Provido Vergara Thesis Ii

Parenting Styles, Psychological Resilience, Self-Esteem
The Association Among Perceived Parenting Style, Psychological Resilience,

and Self-Esteem of Adolescents: A Predictive Study
An Undergraduate Research
Submitted to
Department of Psychology
School of Social Sciences and Education
MAPÚA UNIVERSITY
In partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY
by
Luisa Anne Marie D. Provido

Alexandra Rae M. Vergara
Iris L. Crisostomo, MS
Jasmine Nadja J. Pinugu, MA
Mentors
January 2019
The Association Among Perceived Parenting Style, Psychological Resilience,

and Self-Esteem of Adolescents: A Predictive Study
Luisa Anne Marie D. Provido

lamdprovido@mymail.mapua.edu.ph
Bachelor of Science in Psychology
Mapúa University, Manila, The Philippines
Alexandra Rae M. Vergara

armvergara@mymail.mapua.edu.ph
Bachelor of Science in Psychology
Mapúa University, Manila, The Philippines
ABSTRACT
The proposed study intends to examine perceived parenting style as a factor that
may affect an adolescent’s psychological resilience and self-esteem. The proposed
study aims to emphasize and explain the relations of the two factors and how
these factors influence the psychological resilience and self-esteem of adolescents
in highly adverse contexts. The study will particularly examine the fundamental
principles of the Social Cognitive Theory in relation to the four variables. The
study will use the multilevel design with the perceived parenting style as the
independent variable and the socio-economic status as a moderating factor. The
psychological resilience and self-esteem will serve as the dependent variables of
the study. The Qualitative Content Analysis was used for the qualitative data,
while One-Way ANOVA and Factorial ANOVA was used for the analysis of
quantitative data of the study and its interpretation. Moreover, the proposed study
will attempt to promote personal development and provide knowledge to enhance
the resilience and self-esteem capacity in adolescents.
Keywords: Perceived Parenting Style, Self-Esteem, Psychological Resilience,

