Perceived Maternal Parenting Styles and Self-Esteem Between Ever-Smokers Between Never-Smokers College Students

[pic] [pic] AMERICAN DEGREE PROGRAM SENIOR PROJECT NAME:CHENG MELCYN TITLE:Perceived Maternal Parenting Styles and Self-Esteem between Ever-smokers between Never-smokers College Students MAJOR: PSYCHOLOGY SUPERVISOR: MS. YEW WAN PING CO-SUPERVISOR: DR. SUNFA KIM DATE: 18th APRIL 2013 Running Head: PERCEIVED MATERNAL PARENTING STYLE AND SELF-ESTEEM Perceived Maternal Parenting Styles and Self-Esteem between Ever-smokers and Never-smokers College Students ID498 Senior Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science Psychology

By Cheng Melcyn (300 275 775) Approved: ______________________Date: _____________________ Grade: ___ Project Instructor: MS.

We Will Write a Custom Case Study Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

YEW WAN PING Approved: ______________________Date: _____________________ Project Secondary Reader: DR. SUNFA KIM TABLE OF CONTENT ABSTRACT |1. 0 |INTRODUCTION |Page | | |1. 1 |BACKGROUND…

……

……

…..

…..

……

……

…..

…..

……

……

…..

……

……

……

……

…..

… |1 – 2 | | |1. |PROBLEM STATEMENT.

…..

……

……

…..

……

……

…..

……

……

…..

…..

…..

…..

…..

… |2 | | |1. 3 |SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY.

……

…..

……

…..

……

……

…..

…..

…..

……

…..

……

…..

…. |2 – 3 | | |1. 4 |RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS.

……

…..

……

…..

. |3 3 | | | |1. 4. 1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS …………………………………………

……

. | | | |1. 5 |CONCEPTUAL AND OPERATIONAL DEFINITION …………………….. | | | |1. 5.

1 PARENTING STYLE ……………………………………………………

4 – 5 | | | |1. 5. 2 SELF-ESTEEM ………………………………………………………… |6 | | | |1. 5. 3 SMOKING STATUS ……………………………………………….

….. |6 – 7 | | |1.

6 |THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK……

……

……

……

…..

…..

……

…..

…..

……

…..

……

… |7 – 9 | |2. 0 |LITERATURE REVIEW | | | |2. 1 PARENTING STYLES ……………………………………………………… |9 – 11 | | |2.

SELF-ESTEEM ………………………………………………………………. |11 – 12 | |3. 0 |METHODOLOGY | | | |3. 1 |RESEARCH DESIGN…

…..

……

…..

…..

…..

……

……

……

…..

……

…..

……

…..

……

…..

.. |13 | | |3. 2 |SAMPLE..

…..

…..

……

……

……

…..

……

……

……

…..

……

…..

………………………………… |13 | | | |3. 2. 1 INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA ………………………… |13 – 14 | | |3. |MEASUREMENT……………………………………………………….. ………………………. |14 | | | |3. 3. 1 DEMOGRAPGHIC SURVEY…………………………………………. |14 | | | |3. 3. 2 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE (PAQ)……………… |14 | | | |3. 3. 3 ROSERNBERG SELF-ESTEEM SCALE (RSE) . …………………….. |14 – 15 | | |3. 4 |PROCEDURES…………………………………………………………………………………….. 15 | | |3. 5 |STATISTICAL ANALYSIS…………………………………………………………………… |15 | |4. 0 | |RESULT AND DISCUSSION | | | |4. 1 |RESULT…………………………………………………………………….. |15 – 18 | | |4. 2 |DISCUSSION ……………………………………………………………….. |18 – 20 | | |4. 3 |LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………………………… |20 – 21 | |5. | |CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………… |21 | |6. 0 | |REFERRENCES ……………………………………………………………. |22 – 27 | |7. 0 | |APPENDICES………………………………………………………………. |28 – 40 | Abstract This research paper attempt to identify the differences in perceived maternal parenting style and self-esteem between ever-smoker and never-smoker college students from three colleges located in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.

A modified version of Parental Authoritarian Questionnaire (PAQ) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) were used. A total of 120 participants consisted of 87 male and 33 female aged from 18 to 25 years old (M= 21. 88) responded to the questionnaire. Participants consisted of Current-Smoker (46. 7%), Never-smoker (48. 3%) and Former-Smoker (5%). Results showed that there was no significant difference between Ever-smoker and Never-smoker in perceived maternal parenting style and self-esteem. 1. 0 Introduction 1. 1 Background

Smoking tobacco during the adolescent and young adulthood period produces smoking related illness among young adults, including cancer, heart diseases, cardiovascular diseases, stroke and premature death. There are numerous factors that could have initiate tobacco smoking in adolescents and young adults. Among these factors are the parenting style the child received and the self-esteem level of the child. The parental care given to the child is crucial to help maintain physical and mental health as they grow up. Parenting style had been researched extensively with regards to human development (Baldwin, McIntyre & Hardaway, 2007).

The influence of parents is vital in shaping the child’s behavior especially maternal parenting. Mothers are typically considered as the caregivers in the family and have more emotional contact with their children compared to fathers who usually are the sole bread winners in the house hold (Zervides & Knowles, 2007). Specific maternal parenting behaviors that have been found to influence adolescent health risk behaviors such as discipline, level of parental involvement and monitoring, communication method and parental control (Newman, Harrison, Dashiff & Davies, 2008).

Self-esteem has been shown to be a significant variable in determining the outcome of human behavior. Many psychologist viewed self-esteem as an important factor contributing to healthy development during the adolescent period (Rosernberg, 1965). Sociologist Morris Rosenberg (1989) referred self-esteem as a set of perceptions and feelings a person have toward himself. Individual with higher self-esteem perceived themselves as worthy and respectful, whereas a person with lower self-esteem perceived themselves as inferior.

