University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The role of parenting style, ethnicity, and identity style on identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy

(USC Thesis Other)

The role of parenting style, ethnicity, and identity style on identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE ROLE OF PARENTING STYLE, ETHNICITY, AND IDENTITY STYLE ON
IDENTITY COMMITMENT AND CAREER DECISION SELF-EFFICACY

by

Ryan J. White

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirement for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Ryan J. White

ii

DEDICATION

For my loving wife and darling baby, Heidi and James White;

my supportive parents, James and Bobbie White;

my other supportive parents, Wayne and Vicki Bickel;

my wonderful siblings, Jason and Mary Anne White,

David Bickel, and Sarah Bickel;

my lovely nieces Abby White and Emma White;

my grandparents, James and Phyllis Velting;

and in loving memory of my grandparents William and Nancy White,

Frank and Edith Mancik, and Robert and Barbara Bickel.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to thank my chairperson, Dr. Ruth Chung, for her wisdom, guidance,
and encouragement; and my committee member, Dr. Myron Dembo, for his
inspiration and passion. And especially to my committee member, Dr. Helena Seli,
whom I respect deeply, for her continuous support, her amazing example and work
ethnic, and for providing me with so many opportunities throughout my time at USC.
Thank you also to Yuying Tsong, whose statistical expertise and guidance were
invaluable.
Thank you to my USC cohort (The Weekend Warriors), my dissertation
group, and especially the EDPT teaching fellows – you all made the journey a rich
one.
Thank you especially to my family. The encouragement from my parents and
parent in-laws continued to give me an added boost. Baby James, thank you for your
love and providing this world with perspective. And most of all, thank you to my
amazing wife, Heidi. Your patience, guidance, support, listening, editing, your
generosity and willingness to pick up the slack at home, your hugs, and your words
of encouragement, made this possible. I do not know how people do this without a
Heidi. You are wonderful and inspiring.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

ABSTRACT viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Overview of Identity Development 1
Identity Status and Identity Commitment 2
Career Decision Self-Efficacy 3
Influences on Identity Development 8
Identity Styles 8
Parental Environment and Ethnicity 10
Purpose of the Study 12
Significance of the Study 13
Organization of the Study 14

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 16
Parenting Styles 16
Typologies 18
Parenting Styles and Achievement 19
Parenting Styles and Diverse Populations 22
Identity Styles 29
Typologies 30
Identity Styles and Diverse Populations 33
Career Decision Self-Efficacy and Diverse Populations 37
Relationships Between Variables 40
Parenting Styles, Identity Styles, and Identity Commitment 40
Parenting Styles and Career Decision Self-Efficacy 42
Identity Styles, Identity Commitment, and Career Decision 44
Self-Efficacy
Summary of the Literature 46
Research Questions and Hypotheses 47

v

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 51
Research Methodology 51
Participants 51
Instrumentation 53
Demographic and Background Information 54
Parenting Styles 54
Identity Styles 56
Identity Commitment 57
Career Decision Self-Efficacy 57
Procedure and Data Collection 58

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 60
Intercorrelations 60
Analysis of Research Questions 63
RQ1: Do parenting Styles differ based on ethnicity? 63
RQ2: Do ethnicity and parenting styles predict identity styles? 64
RQ3: Do ethnicity, parenting style, and identity styles predict 67
identity commitment and CDSE?
RQ4: Do identity styles mediate the relationship between 71
parenting styles and identity commitment and CDSE?

