- The participants were asked to choose their main caregiver and answer the measure accordingly. The researchers decided that this should be the case as the main caregiver would have the most influence on the child, this in turn would affect their self esteem levels. If the main caregiver was not chosen, this could skew the results of the study.
- A stratified sample was chosen to answer the questionnaire. No upper age limit was set. However participants had to be over sixteen years of age. This was because a participant answering the questionnaire to the time period that is directly relevant to them now may affect their responses. As such a recent argument and so on may cause skewed data.
PARTICIPANTS
Eleven males and thirteen females aged between 16 and 60 years, were selected using the opportunity sampling method. They were friends and family of the researchers and had no psychology experience. Participants were mainly white and middle class. All participants answered the test-retest for our PAQ and the test-retest for our self esteem questionnaire.
However 6 of these males and 6 of these females went on to complete Buri et als PAQ (appendix 2) and Coopersmith's 'Self-Esteem Questionnaire I' (appendix 9). These participants were aged between 16 and 49 years.
APPARATUS
To study the hypotheses it is necessary to have:
* Our self esteem questionnaire
* Our Parental authority questionnaire (PAQ)
To perform an alternate form reliability test:
* Alternate form self esteem questionnaire - Stanley Coopersmith's 'Self-Esteem Questionnaire I'
* Alternate form PAQ - taken from Buri et als 1991 study.
PROCEDURE
To gain experience in the process of designing an attitude measure, we created a scale to measure self esteem (appendix 1). The history of this can be read in the report 'The Development of a new Scale to Measure Attitudes to Self'. Interest in the topic led us to question 'what factors cause self esteem to differ so widely in different individuals'. Research highlighted the importance of parenting style experienced in childhood. It was decided to focus upon Baumrind's three classifications of Authoritative, Authoritarian and Permissive parenting styles. We decided to create another scale, this time measuring parenting styles, this would be administered with the first test and the results correlated. We would therefore be able to see if there was any relationship between the two issues. Before it was possible to create our own questionnaire, it was necessary to consult an existing form measuring the same thing. We examined Buri et als Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ), used in their 1991 study (appendix 2). As such we were able to see how the questions were formed to address each of the three different styles.
We divided into three groups and in a brain storming session generated statements referring to each of the parenting styles. The resultant 28 authoritative, 18 authoritarian and 27 permissive statements were collated from the three groups (appendix 3). It was necessary to ensure that the statements were clear and simple, contained: no complex language; less than twenty words; only one Idea/thought; no double negatives and no definites, for example, 'always' and 'never'.
Buri et als PAQ was answered. The range was calculated for the results (appendix 4). Questions with the widest range were selected for our PAQ.
The resultant 80 statements were randomised (appendix 5) so that the statements for the different parenting styles were separated, also this would prevent the participants from realising the concepts being tested. A five point scale was added to the questions, where 1= strongly disagree, and 5 = strongly agree. This was piloted on 10 participants (us): nine females and one male. The age ranged from 18 - 27 years.
The range and standard deviation were calculated for the results (appendix 6). Any questions with a range of two and below were discarded. To reduce the 'item pool' even further, statements which did not have: face validity, that is, did not 'look' like they measured the relevant idea or content validity, that is, did not measure the relevant idea; were discarded. Statements containing: ambiguity and more than one idea were also removed from the measure as they can create confusion for the participant. Statements which could have elicited socially desirable responses as opposed to true responses, that is, participants would not agree with the statement as it could reflect him/her in a negative light were removed, otherwise this would damage the accuracy of the results. Offensive statements were removed because it would not be ethical to insult the participant and also it is necessary for the participant to complete the questionnaire for us to use the results. It was important that the term 'caregiver' as opposed to 'parent' was used to ensure that the PAQ applied to everyone.
It was ensured that thirty questions remained, 10 of the statements referred to each of the parenting styles. The statements which had been placed into order of the best range were returned to their original random order and were renumbered 1-30 (appendix 7).
In our groups, we then had to write an opening paragraph to introduce and explain the measure; a conclusion to thank the participants and a scale to measure the attitudes. To do this it was necessary to research existing scales. It was decided that a Likert, five point scale would be the most acceptable because it would encourage the participant to use the whole scale, whereas with a seven (or more) point scale, the participants may only use the middle values. To indicate responses it was decided that the participant should circle the number relating to their choice, this would be simple and would not irritate the participant.