Social Cognitive Theory
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to extend our sincerest gratitude and appreciation to those who have made this
thesis possible:
Foremost, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to our mentors, Professor
Jasmine Nadja J. Pinugu and Professor Iris L. Crisostomo, for their patience, motivation, and
immense knowledge throughout the making of this research. Big thanks to Dr. Edward M.
Quinto for guiding us on the qualitative part of our research, and of course, to the rest of our
thesis panel, Dean Jonathan V. Macayan, Professor Bernardino C. Ofalia, and Dr. Ryan B.
Coroña, for their insightful comments and questions ever since our thesis proposal.
We also express our heartfelt thanks to all those who have been our professors in Mapúa.
We will forever be grateful for all the knowledge you have imparted us and life lessons you have
taught us.
To our parents and family, thank you for your love, support, unending encouragement
and motivation. We are extremely grateful for always reassuring us in times we doubt our
capabilities and for constantly reminding us to strive for greatness.
Special thanks to our friends, Ally, Jade, Moji, and Ranni, for all your continuous support
and for giving us that extra push in times we need it.
We would also like to express our sincere thanks to all the faculty members and school
administrators who helped us with our data gathering for this research.
To all our participants, we are truly thankful for your time, patience, and responses. This
research would not have been possible without all your help.
Finally, praises and thanks to the God, the Almighty, for His showers of blessings and
guidance all throughout this journey. He served as our light and hope on our darkest and lowest
moments. Indeed, with Him, everything is possible.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................................iii
PROBLEM AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE...................................................1
Background of The Study............................................................................................................1
Review of Related Literature.......................................................................................................8
Synthesis....................................................................................................................................18
Statement of The Problem & Hypotheses..................................................................................19
Theoretical Framework..............................................................................................................21
Conceptual Framework..............................................................................................................22
Significance of the Study...........................................................................................................23
METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................24
2.1 Research Design...................................................................................................................24
2.2 Participants and Sampling Technique..................................................................................24
2.3 Instruments...........................................................................................................................27
2.4 Procedures............................................................................................................................27
2.5 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................29
2.6 Ethical Considerations.........................................................................................................30
RESULT.......................................................................................................................................31
3.1 First Quantitative Phase.......................................................................................................31
3.2 Qualitative Phase..................................................................................................................32
3.3 Second Quantitative Phase...................................................................................................38
DISCUSSION...............................................................................................................................47
4.1 Qualitative Phase..................................................................................................................47
4.2 Quantitative Phase................................................................................................................49
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................52
RECOMMENDATION...............................................................................................................53
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................55
APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................67
CHAPTER I
PROBLEM AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Background of The Study
Wallace (2017), reported that when it comes to school, harsh parenting can backfire. A
study of 1,500 students in Maryland was conducted by Hentges et. al (2017), and it was
concluded that children with parents whose parenting style is too firm – to the point of being
harsh that includes yelling, hitting, and other physical and verbal threats to children as
punishment – could have a negative impact on the children’s ability to succeed and perform well
in school. Researchers provided a questionnaire for students from 7th grade up to three years
after graduating high school wherein they were asked whether their parents yell, hit or shove
them to get a sense of how much verbal and physical aggression the students have experienced.
Also, they were asked about their social relationships – with peers and performance in school.
Through the course of the study, beginning at 7th grade, students that experienced harsh
parenting were more likely to say that their peers are more important to them than obeying their
parents’ rules or doing school work at 9th grade. These students are more likely to experience
risky behaviors by the time of 11th grade, as well as dropping out of school. The study has found
that harsh parenting leads adolescents to have less attachment with their parents and rely more to
their peers. Having a harsh type of parenting that is experienced by a child at an early age, will
most likely make the child get the mindset or message that he/she is not loved by his/her parent/s
and that they are getting the rejection message, which with a sense will lead them to try and find
acceptance from others.
1
In an individual’s life time, adolescence has thought to be certainly one of the most
challenging in the developmental stages, as well as for the parents of adolescents. In this stage,
individuals tend to have a stronger sense of exercising their autonomy unlike in other stages of
human development. Adolescents may begin to doubt or question the legitimacy of the
supervision and authority of the parents. They particularly fight the urge to resist autonomy due
to the feeling of the need to be independent. Moreover, the transition from childhood to
adulthood will pass through different issues and concerns. Adolescents are being faced with
pressures such as excelling in school, making future career decisions, and high expectations
imposed by the family, peers, school, and society. The importance of coping with the challenges
faced by adolescents is crucial in their developmental stage because failure of coping with those
may lead and result to negative outcomes such as defying parental authority, engaging in risky
behaviors, drug and alcohol dependency, and low levels of resilience and self-esteem.
Parenting plays an essential role in every child’s development. Several studies showed
that a parent’s way of rearing may reflect on the child’s behavior later in their life. Parenting
with the foundation of closeness, warmth, acceptance, and autonomy is associated with positive
outcomes. However, parenting variables such as rejection, restrictiveness, and negligence are
mostly associated with negative outcomes. Both relationships with parents and peers are
necessary for adolescents (Lesch and Jagger, 2013).
In 1986, Walker and Greene conducted a study on parent-child relationships and self-
esteem to 38 males and 53 females which age ranges from 11 to 28 years old. It was found from
the study that the quality of relationships between a parent and child significantly contributes to
the level of self-esteem of the participants, followed by the relationship with peers. Moreover,
Ojha and Pramanick (1995) studied the relationships and effect of parental behavior and self-
2
esteem to 340 adolescents aging 16 to 18 years old. Results from the study revealed that
nurturing behavior from both parents significantly and positively contributes to the self-esteem
of an adolescent, while rejecting behaviors from both parents significantly and negatively
contribute to the self-esteem of an adolescent.
Generally, parents want to raise their child the best way possible. Sometimes, the style of
parenting may be influenced by the childhood experiences of parents and may also be guided by
the information they gain provided by experts from the parenting field. During 1940’s, Spock
was one of the leading advisers on child rearing wherein a more permissive parenting style was
promoted. However, Spock’s views on rearing a child was changed by 1960’s wherein his
parenting style suggestions then included stronger discipline (Baumrind, 1975). Throughout the
century, practices of child rearing swung from one extreme to another, through parenting based
on authority whereas parents have complete control and become strong disciplinarians, to a
child-centered approach wherein the whims and needs of a child is the most considered than
anything else. Recently, a new child rearing style is being promoted which is the democratic or
authoritative approach (Maccoby, 1980; Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1982; Hart, 1993; Biddulph,
1996).
Parenting Style
According to Baumrind (1970), there are three styles of parenting, the first style is the
authoritative which is considered as the most ideal type of parenting style, second is the
authoritarian – it describes the characteristics of strict parents which may discipline their children
by means of physical or verbal punishment. Next, the permissive (indulgent) – which describe
3
parents as very affectionate yet lacks in giving limitations to the child. Maccoby and Martin
(1983) formulated the fourth parenting style which is the neglectful (uninvolved) style.
The prime source of human contact for adolescents are their parents and these years are
the most important and influential for them. According to Burns (1979), the basic personality and
self-esteem are established in the first five years of a child's life. He also stated that early
indications of love, worthiness, acceptance, and the basis for socialization of the child is
provided by the family.
Socio-economic Status
According to Graetz (1995), socio-economic status is referred to as the social position or
social standing of a person or family. In 2001, Miech and Hauser referred to SES as a concept in
reference to the placement of people, households, families, census tracts, and other aggregates
relative to the capacitance of consuming goods that is vital in the society. Studying the effect of
socio-economic status is important since it is linked with physical health, development of
cognitive outcomes among children, and socioemotional functioning (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan,
1997; Duncan & Magnuson, 2003). In social science research, the most commonly used
indicators are either education of parents, occupation, income, or combination of any of the two
or three.
Resilience
In 2008, Bonanno and Mancini stated that all human beings may encounter a potentially
traumatic event (PTE) at least once in their life. This include adolescents in the context of
circumstances such as facing hardships and being exposed to stress in school, family or financial
problems, and other conflicts which adolescents might experience. Moreover, a person that deals
4
with stress due to different factors may decide to positively adapt or cope with the situation by
looking forward that those struggles will be over soon. This phenomenon is called resilience.
Resilience has been described as the process of, having the capacity for, or an outcome of having
to adapt successfully in difficult and threatening life circumstances (Masten, Best, Garmezy,
1990).
The term ‘resilience’ was coined by Michael Rutter in 1972 in the field of Physics and
was defined as something that has the ability to recover its original form after suffering
deformation (Suárez, N. 2004). As an evolving concept, early studies have explored resilience in
various definitions but related ways. A broad definition given by The American Psychological
Association described resilience as a process of adapting well in times of adversity, which
includes trauma, tragedy, threats, and other significant stressors. However, Davis, Luecken, and
Lemery-Chalfant (2009b), observed that most individuals encounter tolerable disruptions that
normally occur in our everyday lives and is not always equivalent to major disasters. Alvord and
Grados, (2005) stated that resilience help individuals to cope by having multiple skills in varying
extent.
A protective mechanism helps to promote effective coping processes or may also
alleviate negative outcomes. An individual’s response to risk situations can positively change by
protective mechanisms whether directly or indirectly. As stated by Rutter (1990), protective
mechanisms operate by reducing risk impacts, mitigating negative chain reactions, developing or
maintaining self-efficacy, and establishing new opportunities. In contrast, risk factors are
predominantly linked to negative effects which tend to form and accumulate in an individual’s
life, relationships, family and communities (Masten & Wright, 1998; Obradovic et al., 2012;
Seifer & Sameroff, ´ 1987).
5
Resiliency is being able to adapt despite the risks as defined by Arrington and Wilson
(2000). Moreover, factors of resilience are the mechanisms that allow an individual to flourish
considering that the family-level, person-level, and community-level will have an impact that can
make the person be placed at risk of negative outcomes. As we all know, individuals that belong
to low-SES group face several hurdles to obtain optimal health both mentally and physically.
Given this situation, it is of great importance to isolate the means that will contribute for people
to withstand negative outcomes (Murry, Bynum, Brody, Willert, & Stephens, 2001; Rutter,
1987).
In 2006, Lansford and colleagues conducted a study about resiliency among children with
separated parents and found that children with divorced parents were likely to adjust more poorly
than those children with parents that are not divorced. Jaffee et. al (1990) studied adolescents
that were able to witness violence in terms of intimate partners and found that they were able to
adjust well and develop positive outcomes. In these studies, children that excel in areas such as
behavior and emotional competence were considered resilient (Masten, 2001). According to Neff
and McGehee (2013), most individuals face great adversities and different pressures during the
stage of adolescence, an example of this is stress due to academic performance. Massinga and
Pecora (2004) stated that results from several studies showed that support from adults is
beneficial to adolescents.
In 2014, Petrowski and colleagues administered a study consisting of 4,983 native
German speakers of ages 14 to 94. Petrowski claimed that the amount of resilience is influenced
by parental upbringing behavior, which in turn may predict the level of self-assessed anxiety and
depression. Hence, participants who claimed having high levels of anxiety and depression were
presumed to have low resilience possibly because of how they were reared as a child.
6
Mohammadi, Samavi and Azadi (2013), stated that parenting styles are factors that are vital to
good and bad development of a child.
Self-Esteem
At adolescence, a developmental process that is most important at this stage is the
development of self-esteem (Sirin and Rogers, 2004). This stage involves the increase in
awareness of a person on which and what facets she is good at or not. It is also the start wherein
the protection of self-worth from the challenges in life develops (Mruk, 1995). Self-esteem is
defined as the overall emotional evaluation of an individual to their own self-worth (Harter,
1998). It is referred to as the overall judgment towards one’s self. A research study has shown
that self-esteem has a vital role in the academic achievement of a student as well as their
responsibility – socially and personally (Redenbach, 1991). For students, this construct is
compared with evaluation of one’s performance on different tasks. During adolescence, a crucial
comparison between the ideal self and perceived self is very evident at this stage (Muhammad et
al., 2015). Also, at this stage, self-esteem of a person is put to test due to diversity of tasks and
encountering challenges.
The levels of self-esteem were explained thoroughly by James (1892). James proposed
that individuals with high self-esteem recognizes their strengths, feels achieved, content with
their strengths and achievements no matter of what level they may or have reached. Moreover,
individuals who are linked with low self-esteem felt that they have not yet reached their ideals,
7
discontent with their achievements, and fall short of what they expect. This early concept of self-
esteem has already been tested numerous times by researchers and is still relevant up to date.
Adolescents who feel more confident attains higher academic achievement than those
who lacks confidence. Having high sense of self-esteem includes being able to recognize if we
are likely to succeed or fail, how much effort must be inserted in performing a task, and whether
or not failure be viewed as a hindrance or a motivation to be better at a task (Coopersmith, 1981).
Self-esteem is also supported by the Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) wherein it
states that the function of self-esteem would be on a high level if the three fundamental
psychological needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness) are balanced.
The importance of affective ties between parents and their children on the self-esteem of
adolescents for a period of over two years was investigated by Capaldi, Forgatch, and Crosby
(1994) by assessing the relationship between affective ties and self-esteem of their participants
which are 200 male which age ranges from 13 to 26 years old and as well as the parents. It was
found out from the investigation that positive parental affect is related to the self-esteem of an
adolescent and the quality of parent-child relationship. A study conducted by Larzelere, Klein,
Schumm, and Alibrando (1989) revealed that positive communication among parents and their
children is a powerful predictor on the self-esteem of the child.
The purpose of this study is to predict the relationship between Perceived Parenting Style
and Psychological Resilience, Perceived Parenting Style and Self-Esteem, and how SES
moderates the relationship between each factor. It aims to determine the effect of parenting
styles, and which style is the most effective in terms of the development of resiliency and self-
esteem of adolescents.
8
Review of Related Literature
Perceived Parenting Style and Psychological Resilience
One of the most vital protective mechanisms for reinforcing resilience in a child’s life is a
supportive family environment. Children who are aided with parental support reported to have
better outcomes when facing risks or adversity and are likely not to engage in violence,
substance and alcohol abuse (Ahern, 2006; Fergus and Zimmerman, 2010). This shows the
importance of parental support and secure attachment in developing good psychological
functioning and resilience for both children and adults. Heller and colleagues (1999) stated that
latent resilience can be promoted through constant and sensitive early care. This will let the child
cope better if parental adversities appear later in their life.
According to Simonsi and Conger (2007), children adjust better emotionally and show
fewer conduct problems when raised by authoritative parents as compared to those children
raised in non-authoritative homes. When compared to those who perceived their parents as
authoritarian or permissive, adolescents with authoritative parents are associated to have higher
9
scores in evaluation of mental health and competence. High scores on factors such as self-esteem
and mental health, including emotional adjustment somehow indicates resilience. (Ritchie and
Buchanan, 2011). In 2009, Eisenberg, Chang, Ma and Huang agreed that the authoritative
parenting style is linked with positive developmental outcomes suchlike less behavioral
problems in adolescents.
Zakeri and colleagues (2010), stated that when children in the course of exposure to
threatening or stressful conditions, parents help facilitate positive adjustment on the child
through behavioral and emotional support. Based on their study, a positive and significant
relationship was found between resilience and acceptance-involvement styles of parenting,
which suggested an association in the development of resilience and a supportive and warm
parenting style. The study revealed higher levels of resilience in children with mothers who
showed support, control, kindness and acceptance than those whose mothers did not. These
parents displayed considerable knowledge with regards to appropriate behavior towards children.
When it comes to stressful situations, parents help their children to cope by maintaining a close
and healthy relationship.
According to Walsh (1998), children who belongs to troubled families but manages to be
resilient usually create and establish unique bonds with trusting and supporting adults in their
social environments. In Steyn’s (2006) study in South Africa, it was found that adolescents
involved in emotionally supportive friendships were found to be resilient. According to
Bukowski (2003), adverse effects of problematic lifestyles and parental separation can be
moderated through good relationships with peers.
10
In 2012, Choe, Zimmerman and Devnarian found that the effects of violent behavior
among youth in South Africa were moderated by positive adult involvement, a protective factor
of resilience. Choe (2012) found that this violent attitude of South African youth was caused and
influenced by their environment. Sun et. al (2012), stated that among a sample of adolescents
who experienced trauma, low parental overprotection and high parental care positively
contributed to their resilience. However, studies conducted by other researchers reported a
different perspective. For instance, a study by Gera and Kaur (2015) showed that there was no
significant relationship between parenting styles and resilience.
Moreover, adolescents’ level of resiliency is affected by the parenting style that is used
upon them when parents help them cope with the pressures they encounter (Werner, 1989). In
2005, Ritter reported that authoritarian and permissive parenting were linked to low levels of
resiliency, while the authoritative parenting style were associated with high levels of resiliency.
A study by Bolger and Patterson (2003) showed that children who did not become aggressive
had better outcomes despite having to experience maltreatment. Evidence-based studies
postulated that among the most powerful resilience processes during childhood and adolescence
encompasses a supportive, strong, and loving relationship with a parent or a family member
(Drapeau et al., 2007; Fergus and Zimmerman, 2005; Suàrez-Orozco et al., 2011; Werner, 2005).
Perceived Parenting Style and Self-Esteem
One of the purposes of this study is to investigate the relationship between parenting
styles and adolescent’s self-esteem. During childhood, the quality of the relationship between
parent and child is more important than their relationship with peers with regards to the
development of self-esteem. During adolescence, self-esteem is still dependent on the quality of
11
the interaction of the parent and child, as well as on the variables of parenting such as warmth,
acceptance/rejection, and autonomy/control (Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994). Several research
studies have examined the relationship between parenting styles and self-esteem of adolescents
(Buri, Murphy, Richtsmeier, & Komar, 1992; Capaldi, Forgatch, & Crosby, 1994; Larzelere,
Klein, Schumm, & Alibrando, 1989; Linver & Silerberg, 1995; Roberts & Bengtson, 1993;
Scott, Scott, & McCabe, 1991). Studies have shown that parental variables, such as acceptance,
rejection, warmth, autonomy, and closeness, are significantly correlated with adolescent’s self-
esteem (Burnett & Demnar, 1996; Juhasz, 1989; Margolin et al., 1988; Openshaw et al., 1983,
1984; Paulson et al., 1991; Walker & Greene, 1986).
The relationship between the authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and negligent
parenting styles and self-esteem from childhood to early adulthood is also the focus of this study.
Previous research studies on the field of parenting styles and self-esteem points out generally a
strong relationship between the two variables. A research focusing on children showed that the
environment wherein a child was raised has a great contribution to the development of their self-
esteem (Hosogi et al, 2012). Moreover, another study formerly done precisely suggests that
parents who are nurturing and supportive could contribute to the improvement of the child's self-
esteem (Yang & Liang, 2008).
A research done by DeHart, Pelham, and Tennen (2006) on the consequences of specific
parenting styles conclude that these styles certainly affect the self-esteem of an individual.
Several researches that were conducted specifically studied the effect of authoritarian,
authoritative, permissive, and negligent parenting styles. The results of those studies vary to what
parental style influences the highest level of self-esteem. In 2007, Martinez and Garcia found
that the children of parents with an indulgent style of parenting had the highest of self-esteem
12
while the children of parents with an authoritarian parental style had the lowest level of self-
esteem. Another later study of Martinez and Garcia (2008) found that adolescents with a parent
who practice an indulgent style of parenting had an equal or higher level of self-esteem than that
of adolescents with a parent who is authoritative. The research showed additionally that
adolescents with parents who practice an authoritarian and neglectful style had the lowest self-
esteem. Alternatively, it was found that both the children of indulgent as well as authoritative
parents had the highest self-esteem level. In 2007, it was also concluded that the children who
scored highest on levels of self-esteem are with the parents who are authoritative and indulgent
(Martinez, Garcia, and Yubero, 2007). Based on all these gathered results, it is somewhat unclear
as to which parenting style can be labeled as the most successful on the basis of influencing their
child’s self-esteem which therefore needs further research on the concerned field.
Over the course of time, studies have proved parenting style as a determinant in child
development. The development of psychological and social functioning of a child is largely
affected by the influence of parenting style. Sigelman (1999) studied the effect of a certain
parenting approach to the development of a child. Research has revealed that the worst
developmental outcomes of a child were associated with a neglectful and uninvolved parenting
style. Studies also proved that parenting styles greatly influence the development of an
individual, more specifically the effect on the socio-emotional development.
Socio-Economic Status and Perceived Parenting Style
According to a study done by Darling and Steinberg (1993), they stated that different
emotional climates at home are caused by different parenting styles. Considerable number of
evidences support the assertion of scholars that they have long argued wherein parenting styles
13
varies as a function of socio-economic status. Bronfenbrenner (1958) concluded that
relationships between parent and child in the middle class are consistently reported as being
more acceptant and equalitarian. Moreover, individuals that belongs to the working class are
oriented towards maintaining order and obedience. The styles of parenting in higher-SES homes
are described as democratic (Hoffman, 1963) and child-centered (Sears, Maccoby, and Levin,
1957), as contrary to the characterization of lower-SES homes having an authoritarian and
parent-centered style.
An Australian study was conducted to children of ages 9 to 12 in disadvantaged areas and
were asked of their perception of a ‘tough life.’ Results revealed that parents are recognized by
their children as having the most prominent role in giving aid for them to be better and
emphasized the impact of supportive parents and teachers in developing their knowledge.
(Howard and Johnson, 2000). Brody, Flor, and Gibson (1999) has linked family income, parent’s
education and occupation to the values and behavior of parents. They found that parents who
experienced financial problems are less likely to set goals for their children to be competent
academically and psychosocially, and less likely to emphasize self-regulation as well. Higher
education encourages self-direction of students when associated with favorable values of parents
(Kohn & Schooler, 1983; Luster, Rhoades, & Haas, 1989; Wright & Wright, 1976) and a more
cognitively stimulating home environments (Bradley, 1985; Menaghan & Parcel, 1991).
More researchers have found links between parenting styles and SES. Rosier and Corsaro
(1993) found that parents belonging to the working class tend to stress conformity and behavioral
rules, that is typical of parents with an authoritarian parental style, while self-direction was
emphasized by parents in the middle and upper class that is typical of parents with an
authoritative style of parenting. A direct relationship was found between economic hardship and
14
higher reports of coercive family processes, which implies more on an authoritarian parental
style (Conger et al, 1994). It was reported by Shumow, Vandell, and Posner (1998) that lower
family income was linked with abrasive parenting (authoritarianism) in third and fifth grade
students.
However, low socio-economic status does not guarantee an authoritarian style of
parenting. A research has found that low-SES, working-class fathers uses a more positive and
supportive parenting, authoritative style, when they had more positive experiences in work
(Grimm-Thomas & Perry-Jenkins, 1994). Rosier and Corsaro (1993) also found that mothers
from low-SES households are more likely to encourage individuality, autonomy, and self-
reliance within their children as a method of teaching resiliency to their children.
The roles played by parents such as manager, interactive partner, etc. in their child’s life
or in terms of the goal of socialization directed towards child rearing practices, explains the
concept of parenting (Parke and Buriel, 1998; Darling and Steinberg, 1993). Still, a fundamental
aspect of parenting is the direct interaction of parents with their children, despite of the adopted
system. A vast amount of observational research on parent child interaction in terms of SES
related-differences, specifically focuses on the interaction of mothers with their young children
(Hoff-Ginsberg and Tardif, 1995).
Socio-Economic Status and Psychological Resilience
Several psychological factors that play a role in mental health and the well-being of
minorities is associated with SES. Firstly, families and neighborhood that belong to lower SES
group tend to be associated with an increase in levels of anger and hostility in both adolescents
and adults (Cohen et al., 1999; Gallo & Matthews, 2003). Second, SES is strongly connected to
15
self-esteem, specifically status – or aptitude-related indicators of SES, like occupation and
education (Turner, Lloyd, & Roszell, 1999; Twenge & Campbell, 2002).
A study done by Adler et al., (2000) revealed that subjective social standing predicts
depression, self-rated health, and obesity more than objective measures of socio-economic status.
Next, the presence of external locus of control has a negative impact on the mental and physical
health of an individual. A prominent study among women of a lower SES group was done by
Gallo et al., (2005) wherein they found higher levels of social strain and lower levels of
perceived control. Increased social strain and reduced sense of perceived control contributes to a
higher rate of negative affect as it did in having more instrumental and psychological resources.
Another factor is the way on how individuals interpret negative events and psychological
resources. In 2004, Chen, Langer, Raphaelson, and Matthews’s investigation discovered that
children with low-SES are more likely to interpret events that are ambiguous as threats, and that
the lack of life experiences that are positive is a stronger predictor in the relationship than
negative experiences such as trauma and exposure to violence.
A link with poverty and resiliency was found by Kim-Cohen, Moffitt, Caspi and Taylor
(2004) when they studied poverty-exposed individuals that adapt well in spite of challenges.
Findings from the study revealed that positive adjustment for an individual who grew up under
impoverished circumstances were promoted by maternal warmth.
In developmental psychology, resiliency research led some researchers to differentiate
children who showed poorer results from children who had positively adapted to catastrophic life
events despite having to experience abuse or neglect and socio-economic disadvantage. The
16
research focused on analyzing the benefits of good coping, a strong sense of values, and family
support on children (Werner and Smith, 1982).
A study was conducted on a group of children coming from a poor background wherein it
found out that one third of the respondents from the group were classified as at risk (Werner and
Smith, 1992). Findings in the study showed that despite being exposed to stressful
circumstances, there were individuals who were found to still thrive due to resiliency. A
considerable number of studies described adolescents as to being resilient as a result of surviving
adverse events in their life (Luthar, Cicchetti & Becker, 2000).
Interaction between low SES and adversities pertaining to health and well-being is often
considered to outlook socio-economic status as a negative or a risk factor (Bonanno et al., 2007).
Research has proved that a person who grew up from a low socio-economic status, unstable
household, uneducated parent/s shows that it will both result to short term and long-term effects
on their physical or mental health. (Johnson et al., 1999; Ritsher, Warner, Johnson, &
Dohrenwend, 2001). However, through determination, creativity and versatility, Low-SES
individuals may display resilience in times of adversity, in ways that individuals with higher SES
may not be able to show (Chen and Miller, 2012; Gallo et al., 2009).
Socio-Economic Status and Self-Esteem
Socio-economic status and self-esteem are two variables that has great significance and
very often studied in psychology and sociology. Indeed, the interaction between the two
variables can be found to have a relationship on an adolescent’s self-esteem and the primary
view on the individual’s socioeconomic status by the society (Twenge & Campbell, 2002).
17
A study on the relationship of social class and self-esteem among adolescents was
conducted by Rosenberg and Pearlin (1990) wherein they used nontraditional measures of
parental social class, such as unemployment status of a parent, welfare status of the family,
unemployment in the neighborhood, as well as the evaluation of the neighborhood). As expected
in the study, nontraditional measures showed stronger effects on the self-esteem of adolescents
than to that of traditional measures due to the attached social stigma. Social experiences,
proximate school, and ability to diminish effects on self-esteem from parental social class were
explored as well in the study. Some of the findings were: the effect of a parent’s education is
considered to have a small contribution on the self-esteem of adolescent; the above-mentioned
nontraditional measures has a moderate impact or effect on self-esteem except for the
neighborhood’s unemployment which was found out as to having strong effects on the self-
esteem of adolescents.
Conversely, individuals who attained high in education, income, and occupational
prestige are often treated with consideration and respect, which possibly leads to a higher level of
self-esteem. Despite the model of “internalization of stigma” receiving hardly any support from
studies regarding racial differences in self-esteem (Twenge & Crocker, in press), it can still be
considered as an effective model for SES, since SES is viewed as being earned and highly
variable, whereas race is not (Hare, 1977).
The first prominent study that associated self-esteem and social class was conducted by
Morris Rosenberg and Leonard Pearlin (1978) entitled “Social Class and Self-Esteem among
Children and Adults” and was later published in the American Journal. Rosenberg and Pearlin
randomly selected ten institutions in New York State and conducted a survey to a group of 5,024
junior and senior level high school students, in which they used Morris Rosenberg’s Rosenberg
18
Self-Esteem Scale that consists ten questions to be asked in gathering their data on self-esteem.
Information about the employment status and educational levels of the student’s fathers were
gathered as well.
A study of sixth and eighth graders by Ho, Lempers, and Clark-Lempers' (1995), showed
that the relationship between parent and child mediated the link of adolescents' self-esteem and
economic hardship. Families suffering from economic hardship resulted those adolescents to
have lower self-esteem via lower levels of parental support. Elder, Nguyen, and Caspi (1985)
studied how parenting mediated the effect of income change on a child's psychosocial well-
being.
Synthesis
The relationship between perceived parenting styles, socio-economic status,
psychological resilience and self-esteem will be examined. The study will be able to contribute
on the knowledge regarding how perceived parenting style with socio-economic status as a
moderator, will separately and interactively affect the psychological resilience and level of self-
esteem of an adolescent. A substantial number of researches has been done wherein PPS, SES,
and Psychological Resilience, as well as PPS, SES, and Self-Esteem has been linked with each
19
variable. A longitudinal study reveals that parents with a low-SES background leads to harsh and
negative parenting which results to lower competency and maladaptive behavior of the child.
Low-SES parents are more likely to use harsh and negative parenting strategy and provide less
warmth, responsiveness, and nurturance for their child (Bradley & Corwyn, 2001; Conger et al.,
1992, 1997; Elder et al., 1985; Lempers et al., 1989; McLoyd et al., 1994). Children and
adolescents aided with parental support exudes better outcomes when facing adversity and are
more likely to not engage in violence, substance and alcohol abuse (Ahern, 2006; Fergus and
Zimmerman, 2010).
A research study has linked parenting style and level of self-esteem wherein high self-
esteem is related to parenting approaches such as parental love & permissiveness, nurturance,
authoritativeness, harmonious family and parent-child positive communication (Buri, 1989;
Larzelere, Klein, Schumm, & Alibrando, 1989; Scott, Scott, & McCabe, 1991; Buri, Murphy,
Richtsmeier, & Komar, 1992; Ojha & Pramanick, 1995), while low self-esteem corresponds to
the parenting approach of rejection, restriction, and punitive discipline by the parents (Buri et al.,
1992; Ojha & Pramanick, 1995).
Statement of The Problem & Hypotheses
The proposed study aims to integrate perceived parenting style, and socio-economic
status as factors to predict the level of an adolescent’s psychological resilience and self-esteem
using the Social Cognitive Theory. For further clarification, the proposed study intends to answer
the following questions below:
20
Problem No.1. Will perceived parenting style predict the psychological resilience of
adolescents?
H1. Perceived parenting styles authoritarian and neglectful will positively predict the
psychological resilience of adolescents.
H2. Perceived parenting styles authoritative and permissive will negatively predict the
psychological resilience of adolescents.
Problem No.2. Will perceived parenting style predict the self-esteem of adolescents?
H3. Perceived parenting styles authoritative and permissive will positively predict the
self-esteem of adolescents.
H4. Perceived parenting styles authoritarian and neglectful will negatively predict the
Problem No.3. Is socio-economic status a moderating factor between perceived parenting
style and adolescent’s psychological resilience?
H5. Socio-economic status is a moderating factor between perceived parenting style and
adolescent’s psychological resilience. Low SES families will have a more positive effect to
adolescent’s psychological resilience compared to high SES families.
Problem No.4. Is socio-economic status a moderating factor between perceived parenting
style and adolescent’s self-esteem?
21
H6. Socio-economic status is a moderating factor between perceived parenting style and
adolescent’s self-esteem. High SES families will have a more positive effect to adolescent’s self-
esteem compared to low SES families.
Theoretical Framework
Social Cognitive Theory
The Social Cognitive Theory of Albert Bandura was known before as Social Learning
Theory in the 1960’s and developed into the SCT in 1986. The theory posits that individuals
learn from one another by observing models, imitating, and modeling of behavior. Learning is an
internal process which may or not affect someone’s behavior. Learning and behavior is
eventually regulated by people. The models can be either live models that pertain to individuals
whose behavior is observable in real life such as parents, teachers, and peers, as well as symbolic
models which may be real or fictional models. Parents can be referred to as “models” based on
Bandura’s learning theory. They do not only serve as the strongest or most influential models of
social behavior for their children but can also shape the behavior of their children over the course
of time through interactions between parent and child.
The key concept of Bandura’s learning theory is that individuals learn through the
observation of another person’s behavior, attitude, and behavior outcomes. Bandura stated that
most of the behaviors displayed by humans is learned observationally through modeling,
observing models, and formation of new idea on how new behaviors are to be performed, and in
later occasions, the information coded will serve as guidance for action. Research has established
a link between parenting styles and internalizing problems in youth (Cooper-Vince, Pincus, &
22
Comer, in press 2014; McLeod, Weisz, & Wood, 2007; Wood, McLeod, Sigman, Hwang, &
Chu, 2003).
A study was done wherein it showed that non-anxious toddlers display anxious and
avoidant behavior to strangers after the observance of the parent displaying an anxious and
avoidant behavior towards the stranger after the parent reacted fearfully (de Rosnay et al., 2006;
Gerull & Rapee, 2002). Further, Murray et al. (2008) demonstrated on how the reaction
displayed by the parent that was observed by a 10-month old child is continued to predict the
avoidant response of a toddler even until 14 months.
The theory explains the behavior of an individual in terms of continuous reciprocal
interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences. The Social Learning
theory has five constructs that were developed to be part of the theory, but the study will
highlight mostly on the central concept of SCT, the reciprocal determinism. This construct refers
to the dynamic and reciprocal interaction of an individual (individual with a set of learned
experiences), environment (external social context), and behavior (response to stimuli in
achieving goals). The concept of reciprocal determinism highlights the relationship of behavior,
cognition, and environmental factors. The three factors are intertwined in such a way that they
rely on each other or the determinants of each one, which as a result, shapes an individual
through the interaction of the three factors.
Conceptual Framework
23
Figure 1. The conceptual paradigm of the moderating effect of socio-economic status to the
association of perceived parenting style on the psychological resilience and self-esteem of
adolescents
Significance of the Study
This research may serve as future reference for adolescents, educators, and future
researchers and may serve as a contribution on sources/literature of the variables mentioned in
this study. It will also give important insights about the influence of socio-economic status and
parenting, and their importance on strengthening and developing the psychological resilience and
CHAPTER II
24
METHODOLOGY
2.1 Research Design
The study used the multilevel design with the perceived parenting style as the
independent variable and the socio-economic status as a moderating factor. The psychological
resilience and self-esteem served as the dependent variables of the study.
2.2 Participants and Sampling Technique
The participants are male or female adolescents and must fall within the age range of 13
to 17 years old. The purposive sampling approach was used in selecting the participants. For the
first set of quantitative data, 178 participants were gathered, and 8 participants out of those 178
were selected for the qualitative interview.
For the second set of quantitative data, a total of 345 participants were gathered. The
study had a total number of 523 participants. The proposed study opted for adolescents as the
participants, since it caters ages 13 to 17 where children may be exposed to different stressors
and new experiences.
25
2.2.1 First Quantitative Phase
Demographic Profile
Table 2.2.1
Demographic Profile: Gender and Socio-economic Status (N=178)
f %
Gender
Male 97 54%
Female 81 46%
Table 2.2.1 shows the frequency and percentage for gender of one hundred seventy-eight
(N=178) respondents.
2.2.2 Qualitative Phase
Demographic Profile
Table 2.2.2
Demographic Profile: Age, Psychological Resilience, and Self-Esteem per respondent (N=8)
Respondent Age Gender Psychological Resilience Self-Esteem