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 80
Discussion 80
Ethnicity and Parenting Styles 81
Predictors of Identity Style 82
Predictors of Identity Commitment 84
Predictors of Career Decision Self-Efficacy 86
Identity Style as Mediator 89
Exploring Multicollinearity with Commitment and CDSE 91
Implications and Suggestions 93
Limitations 101
Future Research 103
Conclusion 105

REFERENCES 107

APPENDIX A: Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research 119
APPENDIX B: Demographic Information 122
APPENDIX C: Parental Authority Questionnaire 125
APPENDIX D: Identity Style Inventory – Version 4 128
APPENDIX E: Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy – Short Form 131

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Marcia’s Identity Formation 2

Table 2: Parenting Styles 19

Table 3: Berzonsky’s Identity Processing Styles and Marcia’s 30
Identity Formation Commitments

Table 4: Academic Information of Participants 52

Table 5: Demographic Information of Participants 53

Table 6: Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson-Product Correlation of 61
Measured Variables

Table 7: Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for Parenting 64
Styles by Ethnicity with Significant Post Hoc Tests

Table 8: Means and Standard Deviations of Parenting Styles by Ethnicity 64

Table 9: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Identity Styles 65

Table 10: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Identity 69
Commitment

Table 11: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for 71
Career Decision Self-Efficacy

Table 12: Direct, Mediated, and Total Effects on Identity Commitment 77
and Career Decision Self-Efficacy

Table 13: Parenting Style Effects on the Mediators (Identity Styles) 77

Table 14: Hypotheses Summary 79

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Hypothesized Model of Relationships of Parenting Styles and 50, 72
Identity Styles in Relation to Identity Commitment and Career Decision
Self-Efficacy

Figure 2: Standardized Beta Coefficients of the Hypothesized Model 75

viii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among ethnicity,
parenting styles, identity styles, identity commitment, and career decision self-
efficacy in early college students. A non-experimental quantitative design was
utilized to sample 210 students from a four-year private university in Southern
California. The survey consisted of demographic information, the Parental Authority
Questionnaire, the Identity Style Inventory – Version 4, and the Career Decision
Making Self-Efficacy – Short Form.
Results indicate that ethnicity and parenting styles play a role in predicting
identity style, identity commitment, and career decision self-efficacy in adolescents.
Parenting styles and identity styles combined accounted for 43.5% of the variance in
the strength of identity commitment. Ethnicity was not a factor in predicting identity
commitment. Ethnicity, parenting styles, and identity styles combined accounted for
31.8% of the variance in the level of career decision self-efficacy.
Identity styles proved the most significant indicator of identity commitment
and career decision self-efficacy. After ethnicity and parenting styles were
controlled for, identity styles accounted for 30.9% of the variance in identity
commitment and 15.3% of the variance in career decision self-efficacy. As
hypothesized, identity styles mediated the relationship between parenting styles and
identity commitment as well as parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy.

ix

The results provide support for the importance of identity processing styles in
the formation of adolescent identity. Identity styles may provide educators with
suggestions for interventions aimed at improving key identity developmental
constructs through targeted strategies encouraging the active engagement that is
characteristic of adolescents embracing an informational identity style. The results
of these and related findings are discussed.

1

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Identity Development
For many late adolescents, the transition to college life can be a difficult one.
They are confronted with questions such as, “What is your major?” “What do you
want to do with your life?” and “Who are you?” As discussed in Erikson’s
psychosocial development theory (1956, 1968), late adolescents are engaged in
forming a clear and stable sense of self-identity, including their own perceptions and
exploration about values, beliefs, career direction, and other identity related
commitments and thoughts.
Late adolescents, however, are not merely left to their own perspectives and
processes, they exist in a social environment and continue to have old and new
influences which help shape their development, such as familial and peer interactions
(Bronfenbrenner, 1986). During the first years of college, the expectations upon
adolescents change as they are confronted with new levels of responsibility for
governing their own education, values, and career and life direction. Such potential
pressures could include students directed into specific career paths by parents,
students questioning identity in light of new freedoms at college, students forced to
declare majors by their institution, peers discussing their own career and life paths,
college orientation and career exploration courses, roommates of differing
worldviews, and other pressures on adolescent identity and its exploration.