The introduction, scale and conclusion were typed up with the questions creating the finished questionnaire (appendix 7). Next the PAQ was administered with our self-esteem measure.
* The participants were chosen using the opportunity sampling method.
* The potential participants were asked their age, if they were under 16 years, they were thanked and debriefed.
* If the participant was over 16 years, they were reassured that the test was nothing to worry about and that there were no right or wrong answers. The participant was asked to indicate his/her age, their sex and their caregivers sex (appendix 8)
* All groups administered our PAQ and our self esteem questionnaire. My group however, also administered Buri et als PAQ (appendix 2) and Coopersmith's 1967 Self-Esteem Questionnaire I (appendix 2).
* Once completed the participants were thanked for their time and co-operation.
* Two days later, our PAQ and Self esteem questionnaire were re-administered to the same participants. It was important that a note was made of who had answered which measure in the previous session, in order to ensure that the results for the same participant were compared, otherwise the data would have been skewed.
* The participants were thanked again, and debriefed, they were informed that if they wished, the findings could be sent to them.
The data was collated (appendix10). To score the data for our PAQ, the scores given for the statements for each parenting style were totalled, resulting in three overall scores for each of the styles (appendix 11). The largest of which was taken as the parenting style specific to the participant. For our self esteem measure, the scores for all of the statements referring to low self esteem were negated, that is a score of 5 became a 1 and vice versa. Statements referring to high self esteem were left unchanged, the scores for the entire questionnaire were totalled resulting in one self esteem score. Buri et als PAQ (appendix 2) and Coopersmith's 'Self-Esteem Questionnaire I' (appendix 2) were scored according to their instructions (appendix 10).
Participants 2, 3 and 18 revealed tied highest scores, that is, the highest score on the original test was taken to be the relevant parenting style, however in these cases, as the highest score was equal for two parenting types it was not possible to select the relevant style, as such they had to be discarded.
In the previous study, the creation of a scale to measure self esteem a split half reliability test found a correlation of 0.45. A split half reliability measure was carried out on the original test for our PAQ (appendix 14). This was done by taking the first five statements referring to each of the parenting styles and correlating it using Spearmans Rho with the remaining five questions for each of the parenting styles (appendix 13). A correlation of 0.648 was found for the authoritative statements. A correlation of 0.537 was found for the authoritarian questions; whilst a correlation of 0.405 was found for the permissive statements. The British Psychological Society (BPS) recommend a correlation of 0.7 for a reliable test.
A test-retest reliability measure was carried out on the scored data for our PAQ (appendix 15). A correlation of 0.877 was found for the authoritative statements. The authoritarian statements had a test-retest correlation of 0.841. Whilst a correlation of 0.814 was found for the permissive statements. Coolican argues that for test-retest reliability a correlation of 0.9 should be found, this would suggest that our test does not have good enough test-retest reliability. However according to the BPS this is satisfactory.
Buri et als PAQ was used as an alternate form allowing us to perform a reliability measure. A correlation of 0.117 was found for the authoritative statements. A correlation of 0.463 was found for the authoritarian questions. The permissive questions found a correlation of 0.096 (appendix 16).
Furthermore Coopersmiths 'Self-Esteem Questionnaire I' was also used as an alternate form with our self esteem questionnaire. A reliability test found a correlation of 0.075.
(appendix 16)
Three scatter diagrams correlating self esteem with the different parenting styles were created, allowing us to see if a correlation existed. There were only 2 participants who appeared to have experienced permissive parenting styles in childhood, this is not enough data and so this parenting style was discarded. It was necessary to calculate a Spearman's Rho to determine if these results were significant (appendix 17).
Self esteem was correlated against the two remaining parenting styles (appendix 18). However this was not found to be significant. In the last study a problem with the measure was highlighted. The self esteem measure appeared to test more then one factor and as such a low split half correlation of 0.45 was found, this it was decided, was skewing our results. Factor analysis was carried out on the data by creating a matrix that correlated each item against itself and every other item. For each question we counted the number of times a correlation occurred that was greater than 0.5 and -0.5. At the bottom of the column we wrote the number of correlations plus one for the question itself. Next we had a look at the specific questions that correlated, generally these appeared to address an obvious factor. Some of the questions however did not appear to be asking about a similar factor and so were discarded. We identified seven factors, these were assigned appropriate names, these included sociability, confidence, irritability/anxiety, sensitivity, expressiveness (in terms of emotion), arrogance/modesty, and shy/nervous. Some questions however did not correlate with anything and were also discarded (appendix 19)..