Participant 1 14 Female Low Low
Participant 2 14 Male Low Low
Participant 5 15 Male Normal High
Participant 7 13 Male Low Low
Table 2.2.2 shows the age, gender and the corresponding level of Psychological
Resilience and Self-Esteem of the eight (N=8) respondents.
26
2.2.3 Second Quantitative Phase
Demographic Profile
Table 2.2.3
Demographic Profile: Gender and Socio-economic Status (N=345)
f %
Gender
Male 160 46%
Female 185 54%
Socio-Economic Status
Low 230 67%
Middle 81 23%
High 34 10%
Table 2.2.3 shows the frequency and percentage for gender and socio-economic status of
three hundred forty-five (N=345) respondents.
Methodological Implications
Since potential participants for the qualitative interview are given a parental consent to
ask permission from their parent/guardian, only those allowed were interviewed. Participants
who were interviewed were composed of 7 students from the Low Self-esteem category, and 1
student from the category of High Self-esteem.
2.3 Instruments
27
1. Scale of Parenting Style – The SPS is designed to measure parental authority, or
disciplinary practices, from the point of view of the child (of any age). This scale by Gafoor and
Kurukkan (2014), has 38 items and is useful to obtain the perspective of the participant on their
parents/guardians’ way of parenting.
2. Brief Resilience Scale – One of the two main scales of the proposed study is the brief
resilient coping scale. The scale was developed by Smith et. Al (2008) and is composed of six
(6) items which will determine the level of an adolescent’s psychological resilience. The
proposed study chose the scale since according to Windle and colleagues (2011), it is one of the
most reliable and highly valid resilience scales. In addition, it has other evidences to support its
effectiveness.
3. Rosenberg’s Self Esteem Scale – Another main scale of the proposed study is the
Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale, developed during the year 1965 by Morris Rosenberg. It is
composed of ten (10) items which will determine the level of self-esteem of an adolescent. The
10-item scale is answered through a four-point Likert-type scale. The items are equally divided
as to a positive-worded and negatively worded statements.
2.4 Procedures
2.4.1 First Quantitative Phase
For the first set of quantitative data, parental consents were distributed to the participants.
Data will be gathered by distributing the first scale to the participants who were allowed by their
parent/guardian to participate. Aside from the first scale, an informed consent was given to the
participants, which provides information about the scale and its benefits and purpose, together
with the participant’s rights.
28
The first scale is composed of the demographic profile of the participant, questions about
Socio-economic Status, the Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale, and the Brief Resilience Scale. The
first scale can be answered within the duration of 20-30 minutes.
After verifying and analyzing the first set of quantitative data, potential participants who
obtained the lowest and highest scores on the scales were selected to be interviewed for the
qualitative data.
For the qualitative phase, a total of eight (N=8) participants were sent a message which is
composed of necessary information about the interview. Participants who agreed to be
interviewed are given a parental consent to notify their parents what the interview will be about.
Participants allowed by their parent/guardian(s), are then given options of when the interview
will be conducted.
Before the interview, participants are given an informed consent which provides
information about the interview and its benefits and purpose, together with the participant’s
rights. The interview is composed of six questions relating to what factors affect the participant’s
self-esteem and resilience. If the desired results are obtained from the qualitative interview, the
second quantitative data can be started.
2.4.3 Second Quantitative Phase
For the second set of quantitative data, the same procedure and scales on the first set of
quantitative data is followed. However, the Scale of Parenting Style is added on the second scale
to determine the adolescents’ perception of their parents’ way of rearing. Participants are to
29
choose the dominant parent on the household to produce only one parenting style. Moreover, the
second scale can be answered within the duration of 30-40 minutes.
Distribution of Parental Consent

Administration of First Scale
Verification of Data
Selection of Potential Participants for Qualitative Interview
Qualitative Interview
Qualitative Content Analysis
Second Distribution of Parental Consent
Administration of Second Scale
Verification of Data
Statistical Analysis
Figure 2. Summary of Procedures
2.5 Data Analysis
The study used Berg’s process of Qualitative Content Analysis which was used in
analyzing the qualitative data of the study. Various codes and emergent contents were obtained
with the collected data from the semi-structured interviews conducted to participants. According
to Twycross & Shields (2008), content analysis is defined as “any technique for making
inferences by systematically and objectively identifying specified characteristics or messages.”
2.5.2 Quantitative Phase
The One-Way Analysis of Variance (One-Way ANOVA) and Factorial Analysis of
Variance (Factorial ANOVA) were used for analyzing the quantitative data. The One-Way
ANOVA was used to examine the effects of Perceived Parenting Style on the Psychological
30
Resilience and Self-Esteem respectively. While Factorial ANOVA was utilized to examine the
moderating effect of Socio-economic Status on the relationship between Perceived Parenting
Style and Psychological Resilience, and on the relationship between Perceived Parenting Style
and Self-Esteem.
The adolescent’s perceived parenting style will be set as the factor (IV) to the
participants’ measure of psychological resilience and self-esteem (DV), while the adolescent’s
socio-economic status will serve as the moderating factor.
2.6 Ethical Considerations
Before the instruments were administered, participants were informed as to why the
research is conducted and parental consents were provided to the participants. An informed
consent was also included on the scales for briefing the participants, and for them to be able to
know the purpose and benefits of the study, as well as their rights in participating. All the data
collected from the questionnaires/scales completed were recorded and were only used for
educational purposes, guaranteeing the participant’s confidentiality and privacy.
The study does not involve any physical activities that the participants are to do and
assured that they will not be psychologically harmed as there would not be any risks that can be
possibly encountered tied with this research.
CHAPTER III
31
RESULT
This chapter presents the results of the overall data gathered by the researchers. This
chapter will first discuss the first quantitative data using Descriptive Analysis, followed by the
qualitative data through content analysis, and findings of the second quantitative data using One-
way and Factorial ANOVA.
3.1 First Quantitative Phase
Descriptive Profile
Table 3.1
Descriptive Profile: (Psychological Resilience and Self-Esteem Based on Gender) Mean (SD)
Psychological Resilience Male Female