2

Identity Status and Identity Commitment
Building upon Erikson’s work in adolescent development and identity
formation, Marcia (1966) conceptualized identity status as one’s place within the
self-defining areas of identity crisis, later relabeled self-exploration, and identity
commitment. Self-exploration includes the active consideration of alternative
identity elements such as values, beliefs, and occupational paths, in the search for a
coherent sense of self. Identity commitment refers to the level of an individual’s
investment and decision to embrace certain values, beliefs, and occupational paths,
regardless of whether those areas are self-generated or encouraged by others.
Marcia’s identity status framework consists of four possible stages based on
those two dimensions: diffusion (i.e., low exploration and low commitment),
foreclosure (i.e., commitments with little exploration), moratorium (i.e., current
exploration but no commitment), and achievement (i.e., identity-defining
commitments are made following exploration of self and alternatives).
Table 1
Marcia’s Identity Formation

Crisis/Self-Exploration

High/Yes Low/No

Commitment
High/Yes
Achieved Foreclosed

Low/No
Moratorium Diffusion

3

In many ways, the level in which an adolescent has made identity
commitments related to his or her values, beliefs, and occupational path, is the
primary goal of identity development. Those commitments are the essence of the
self-perceived sense of identity which Erikson (1956, 1968) discusses as a desired
outcome in the adolescent identity versus role confusion stage.
Career Decision Self-Efficacy
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is a term coined by Bandura (1977) and is placed within a
broader context of social cognitive theory and its emphasis on the formative
interaction of the environment, the person and personal beliefs, and behavior. Self-
efficacy refers to one’s perceived ability to succeed at a specific task. Self-efficacy
has become a central concept surrounding education and predicting educational
achievement in a variety of disciplines (Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper, 2004).
One’s self-efficacy affects various behavioral outcomes including whether
behaviors are approached or avoided, which reflects an element of choice for the
activities one thinks they can succeed in, the level of goal or performance, because
people set higher goals when they have higher self-efficacy, and the level of
persistence in that domain, because self-efficacy increases the likelihood one will
continue in the midst of difficulty. We have consequently seen that one’s self-
efficacy affects learning and academic achievement (Zimmerman, Bandura, &
Martinez-Pons, 1992; Valentine et al., 2004).

4

Self-efficacy is not a trait or personality characteristic. The term references
one’s beliefs about one’s capabilities of successfully performing in a specific
behavioral domain or task. Despite the applicability of self-efficacy terminology to
virtually any task or behavior, the development of self-efficacy primarily arises from
four common sources of learning experiences: 1) performance accomplishments and
success (i.e., prior success increases one’s confidence and self-efficacy in that
domain), 2) modeling and vicarious learning (i.e., observation of others performance
can increase self-efficacy), 3) emotional arousal (i.e., lowered anxiety in connection
with the behavior in question increases self-efficacy), and 4) social persuasion (i.e.,
encouragement and support increases self-efficacy) (Bandura, 1977; Betz, 2004;
Valentine et al., 2004). These four areas are not only theoretical causes for how self-
efficacy is gained, but each of the four areas can be valuable points of intervention
for increasing one’s self-efficacy, which will discussed in chapter 5.
Self-efficacy study has recently made its way into additional domains,
including career related areas. One such measure is career decision self-efficacy,
which refers to one’s belief about his or her ability to successfully perform the tasks
involved in career related decisions (Maples & Luzzo, 2005; Reese & Miller, 2006).
Career Decision Self-Efficacy
Career decision self-efficacy (CDSE) is one key identity development
characteristic related to the career self-defining exploration students are confronted
with during late adolescence, as CDSE is related to career commitment, planning and