We went on to correlate (using Spearman's Rho) each of the seven factors against the two remaining parenting styles (appendix 20). The results were checked for significance in the correlation tables.
Using each of these eight pairs of correlations (self esteem and the seven factors). We were able to perform a Mann Whitney U on the two sets of self esteem scores taken from the remaining authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles. Allowing us to see if there is a correlation between parenting styles and self esteem (or the seven factors)(appendix 20).
RESULTS
The results for our PAQ (original test) and our Self-Esteem measure (original test) were collated, this data was scored (appendix 10). On the self esteem measure, questions referring to high self esteem were unchanged, however for those referring to low self esteem the scores were negated, so that a 5 became a 1 and vice versa. On our PAQ, the scores for the questions referring to each of the individual parenting styles were totalled, resulting in three separate scores, an authoritative, an authoritarian and a permissive score. For the PAQ the highest number was taken. Participants 2, 3 and 18 had equal highest score for two different parenting styles, they were therefore discarded. A summary of these four scores can be seen in appendix. Tables 1-3 below show a summary of the specific parenting style experienced by the participant and his/her self-esteem score.
Table 1. Parenting and self esteem scores for participants who experienced an authoritative parenting style.
Table 2. Parenting and self esteem scores for participants who experienced an authoritarian parenting style.
Table 3. Parenting and self esteem scores for participants who experienced a permissive parenting style.
Descriptive statistics were calculated from the self esteem data collated from all participants. This can be seen in table 4 below. Furthermore, descriptive statistics were calculated for the self-esteem levels for participants specific to each of the three parenting styles. These can be seen in tables 5-7 below.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for self esteem Table 5. Descriptive statistics for self
for those with authoritative parents. esteem for those with authoritarian
parents.
Table 6. Descriptive statistics for self
esteem for those with permissive parents.
It is interesting that the participants who have experienced either authoritarian or permissive parenting styles, have similar means (authoritarian = 125.7, permissive = 124.5). Whereas those who have experienced the authoritative style have a relatively larger mean (132.2). But in contrast the medians and modes for the authoritative and authoritarian styles are very similar (median = 132, mode = 131 and median = 131, mode = 131 respectively) whilst the permissive style reveals a markedly lower median (124.5). However it must be noted that there is so little data for the permissive style that any comparison is hardly reliable.
The mean, median and mode self-esteem level for those participants who experienced the authoritative parenting style are very similar suggesting that the spread of results is small. The authoritarian mean, median and mode are not quite so close together suggesting that there is a wider spread of scores. The mean and median for the permissive parenting style are the same, this however is because there is so little data.
The standard deviations (SD) for self-esteem levels for the authoritative and authoritarian styles are relatively similar suggesting that there is homogeneity of variance. Again the lack of data for the permissive style makes the SD unreliable and as such impossible to make any inferences.
The self-esteem ranges for the authoritative and authoritarian styles are also interesting. The level of self esteem for those who experienced authoritative parenting styles not only reaches the maximum (164) at a much higher level than those who experienced the authoritarian style (112), but also has a minimum (142) which is much higher than the authoritarian style (102), moreover, the minimum authoritative self esteem score is higher than the maximum (112) for the authoritarian style. From the limited permissive data it would appear that the very small self-esteem range falls in between the authoritative and authoritarian parenting style. However further data would have to be collated before it was possible to suggest that this is the correct position for the parenting style.
To see if there is a correlation between the different parenting styles and levels of self esteem, scatter diagrams were generated. These can be seen in figs 1-3 below.
The limited permissive data means that it is no longer sensible to continue investigating this parenting style.
The authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles do not appear to be highly correlated with their self esteem scores. In order to see if a significant relationship exists it is necessary to perform a correlation calculation. As the data is ordinal and thus non-parametric, a Spearman's Rho should be used, also as we have suggested the direction of the results, a one tailed test will be used. Both of the parenting styles were correlated with their Self-Esteem scores. A non-significant result was found for the authoritative style (calculated value = -0.075 n = 10 p<0.05 critical value = 0.564). Likewise, the authoritarian parenting style and self-esteem score was also found to be non-significant (calculated value = -0.142 n = 9 p<0.05 critical value = 0.600).