Low 2.66 (.20) 2.63 (.22)
Normal 3.31 (.34) 3.26 (.24)
High - -
Self-Esteem Male Female
Low - -
Normal 18.73 (2.33) 18.5 (2.13)
High 26.4 (.55) -
Table 3.1 shows that male and female adolescents have relatively similar level of
Psychological Resilience. A minimal difference in the scores corresponding to the classification
of Normal Level of Self-Esteem was seen across genders.
3.2 Qualitative Phase
32
The present study has explored into the factors that affect an adolescent’s psychological
resilience and self-esteem. This section discusses the results of the semi-structured interview
conducted to the participants using content analysis.
Table 3.2.1
Summary of Emergent Content for Factors of Psychological Resilience
Research Questions Emergent Content Sample Codes Frequency
1. What are the Emotional support and “I can share problems with 12
factors that affect guidance from parents them whenever we have deep
an adolescent’s conversations within the
resilience? family.”
“They affect my resilience

emotionally in a positive way
when I open-up about my
problems.”
“Nagse-share po ako sa
kanya, kapag po may
problema ako, sa kanya din
ako lumalapit.”
Emotional support and “They are my source of 12

guidance from peers comfort and relief.”
“Parang pag nagsabi po ako

ng problema, pwede po nila
sabihan yung kanilang view or
perspective sa sitwasyon.”
Emotional deprivation “Parang lagi silang di 8

nakatingin, nakatuon yung
pansin sa’kin, puro sa mga
dalawa kong kapatid. Lagi -,
33
yung mama ko lagi nasa,

nakatutok sa bunso. Yung
papa ko naman, laging nasa
panganay.”
“Hindi po, hindi po ako

nakakapag-open. Tsaka baka
sabihin nila na-, baka nage-
emote lang ako ganun.”
Authoritarian parenting “Palagi pong pinapagalitan 4

kahit wala naman pong
ginagawang mali.”
“They give too much pressure

and unrealistic expectations.”
“Sa pag-aaral ko po. Kasi sila

po yung parang nagco-control,
sila rin po yung nagde-
desisyon kung ano po yung
dapat kong gawin kahit hindi
ko po gusto.”
Based on the results of the interview, there were four emergent contents from the factors
of Psychological Resilience: Emotional support and guidance from parents, Emotional support
and guidance from peers, Emotional deprivation, and Authoritarian parenting.
Emotional support and guidance from parents. Most participants stated that parents affect
their Psychological Resilience by being able to share and open-up about their problems and
having deep talks within the family.
“I can share problems with them whenever we have deep conversations within
the family.” (Participant 1, 14)
“They affect my resilience emotionally in a positive way when I open-up about

my problems.” (Participant 2, 14)
“Nagse-share po ako sa kanya, kapag po may problema ako, sa kanya din ako
lumalapit.” (Participant 7, 13)
34
Emotional support and guidance from peers. Aside from parents, participants stated that
they also perceive their friends as a factor that affect their Psychological Resilience since they
can depend on them and seek advice in times of difficulties.
“They are my source of comfort and relief.” (Participant 1, 14)
“Parang pag nagsabi po ako ng problema, pwede po nila sabihan yung

kanilang view or perspective sa sitwasyon.” (Participant 5, 15)
Emotional deprivation. According to a participant, she feels that she is left out and
invisible in the family since she is the middle child.
“Palagi silang di nakatingin, nakatuon yung pansin sa’kin, puro sa mga

dalawa kong kapatid. Lagi -, yung mama ko lagi nasa, nakatutok sa bunso.
Yung papa ko naman, laging nasa panganay.” (Participant 8, 16)
“Hindi po, hindi po ako nakakapag-open. Tsaka baka sabihin nila na-, baka
nage-emote lang ako ganun.” (Participant 8, 16)
Authoritarian parenting. As for some of the participants, parents can be too strict and
controlling with everything they do. Some parents may set unrealistic expectations which makes
the child feel too much pressure and does not perceive their parents as a source of comfort and
security.
“Palagi pong pinapagalitan kahit wala naman pong ginagawang mali, tapos
po kapag ginawa naman po yung tama palagi na lang pong sinasabihan ng
mga masasakit na salita tapos pinapahiya sa maraming mga tao.”
(Participant 4, 13)
“They give too much pressure and unrealistic expectations.” (Participant 6,

13)
“Sa pag-aaral ko po. Kasi sila po yung parang nagco-control, sila rin po yung
nagde-desisyon kung ano po yung dapat kong gawin kahit hindi ko po gusto.”
(Participant 6, 13)
Table 3.2.2
35
Summary of Emergent Content for Factors of Self-Esteem
Research Questions Emergent Content Sample Codes Frequency
1. What are the Encouragement and “Yung nagpapataas po family, 11

factors that affect support from parents ine-encourage lang po nila
an adolescent’s ako na mas magtiwala sa
self-esteem? sarili ko.”
“Mostly family po. Parang

pinapa-make feel naman po
sakin na I am a part of their
family. Pinaparating nila na
parang meron po talaga ‘kong
impact sa mundo.”
“Ine-encourage po ako.
Parang sa mga life goals ko
po, parang pag pinapakita ko
po sila, tinatanong ko po sila
kung ano pong thoughts nila,
mga ganon. Parang binibigay
naman po nila yung realistic,
and mostly positive naman po,
kaya parang feeling ko po, na-
aachieve ko po yung goal ko
po slowly while on a young
age pa po.”
“Tinutulungan po ako sa mga

problema ko, tapos supportive
din po siya sa mga ginagawa
ko sa school, sa mga activities
ko po andyan po siya palagi.”
Authoritarian parenting “I feel outcasted/mistreated 9

because they scold me
frequently. Parang kahit
anong gawin kong tama,
nakikita pa rin nila yung
mali.”
“They push me in doing things

even if it is out of my own will
and most of the time can be
too controlling with what I
36
do.”
“They give me too much

pressure concerning my
academics.”
“I don't perceive them as my

source of comfort or support.”
Peer support “They help me boost my self- 8

esteem through the
compliments I receive from
them.”
“They are my source of

happiness and comfort”
Based on the results of the interview, three emergent contents from the factors of Self-
Esteem is shown: Encouragement and support from parents, Authoritarian parenting, and Peer
support.
Encouragement and support from parents. As stated by participants, they consider their
parents as a great factor that affects their self-esteem. Participants feel important when parents
provide encouragement and are supportive with their school activities.
“Yung nagpapataas po family, ine-encourage lang po nila ako na mas

magtiwala sa sarili ko.” (Participant 3, 15)
“Mostly family po. Parang pinapa-make feel naman po sakin na I am a part of

their family. Pinaparating nila na parang meron po talaga ‘kong impact sa
mundo.” (Participant 5, 15)
“Ine-encourage po ako. Parang sa mga life goals ko po, parang pag pinapakita
ko po sila, tinatanong ko po sila kung ano pong thoughts nila, mga ganon.
Parang binibigay naman po nila yung realistic, and mostly positive naman po,
kaya parang feeling ko po, na-aachieve ko po yung goal ko po slowly while on a
young age pa po.” (Participant 5, 15)
“Tinutulungan po ako sa mga problema ko, tapos supportive din po siya sa

mga ginagawa ko sa school, sa mga activities ko po andyan po siya palagi.”
(Participant 7, 13)
37
Authoritarian parenting. According to participants, parents negatively affect their self-
esteem when they are given too much pressure and controlled with everything they do. This type
of parenting would possibly make the child feel outcasted and not accepted.
“I feel outcasted/mistreated because they scold me frequently. Parang kahit

anong gawin kong tama, nakikita pa rin nila yung mali.” (Participant 4, 13)
“They push me in doing things even if it is out of my own will and most of the
time can be too controlling with what I do.” (Participant 6, 13)
“They give me too much pressure concerning my academics.” (Participant 8,

16)
Peer support. For the third emergent content of self-esteem, peers are considered as a
factor since they positively affect self-esteem by giving compliments and being a source of
comfort to participants.
“They help me boost my self-esteem through the compliments I receive from

them.” (Participant 4, 13)
“They are my source of happiness and comfort” (Participant 6, 13)
3.3 Second Quantitative Phase
This section presents the results of the data gathered during the second quantitative phase.
Data were analyzed using One-way ANOVA and Factorial ANOVA.
Descriptive Profile
38
Table 3.3.1-A
Descriptive Profile: (Perceived Parenting Style, Psychological Resilience, and Self-Esteem

Based on Gender) Mean (SD)
Perceived Parenting Style Male Female

Authoritative 3.9 (.46) 4.04 (.49)
Indulgent 2.99 (.51) 3.01 (.33)
Authoritarian 3.1 (.53) 3.09 (.37)
Negligent 2.47 (.36) 2.30 (.57)
Psychological Resilience Male Female
Low 2.62 (.21) 2.63 (.26)
Normal 3.32 (.31) 3.29 (.29)
High 4.45 (.13) 4.40 (.10)
Self-Esteem Male Female
Low 12.95 (1.70) 12.24 (3.17)
Normal 19.60 (2.27) 18.93 (2.14)
High 26.71 (.94) 26.64 (.79)
Table 3.3.1-A shows a minimal difference between male and female adolescents who
perceive their parent’s style of parenting as Authoritative and Indulgent while having a relatively
similar response Authoritarian and Negligent style of parenting. It is also reported that male and
female adolescents have relatively similar level of Psychological Resilience and Self-Esteem.
Table 3.3.1-B
Descriptive Profile: (Psychological Resilience and Self-Esteem Based on Socio-Economic

Status) Mean (SD)
Psychological Resilience Low Middle High

Low 2.62 (.23) 2.63 (.28) 2.67 (.18)
Normal 3.24 (.20) 3.36 (.35) 3.54 (.48)
39
High 4.42 (.12) 4.43 (.12)