Quite a few of theorists debated that a person with lower self-esteem are more prone to health risk behaviors such as smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and other substance abuse (Wild, Flisher, Bhana and Lombard, 2004). 1. 2 Problem Statement In Malaysia, tobacco use accounts for a great 35% of in-hospital deaths, with three (stroke, cancer, heart disease) out of the country’s five leading mortality diseases. Smoking related diseases is accountable for more than 10,000 deaths of Malaysians every year.

Given these alarming facts, the implementation and enforcement of evidence-based tobacco control measures and policies is urgently needed to stop the growing risk of smoking in Malaysia (Ministry of Health Malaysia, 2011). The prevalence of tobacco use among Malaysian boys and girls aged 13 – 15 years had decreased from 33. 1% to 30. 0% from year 2003 to 2009. Despite of the decrease, the prevalence of tobacco smoking in adolescents remains remarkably high (3 out of 10 Malaysia children smokes tobacco) and is now one of the most important public health challenges (Ministry of Health Malaysia, 2011). . 3 Significance of Study Tobacco smoking is a major problem among Malaysian young adults. Ministry of Health Malaysia (2011) found that 51. 8% of daily young adult smoker (age 20-34) who smokes 14 or more cigarettes a day had started smoking daily before the age of 18. The initiation of tobacco smoking closely relates to the influences the adolescent gain from the environment they are raised in (Chassin, Presson, Rose, Sherman, Davis and Gonzalez, 2005).

In a typical Malaysian culture, a child lives with their parents until they are independent enough to leave the family. College students are the preferable targeted participants for this research as they have just entered young adulthood period and is being prepared to be independent. This research attempts to explore the differences of the variables between ever-smokers and never-smokers in the hope of providing useful information to improve local smoking cessation programs and help prevent adolescent smoking initiation. . 4 Research Objectives & Research Questions To provide better understanding on the differences in perceived maternal parenting styles and self-esteem between ever-smoker and never-smoker college students in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia to help reduce tobacco smoking initiation in adolescents. This study also aimed to examine the types of perceived maternal parenting styles and the level of self-esteem between ever-smoker and never-smoker college students in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. 1. 4. 1 Research Questions ) What are the differences in perceived maternal parenting style between ever-smoker and never-smoker college students in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia? a. Will ever-smoker college students score higher in perceived permissive maternal parenting style as compared to never-smoking college students? b. Will never-smoker college students score higher in perceived authoritarian maternal parenting style as compared to college students who are ever-smoker? 2) Is there any difference in the level of self-esteem between ever-smoker and never-smoker college students in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia? . 5 Conceptual Definition & Operational Definition 1. 5. 1 Parenting style Parenting comprises a set of specific behaviors the parent portray when taking care of the child. These behaviors can strongly influence the behavioral and cognitive outcome of the child. Shouting aloud and spanking may influence the child development, however many theorist argued that these specific parental behaviors have lesser impact than the broad pattern of parenting (Baumrind, 1991) Baumrind’s (1991) suggested two important components of parenting that formed various parenting styles.

First component was the parental demandingness whereby it describes the level of parental control on the behavior of the child. Secondly was the parental responsiveness whereby it indicates the supportiveness and warmth the parents provided for the child. Baumrind referred parental demandingness as: “”The claims parents make on children to become integrated into the family whole, by their maturity demands, supervision, disciplinary efforts and willingness to confront the child who disobeys” (Baumrind, 1991). On the other hand, parental responsiveness was referred as: the extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation, and self-assertion by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s special needs and demands” (Baumrind, 1991) Baumrind proposed four parenting styles typology: Authoritarian, authoritative, permissive and neglectful. Baumrind (1991) suggested that parenting styles is a distinctive balance of Parental Demandingness and Parental Responsiveness. This parenting style provides useful framework to examine the early parents-child relationship.

Authoritarian parenting style is suggested by Baumrind (1991) to be high in demandingness with low parental responsiveness. Authoritarian parents are restrictive, directive and strict. They rarely respond to the child’s needs. Baunrind (1991) explains that an authoritarian parent expects their children to obey the parental orders without any question asked. Authoritative parenting style comprised both demandingness and responsiveness from the parent toward the child. It is the well-balanced parenting style that offers warmth, parental control and parent-child communication.

Baumrind (1991) defined this parenting style as “Assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. ” Permissive parenting style on the other hand has lower parental demandingness but with high parental responsiveness. According to Baumrind (1991), permissive parents are much more lenient and nontraditional. They provide a lot of freedom in the child’s behavior while giving care and love to the child’s needs. Neglectful parenting style has low demandingness and low responsiveness from the parents toward the child.

Neglectful parents pay very little attention to the child’s needs. Operationally, parental demandingness and parental responsiveness can be measured with the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) developed by Buri (1991). The 30-item based questionnaire developed by Buri (1991) measures the parental demandingness and parental responsiveness to identify authoritative, authoritarian and permissive scores for both parents and yields the evaluation of the parents’ authority. 1. 5. 2 Self-Esteem Baumeister (1998) conducted research on self-esteem and defined that it is generally how people perceive, value and act to themselves.

Additionally, Rosenberg, Schooler & Schoenbach (1989) also defined self-esteem as: “totality of the individual’s thoughts and feelings with reference to himself as an object. ” Coopersmith’s (1967) correspondingly extended the definition of self-esteem: “The evaluation which the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to himself: it expresses an attitude of approval and indicates the extent to which an individual believes himself to be capable, signi? cant, successful and worthy.

In short, self-esteem is a personal judgment of the worthiness that is expressed in the attitudes the individual holds towards himself (pp. 4–5). ” Operationally, the 10-item based Rosernberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) was widely used for evaluating individual self-esteem. The RSE model yield the self-confidence and self-depreciation score from the respondent. The higher points the respondent scored indicates higher self-esteem score (Rosernberg, 1965). 1. 5. 3 Smoking Status Tobacco smoking refers to the inhalation and exhalation of smoke from burning tobacco in cigarettes, pipe or cigars.