The self esteem measure was subjected to factor analysis, seven factors were identified. These were correlated against the two parenting styles. The sociability factor found no significant relationship for either parenting style (Authoritative, calculated value = -0.4 n = 10 p<0.05 critical value = 0.564) (Authoritarian, calculated value = 0.0125 n = 9 p<0.05 critical value = 0.600).
Likewise, the confidence factor was found to be non-significant for both parenting styles (Authoritative, calculated value = -0.0697 n = 10 p<0.05 critical value = 0.564) (Authoritarian, calculated value = -0.1417 n = 9 p<0.05 critical value = 0.600).
The irritability/anxiety factor was also non-significant for both styles (Authoritative, calculated value = -0.418 n = 10 p<0.05 critical value = 0.564) (Authoritarian, calculated value = -0.254 n = 9 p<0.05 critical value = 0.600).
Furthermore the sensitivity factor was also found to be nonsignificant (Authoritative, calculated value = -0.3636 n = 10 p<0.05 critical value = 0.564) (Authoritarian, calculated value = -0.3958 n = 9 p<0.05 critical value = 0.600).
The expressiveness factor was found to be non-significant for the parenting styles (Authoritative, calculated value = 0.1455 n = 10 p<0.05 critical value = 0.564) (Authoritarian, calculated value = 0.108 n = 9 p<0.05 critical value = 0.600).
However the arrogance/modesty factor did find a significant result. Whilst, the authoritative parenting style was found to be non-significant (calculated value = -0.012 n = 10 p<0.05 critical value = 0.564). The authoritarian parenting style was found to have a significant relationship with the factor (calculated value = -0.6 n = 9 p<0.05 critical value = 0.600).
The shy/nervous factor was also found to be non-significant for both parenting styles (Authoritative, calculated value = 0.139 n = 10 p<0.05 critical value = 0.564) (Authoritarian, calculated value = -0.158 n = 9 p<0.05 critical value = 0.600).
To see if authoritative parenting styles result in high self esteem, whilst authoritarian parenting styles result in low self esteem it is necessary to test the self-esteem scores for the two different parental styles against each other. This has to be done for all eight pairs of self esteem scores (self-esteem plus the seven factors) as found in the correlations. The data for this test is non-parametric, because it is only ordinal data. It is also Independent measures as the self esteem scores are only being used for those people who are specific to either authoritative or authoritarian parenting styles. Therefore a Mann Whitney U test was used.
For a one tailed test, where n1 = 10 and n2 = 9, p<0.05, the critical value = 24. In order for a result to be significant the calculated value must be equal to or less than the critical value. In all eight tests, the calculated value was greater than the critical value. As such the results are non-significant. (Self-esteem = 34.5, Sociability = 31.5, Confidence = 33, Irritability/anxiety = 42.5, Sensitivity = 40.5, Expressiveness = 43.5, Arrogance/modesty = 40, Shy/nervous = 36).
DISCUSSION
A new scale to measure parental authority was designed primarily to give us further experience of the process. However a new scale would be useful in any study where the specific focus of the study is even slightly different from that chosen when the measure was designed. Also if the scale does not have high validity or reliability, it may be better to start again. Moreover the production of a new attitude measure could act as an alternate form for an existing test, allowing reliability tests to be performed.
This scale was used with a self-esteem measure that we had previously created. A Spearman's Rho calculation found that the arrogance/modesty factor correlated with the authoritarian parenting style. However non-significant results were found for self esteem as a whole, sociability, sensitivity, confidence, expressiveness, irritability/anxiety, and shy/nervous factors. The arrogance/ modesty factor was also found to be non-significant for the authoritative parenting style. A Mann Whitney was used to test self esteem scores for both authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles for the same factors. No significant results were found. It is therefore necessary to reject H1, H2 and H3, and to accept H0a, H0b, and H0c, that there is no significant difference between the parenting styles and the current level of self-esteem.
These results are clearly at odds with the past research, specifically Buri et al, who suggest that authoritative parenting styles result in high self esteem, whilst authoritarian and permissive parenting styles result in low self-esteem. However there are a number of problems with our PAQ and self-esteem measures. It may be that our results were caused by these problems, and not because the hypotheses were unsupportable.