Self-Esteem Low Middle High
Low 12.66 (2.56) 12.44 (2.68)
Normal 18.84 (2.07) 19.87 (2.36) 21.33 (1.15)
High 26.56 (.80) 27.00 (.98) 26.67 (.80)
Table 3.3.1-B shows that adolescents with low and middle socio-economic status have
relatively similar level of psychological resilience.
3.3.2 Will Perceived Parenting Style predict the Psychological Resilience of adolescents?
Table 3.3.2
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the Effect of Perceived Parenting Style to Psychological
Resilience
SS df MS F p
Psychological Resilience 1442.873 1 1442.873 7660.734 0.00
One-way ANOVA was utilized in computing Perceived Parenting Style as the
independent variable and Psychological Resilience as the dependent variable. The result showed
a significant relationship between Perceived Parenting Style and Psychological Resilience,
having a p value of <0.001. As hypothesized, adolescents under Perceived Parenting Style -
Authoritarian and Negligent yields a positive effect on the Psychological Resilience of
adolescents. Also, those who perceive their parents as having an Authoritative and Permissive
Style showed a positive result on their level of self-esteem. This is illustrated in Figure 3.2.1.
40
Figure 3.3.2 Independent Effect of each Perceived Parenting Style to Psychological Resilience
Figure 3.3.2 shows the graphical representation of Negligent and Authoritarian Parenting
Style as positive predictors on the Psychological Resilience of adolescents. The graph shows that
adolescents who perceive their parents as Negligent and Authoritarian obtained a higher mean
score of 4.32 (4.315789) and 4.32 (4.319444) respectively, than those who perceive their
parents’ style of rearing as Authoritative and Permissive with a mean score of 2.91 and 2.58 in
that order. With this, Negligent and Authoritarian Parenting Style will more likely have a
positive effect on the Psychological Resilience of adolescents than Authoritative and Permissive
Parenting Style.
3.3.3 Will Perceived Parenting Style predict the Self-Esteem of adolescents?
41
Table 3.3.3
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the Effect of Perceived Parenting Style to Self-Esteem
SS df MS F p
Self-Esteem 40195.63 1 40195.63 1618.891 0.00
One-way ANOVA was utilized in computing. The result showed a significant
relationship between Perceived Parenting Style and Self-Esteem, having a p value of <0.001. As
hypothesized, those who perceive their parents having an Authoritative and Permissive Style
predicts a positive result on their level of self-esteem. This is illustrated in Figure 3.2.2.
42
Figure 3.2.2. Independent Effect of each Perceived Parenting Style to Self-Esteem
Figure 3.2.2 shows the graphical representation of Authoritative and Permissive
Parenting Style as positive predictors on the Self-Esteem of adolescents. The graph shows that
adolescents who perceive their parents as Authoritative and Permissive obtained a higher mean
score of 22.55 and 25.20 respectively, than those who perceive their parents’ style of rearing as
Negligent and Authoritarian with a mean score of 13.11 and 13.71 in that order. With this,
Authoritative and Permissive Parenting Style will more likely have a positive effect on the Self-
Esteem of adolescents than Negligent and Authoritarian Parenting Style.
43
3.2.3. Is Socio-economic Status a moderating factor between Perceived Parenting Style and
adolescent’s Psychological Resilience?
Table 3.2.3
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the Moderating Effect of Socio-Economic Status to the
Association of Perceived Parenting Style on Psychological Resilience
SS df MS F p
PR 691.7335 1 691.7335 3604.601 0.000000
SES 0.0637 2 0.0318 0.166 0.847241
PPS 54.0153 3 18.0051 93.824 0.000000
SES*PPS 0.1882 6 0.0314 0.163 0.986165
Error 63.9037 333 0.1919
44
Figure 3.2.3. Moderating Effect of Socio-Economic Status to the Association of Perceived
Parenting Style on Psychological Resilience
The data were analyzed using Factorial ANOVA and the results indicate that the overall
relationship was not significant F(2,3333)=.16585, p=0.84724. This suggested that Socio-
economic Status did not moderate the association between Perceived Parenting Style and
Psychological Resilience.
45
3.2.4. Is Socio-economic Status a moderating factor between Perceived Parenting Style and
adolescent’s Self-Esteem?
Table 3.2.4
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the Moderating Effect of Socio-Economic Status to the
Association of Perceived Parenting Style on Self-Esteem
SS df MS F p
SE 18479.88 1 18479.88 734.9551 0.000000
SES 17.08 2 8.54 0.3396 0.712269
PPS 2534.30 3 844.77 33.5968 0.000000
SES*PPS 71.97 6 11.99 0.4770 0.825340
Error 8373.03 333 25.14
46
Figure 3.2.4. Moderating Effect of Socio-Economic Status to the Association of Perceived
Parenting Style on Self Esteem
The data were analyzed using Factorial ANOVA and the results indicate that the overall
relationship was not significant F(2,3333)=.33964, p=0.71227. This suggested that Socio-
economic Status did not moderate the association between Perceived Parenting Style and Self-
Esteem.
47
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
The current study was conducted to investigate the predictive role of Perceived Parenting
Style on Psychological Resilience, and Perceived Parenting Style on Self-Esteem of adolescents.
The study also aims to know if Socio-economic Status plays a moderating role to the Association
of Perceived Parenting Style on Psychological Resilience and on Self-Esteem of adolescents.
Moreover, the researchers further explored as to what factors affect the Psychological Resilience
and Self-Esteem of adolescents.
4.1 Qualitative Phase
Content analysis was used for analyzing the semi-structured interview and results showed
four emergent contents for the factors of Psychological Resilience, and three emergent contents
for the factors of Self-Esteem.
When participants were asked of factors that affect their Psychological Resilience,
answers would vary from parents or family, to friends or peers only. The first emergent content
for Psychological Resilience is Emotional support and guidance from parents, which was
mentioned by most participants and is perceived as a factor for them to be able to overcome
problems and difficulties they encounter in their everyday lives. Parents are perceived by
participants as an essential factor when they get to share about their problems and have deep and
meaningful conversations with parents. Children who are aided with parental support reported to
have better outcomes when facing risks or adversity and are likely not to engage in violence,
substance and alcohol abuse (Ahern, 2006; Fergus and Zimmerman, 2010). This is also
supported by the study of Zakeri and colleagues (2010), which stated that when children in the
48
course of exposure to threatening or stressful conditions, parents help facilitate positive
adjustment on the child through behavioral and emotional support.
The second emergent content for Psychological Resilience is Emotional support and
guidance from peers. Aside from parents, most participants perceive their peers as an important
factor that positively influences their resilience. As for them, they consider their peers as source
of comfort and relief, wherein they ask for advice and try to get other perspectives for a problem.
In Steyn’s (2006) study in South Africa, it was found that adolescents involved in emotionally
supportive friendships were found to be resilient.
The next emergent content is Emotional deprivation. According to one out of eight
participants, she feels that she does not receive the same treatment as with her siblings. She
stated that both her parents and grandparents prioritize her youngest and oldest sibling.
The last emergent content for Psychological Resilience is Authoritarian Parenting
wherein some participants feel that their parents can be too strict and controlling. Participants
also stated that their parents set unrealistic expectations and they often receive verbal punishment
when they commit mistakes or when they do not meet certain expectations. With this,
participants feel unaccepted and would cause them to try to find and gain acceptance from
others.
As for the factors of Self-Esteem, the first emergent content is Encouragement and
support from parents. Participants stated that their self-esteem is greatly affected by their parents
being supportive with their school activities and guides them with their decisions in life. Ryan et
al. 1994) reported that during adolescence, self-esteem is still dependent on the quality of the
interaction of the parent and child, as well as on the variables of parenting such as warmth,
49
acceptance/rejection, and autonomy/control. Additionally, another study formerly done suggests
that parents who are nurturing and supportive could contribute to the improvement of the child's
self-esteem (Yang & Liang, 2008).
The second emergent content for Self-Esteem is Authoritarian parenting. As this
emergent content was previously mentioned, some participants said that parents negatively affect
their self-esteem when they are overly controlled, punished, and forced to do things that are
against their will.
Peer support as the last emergent content on the factors of Self-Esteem, is regarded by
participants when they receive support and compliments from peers. Some participants also
stated that they feel more comfortable and accepted around their peers which makes peers a
factor having great influence on an adolescent’s self-esteem. A study conducted by Walker and
Greene (1986) stated that the quality of relationships between a parent and child significantly
contributes to the level of self-esteem of the participants, followed by the relationship with peers.
Although both relationships with parents and peers are necessary for adolescents (Lesch and
Jagger, 2013).
4.2 Quantitative Phase
It was hypothesized that Authoritarian and Negligent Parenting Style would positively
predict Psychological Resilience, while Authoritative and Permissive Parenting Style will
negatively predict an adolescents’ Psychological Resilience. One-way ANOVA was utilized to
explore the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable which
showed a p value of <0.001, indicating a significant relationship between Perceived Parenting
Style and Psychological Resilience. Hence, this assumption is supported by the study of Walsh
50
(1998) which showed that children who belongs to troubled families but manages to be resilient
usually create and establish unique bonds with trusting and supporting adults in their social
environments. Also, a study by Heller et al. (1999) stated that latent resilience can be promoted
through constant and sensitive early care. This will let the child cope better if parental adversities
appear later in their life.
Furthermore, it was hypothesized that Authoritative and Permissive Parenting Style
would positively predict Self-Esteem, while Authoritarian and Negligent Parenting Style would
negatively predict Self-Esteem of adolescents, which both were found consistent with previous
literatures. One-way ANOVA was used to explore the relationship between the independent and
dependent variable which resulted to a p value of <0.001, indicating a significant relationship
between Perceived Parenting Style and Self-Esteem. This is supported by the study of Martinez
and Garcia (2008) which stated that adolescents with parents who practice an Indulgent Style of
Parenting had an equal or higher Self-Esteem with those who practice an Authoritative Style of
Parenting, while it was found that children of Authoritarian and Negligent Parents had the lowest
Self-Esteem.
The study also investigated on Socio-economic Status as a potential moderator on the
association of Perceived Parenting Style to Psychological Resilience. It was postulated that
Socio-economic Status would moderate the relationship between the independent and dependent
variables. Factorial Analysis of Variance was used to study the main effect of Socio-economic
Status between the relationship of Perceived Parenting Style and Psychological Resilience. Kim-
Cohen, Moffitt, Caspi and Taylor (2004) found a link with poverty and resiliency when they
conducted a study on poverty-exposed individuals that adapt well despite challenges. A study by
Werner and Smith (1992) was conducted on a group of children coming from a poor background
51
wherein it found out that one third of the respondents from the group were classified as at risk.
Findings of the study showed that despite being exposed to stressful circumstances, there were
individuals who were found to still thrive due to resiliency. Moreover, a previous study found
that through determination, creativity and versatility, individuals with low-SES may display
resilience in times of adversity, in ways that individuals with higher SES may not be able to
show (Chen and Miller, 2012). In contrary to previous literatures, the results showed that Socio-
economic Status did not moderate the association between Perceived Parenting Style and
Psychological Resilience.
Lastly, the study investigated if Socio-economic Status moderates the association of
Perceived Parenting Style to Self-Esteem. It was hypothesized that Socio-economic Status has a
moderating effect on the relationship between Perceived Parenting Style and Self-Esteem. A
study of sixth and eighth graders by Ho, Lempers, and Clark-Lempers' (1995), stated that
families suffering from economic hardship resulted those adolescents to have lower self-esteem
via lower levels of parental support. However, the data analysis showed that Socio-economic
Status did not moderate the relationship between Perceived Parenting Style and Self-Esteem.
52
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
This multilevel study explored on Perceived Parenting Style as predictor of Psychological
Resilience and Self-Esteem of adolescents independently. As for the qualitative interview, it has
been found that both parents and peers are two dominant factors that affect an adolescents’
Psychological Resilience and Self-Esteem. The hypotheses were tested and yielded significant
results relating to Psychological Resilience and Self-Esteem. Based on the findings, Socio-
economic Status did not moderate the relationship between Perceived Parenting Style and
Psychological Resilience and between Perceived Parenting Style and Self-Esteem. Even so, this
was acceptable since there may have been other factors that could influence and moderate a
parent’s way of parenting on its relationship with the dependent variables.
53
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, researchers recommend the following:
Recommendations for Future Research
Since the study only focused on the age range of 13-17 years old, future studies should
conduct to the entire age range of adolescents which is from 13-19 years old to get a wider
perspective and diverse responses. This will enable the researchers to identify under which age
bracket, parenting style, and socio-economic classification of participants have higher resiliency
and self-esteem. For conducting interviews with younger adolescents, prepare follow-up
questions since some are hesitant and would only give timid answers.
Also, future researchers may add a variable which determines if the child lives with both
parents, single parent, or has deceased parents and/or are currently living with a guardian/relative
and then try to compare which of those adolescents have higher resilience and self-esteem.
Recommendations for Practice
The researchers recommend that schools and colleges encourage active parental
involvement. Schools/colleges should make a website page or application for parents which will
send updates about monthly events and will cater to parental concerns. Aside from this,
schools/colleges should also give out brochures/pamphlets which contains information about the
importance of parental involvement, different types of parenting and its effects, how to help
54
children cope with adversities, and how to help in boosting their child's self-esteem. Once
parental involvement is established, schools and colleges should conduct a seminar for parents
about the importance of positive parenting and the long-term effects of harsh parenting. This will
help parents to have a better understanding about what types approach can be done to discipline
their children and to improve the parent-child relationship.
Aside from parents, researchers recommend that schools and colleges conduct a seminar
for students as well. A seminar that will focus on Resilience and Self-esteem, such as how to
positively adapt and cope with adversities, and how to recognize their self-worth and value.
55
REFERENCES
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and
objective social status with psychological and physical health: Preliminary data in healthy
white women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 585–591.
Ahern, N.R. (2006) ‘Adolescent resilience: an evolutionary concept analysis’, Journal of

Pediatric Nursing 21(3): 175–85 (DOI:10.1016/j.pedn.2005.07.009).
Alvord. M. K., Grados, J.J. (2005). Enhancing Resilience in Children: A Proactive Approach.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 36, No. 3, 238–245. Retrieved
September 8, 2017, from http://academiapedagogilor.ro/images/26.pdf
Arrington, E.G., & Wilson, M.N. (2000). A re-examination of risk and resilience during
adolescence: Incorporating culture and diversity. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
9(2), 221–230.
Baumrind; D. (1975). The contributions of the family to the development of competence in

children. Schizophrenia Bulletin, M, 12-37
Biddulph, S. (1996). The secrets of happy children. Australia: Harper Collins Publishers.
Blake, P. C., & Slate, J. R. (1993). A preliminary investigation into the relationship between
adolescent self-esteem and parental verbal interaction. School Counselor, 41, 81-85.
Bolger, K. and Patterson, C. (2003) ‘Sequelae of child maltreatment: vulnerability and risk’, in
S.S. Luthar (ed.) Resilience and Vulnerability: Adaptation in the Context of Childhood
Adversities. New York: Cambridge University Press
Bonanno, G. A., Galea, S., Bucciarelli, A., and Vlahov, D. (2007). ‘What predicts psychological
resilience after disaster? The role of demographics, resources, and life stress’, Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(5): 671.
Bonnano, G. A., & Mancini, A. D. (2008). The human capacity to thrive in the face of potential
trauma. Pediatrics, 121, 369–375. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-1648
Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 29-82). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
56
Bradley, R. H. (1985). The home inventory: Rationale and research. In J. Lachenmeyer & M.
Gibbs (Eds.). Recent research in developmental psychopathology (pp. 191-201). New
York: Gardner Press.
Brody, G. H., Flor, D. L., & Gibson, N. M. (1999). Linking maternal efficacy beliefs,
developmental goals, parenting practices, and child competence in rural single-parent
African American families. Child Development, 70, 1197-1208.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1958). Socialization and social class through time and space. In E. E.
Maccoby, R. M. Newcomb, andE. L. Harley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp.
400–425). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of
Children, 7, 55-71.
Bukowski, W.M. (2003) ‘Peer relationships’, in M. Bornstein, D. Lucy, C.L.M. Keyes and K.A.
Moore (eds) Well-being: Positive Development across the Life Course. London:
Lawrence Erlbaum
Buri, J. R. (1989). Self-esteem and appraisals of parental behavior. Journal of Adolescent

Research, 4, 33-49.
Buri, J. R., Murphy, P., Richtsmeier, L. M., & Komar, K. K. (1992). Stability of parental
nurturance as a salient predictor of self-esteem. Psychological Reports, 71, 535-543.
Burnett, P. C., & Demnar, W. J. (1996). The relationship between closeness to significant others
and self-esteem. Journal of Family Studies, 2, 121-129.
Burns, R. B. (1979). The self-concepTGB: Theory measurement, development and behaviour.