The nicotine found in tobacco is highly addictive and chemically alter the dopamine and noradrenaline level in the brain. When nicotine is taken in a small amount, the substance creates a pleasant feeling that affects the mood and concentration level of the user resulting repetitive use of the substance to achieve the desirable euphoria (American Cancer Society, 2013). Operationally, Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (2005) grouped smoking status into two main categories: ever-smoker and never-smoker. Ever-smoker comprised of current-smoker, who at least smoked 100 cigarettes in their life time and ho, at the time of survey, smoked either every day or some days; and former-smoker, who smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and who, at the time of the survey, did not smoke at all. Never-smoker on the other hand is defined as a person who did not smoked at all or smoked less than 100 cigarettes in their life time. 1. 6 Theoretical Framework Psychosexual Stages of Development, Oral Fixation The oral stage, first stage of psychosexual stages of development proposed by Sigmund Freud suggest that during this time of life (birth – 24months old), the infant’s main source of pleasure is derived from the mouth.

The infant seeks pleasure from various oral activities such as biting, sucking and swallowing. Too much or overly little gratification during this stage can result in oral fixation whereby the child will seek the oral pleasure later in life (Stevenson, 1996). In this stage, the infant established dependence on the caregiver then builds the libido on the caregiver. The infant learns from the caregiver to perceive the world as satisfying or frustrating, safe or dangerous and good or bad. The caregiver played an important role in determining how the infant will react in their adult life.

Caregiver that allowed the infant to overeat will result the infant to be stuck in the oral fixation stage. There are two possible outcomes in this stage: oral incorporative and oral aggressive. The oral incorporative behavior involves pleasure stimulation of the mouth food or by other people. An infant with oral incorporative behavior seeks oral pleasure such as smoking, drinking, chewing gum and kissing in the adult life. On the other hand, the oral aggressive stage involves he frustration of teeth growth and the infant blames the care giver, usually the mother, for the suffering.

Infants fixated in this stage gain are more prone to verbal aggression (Schultz and Schultz, 2009) The Social Identity Theory According to Tajfel (1981), the Social Identity suggested that it is the individual’s sense of membership in a particular group. Groups that individual categorize themselves in are called in-groups and other individuals that do not fit in are called out-group members. Tajfel (1981) found that the simple act of group categorization can lead to in-group favoritism. Tajfel (1981) also assert that the new member of the group will try to seek recognition from other members of the group.

When in-group favoritism is achieved, the individual felt that they are valued and accepted by other members of the group. The acceptance and recognition from the in-group members enhances the individual’s self-esteem. Social Norms Theory (SNT) Perkins and Berkowitz (1986) proposed that individual behavior is highly influenced by the view and perception of the social group. In other words, the expectation and perception from peers in the social group will greatly influence how a member of the group react and conform to the group as a member of that social group.

The conformity to the expectation and perception to the social group had caused the tendency of increasing problem behavior. When group conformity is desired, the adaptation to the values that the social group perceived as valuable will occur. Findings from a college-based study done by Perkins and Berkowitz (1986) revealed that a college student often exaggerate the alcohol consumption pattern of other students and generally perceived that their peers were more lenient toward alcohol consumption.

Perkins and Berkowitz also suggested that by correcting the misconception, it is possible to reduce not only heavy drinking, but also other harmful consumption such as tobacco smoking. 2. Literature Review 2. 1 Parenting Styles Several researches are done regarding the matter of parenting style and smoking behaviors in young adults. O’Bryne, Haddock and Poston (2002) who sampled 816 adolescents (mean age = 15. 1) found that low parenting control will contribute to the risk factor of smoking initiation in adolescents.

The study also found that smokers who were ready to quit had higher parental control scores than those who were not ready to quit. Bronte-Tinkew and Moore (2004) explored how the father-child relationship and the paternal parenting style are associated with substance abuse and adolescent delinquency. A total of 5,345 adolescents participated in this study. Results showed that a more positive father-child relationship predicts a lower risk of engagement in risky behaviors. Despite of that, having an authoritarian paternal parenting style closely associates with increased risk of substance abuse and delinquency.

In a study to test the relationship between adolescent smoking and parenting practices, Chassin et al. (2005) conducted a test on smoking-related parenting style and a broad parenting style. The results showed that a smoking-related parenting practice reduces the odds of adolescent smoking. The study also found that adolescents that are disengaged from their families are more likely to initiate adolescent smoking. The results from the previous researches was further assured by Endy, Hale, Meeus and Engels (2006) in a longitudinal study of parenting styles, parental support and control on adolescents over 12 months of data collection period.

A total of 1,012 adolescents participated in this study. The findings from this study showed that only adolescents with low parental control are prone to smoking initiation. On the other hand, Endy et al. (2006) also conducted another longitudinal study about “Associations between Parental Anti-smoking Socialization Practices and Early Adolescent Smoking Initiation” whereby 600 families participated in the study. Results showed significant differences between smoking and non-smoking parental practices in demonstrating different attitudes and teaching patterns toward adolescent smoking.

It is also apparent a more abstract parental involvement can prevent adolescent smoking as compared to a stringent parental involvement. Javdan, Mirzadeh, Tadayon and Hormozi (2011) studied the relationship between parenting styles and substance abuse among high school students. 265 high school students were selected randomly and result show similarity to Bronte-Tinkew and Moore’s study that permissive parenting style and authoritarian parenting style have a significant and positive relationship with substance abuse.