A test-retest reliability measure found a correlation of 0.877 for authoritative statements, authoritarian = 0.841, permissive = 0.814. According to the British Psychological Society (BPS) 0.7 is a good correlation, however Coolican suggests that for this reliability measure it should be 0.9. As such it would appear that our PAQ requires modification before it can be fully useful. Furthermore a split half reliability measure found a correlation of 0.65 for authoritative statements, authoritarian = 0.54, permissive = 0.40. This clearly falls short of the BPS recommended level. In addition, an alternate forms reliability measure found that authoritative statements = 0.12, authoritarian = 0.46 and permissive = 0.1. This is not acceptable for an alternate forms reliability measure, however the nature of the two PAQs may differ slightly, thus accounting for the small correlation. Whilst the PAQ is useful in terms of providing a general indication of parenting styles, it is not acceptable as a measure in its own right, further modifications have to be made before this is possible.
The PAQ appears to have face validity in that it appears to measure what it is supposed to. The measure appears to have predictive validity due to the test-retest correlations which were carried out. The PAQ covers most aspects of the different parenting styles and thus can be said to have content validity. However the test does not have concurrent validity, this was highlighted in the poor alternate form correlations. The design of the PAQ follows a logical course and so can be said to have construct validity. It can be argued that the measure has ecological validity because the study of self esteem is directly related to relationships in society and is therefore relevant to the real world. The PAQ would therefore appear to have a high level of validity, but it is still not entirely useful because of the low concurrent validity.
The researcher's selection of the parenting style specific to each participant was a major problem in this study. In certain cases participants have very similar score for two or even all three parenting styles, for instance, participant No 19 scored 20 (permissive), 35 (authoritative) and 32 (authoritarian), and participant No 14 score 30 (permissive), 32 (authoritative) and 34 (authoritarian). Participants with such small differences should have been discarded as the differences may only have been as a result of mood, an argument or perhaps a happy event recently experienced with the caregiver may have affected answer responses and thus skewed the data. It is highly likely that this problem is one of the main factors skewing these results. In future a more acceptable method of assigning the parenting style will have to be chosen.
The test was designed by eleven females and one male, aged between eighteen and twenty seven, and piloted on the same group. As such it is possible that the test is only valid for young females. To ensure that this is not the case, the measure would have to be administered to a number of males and older males and females. The results for these two groups would have to be correlated with the existing data to find out if the test is both reliable and valid for these groups.
A clear problem with the findings of this study is the sample size used to collect data. Only two participants experienced permissive parenting styles in childhood. In future the sample size would have to be increased dramatically to create enough data to be analysed and also to increase reliability and validity.
The findings of this study may also be unreliable because of the nature of the likert scale used to answer the self esteem questionnaire. As the questionnaire consisted of both positive and negative statements, that is they referred to either a fundamentally good concept for example happiness, or a fundamentally bad concept, for instance dishonesty. The participant therefore had to negate the scale every time the question changed from a good aspect to a bad one. Many participants found this confusing as a number does not itself agree or disagree. The use of the words 'strongly disagree' through to 'strongly agree' would therefore be much more acceptable to the participant. Consequently this would prevent the risk of mistakes, reducing the likelihood of skewed data.
Factor analysis reduced problems with self-esteem measure, however it did not eradicate them. many of the questions did not correlate at all. Whilst certain factors were apparent, for instance pessimism, only two questions referred to this. It is therefore necessary to discard from the measure those questions that do not correlate, and to increase the number of questions relating to each factor.
The PAQ refers to one parent/caregiver. However participants may find certain question non-applicable to that person and thus refer to other possible caregivers. Consequently the data could be skewed.
The test refers specifically to the time period 10-16years and parenting style. However this does not allow for those people who have been educated at boarding school. As the majority of discipline and the like will be carried out at school, parenting style becomes less important. This could account for unexpected low levels of self esteem with an authoritative parenting style and so on.
To improve the PAQ, many of the questions should be reworded or new statements generated. Each researcher has experienced one main parenting style in their childhood, thus they are capable of creating statements relevant to that style. However (s)he is unable to create accurate statements for the other styles. As such it would be useful if qualitative methods were used as a form of question improvement. Interviewing people who have experienced the different parenting styles in childhood, would invariably add to the reliability of the measure.