London: Longman Group Ltd.
Capaldi, D. M., Forgatch, M. S., & Crosby, L. (1994). Affective expression in family problem-
solving discussions with adolescent boys. Journal of Adolescent Research, 9, 28-49.
Chen, E., and G. Miller. 2012. "Shift-and-persist” strategies: Why being low in socioeconomic
status isn’t always bad for health. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(2): 135–58.
Chen, E., Langer, D. A., Raphaelson, Y. E., & Matthews, K. A. (2004). Socioeconomic status
and health in adolescents: The role of stress interpretations. Child Development, 75(4),
1039–1052.
Choe, D., Zimmerman, M., A, Devnarian, B. (2012). Youth violence in South Africa: Exposure,
Attitude, and Resilience in Zulu Adolescents. Violence and Victims, 27 (2).
57
Cohen, S., Kaplan, G. A., & Salone, J. T. (1999). The role of psychological characteristics in the
relation between socioeconomic status and perceived health. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 29(3), 445–468.
Conger, R.D., Ge, X., Elder, Jr., G.H., Lorenz, F.O., & Simons, R.L. (1994). Economic stress,
coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child
Development, 65, 541-561.
Coopersmith, S. (1981). Self-Esteem Inventories. Palo Alto CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Cooper-Vince, C., Pincus, D.B., & Comer, J.S. (2014). Maternal intrusiveness, family
financial means, and anxiety across childhood in a large multiphase sample of
community youth. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(3), 429-438. DOI
10.1007/s 10802-013-9790-4 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23929005
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting styles as contexTGB: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487- 496.
David, L. (2015) “Social Learning Theory (Bandura)," in Learning Theories.

https://www.learning-theories.com/social-learning-theory-bandura.html.
Davis, M. C., Luecken, L., & Lemery-Chalfant, K. (2009b). Resilience in common life:
Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Personality, 77, 1637–1644. doi:
10.1111/j.1467- 6494.2009.00595.x
de Rosnay, M., Cooper, P. J., Tsigaras, N., & Murray, L. (2006). Transmission of social anxiety
from mother to infanTGB: An experimental study using a social referencing paradigm.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(8), 1165-1175.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and the “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
DeHart, T., Pelham, B. W., & Tennen, H. (2006). What lies beneath: Parenting style and implicit
self-esteem. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(1), 1-17.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.12.005
Dinkmeyer, D, & McKay, G. D. (1982). The parent's handbook. Systematic training for effective
parenting. Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research Limited.
Drapeau, S., Saint-Jacques, M-C., Lépine, R., Bégin, G. and Bernard, M. (2007) ‘Processes that
contribute to resilience among youth in foster care’, Journal of Adolescence 30(6): 977-
999.
Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. A. (2003). Off with Holhngshead: Socioeconomic resources,
parenting, and child development. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.),
58
Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 83-106). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Eisenberg, N., Chang, L., Ma, Y., & Huang, X. (2009). Relations of parenting style to Chinese
children‟s effortful control ego resilience and maladjustment. Development and
Psychopathology, (21) 455-477.
Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding
healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 399–419.
Retrieved September 8, 2017, from http://academiapedagogilor.ro/images/26.pdf
Fletcher, David & Sarkar, Mustafa. (2013). Psychological resilience: A review and critique of
definitions, concepts, and theory. European Psychologist. 18. 12-23. 10.1027/1016-
9040/a000124.
Francis, L., & Jones, S. (1996). Social Class and Self-Esteem. The Journal of Social Psychology,
136(3), 405–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1996.9714019.
G. Wilkinson, Richard. (1999). Health, Hierarchy, and Social Anxiety. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences. 896. 48-63. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08104.x.
Gallo, L. C., & Matthews, K. A. (2003). Understanding the association between socioeconomic
status and physical health: Do negative emotions play a role? Psychological Bulletin,
129(1), 10–51.
Gallo, L. C., Bogart, L. M., Vranceanu, A.-M., & Matthews, K. A. (2005). Socioeconomic
status, resources, psychological experiences, and emotional responses: A test of the
reserve capacity model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 386–399.
García, F., & Gracia, E. (2009). Is always authoritative the optimum parenting style? Evidence
from Spanish families. Adolescence, 44(173), 101-131.
Gera, M. & Kaur, J. (2015). Study of resilience and parenting styles of adolescents. International
Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach Studies, 2, 1, 168-177.
Gerull, F. C., & Rapee, R. M. (2002). Mother knows besTGB: effects of maternal modelling on
the acquisition of fear and avoidance behaviour in toddlers. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 40, 279–287.
Graetz, B. (1995). Socioeconomic status in education research and policy. In J. Ainley, B.

Graetz, M. Long & M. Batten (Eds.), Socioeconomic status and school education.
Canberra: DEET/ACER.
Grimm-Thomas, K., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (1994). All in a day's work: Job experiences, self-
esteem, and fathering in working-class families. Family Relations, 43, 174-181.
59
Haque, A. (1988). Relationship between perceived maternal acceptance-rejection and self-esteem

among young adults in Nigeria. Journal of African Psychology, 1, 15-24.
Hare, B. R. (1977). Racial and socioeconomic variations in preadolescent area-specific and

general self-esteem. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1, 31–51.
Hart, L. (1993). The winning family: Increasing self-esteem in your children and yourself.
California: Celestial Arts.
Harter, S. (1998). The development of self-representations. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.),

Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development
(5th ed., pp. 553-617). New York: Wiley.
Heller, S.S., Larrieu, J.A., D’Imperio, R. and Boris, N.W. (1999) ‘Research on resilience to child
to child maltreatment’, Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 23, pp. 321–38
Ho, C. S., Lempers, J. D., & Clark-Lempers, D. S. (1995). Effects of economic hardship on
adolescent self-esteem: A family mediation model. Adolescence, 30, 117-131.
Hoff-Ginsberg, E., and Tardif, T. (1995). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In M. H.

Bornstein, (Ed.), The handbook of parenting: Vol. 2. Biology and ecology of parenting
(pp. 161–188). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hoffman, M. L. (1963). Personality, family structure, and social class as antecedents of parental
power assertion. ChildDevelopment, 34, 869–884.
Hosogi, M., Okada, A., Fuji, C., Noguchi, K., & Watanabe, K. (2012). Importance and
usefulness of evaluating self-esteem in children. Biopsychosocial Medicine,
6doi:10.1186/1751-0759-6-9
Howard, S. and Johnson, B. (2000) ‘What makes the difference? Children and teachers talk
about resilient outcomes for children “at risk”’, Educational Studies, Vol. 26, pp. 321–37
Jackson, D., Firtko, A., & Edenborough, M. (2007). Personal resilience as a strategy for
surviving and thriving in the face of workplace adversity: A literature review. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 60, 1–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648. 2007.04412.x.
Jaffee, P., Wilson, S., & Wolfe, D. (1990). Children of battered women. Newburg Park: Sage.
James, W. (1892). Text-book of Psychology. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Jay Turner, R & A. Lloyd, Donald & Roszell, Patricia. (1999). Personal Resources and the
Social Distribution of Depression. American journal of community psychology. 27. 643-
72. 10.1023/A:1022189904602.
60
Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Dohrenwend, B. P., Link, B. G., & Brook, J. S. (1999). A longitudinal
investigation of social causation and social selection processes involved in the association
between socioeconomic status and psychiatric disorders. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 108(3), 490–499.
Joseph M. V., John J. (2008). Impact of parenting styles on child development. Global Academic
Society Journal: Social Science Insight, Vol. 1, No. 5, pp. 16-25. ISSN 2029-0365.
Juhasz, A. M. (1989). Significant others and self-esteem: methods for determining who and
why .Adolescence, 24, 581-594.
Kim-Cohen, J., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Taylor, A. (2004). Genetic and environmental
processes in young children's resilience and vulnerability to socioeconomic deprivation.
Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1983). Work and personality: An inquiry into the impact of social
stratification. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lansford, J E., Malone, P.S., Stevens, K. I., Bates, J. E., & Petit, G.S. (2006). Developmental
trajectories of externalizing and internalizing behaviours: Factors underlying resilience in
physically abused children. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 35- 55.
Larzelere, R. E., Klein, M., Schumm, W. R., & Alibrando, S. A. (1989). Relations of spanking
and other parenting characteristics to self-esteem and perceived fairness of parental
discipline. Psychological Reports, 64, 1140-1142.
Lesch, E., & Jager, N. (2013). Positive and Negative qualities of South African adolescent parent
and peer relationships. Journal of Mental Health. 26 (1) 1-14
Linver MR, Silverberg SB. Parenting as a multidimensional construcTGB: Differential

prediction of adolescents’ sense of self and engagement in problem
behavior. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine & Health. 1995;8:29–40.
Luster, T., Rhoades, K., & Haas, B. (1989). The relation between parental values and parenting
behavior: A test of the Kohn hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 139-
147.
Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions
and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857–885. doi:
10.1017/S0954579400004156.
Maccoby, E. E. (1980). Social developmenTGB: Psychological growth and the parent-child

relationship. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
61
Maheswari, R. et al. (2016, October). A Study on Self-Esteem Among the College Students.
Retrieved from http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.
%2021%20Issue10/Version-8/B2110080810.pdf
Margolin, L., Blyth, D.A., & Carbone, D. (1988). The family as a looking glass: Interpreting
family influences on adolescent self-esteem from a symbolic interaction perspective.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 211-224.
Martínez, I., & García, J. (2007). Impact of parenting styles on adolescents' selfesteem and
internalization of values in Spain. The Spanish Journal Of Psychology, 10(2), 338-348.
Martínez, I., & García, J. (2008). Internalization of values and self-esteem among Brazilian
teenagers from authoritative, indulgent, authoritarian, and neglectful homes. Family
Therapy, 35(1), 43-59.
Martínez, I., García, J., & Yubero, S. (2007). Parenting styles and adolescents' self-esteem in
Brazil. Psychological Reports, 100(3, Pt 1), 731-745. doi:10.2466/PR0.100.3.731-745.
Martinez-Torteya, Cecilia, Bogat, G. Anne, von Eye, Alexander and. Levendosky, Alytia A.
(2009). Resilience Among Children Exposed to Domestic Violence: The Role of Risk
and Protective Factors. Child Development, Volume 80, Number 2, 562–577. Retrieved
September 8, 2017, from http://academiapedagogilor.ro/images/26.pdf
Massinga & Pecora (2004). Adolescents’ perspectives on placement moves and congregate
settings: Complex and cumulative instabilities in out-of-home care. Children and Youth
Services Review, 31 (2) 265-273.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magics: Resilience processes in development. Am Psychol, 56,

227-238.
Masten, A. S., & Wright, M. O. (1998). Cumulative risk and protection models of child
maltreatment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 2(1), 7–30.
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, M. (1990). Resilience and developmenTGB:
Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and
Psychopathology, 2, 425–444. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400005812z.
McLeod, B. D., Wood, J. J., & Weisz, J. R. (2007). Examining the association between parenting
and childhood anxiety: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(2), 155-172.
doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2006.09.002
McLeod, S. (2008). Self-Concept. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/self-

concept.html
62
Menaghan, E. G., & Parcel, T. L. (1991). Determining children's home environments: The
impact of maternal characteristics and current occupational and family conditions.
Journal of Marriage & the Family, 53, 417-431.
Miech, R.A., & Hauser, R. M. (2001). Socioeconomic status and health at midlife. A comparison
of educational attainment with occupation-based indicators. Annuals of Epidemiology,
11(2), 75–84.
Mohammadi, K., Samavi, A. S. and Azadi, A., 2013, The parenting styles and resilience in
depressed and non-depressed 14 -17 years students. Academic J. Psych. Stu., 2: 15-25.
Mruk, C. (1995). Self-esteem: Research, theory, and practice. New York: Springer
Muhammad, A. et al. (2015). Self-Esteem & Academic Performance among University Students.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083788.pdf
Murray L, de Rosnay M, Pearson J, Bergeron C, Schofield E, Royal-Lawson M, Cooper PJ.

(2008). Intergenerational transmission of maternal social anxiety: The role of social
referencing processes in infancy. Child Development. 79:1049–1064.
Murry, V. M., Bynum, M. S., Brody, G. H., Willert, A., & Stephens, D. (2001). African
American Single Mothers and Children in ContexTGB: A Review of Studies on Risk and
Resilience. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4(2), 133–155.
Neff,D. K., & McGehee, P. (2013). Self-compassion and resilience among adolescents and
young adults. Self and Identity, 9 (3) 225-240.
Obradovic, J., Shaffer, A., & Masten, A. S. (2012). Risk and adversity in developmental psy- ´
chopathology: Progress and future directions. In L. C. Mayes & M. Lewis (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of environment in human development (pp. 35–57). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ojha, H., & Pramanick, M. (1995). Parental behavior as related to some personality traits of
adolescents. Psychologia, 38, 31-37.
Openshaw, D. K., Thomas, D. L., & Rollins, B. C. (1983). Socialization and adolescent self-
esteem: Symbolic interaction and social learning explanations. Adolescence, 18, 317-
329.
Openshaw, D. K., Thomas, D. L., & Rollins, B. C. (1984). Parental influences of adolescent self-
esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 4, 259-274.
Parke, R. D., and Buriel, R. (1998). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological
perspectives. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) and N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
63
psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 463–
552). New York: Wiley.
Paulson, S. E., Hill, J. P., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1991). Distinguishing between perceived
closeness and parental warmth in families with seventh grade boys and girls. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 11, 276-293.
Peterson, G. W., Southworth, L. E., & Peters, D. F. (1983). Children's self-esteem and maternal
behavior in three low-income samples. Psychological Reports, 52, 79-86.
Petrowski, K., Brähler, E., and Zenger, M. (2014) The relationship of parental rearing behavior
and resilience as well as psychological symptoms in a representative sample. Health and
Quality of Life Outcomes DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-95
Redenbach, S., 1991. Self-Esteem, the Necessary Ingredient for Success. Esteem Seminar
Programs and Publications, USA.
Resilience: The Art of Bouncing Back to Life. (n.d.). [ebook] p.1. Retrieved July 23, 2017:
http://www.siervasdesanjose.org/servicios/recursos/file/RESILIENCE.ENG.pdf
Ritchie, C., & Buchanan, A. (2011). Self-report of negative parenting styles, psychological
functioning and risk of negative parenting by one parent being replicated by the other in a
sample of adolescent ages 13-15. Child Abuse Review, 20 (6), 421-438.
Ritsher, J. E. B., Warner, V., Johnson, J. G., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (2001). Inter-generational
longitudinal study of social class and depression: A test of social causation and social
selection models. British Journal of Psychiatry, 178(Suppl40), s84–s90.
Ritter, E. N. (2010). Parenting styles: Their impact on the development of adolescent resiliency.
Doctoral dissertation. Capella University. AAT. 3161747.
Roberts, Robert & Bengtson, Vern. (1993). Relationships With Parents, Self-Esteem, and
Psychological Well-Being in Young Adulthood. Social Psychology Quarterly. 56. 263.
10.2307/2786663.
Rosier, K.B., & Corsaro, W.A. (1993). Competent parents, complex lives: Managing parenthood
in poverty. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22 (2), 171-204.
Rutter, M. (1981). Stress, coping and developmenTGB: Some issues and some questions. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 22, 323–356. doi:
10.1111/j.1469-7610.1981.tb00560.x
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316–331.
64
Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers,
parents, and friends, as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 14, 226-249.
Scott, W. A., Scott, R., & McCabe, M. (1991). Family relationship and children's personality: A
cross-cultural, cross-source comparison. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 1-20.
Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E., and Levin, H. (1957). Patterns of child rearing. Evanston, IL: Row,
Peterson.
Seifer, R., & Sameroff, A. J. (1987). Multiple determinants of risk and vulnerability. In E. J.
Anthony & B. J. Cohler (Eds.), The invulnerable child (pp. 51–69). New York, NY:
Guilford Press
Shumow, L., Vandell, D.L., & Posner, J.K. (1998). Harsh, firm, and permissive parenting in low-
income families. Journal of Family Issues, 19 (5), 483- 507.
Sigelman C. K. (1999) Lifespan Human Development, Third Edition. Brooks/Cole Publishing