Based on past researches, it was hypothesized that ever-smokers would score significantly higher in perceived maternal parenting style than never-smoker due to the reason that ever-smoker might still be in the progress of overcoming the oral fixation stage of psychosexual development. On the other hand, never-smokers were hypothesized to score significantly higher in perceived authoritarian maternal parenting style than ever-smokers for the reason that if never-smokers received more parental control, they are pried away from the oral fixation stage whereby the controlling caregiver carefully monitored the amount of food intake of the infant. . 1 Self-Esteem West and Sweeting (1997) found that there is no positive relationship between the level of self-esteem and health risk behavior such as smoking tobacco, alcohol consumption, drugs and sex. They also concluded that developing self-esteem in oneself is very unlikely to reduce the likelihood of adolescents to adapt to unhealthy lifestyle. Another study by Nuemark-Sztainer, French and Resnick (1997) aimed to identify the relationship of health risk behaviors to psychosocial factors among adolescents. Population of 123,132 adolescents participated.

The results further prove that self-esteem had almost no relation to substance-use, unhealthy weight loss and unsafe sexual activities. However, Nuemark-Sztainer et al. found that self-esteem contributes to suicidal ideation and delinquency. Mullan and NicGabhainn (2002) conducted a study with 7706 Irish young people from the age of 10 – 17 to determine if self-esteem is directly related to health-risk behaviors. The result revealed that there is no significant difference in self-esteem score between those who had and had not tried smoking, drinking and cannabis.

Additionally, the self-esteem score in Irish males are much higher as compared with Irish females. The results do not support that self-esteem confers a protective effect against health risk behaviors. Kavas (2009) investigated the relation between self-esteem and health risk behavior among 243 Turkish young adults and found that there is no significant relationship between self-esteem and smoking tobacco. Kavas also observed that smoking tobacco is a common and socially accepted behavior in the Turkish society.

Although previous studies showed that self-esteem have no significant positive relationship with smoking tobacco in young adults, Kawabata, Cross, Nishioka and Shimai (1999) conducted a research to study the relationship between self-esteem and smoking behavior among Japanese early adolescents. Results showed that there is a significant relationship between self-esteem and smoking behavior among Japanese youth. Never-smokers tend to have higher global self-esteem than ever-smokers. This leads us to the consideration that the self-esteem level might differ across culture.

Sarkova, Middel, Geckova, Katreniakova, Orosova, Heuvel and Dijk (n. d. ) did a study regarding the differences in self-esteem among 950 Hungarian and Slovak adolescents and found that there is a difference in self-esteem score in different cultures. On the other hand, individualist culture emphasizes on personal freedom and independence while collectivist culture emphasizes the tie to societal groups (Taylor, Peplau and Sears, 2006). Self-esteem is closely related to how a person perceived themselves and how other group of the members perceived themselves (Rosernberg et al. , 1989).

In the collectivist society, a person values the perception and recognition from the social group to enhance self-esteem. Thus, present research was being conducted in a collectivist society and was hypothesized that there would be a significant difference in self-esteem score between ever-smokers and never-smokers whereby never-smokers would score higher in self-esteem score compared to ever-smokers. 3. 0 Methodology 3. 1 Research Design Quantitative research approach was chosen because the focus on this study was on the difference between perceived maternal parenting styles and self-esteem on ever-smokers and never-smokers.

It would be more reliable and valid to tabulate the results in data and graph as the results collected by the questionnaire is in quantitative form. A face-to-face survey method was used to collect quantitative data. Convenient and stratified sampling was applied as it involves comparison of data and also the consent and availability of participants to respond. 3. 2 Sample Stratified Convenient Sampling method was used to obtain 120 participants from SEGi University, Taylors University and the International College of KBU for this research. Single parent of father only or orphan were excluded from the research due to the nature of this study.

Only feedbacks from participants with both parents and single mother parent were used. 120 participants (N = 120) consist of 72. 5% male and female 27. 5%, age from 18 to 25 years old (age mean: 21. 88 years old) responded to the questionnaire. Out of the 120 participants, 46. 7% were current smokers, 48. 3% were never-smokers and 5% were ex-smokers. 3. 2. 1 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Only feedbacks from Malaysian college students aged from 18 to 25 years old from SEGi University, Taylor’s University and International College of KBU were used.

Feedbacks from non-Malaysian college students and those that were outside the targeted age range of 18 to 25 years old were excluded. On the other hand, participants that did not receive maternal care will also be excluded from the results. Also, feedbacks from participants that failed to answer the questionnaires completely or answered the questionnaires without reading the questions were excluded. 3. 3 Measurement 3. 3. 1 Demographic Survey Letter to participants and consent form were first given to the participants (refer Appendix A). Then, participants were required to fill up a demographic survey (refer Appendix B).

The demographical survey included the participant’s gender, age, race, academic institution and smoking status. 3. 3. 2 Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri, 1991) which contain a total of 30 parenting style questions. Permissive (items 1, 6, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24 and 28), authoritarian (items 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 16, 18, 25, 26 and 29), and authoritative (items 4, 5, 8, 11, 15, 20, 22, 23, 27, and 30) (refer Appendix C). This instrument was scored with a five-point Likert scale five-point from 1-Strongly Disagree to 5-Strongly Agree. PAQ was found highly reliable with the cronbach alpha of . 7 to . 92 (Buri, 1991). However, the PAQ was being modified to focus on perceived maternal parenting style. The term of “My parents” were being changed to “My mother” to measure the perceived maternal parenting style. 3. 3. 3 Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) RSE was used to measure the level of self-esteem (refer Appendix D). The RSE contain a total of 10 items which are scored with a four-point Likert scale ranging from 0-Strongly Disagree to 3-Strongly Agree. Question 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10 were reverse coded. The higher the participants score in this scale, the higher self-esteem they have.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale has a high reliability with the cronbach alpha of. 92 (Rosenberg, 1965). 3. 4 Procedures Data were collected from students in the smoking area and the library of SEGi University, Taylors University and the International College of KBU to ensure there was a fair equal amount of smoker and never-smoker in the amount of total participants. Firstly, a consent explanation was given to the participants. Upon agreement, they were being asked to spend 10 minutes to answer the questionnaires and were allowed to ask questions if they have problem understanding the questions.

