXDXE): Interactional effect of Self-Efficacy, Peer

Pressure and Perceived Parenting Style
(Mother) on the variable of Career Aspirations
Perceived Parenting Style (Mother) is insignificant at 0.05 level of confidence. The
Aspirations for two levels of Self-Efficacy, two levels of Peer Pressure and two levels
of Perceived Parenting Style (Mother). Hence the null hypothesis H23 stating that
there will be no significant interaction between Self-Efficacy, Peer Pressure and
Perceived Parenting Styles (mother) with respect to Career Aspirations is accepted.
Interactional Effect (CXF): Interactional effect of Self-Efficacy and Perceived

Aspirations
Parenting Style (Father) is insignificant at 0.05 level of confidence. The results show
two levels of Self-Efficacy and different Perceived Parenting Styles (Father). Hence
Self-Efficacy and Perceived Parenting Styles (father) with respect to Career
179
Interactional Effect (DXF): Interactional effect of Peer Pressure and Perceived

Aspirations
Parenting Style (Father) is insignificant at 0.05 level of confidence. The results show
two levels of Peer Pressure and different Perceived Parenting Styles (Father). Hence
Peer Pressure and Perceived Parenting Styles (father) with respect to Career
Interactional Effect (CXDXF): Interactional effect of Self-Efficacy, Peer

Pressure and Perceived Parenting Style (Father)
Perceived Parenting Style (Father) is insignificant at 0.05 level of confidence. The
Aspirations for two levels of Self-Efficacy, two levels of Peer Pressure and two levels
of Perceived Parenting Style (Father). Hence the null hypothesis H26 stating that
there will be no significant interaction between Self-Efficacy, Peer Pressure and
Perceived Parenting Styles (father) with respect to Career Aspirations is accepted.
180

11 Chapter 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

11 Chapter 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis, Interpretation and Discussion of Results

In the preceding chapters, the theoretical framework of the problem, review of

A2 Descriptive statistics on the scores of Self-Efficacy of total sample.

A3 Descriptive statistics on the scores of Peer Pressure of total sample.

B2 2X2X2 Analysis of Variance on Scores of Career Aspirations in Relation to

B3 2X2X2 Analysis of Variance on Scores of Career Aspirations in Relation to

B4 2X2X2 Analysis of Variance on Scores of Career Aspirations in Relation to

B5 2X2X2 Analysis of Variance on Scores of Career Aspirations in Relation to

B6 2X2X2 Analysis of Variance on Scores of Career Aspirations in Relation to

Class Interval Frequency

N Mean Median Mode SD Skewness Kurtosis

800 118.18 119 121 11.66 -0.808 1.305

Figure 5.1 Frequency polygon depicting `Career Aspirations of total sample

Table 5.3 Showing frequency distribution of scores of Self-Efficacy of total

Class Interval Frequency

N Mean Median Mode SD Skewness Kurtosis

800 60.77 60 60 6.55 0.199 0.721

Figure 5.2 Frequency polygon depicting Self-Efficacy of total sample

Table 5.5 Showing frequency distribution of scores of Peer Pressure of total

Class Interval Frequency

N Mean Median Mode SD Skewness Kurtosis

800 60.63 60 59 16.14 0.195 -0.232

Figure 5.3 Frequency polygon depicting Peer Pressure of total sample

Randomness: As far as this assumption of assigning random and mutually exclusive

df1 df2 F Value

Table 5.8 Means, standard deviations and number of students of career

Sci. Hum. Sci. Hum.

M =121.05 M =114.46 M =117.76 M =121.04 M =122.02 M =121.53 M =119.64

M =94.68 M =91.07 M =92.87 M =118.89 M =95.41 M =107.15

M =106.78 M =93.24 M =100.01

Table 5.9 Summary of 2X2X2 Analysis of Variance on Scores of Career

Source of Variation SS df MSS F-Value

First Order Interaction

BXC: (Academic Stream X Self-

Second Order Interaction

Within Group (Error) 52493.20 424 123.80

Main Effect A: Effect of Type of School (Government and Private) on the

Main Effect B: Effect of Academic Stream (Science and Humanities) on the

Interactional Effect (AXB): Effect of Type of School and Academic Stream on

To investigate further F–ratio was followed by t–test. t– ratios’ for the

Table 5.10 The t-values testing significance of difference in career aspiration

Type of School t-value

Mean = 94.68 Mean = 118.89

t-value 0.97NS 7.85 *

Table 5.10 reveals that:

i. Type of school and career aspirations in terms of two types of academic

The t-ratio showing significance of difference in career aspiration scores of

The t-ratio showing significance of difference in career aspiration scores of

ii. Stream and career aspirations in terms of two types of schools

The t-ratio showing significance of difference in career aspiration scores of

The t-ratio showing significance of difference in career aspiration scores of

Interactional Effect (AXC): Effect of Type of School and Self-Efficacy on the

To investigate further F–ratio was followed by t–test. t–ratios for the

Table 5.11 The t-values testing significance of difference in career aspiration

Type of School t-value

Mean = 117.76 Mean = 121.53

t-value 10.41* 25.23*

Table 5.11 reveals that:

i. Type of school and career aspirations in terms of two levels of self-efficacy

The t-ratio showing significance of difference in career aspiration scores of

The t-ratio showing significance of difference in career aspiration scores of

ii. Self-efficacy and career aspirations in terms of two types of schools

The t-ratio showing significance of difference in career aspiration scores of