Company, p. 401.
Simonsi, L. G., & Conger, D. R. (2007). Linking mother-father differences in parenting to a

typology of family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family issues,
(28) 212.
Sirin, S.R. and L. Rogers-Sirin, 2004. Exploring school engagement of middle-class African
American adolescents. Youth Soc., 35: 323-340.
Socioeconomic Status: Risks and Resilience (PDF Download Available). Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226487001_Socioeconomic_Status_Risks_and_
Resilience [accessed Mar 01 2018].
Steyn, S. T. (2006). Resilience in adolescents: A psycho-educational perspective. Pretoria:

University of South Africa.
Suàrez-Orozco, C., Bang, H.J. and Kim, H.Y. (2011) ‘“I felt like my heart was staying behind”:
Psychological implications of family separations & reunifications for immigrant youth’.
Journal of Adolescent Research 26(2): 222-257 (DOI: 10.1177/0743558410376830).
Sun, S., Fan, F., Zheng, Y. and Zhu, Q. (2012). Mediating the effect of resilience between
parenting styles and PTSD symptoms in adolescents. Chinese Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 20, 4, 502-505.
The Baumrind Theory of Parenting Styles. (n.d.). Retrieved August 09, 2017, from
http://oureverydaylife.com/baumrind-theory-parenting-styles-6147.html
65
The Bowen Family Systems Theory. (2015). ISS Family Institute, p.1. Retrieved August 9, 2017,
from http://www.isshk.org/files/3_6_3_FI_Bowen_Theory_PDF__EN_26_Oct_2015.pdf
Twenge, J. M., & Crocker, J. (in press). Race and self-esteem: Meta-analyses comparing Whites,
Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians, including a commentary on Gray-Little
and Hafdahl. 2000 Psychological Bulletin.
Twenge, J.M. & Campbell, W.K. (2002). Self-Esteem and Socioeconomic Status: A Meta-
Analytic Review. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240284152_Self-
Esteem_and_Socioeconomic_Status_A_Meta-Analytic_Review
Twycross, A., & Shields, L. (2008). Content analysis. Pediatric Nursing, 20(6), 38.
Walker, L. S., & Greene, J. W. (1986). The social context of adolescent self-esteem. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 15, 315-322.
Wallace, K. (2017, February 08). Heres how harsh parenting can backfire. Retrieved February
28, 2018, from https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/08/health/harsh-parenting-education-
study/index.html
Walsh, F. (1998) Strengthening Family Resilience. New York: Guilford Press
Wayne W. LaMorte, MD, PhD, MPH (2016). Behavioral Change Models:

The Social Cognitive Theory, Retrieved from http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-
Modules/SB/BehavioralChangeTheories/BehavioralChangeTheories5.html
Werner, E. (2005) ‘What can we learn about resilience from large-scale longitudinal studies?’, in
S. Goldstein and R. Brooks (eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (91-106). New
York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Werner, E. E. and Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but Invincible: A Study of Resilient Children,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA,
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the Odds: High Risk Children from Birth to
Adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Werner, E., E. (1989). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient children. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Wolf, J. (2000). Self-esteem: The Influence of Parenting Styles. Retrieved from

http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2536&context=theses
66
Wood JJ, McLeod BD, Sigman M, Hwang WC, Chu BC. Parenting and childhood anxiety:
Theory, empirical findings, and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry. 2003;44:134–151.
Wright, J. D., & Wright, S. R. (1976). Social class and parental values for children: A partial
replication and extension of the Kohn thesis. American Sociological Review, 41, 527-
537.
Yang, F., & Liang, N. (2008). A study on the influence of early experiences on adolescents'
implicit self-esteem. Psychological Science (China), 31(3), 556-561.
Zakeri, H., Jowkar, B., & Razmjoee, M. (2010). Parenting styles and resilience. Science Direct,
5, 1067-1070.
67
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: SCALES
1ST QUANTITATIVE SCALE
68
69
2ND QUANTITATIVE SCALE
70
71
72
73
74
APPENDIX B
QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What are the factors that affect your resilience?
2. Which factor affects your resilience the most?
3. In what way does this factor affect your resilience?
4. What are the factors that affect your self-esteem?
5. Which factor affects your self-esteem the most?
6. In what way does this factor affect your self-esteem?
75
APPENDIX C
CONSENTS
76
1ST QUANTITATIVE PARENTAL CONSENT
77
2ND QUANTITATIVE PARENTAL CONSENT
78
PARENTAL CONSENT FOR QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW
79
APPENDIX D
TRANSCRIPT OF QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS
PARTICIPANT 1
Gender: F
Age: 14
TRANSCRIPT
Interviewer: So yung first question, what are the factors that affect your resilience?
P1: Mostly po family members tsaka friends
Interviewer: In what way does this factor – family, affect your resilience?
P1: Minsan po nagse-share po kami ng problems, tsaka mga deep talks tungkol sa family
Interviewer: Ah so meron pa rin kayong time na makapag-open talaga?.
P1: Opo.
Interviewer: Free ka ba na nakakapag-open sa kanila?
P1: Opo, minsan po hindi.
Interviewer: How about sa friends, in what way does it affect your resilience?
P1: Doon po talaga yung mga mas deep, mas comfortable po ako mag-open
Interviewer: Next question, what are the factors that affect your self-esteem?
P1: Depende naman po
Interviewer: Sa tingin mo sino yung pinaka-source ng self-esteem mo?
P1: Siguro po friends
Interviewer: Ah, friends lang yung factor sa self-esteem? Or may family rin?
P1: Minsan po sa family parang ako lang po yung naiiba sa kanila
Interviewer: Paanong naiiba?
P1: Parang ano po, lahat po sila parang maganda yung mga nangyayari, parang ako lang po yung naiiba
Interviewer: Ah, feeling mo ba naa-out of place ka sa kanila?
P1: Opo
Interviewer: So which factor affects your resilience the most?
P1: Friends po
Interviewer: Pero ‘pag sa self-esteem, family? Kasi nga parang di mo nafi-feel na parang belong ka? Pero supportive
naman sila?
P1: Opo
80
PARTICIPANT 2
Gender: M
Age: 14
TRANSCRIPT
Interviewer: First question, what are the factors that affect your resilience?
P2: Ano, mother and father ko po
Interviewer: Family talaga?
P2: Opo
Interviewer: Tapos friends din, or—
P2: Hindi po
Interviewer: So family lang talaga?
P2: Family lang po talaga
Interviewer: In what way does this factor affect your resilience?
P2: Like, emotionally po
Interviewer: Nag-a-assist ba sila, ganoon? Paano, i-elaborate mo kung paano sila nakakatulong sa resilience mo.
Nakakapag-open ka sa kanila, ganoon?
P2: Bihira lang po ako mag-open sa kanila
Interviewer: So most of the time, wala kang na napag-o-openan ng mga problema, ganon?
P2: Opo, so ano, sinosolo ko lang yung problema ko para di ko na po ma—
Interviewer: Para ‘di ka makaistorbo sa kanila?
P2: Opo
Interviewer: Pero emotionally nakakatulong naman sila, kahit papano?
P2: Opo, emotionally po
Interviewer: Sa self-esteem naman, what are the factors that affect your self-esteem?
P2: Mostly po ano, uhm, siblings or friends ko po nakakatulong sakin
Interviewer: Siblings lang sa family?
P2: Pero family, rarely lang po kasi—
Interviewer: Pero supportive ba sila?
P2: Supportive naman po
Interviewer: Pero mas nabo-boost ba yung self-esteem mo pagdating sa kanila?
P2: Opo
Interviewer: Pero bukod sa ibang activities mo, hindi ba gaanong ka supportive yung parents mo?
P2: Supportive naman po, like for example, uhm video games, and mga studies ko if ever may needed po
Interviewer: Pero friends talaga yung nagbo-boost?
P2: Friends po talaga
Interviewer: And siblings as well?
P2: Siblings po nakakapag-boost din
Interviewer: Sa resilience, family, tapos sa self-esteem friends. Pero mas lamang lang talaga yung friends?
P2: Opo, kesa sa family.
81
PARTICIPANT 3
Gender: F
Age: 15
TRANSCRIPT
Interviewer: So, first question, what are the factors that affect your resilience?
P3: Yung mga, yung family ko tsaka specially yung friends po, mga friends
Interviewer: Pero sa tingin mo, which factor affects your resilience the most? Friends or family?
P3: Friends po
Interviewer: Sa resilience?
P3: Opo
Interviewer: In what way does this factor affect your resilience?
P3: Mga advices po
Interviewer: Sa friends nakakapag-open ka?
P3: Opo
Interviewer: Pero sa family hindi?
P3: Hindi po kasi ako masyadong nag-oopen sa kanila
Interviewer: Pero I mean kung may mga problema ka naman na tingin mo pwede mong sabihin sa kanila,
nakakapag-open ka ba sa family mo?
P3: Opo pero hindi talaga ganon ka-open
Interviewer: Mas comfortable ka lang sa friends?
P3: Opo
Interviewer: Sa self-esteem mo naman or sa self-value mo, what are the factors that affect your self-esteem?
P3: Yun din, same answer
Interviewer: Friends din?
P3: Tsaka, pero minsan other people din po
Interviewer: In your perspective, which of the factors – sa friends or family affects your self-esteem the most?
P3: Siguro yung nagpapataas po friends and family, tapos yung mga nagpapababa siguro yung mga ibang
tao.
Interviewer: Paano nakakaapekto yung family mo sa self-esteem mo?
P3: Parang ine-encourage lang po nila ako na mas anuhan pa po
Interviewer: Mas magtiwala ka sa sarili mo?
P3: Opo
Interviewer: Sa friends, ganoon din ba?
P3: Opo
Interviewer: Sa resilience, friends yung mas nakakapag-open ka?
P3: Opo
Interviewer: Sa family naman yung self-esteem?
P3: Opo
Interviewer: So sa self-esteem mo, which factor affects your resilience the most? Family or friends?
P3: Family po
82
PARTICIPANT 4
Gender: F
Age: 13
TRANSCRIPT
Interviewer: So yung first question, what are the factors that affect your resilience?
P4: Sa pamilya po, tsaka sa mga classmate po
Interviewer: Sa family mo, paano sila nakaka-apekto sa resilience mo?
P4: Palagi pong pinapagalitan kahit wala naman pong ginagawang mali, tapos po kapag ginawa naman po
yung tama palagi na lang pong sinasabihan ng mga masasakit na salita tapos pinapahiya sa maP3ing mga
tao.
Interviewer: Pero hindi ka nakakapag-open sa kanila?
P4: Hindi po
Interviewer: Kung may mga problema ka na sa tingin mo pwede naman ka nilang tulungan nakakapag-open ka?
P4: Opo, minsan.
Interviewer: Supportive naman sila sayo?
P4: Opo
Interviewer: Mga classmates mo naman, paano sila nakaka-apekto sa resilience mo?
P4: Yung may bullying minsan, tapos hinahayaan ko na lang po sila, pero palagi na lang pong ganoon araw-
araw.
Interviewer: In any way hindi ba sila nakakatulong sa resilience mo?
P4: Ano po, binibigyan po ng, palagi pong nagiging masaya minsan, kahit po minsan ano, mahirap din
magkaroon ng mga sinasabi na masasakit na salita sa akin.
Interviewer: May mga kaklase ka ba, or mga friends mo na nakakapag-open ka naman sa kanila?
P4: Opo
Interviewer: Pero sa resilience mo, kanino ka mas nakakahingi ng tulong para makapag-cope up sa mga problema?
P4: Ano po, kaibigan ko po.
Interviewer: Kaibigan, kesa family?
P4: Opo
Interviewer: Pero family din nakakatulong naman kahit papano?
P4: Opo
Interviewer: Next question, what are the factors that affect your self-esteem?
P4: Pamilya ko din po
Interviewer: Family naman sa self-esteem?
P4: Opo
Interviewer: Pero sa tingin mo sino yung mas nakaka-boost talaga ng self-esteem mo?
P4: Pamilya po
Interviewer: Family?
P4: Opo
Interviewer: Pero sa tingin mo pano sila nakakaapekto sa self-esteem mo?
P4: Ayun nga po sa araw-araw na palaging sinasabi nila po sakin parang ano na po, parang, parang wala na
pong umaano sa ulo ko, na palagi pong sinasabihan sakin ng mga maling bagay kahit naman po…
Interviewer: Ano, parang kahit anong gawin mong tama, nakikita pa rin nila yung mali?
P4: Opo
Interviewer: Pero wala silang parang positive na binibigay sa self-esteem mo? Parang di ka ba nila ine-encourage,
parang support?
P4: Meron naman pong support
Interviewer: Sa friends naman pano nila naaapektuhan? Positive ba or negative yung nakaka-affect sa self-esteem
mo?
P4: Negative po
Interviewer: Negative, kasi?
P4: Sila po yung natatakbuhan ko kapag may problema ako
Interviewer: Negative? Or positive?
P4: Positive po pala
83
Interviewer: Ine-encourage ka ba nila?