The questionnaires were collected back personally. 3. 5 Statistical Analysis Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze the data in this study. Independent sample t-test and descriptive statistic were conducted in the study to compare the means of both groups. On the other hand, Chi-Square test was used to identify the categorical scores of each parenting styles reported by both ever-smoker and never-smoker subgroups. 4. 0 Result and Discussion 4. 1 Result Current-smoker and former-smoker participants were being categorized into Ever-smokers while never-smokers remained in the Never-smokers category.

Categorization were made to compare the differences of perceived maternal parenting style and self-esteem on the participants who had the initiative to pick up smoking habit and those who did not have that initiative. Table 4. 1: Perceived maternal parenting style |Variables | Ever-smoker (n=62) | | Never-smoker (n=58) | | | |Mean |SD |Mean |SD | |Permissive |25. 903 |4. 99881 |25. 7931 |4. 53353 | |Authoritarian |30. 4677 |4. 92474 |30. 1897 |6. 97227 | |Authoritative |34. 8387 |4. 96194 |34. 9138 |5. 20555 | Note:ta (118)= -0. 003, p>0. 05 tb (101. 884)= 0. 251, p>0. 05 tc (118)= -0. 081 p>0. 05 Referring to table 4. , the mean and standard deviation for perceived maternal parenting style in ever-smokers were permissive: M=25. 7903, SD=4. 99881; authoritarian: M=30. 4677, SD= 4. 92474; and authoritative: M=34. 8387, SD=4. 89293. While never-smokers scored permissive: M=25. 7931 SD=4. 53353, authoritarian: M=30. 1897, SD= 6. 97227, authoritative: M=34. 9138, SD=5. 20555. The independent t-test was applied using the SPSS software to compare the differences of perceived maternal parenting style between ever-smokers and never-smokers.

The results showed that there were no significant differences between perceived parenting style and smoking status; permissive t(118)= -0. 003, p>0. 05, authoritarian t(101. 884)= 0. 251, p>0. 05 and authoritative t(118)= -0. 081 p>0. 05. On the other hand, the Chi-Square test was used to identify the categorical differences on perceived maternal parenting styles reported by the participants. Table: 4. 2 Chi-Square results on Parenting Styles |Parenting Styles | Ever-smoker | Never-smoker | | | | |Total | |Permissive |0 |1 |1 | |Authoritarian |20 |15 |35 | |Authoritative |41 |37 |78 | |Undecided |1 |5 |6 | |Total |62 |58 |120 | Note: x2 (3, N=120) = 4. 458, p>0. 05 Referring to the table 4. 2, results showed categorical scores of perceived maternal parenting styles for ever-smokers and never-smokers participants. None of ever-smoker participants reported perceived permissive maternal parenting style, while only one never-smoker participant reported perceived permissive parenting style. However, 20 ever-smoker participants reported and 15 never-smoker participants reported perceived authoritarian maternal parenting style. On the other hand, most participants reported perceived authoritative maternal parenting style with 41 ever-smokers and 37 never-smokers.

Meanwhile, one ever-smoker participant and 5 never-smoker participants reported an undecided perceived maternal parenting style whereby they scored equally on the same parenting components. The findings further confirmed that there were no significant differences in perceived maternal parenting styles among the sub-groups, x2 (3, N=120) = 4. 458, p>0. 05. The results rejected hypothesis one and hypothesis two whereby it was hypothesized that ever-smokers would score higher in perceived maternal parenting style while never-smokers would score higher in perceived authoritarian maternal style. Surprisingly, none of the ever-smoker participants reported perceived permissive maternal parenting style and greatly rejected the hypothesis that higher parental control prevents smoking initiation. Table 4. 3: Self-esteem Variables | Ever-smoker (n=62) | | Never-smoker (n=58) | | | |Mean |SD |Mean |SD | |Self-Esteem |18. 7419 |4. 96194 |18. 9655 |4. 70522 | Note:t (118) = -0. 253, p>0. 05 Referring to table 4. 3, the mean and standard deviation for self-esteem level in ever-smokers were M=18. 7419, SD=4. 96194; and never-smokers scored M=18. 9655, SD=4. 70522. Independent t-test was used to measure the difference in self-esteem score between ever-smokers and never-smokers. Results showed that there was no significant difference in self-esteem score between the two groups self-esteem t(118) = -0. 253, p>0. 05).

The result also rejected hypothesis three whereby it was hypothesized that there would be s significant difference in self-esteem score between the two groups. 4. 2 Discussion This study was designed to find the differences of perceived maternal parenting styles and self-esteem between ever-smokers and never-smokers college students in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. It was designed to investigate whether a different maternal parenting style and self-esteem level would result in smoking initiation. The findings showed that there were no significant differences between the perceived maternal parenting style and self-esteem level between ever-smoker and never-smoker college students in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Thus, the hypothesis one and two were rejected.

The results contradicted with past researches whereby past researchers discovered that high involvement and high control from parents would help improve and prevent tobacco smoking initiation. Past researchers had their researches mostly done on young adolescents but not on young adults. Typically, young adolescents are greatly influenced by their parents and obeyed what their parents taught them. On the other hand, when young adults enter into adulthood, they are faced with many other external factors to initiate tobacco smoking. External factors such as the influence of peers, the exposure to other smoking adults and media influence can impose the smoking initiation of the young adult.