In future it would be interesting to reduce the stratified sample for those completing the measures, allowing the researchers to compare the results for different generations. Perhaps it would be possible to see if younger generation have higher levels of self esteem for a certain parenting style than older generations. Suggesting that maybe the impact of media and so on, reduce the influence parents exert over their children in today's society.
It would also be interesting to correlate male and female self-esteem scores for the same parenting style. This would allow us to see if gender is related to this issue. Furthermore, it could be interesting to compare male and female caregivers to see if either sex use predominantly one parenting style, or act towards a certain end of the scale, for instance the permissive and authoritative parenting styles may be used more by women, and the authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles may be used more by men.
These measures could be useful for the selection of recruits to the army. With modifications, the test would be able to discriminate between those with high self esteem, which would be necessary to cope with the rigours of army life. It would more importantly recognise the parenting style specific to each candidate, an authoritarian background would have prepared candidates for the strict rules set down by the army. Whereas a permissive background would leave someone unprepared for the struggles ahead. Consequently, the parenting style experienced in childhood may have an effect upon the number of recruits who complete basic training. In future it would be interesting to test this idea.
These measures could also be used by psychologists with child abusers. It may be possible to infer a relationship between self-esteem levels, parenting styles experienced in childhood and the likelihood of an individual abusing children. If self-esteem appears to correlate, the psychologist could use this information to try and reduce the risk. Furthermore, the identification of a particular parenting style experienced in childhood by child abusers, could allow (if this measure was modified so that young children (for instance 8 years of age) could answer it) psychologists to 'step in' at an early age and try to prevent potential child abusers from offending.
Attitude measures seek to explain the relationships upon which society is based. In order to process and understand these relationships many people create schemas, these invariably affect the relationships in society. This can account for intergroup prejudices, why one candidate is chosen over another equally qualified person and so on. Before it is possible to combat anti-social behaviour, or merely to understand the relationships that exist in society, it is necessary to study these relationships. Attitude measures alone are unsuccessful at doing this, other methods are required. Qualitative research involving interviews, and observational methods enrich any information we can get from attitude measures. Moreover in their own right they can highlight certain areas, forcing us to ask questions about the nature of society.
REFERENCES
BOOKS:
Aronson, E. Wilson, T.D. Akert, R.M. (1998) Social Psychology third edition, United States: Longman.
Daehler, B. 1992 Child Development: A Topical Approach International Student Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Reber, A.S. (1995) Dictionary of Psychology second edition, London: Penguin.
JOURNAL ARTICLES:
Buri, J.R. Louiselle, P.A. Misukanis, T.M. Mueller, R.A. 1988 'Effects of Parental Authoritarianism and Authoritativeness on Self Esteem' Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin vol 14. No.2, 271-282.
LECTURE NOTES:
Dyer-Smith, M. Jackson, C. 1999 ‘Applied Social Psychology’ Lecture Notes.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS:
Anastasi, A. (1988) Psychological Testing sixth edition, New York: Macmillan.
Aronson, E. Wilson, T.D. Akert, R.M. (1998) Social Psychology third edition, United States: Longman.
Baron, R.A. 1995 Psychology third edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Coolican, H. (1994) Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology second edition, London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Cooper, C. 1998 Individual Differences London and New York: Arnold.
Daehler, B. 1992 Child Development: A Topical Approach International Student Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Harris, P. (1986) Designing and Reporting Experiments Buckingham: Open University Press.
Loewenthal, K.M. (1996) An Introduction to Psychological Tests and Scales London: University College London.
Pervin, L.A. John, O.P. 1997 Personality: Theory and Research seventh edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Reber, A.S. (1995) Dictionary of Psychology second edition, London: Penguin.
Eds. Slater, A. Muir, D. 1999 The Blackwell Reader in Developmental Psychology Oxford: Blackwell.
Turner, J.S. Helms, D.B. 1990 Lifespan Development fourth edition Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
JOURNAL ARTICLES:
Barnett, M.A. Quackenbush, S.W. Sinisi, C.S. 1996 'Factors Affecting Children's, Adolescents', and Young Adults' Perceptions of Parental Discipline' Journal of Genetic Psychology vol 157. No. 4, 411 - 414.
Buri, J.R. Louiselle, P.A. Misukanis, T.M. Mueller, R.A. 1988 'Effects of Parental Authoritarianism and Authoritativeness on Self Esteem' Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin vol 14. No.2, 271-282.