P4: Opo
Interviewer: Pero wala naming negative na binubully ka ng mga kaibigan mo, hindi naman?
P4: Hindi naman po
Interviewer: Parang mas more on positive sila?
P4: Opo
PARTICIPANT 5
Gender: M
Age: 15
TRANSCRIPT
Interviewer: So, first question, what are the factors that affect your resilience?
P5: Sa pagco-cope ng problema, usually po sarili ko lang talaga po
Interviewer: Ah, sarili lang?
P5: Opo, pero minsan pag—
Interviewer: Bukod sa sarili, ano pa ibang source?
P5: Ibang source? Usually po sa bestfriend ko
Interviewer: Ah, friends?
P5: Sa mga ka-close ko po na mga kinakausap ko in a deep level. Minsan din po yung kapatid ko po kasi very
close po kami.
Interviewer: So nakakapag-open ka?
P5: Opo, opo.
Interviewer: Pero sa parents mo ba?
P5: Hindi po, nahihiya po ako sa parents ko.
Interviewer: Pero may mga times ba na kahit papano may mga problema ka na nagpapatulong ka sa parents mo, or
wala?
P5: Wala po
Interviewer: Friends or kapatid talaga?
P5: Opo
Interviewer: Pero which factor affects your resilience the most? Yung friends mo or kapatid mo? Kanino ka mas
comportable mag open-up?
P5: Sa friends ko po
Interviewer: In what way do they affect your resilience?
P5: Parang pag nagsabi po ako ng problema, pwede po nila sabihan yung kanilang view or perspective sa
sitwasyon.
Interviewer: Advices?
P5: Opo, mga ganon.
Interviewer: Tapos sa self-esteem mo naman. what are the factors that affect your self-esteem?
P5: Mostly family po. Parang pinapa-make feel naman po sakin na I am a part of their family po. Parang
meron po talaga kong impact sa mundo.
Interviewer: Ah, okay. So sa self-esteem family lang talaga?
P5: Opo
Interviewer: Sa tingin mo bukod sa pinapa-feel nila sayo na part ka talaga ng family, ano pang ibang dahilan bakit
nila napapataas yung self-esteem mo?
P5: Yung family po?
Interviewer: Yup.
P5: Ine-encourage po ako. Parang sa mga life goals ko po, parang pag pinapakita ko po sila, tinatanong ko po
sila kung ano pong thoughts nila, mga ganon. Parang binibigay naman po nila yung realistic, and mostly
positive naman po, kaya parang feeling ko po, na-aachieve ko po yung goal ko po slowly while on a young age
pa po.
Interviewer: May idea ka ba kung bakit mataas yung self-esteem mo?
P5: Di ko din po alam, pero sa tingin ko po parang sarili lang talaga po yun, parang kung di po kayo
mapupunta sa part ng buhay kung saan iisipin niyo po na wala po kayong kwenta.
84
Interviewer: Ah, you mean to say, optimistic ka talaga?

P5: Opo, optimistic ako.
PARTICIPANT 6
Gender: F
Age: 13
TRANSCRIPT
Interviewer: For the first question, what are the factors that affect your resilience?
P6: Family po, parents.
Interviewer: Any other factors? How about friends?
P6: Hindi po.
Interviewer: When you mean family, does it include your siblings or just your parents?
P6: Parents lang po.
Interviewer: So, if parents, in what way does this factor, how do they affect your resilience?
P6: Ano po, sa pag-aaral ko po. Kasi para po-, para po sila po yung parang nagco-control kung, sila rin po
yung nagde-desisyon kung ano po yung dapat kong gawin kahit hindi ko po gusto.
Interviewer: So, you never get to open or share to your family? Sa friends mo di ka rin nago-open?
P6: Minsan po sinasarili ko lang. Minsan sa friends po.
Interviewer: Between family and friends, kanino ka mas comfortable magshare ng problema?
P6: Friends po.
Interviewer: Pero which factor affects your resilience the most?
P6: Friends parin po.
Interviewer: For the next question, this is regarding your self-esteem. What do you think are the factors that affect
your self-esteem?
P6: Yung nakaka-apekto po?
Interviewer: Yup, sa tingin mo sino-sino yung mga nakaka-apekto sa self-esteem mo?
P6: Parents po, lalo na ngayon po, parents.
Interviewer: Paano?
P6: Ayun nga po, yung sinabi ko po kanina. Parang, pinu-push nila-, pinu-push po nila ako sa mga ayaw
kong gawin. Tapos, minsan po ano (pauses for a while), parang (fighting against the urge to cry)…
Interviewer: It’s okay, take your time.
P6: Uhm… Ah, yung ano po, wala ho akong mapagsabihan ng problema lalo na po pag… (pauses - fighting
against the urge to cry, then smiles) Ayoko eh. (laughs)
Interviewer: Sige, ganito nalang, sa tingin mo ba controlling sila sainyo? Feeling mo ba pini-pressure ka sa
academics?
P6: Opo.
Interviewer: Pero sa self-esteem mo ba family lang yung factor?
P6: Opo
Interviewer: Are their times na supportive sila? Do they encourage you to do better in school?
P6: Hindi po.
Interviewer: So, family is the factor that affects your self-esteem the most?
P6: Opo.
Interviewer: Then sa resilience, family and friends?
P6: Opo.
85
PARTICIPANT 7
Gender: M
Age: 13
TRANSCRIPT
Interviewer: For our first question, what do you think are the factors that affect your resilience?
P7: Ano po ulit yung resilience?
Interviewer: Resilience is yung ability mo to cope or overcome yung mga difficulties that you experience in life.
P7: Ah kapag sa resilience po, yung mama ko po.
Interviewer: Any other factors? How about friends?
P7: Uhm, parang hindi po.
Interviewer: Ah okay, so kung family, mostly mommy mo lang talaga?
P7: Opo.
Interviewer: How does this factor, which in your case is yung mommy mo, affect your resilience?
P7: Nagse-share po ako sa kanya, kapag po may problema ako, sa kanya din ako lumalapit.
Interviewer: Aside from your mom, do you consider yung mga kapatid mo as a factor for your resilience?
P7: Minsan lang-, minsan po.
Interviewer: Okay, so just to clarify, hindi ka nakakapag-open sa friends mo, and mommy mo lang talaga yung sa
resilience?
P7: Opo, mommy ko lang po talaga.
Interviewer: Okay, let’s proceed with self-esteem naman, what do you think are the factors that affect your self-
esteem?
P7: Yung mga kaibigan ko po.
Interviewer: So, friends naman sa self-esteem?
P7: Opo.
Interviewer: Sa tingin mo, in what way sila nakaka-apekto sa self-esteem mo? Positive ba or negative?
P7: Negative po.
Interviewer:Kasi?
P7: Kasi po gumagala po sila.
Interviewer: What do you mean by gumagala sila?
P7: Yung umaalis po sila tapos hindi po ako nakakasama…
Interviewer: Ah, hindi ka ba pinapayagan?
P7: Opo.
Interviewer: What else? Ano pa yung negative effect nila sa self-esteem mo?
P7: Minsan po, nabu-bully po ako, parang inaasar po.
Interviewer: Wala bang factor na nagpo-provide ng positive effect sa self-esteem mo?
P7: Yung best friend ko po.
Interviewer: And sino pa?
P7: Yung mama ko rin po.
Interviewer: Positive din yung effect ng mommy mo?
P7: Opo, positive po.
Interviewer: Paano nakaka-affect mommy mo?
P7: Tinutulungan po ako sa mga ano, problema ko, tapos supportive din po sya sa mga ginagawa ko sa
school, sa mga activities ko po andyan po sya palagi.
Interviewer: Okay, so pagdating sa self-esteem, negative yung friends mo then positive effect yung best friend and
mommy mo?
P7: Opo.
86
PARTICIPANT 8
Gender: F
Age: 16
TRANSCRIPT
Interviewer: For our first question, what are the factors that affect your resilience?
P8: Parents po.
Interviewer: In what way does your parents affect your resilience?
P8: Uhm, kasi, ano ba to parang… Uhm, parang lagi silang di nakatingin, nakatuon yung pansin sa’kin, puro
sa mga dalawa kong kapatid. Lagi -, yung, yung mama ko lagi nasa, nakatutok sa bunso. Yung papa ko
naman, laging nasa panganay.
Interviewer: Ah, middle child ka pala?
P8: Opo. Tapos naman, yung lolo at lola ko, yung lola ko mas ano siya sa may, iba kong pinsan. Di siya-,
masyadong, na---, napapalapit sa’min. Bihira lang siya pumunta sa bahay, pero, tapos yung lolo ko naman,
ganoon din, sa bunso rin.
Interviewer: So, this is why mababa yung resilience mo?
P8: Opo.
Interviewer: Are there any other factors? Which affects your resilience in a positive light?
P8: Yes, friends po.
Interviewer: What about your friends? How do they affect your resilience?
P8: Ano, lagi nila akong pinapasaya. Tsaka, pag may mga problema lagi silang nandya-dyaan.
Interviewer: Sa family mo ba hindi ka ba nakakapag open up about your problems?
P8: Hindi po, hindi po ako nakakapag-open.
Interviewer: This is because, you feel that you are not a priority?
P8: Opo, tsaka, tsaka baka sabihin nila na-, baka nage-emote lang ako ganun.
Interviewer: Pero who affects your resilience the most?
P8: Friends po.
Interviewer: Okay, second question is regarding your self-esteem naman, what do you think are the factors that
affect your self-esteem?
P8: Sa self-esteem, parents pa rin po.
Interviewer: How do they affect?
P8: Parang lagi nalang sinasabi sa’kin na-, ang baba ng mga grades ko ganun. La-, lagi nila kong parang
pini-pressure ganun. Kaya parang feeling ko sa sarili ko, lumiliit yung ano ko, self-esteem ko.
Interviewer: Aside from your academics, may iba pang reason?
P8: Wala na po, ayun lang.
Interviewer: But, are they supportive when you have any co-curricular activities?
P8: Pag may mga activities ako, lagi naman silang wala, kasi-, ngayon yung parents ko nasa ibang bansa,
OFW sila.
Interviewer: Oh okay, that explains it. Other factors? How about friends?
P8: Hindi, pero siguro through compliments po, pina-paangat nila yung self-esteem ko. Pero yung pamilya ko
naman po yung nagpapababa.
Interviewer: Okay, so sa mga factors, who affects your self-esteem the most?
P8: Parents po.
Interviewer: Pero hindi ka naman ba pinagagalitan parati?
P8: Hindi naman palagi, napupuna lang talaga minsan. Tsaka kasi pag minsan pag nasa school ako, ang
saya-saya, pero parang pagdating sa bahay puro problema lagi yung salubong sa’kin.
Interviewer: Kaya mas comfortable ka with your friends sa school?
P8: Opo.
87

Provido Vergara Thesis Ii

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Provido Vergara Thesis Ii

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Parenting Styles, Psychological Resilience, Self-Esteem

The Association Among Perceived Parenting Style, Psychological Resilience,

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY

Luisa Anne Marie D. Provido

The Association Among Perceived Parenting Style, Psychological Resilience,

Luisa Anne Marie D. Provido

Alexandra Rae M. Vergara

Keywords: Perceived Parenting Style, Self-Esteem, Psychological Resilience,

PROBLEM AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Background of The Study

acceptance from others.

necessary for adolescents (Lesch and Jagger, 2013).

contribute to the self-esteem of an adolescent.

provided by the family.

According to Graetz (1995), socio-economic status is referred to as the social position or

socio-economic status is important since it is linked with physical health, development of

Association described resilience as a process of adapting well in times of adversity, which

A protective mechanism helps to promote effective coping processes or may also

protective mechanisms whether directly or indirectly. As stated by Rutter (1990), protective

Seifer & Sameroff, ´ 1987).

In 2014, Petrowski and colleagues administered a study consisting of 4,983 native

good and bad development of a child.

At adolescence, a developmental process that is most important at this stage is the

or not failure be viewed as a hindrance or a motivation to be better at a task (Coopersmith, 1981).

psychological needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness) are balanced.

children is a powerful predictor on the self-esteem of the child.

Review of Related Literature

Perceived Parenting Style and Psychological Resilience

importance of parental support and secure attachment in developing good psychological

cope better if parental adversities appear later in their life.

relationship was found between resilience and acceptance-involvement styles of parenting,

and healthy relationship.

involved in emotionally supportive friendships were found to be resilient. According to

moderated through good relationships with peers.

contributed to their resilience. However, studies conducted by other researchers reported a

significant relationship between parenting styles and resilience.

had better outcomes despite having to experience maltreatment. Evidence-based studies

Perceived Parenting Style and Self-Esteem

development of self-esteem. During adolescence, self-esteem is still dependent on the quality of

1984; Paulson et al., 1991; Walker & Greene, 1986).

The relationship between the authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and negligent

esteem (Yang & Liang, 2008).

development. The development of psychological and social functioning of a child is largely

individual, more specifically the effect on the socio-emotional development.

Socio-Economic Status and Perceived Parenting Style

varies as a function of socio-economic status. Bronfenbrenner (1958) concluded that

1957), as contrary to the characterization of lower-SES homes having an authoritarian and

An Australian study was conducted to children of ages 9 to 12 in disadvantaged areas and

However, low socio-economic status does not guarantee an authoritarian style of

reliance within their children as a method of teaching resiliency to their children.

(Hoff-Ginsberg and Tardif, 1995).

Socio-Economic Status and Psychological Resilience

self-esteem, specifically status – or aptitude-related indicators of SES, like occupation and

negative experiences such as trauma and exposure to violence.

impoverished circumstances were promoted by maternal warmth.

In developmental psychology, resiliency research led some researchers to differentiate

support on children (Werner and Smith, 1982).

considerable number of studies described adolescents as to being resilient as a result of surviving

adverse events in their life (Luthar, Cicchetti & Becker, 2000).

Dohrenwend, 2001). However, through determination, creativity and versatility, Low-SES

Socio-Economic Status and Self-Esteem

unemployment in the neighborhood, as well as the evaluation of the neighborhood). As expected

considered to have a small contribution on the self-esteem of adolescent; the above-mentioned