According to the social identity theory by Tajfel (1981) suggested that a person will try to gain membership of the social group to gain social identity. This theory explained that in this study, parenting style did not influence the ever-smoker participants to initiate cigarette smoking. However, it is the effort of trying to gain membership in the social group that initiated the smoking behavior. On the other hand, present research had been done on college students whom are pursuing their higher education. This led into the consideration that the participants shared the same socioeconomics in their family background. The same level of socioeconomic status might resulted in a similar parenting styles exhibited from the parents toward their children.

On the other hand, the finding also rejected hypothesis three but it is consistent with the results from past researches whereby majority of past researchers found that there is no relationship between self-esteem and smoking initiation (West and Sweeting, 1997; Nuemark-Sztainer et al. , 1997; Mullan and NicGabhainn, 2002; Kavas, 2009) Nevertheless, the present finding this research contradicts with the study done by Kawabata et al. (1999) on the Japanese early adolescent that showed the significantly high self-esteem level in never-smokers compared to ever-smokers. The present finding showed that the participants have an average level of self-esteem score ever-smokers M=18. 75 and never-smokers M=18. 6 which is considered to be average on the Rosernberg Self-Esteem Score of 15-25. With the accessibility to the internet, typical young Malaysians of the 21st century are very exposed to many cultures and media from different parts of the world. The exposure of these cultures and media might be reason behind the similarity in self-esteem level in ever-smoker and never-smoker participants. For instance, a high school drop-out will unnecessarily have lower self-esteem level because of inspiring stories from the internet about high school drop-outs being successful businessman. On the other hand, another possibility was that ever-smokers used to have lower self-esteem in the past before adapting the smoking habit.

It might be that the enhancement of self-image and recognition after picking up smoking habit boosted the self-esteem level to be equivalent to never-smokers. 4. 3 Limitations & Recommendations There were several limitations in the present research that should be addressed to allow improvement for future researchers in the same field of research. Firstly, the sample size of 120 participants from only three higher education institution was insufficient to represent the population of ever-smoker and never-smoker college students in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. In order to improve on the sampling size, at least 100 participants from each college that is in the Petaling Jaya, Malaysia should be obtained to achieve diversification across Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.

The second limitation was the demographic of the participants. Different ethnic group might have difference in parenting style and self-esteem level. In the present research, majority of the participants were Chinese (76. 7%) while Malay only consists of (9. 2%) and Indian (13. 3%). The disproportional of ethnic groups is incompatible to represent the population of college students in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Department of Statistics Malaysia (2010) recorded the three main ethnic groups consist of Malay (63. 1%), Chinese (24. 6%) and Indian (7. 3%). Future improvement can be made by recruiting participants using the stratified method to balance out the number of participants in each main ethnic group.

The third limitation was the length and depth of the questionnaire to measure perceived maternal parenting style. Participants took longer time than expected to complete the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) which consists of 30 specific questions and some of the participants faced difficulties understanding the questionnaire. On the other hand, it was being observed that 6 participants answered the questionnaire without reading the questions. To obtain better findings in the future, the researcher should inform participants regarding the importance and benefits of understanding and answering the questionnaire truthfully. 5. 0 Conclusion

This research was conducted to find the differences in perceived maternal parenting style and self-esteem level in ever-smoker and never-smoker Petaling Jaya college students. The results for this research showed that there were only minor differences between the two groups and the differences were not significant. Consequently, the result provided an insight for future researchers to explore into other factors behind smoking initiation among Malaysian youths. 6. 0 References American Cancer Society. (2013). Is smoking tobacco really addictive?. Retrieved on 8 April 2013, from http://www. cancer. org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/002974-pdf. pdf Baldwin, D. , McIntyre, A. , & Hardaway, E. (2007).

Perceived parenting styles on college students’ optimism. College Student Journal, 41(3), 550-557. Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds. ), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 680–740). New York: Random House. Retrieved on 1 February 2013 from http://books. Google. com. my/books? id=ZiQtTi6_RC0C&pg=PA369&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95. Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83-96 Bronte-Tinkew, J. and Moore, K. A. 2004-08-14 “The Father-Child Relationship, Parenting Styles, and Adolescent Risk Behaviors in Intact Families” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Hilton San Francisco & Renaissance Parc 55 Hotel, San Francisco, CA, Online. Retrieved on 24 January 2013 from http://www. allacademic. com/meta/p108344_index. html Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 110-119. Retrieved on 24 January 2013, from http://faculty. sjcny. edu/~treboux/documents/parental%20authority%20questionnaire. pdf Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2005). State-specific Prevalence of Cigarette Smoking and Quitting Among Adults.

MMWR, 54(44);1124-1127. Retrieved on 14 March 2013 from http://www. cdc. gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5444a3. htm Chassin L. , Presson C. C. , Rose J. , Sherman S. J. , Davis M. J. and Gonzalez J. L. (2005). Journal of Pediatric Psychology: Parenting Style and Smoking-Specific Parenting Practices as Predictors of Adolescent Smoking Onset Retrieved on 21 January 2013, from http://jpepsy. oxfordjournals. org/content/30/4/333. full. pdf+html Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman. Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2010). Population and Housing Census 2010 Retrieved on 24 March 2013 from. http://www. tatistics. gov. my/portal/ index. php? option=com_content&view=article&id=1215%3Apopulation-distribution-and-basic-demographic-characteristic-report-population-and-housing-census-malaysia-2010-updated-2972011&catid=130%3Apopulation-distribution-and-basic-demographic-characteristic-report-population-and-housing-census-malaysia-2010&Itemid=154&lang=en Endy A. W. den Exter Blokland, William W. Hale III, Meeus W. , & Rutger C. M. E. Engels (2006). Substance Use & Misuse: Parental Support and Control and Early Adolescent Smoking: A Longitudinal Study (Chapter 4). Endy A. W. den Exter Blokland, William W. Hale III, Meeus W. , & Rutger C. M. E. Engels (2006).

Parental Anti-Smoking Socialization: Associations between Parental Anti-smoking Socialization Practices and Early Adolescent Smoking Initiation. Retrieved on 24 January 2013 from http://www. socsci. ru. nl/~rutgere/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/den%20exter%20blokland%20et%20al%20EAR. pdf Javdan M. , Mirzadeh M. , TadayonA. & Hormozi S. S. (2011). Exploring the Relationship between Parenting Styles and Substance Abuse among High School Students in Minab. Retrieved on 24 January 2013, from http://www. textroad. com/pdf/JBASR/J. %20Basic. %20Appl. %20Sci. %20Res. ,%201(12)2994-2996,%202011. pdf Kavas A. B. (2009). Self-Esteem and Health Risk Behaviors among Turkish Late Adolescents. Adolescents vol. 4 No. 173. Kawabata T. Cross D. , Nishioka N. & Shimai S. (1999). Relationship between self- esteem and smoking behavior among Japanese early adolescents: initial results from a three-year study. Retrieved on 24 January 2013, from http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pubmed/10529966 Ministry of Health Malaysia (2011). Report of the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) Malaysia. Retrieved on 21 January 2013. From http://www. who. int/tobacco/surveillance/survey/gats/malaysia_country_report_2011. pdf Mullan E. & NicGabhainn S. (2002). Self-esteem and health-risk Behaviours: Is there a Link? The Irish Journal of Psychology, pp. -2, 27-36. Retrieved on 24 January 2013, from http://eprints. wit. ie/1333/1/IJP_-_Self_est_&_h_behs. pdf Neumark-Sztainer D. , Story M. , French S. A. & Resnick M. D. (1997). Psychosocial correlates of health compromising behaviors among adolescents. Health Education research, Vol. 12 no. 1 pp. 37-52 Newman K. , Harrison L. , Dashiff C. & Davies S. (2008). Relationships Between Parenting Styles and Risk Behaviors in Adolescent Health: An Integrative Literature Review. Retrieved on 24 January 2013. From http://www. scielo. br/pdf/rlae/v16n1/21. pdf O’Byrne KK, Haddock CK, Poston WS. (2002). Parenting Style and Adolescent Smoking.

J Adolesc Health. Retrieved on 21 January 2013, from http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pubmed/12039511 Perkins, H. W. & Berkowitz, A. D. (1986). Perceiving the community norms of alcohol use among students: Some research implications for campus alcohol education programming. International Journal of the Addictions, 21, 961-976. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosenberg, M. , Schooler, C. , & Schoenbach, C. (1989). Self-esteem and adolescent problems: Modelling reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, 54(6), 1004-1018. Sarkova M. , Middel B. , Geckova A. M. Katreniakova Z. , Orosova O,, Heuvel van den W. and Dijk J. P. (n. d. ). Differences in self-esteem among adolescents across Central European countries and the association between psychological well-being and self-esteem in Slovak and Hungarian young adolescents. Retrieved on 24 January 2013, from https://www. google. com. my/url? sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdissertations. ub. rug. nl%2FFILES%2Ffaculties%2Fmedicine%2F2010%2Fm. sarkova%2F18complete. pdf&ei=pxcBUYKeOsqxrAfI44DYCQ&usg=AFQjCNGjW0wthWTgJawK9kMYKxC6kEtybg&sig2=cez_1RaqMPc65E11qHthcw&bvm=bv. 41524429,d. bmk Schultz D. P. and Schultz S. E. , (2009).

Theories of Personality: Sigmund Freud: Psychoanalysis. Chapter 1, pp. 65-66 Stevenson D. B. (1996). Freud’s Psychosexual Stages of Development. Retrieved on 29 January 2013, from http://www. victorianweb. org/science/freud/develop. html Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. NewYork: Cambridge University Press. Taylor S. E. , Peplau L. A. , Sears D. O.. (2006). Social Psychology (12 ed. ): Social Influence. Pp. 208. West P. & Sweeting H. (1997). “Lost souls” and “rebels”: a challenge to the assumption that low self-esteem and unhealthy lifestyles are related, Health Education, Vol. 97 Iss: 5 pp. 161 – 167 Wild, L. G. , Flisher, A. J. , Bhana, A. & Lombard, C. (2004). Associations among adolescent risk behaviors and self-esteem in six domains. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(8), 1454^1467. Retrieved on 24 January 2013 from http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pubmed/15482505 World Health Organization (1998). Guidelines for controlling and monitoring the Tobacco Epidemic. Zervides S. , Knowles A. , (2007). Generational Changes in Parenting Styles and Effect of Culture, E-journal of allied Psychology, 391, 65 -75. Retrieved on 24 January 2013 from, http://ojs. lib. swin. edu. au/index. php/ejap/article/viewFile/81/108 7. 0 Appendices Appendix A Letter to Participants

Perceived Maternal Parenting Styles and Self-Esteem on Smokers and Never-smokers among College Students. Firstly, I would like to thank you for taking time to participate in this research. Your participation in this study is significant to the research and practice of mental health. If you choose to participate, you will be required to ALL the questions in this survey. Please try to provide accurate answers, as these results will be used in scientific researches. You may choose not to participate and may terminate your participation if at any point of the survey you feel uncomfortable. No adverse action will be taken against you for opting out.

I, however, do not anticipate any risks will result from participating in this survey other than minimal fatigue. Only group data would be released for publication or conference presentation of this research project. However, if you want a copy of the results, please indicate in the space provided in the consent form. Please write to me at the addresses below should you need any further information. Thank you. Researcher (Cheng Melcyn)mosescheng. [email protected] com Consent Form Participation in this research project is a voluntary decision. You should be aware that even if you do not agree to participate in this study, you would not be subjected to reprimand or any other form of reproach. I have read the above statement and have been fully advised of the procedures to be used in this project. I have been given sufficient opportunity to ask any questions I had concerning the procedures and possible risks involved. I understand the possible risks involved and I assume it voluntarily. I likewise understand that I can withdraw from the study any time without being subjected to reproach. ” I would like to receive a copy of the results. Please send it to: Email address: ________________________________ ____________________________bspan class=’tab’>__________________ Participant signatureDate Appendix B PART A Please answer the following questions regarding yourself: 1) Gender: | | |Male | |Female | | | 2) Age: __________ Years Old 3) Ethnicity: o Malay o Chinese o IndianOther: ______________ (please specify) 4) College / University / Institution: o SEGi University o Taylor’s University o KBU International CollegeOther: _______________(please specify) Appendix C PART C Please read the instructions carefully before answering the questionnaire.

Instructions: For each of the following statements, circle the number of the 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) that best describes how that statement applies to you and your mother. Try to read and think about each statement as it applies to you and your mother during your years of growing up at home. There are no right or wrong answers, so don’t spend a lot of time on any one item. We are looking for your overall impression regarding each statement. Be sure not to omit any items. 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither agree nor disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree |1 |While I was growing up, my mother felt that in a well-run home the children | | | |should have their way in the family as often as the parents do. 1 2 3 4 5 | |2 |Even if her children didn’t agree with her, my mother felt that it was for our | | | |own good if we were forced to conform to what she thought was right. |1 2 3 4 5 | |3 |Whenever my mother told me to do something as I was growing up, she expected me | | | |to do it immediately without asking any questions. |1 2 3 4 5 | |4 |As I was growing up, once family policy had been established, my mother | | | |discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family. 1 2 3 4 5 | |5 |My mother has always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that | | | |family rules and restrictions were unreasonable. |1 2 3 4 5 | |6 |My mother has always felt that what her children need is to be free to make up | | | |their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with|1 2 3 4 5 | | |what their parents might want. | | |7 |As I was growing up my mother did not allow me to question any decision she had | | | |made. 1 2 3 4 5 | |8 |As I was growing up my mother directed the activities and decisions of the | | | |children in the family through reasoning and discipline. |1 2 3 4 5 | |9 |My mother had always felt that more force should be used by parents in order to | | | |get their children to behave the way they are supposed to. |1 2 3 4 5 | |10 |As I was growing up my mother did not feel that I needed to obey rules and | | | |regulations of behaviour simply because someone in authority had established |1 2 3 4 5 | | |them. | |11 |As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in my family, but I | | | |also felt free to discuss those expectations with my mother when I felt that |1 2 3 4 5 | | |they were unreasonable. | | |12 |My mother felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is | | | |boss in the family. |1 2 3 4 5 | |13 |As I was growing up, my mother seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for my| | | |behaviour. 1 2 3 4 5 | |14 |Most of the time as I was growing up my mother did what the children in the | | | |family wanted when making family decisions. |1 2 3 4 5 | |15 |As the children in my family were growing up, my mother consistently gave us | | | |direction and guidance in rational and objective ways. |1 2 3 4 5 | |16 |As I was growing up my mother would get very upset if I tried to disagree with | | | |her. 1 2 3 4 5 | |17 |My mother feels that most problems in society would be solved if parents would | | | |not restrict their children’s activities, decisions, and desires as they are |1 2 3 4 5 | | |growing up. | | |18 |As I was growing up my mother let me know what behaviour she expected of me, and| | | |if I didn’t meet those expectations, she punished me. |1 2 3 4 5 | |19 |As I was growing up my mother allowed me to decide most things for myself | | | |without a lot of direction from her. 1 2 3 4 5 | |20 |As I was growing up my mother took the children’s opinions into consideration | | | |when making family decisions, but she would not decide for something simply |1 2 3 4 5 | | |because the children wanted it. | | |21 |My mother did not view herself as responsible for directing and guiding my | | | |behaviour as I was growing up. |1 2 3 4 5 | |22 |My mother had clear standards of behaviour for the children in our home as I was| | | |growing up, but she was willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each | | | |of the individual children in the family. 1 2 3 4 5 | | | | | | |—Please proceed to q. 23 in the next page—- | | |23 |My mother gave me direction for my behaviour and activities as I was growing up | | | |and she expected me to follow her direction, but she was always willing to | | | |listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me. |1 2 3 4 5 | |24 |As I was growing up my mother allowed me to form my own point of view on family | | | matters and she generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to | | | |do. |1 2 3 4 5 | |25 |My mother has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we | | | |could get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their children when they | | | |don’t do what they are supposed to as they are growing up. |1 2 3 4 5 | |26 |As I was growing up my mother often told me exactly what she wanted me to do and| | | |how she expected me to do it. 1 2 3 4 5 | |27 |As I was growing up my mother gave me clear direction for my behaviours and | | | |activities, but she also understood when I disagreed with her. |1 2 3 4 5 | |28 |As I was growing up my mother did not direct the behaviours, activities, and | | | |desires of the children in the family. |1 2 3 4 5 | |29 |As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in the family and she | | | |insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for her |1 2 3 4 5 | | |authority. | |30 |As I was growing up, if my mother made a decision in the family that hurt me, | | | |she was willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if she had made|1 2 3 4 5 | | |a mistake. | | Appendix D PART D Please circle that best fits you. 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly Agree |1. On the whole, I am satisfied | 1 2 3 4 | |with myself. | | |2. At times, I think I am no good |1 2 3 4 | |at all. | | |3.

I feel that I have a number of |1 2 3 4 | |good qualities. | | |4. I am able to do things as well as |1 2 3 4 | |most other people. | | |5. I feel I do not have much to be |1 2 3 4 | |proud of. | | |6. I certainly feel useless at times. |1 2 3 4 | |7.

I feel that I’m a person of |1 2 3 4 | |worth, at least on an equal | | |plane with others. |

admin