5

goal setting (Chung 2002). While perhaps overstated, Erikson notes that “it is the
inability to settle on an occupational identity which most disturbs young people”
(Erikson, 1968, p. 132). CDSE is one’s belief about his or her ability to successfully
perform the tasks involved in career related decisions (Taylor & Betz, 1983).
The application of self-efficacy to career decisions was pioneered by Hackett
and Betz (1981; Betz & Hackett, 1981). The measure developed by Betz and
Hackett is now known as the Occupational Self Efficacy Scale (OSES). Initially,
Betz and Hackett’s (1981) self-efficacy application to career behaviors investigated
gender differences by surveying college males and females regarding their
perceptions of capabilities related to various educational majors. It was discovered
that women had lower self-efficacy expectations in traditionally male-dominated
careers and majors, such as math and science, despite similar test scores as males in
those areas. For example, only 30% of the women students viewed themselves as
capable of completing a degree in engineering, compared with 70% of men (Betz &
Hackett, 1981). In addition to the notable gender differences, another important
discovery was finding that lower self-efficacy in an academic major or perceived
career path lessened the likelihood of participating in that career related track.
Lower career related self-efficacy essentially lessens one’s perceived options, and
has been tied to career indecision (Betz & Luzzo, 1996).
Taylor and Betz (1983) further defined self-efficacy beliefs related to
decision making with the concept and measure called career decision-making self-

6

efficacy (CDMSE), which is defined as one’s belief about his or her ability to
successfully perform the tasks involved in career related decisions. It should be
noted that the terminology of “career decision making self-efficacy” (CDMSE) and
“career decision self-efficacy” (CDSE) are used in the literature in reference of the
same concept. Early research used the terminology “career decision making self-
efficacy.” However, in relationship to measures used in studying the concept, the
term “career decision making” has been trademarked by Thomas Harrington and
Arthur O’Shea and their firm Career Planning Associates, Inc., and is thus no longer
used by some authors when referencing the concept or scale, and is replaced with
CDSE. Therefore, for the sake of consistency, the terminology “career decision self-
efficacy” or CDSE will be used in this study with regard to all studies using either
terminology.
It should also be mentioned that career decision self-efficacy is not
synonymous with the terminology of “career self-efficacy” or “career related self-
efficacy,” which are simply broad terms that can refer to any career related self-
efficacy belief, including perceived occupational ability, career indecision, academic
and vocational persistence, and others, including career decision self-efficacy.
Five subscales based on different career decision making behaviors were
developed which the CDSE theory and its corresponding measure were built upon.
The subscales, essentially the core components and areas of CDSE, include self-
appraisal (i.e., assessing career interests, skills, and goals), occupational information

7

(i.e., ability to research and describe specific occupations), goal selection (i.e., the
ability to identify a career goal in line with one’s self-appraisal), planning (i.e., the
ability to describe job preparation and application tasks) and problem solving (i.e.,
the ability to respond to career related difficulties).
The theory has been widely researched since its inception. It has grown from
its initial use in understanding women’s career and academic development, to one of
the key concepts in current career development research. While not limited to career
decision self-efficacy, Gore (2006) pointed out the popularity of self-efficacy in
career and academic study by noting that 11% of all the articles published between
2001-2006 in the Journal of Counseling Psychology and Journal of Vocational
Behavior included a reference to self-efficacy in their title or abstract.
The importance of career decision self-efficacy in undergraduates. The
concept of career decision self-efficacy is of particular importance for freshmen and
sophomores in college. Career indecision is a common reality amongst college
students (Chandler & Gallagher, 1996; Gianakos, 1999). Orndorff and Herr (1996)
reported that even though students with declared majors have more certainty
regarding major and career paths, qualitative interviews revealed that both students
with declared and undeclared college majors had low levels of involvement in
exploring their careers and may both then lack the knowledge necessary to make
informed career-related decisions.

8

Career exploration and decision making are an anticipated part of the identity
formation processes and self-defining questions of late adolescence (Erikson, 1968).
However, while the identity formation process at late adolescence may include some
measure of career indecision as a necessary part of career exploration, the process
may still be one that demands some guidance as there is need and benefit for college
students to have increased career exploration decidedness. Career indecision as a
result of low career self-efficacy may lead to the avoidance of career exploration
(Taylor & Betz, 1983) and career decision making is often accompanied by
psychological distress (Multon, Heppner, Gysbers, Zook, & Ellis-Kalton, 2001),
whereas high career self-efficacy is linked with career maturity (Creed & Patton,
2003) and stability (Gianakos, 1999). There is also interest from undergraduates to
have increased career decision self-efficacy as they desire assistance with career
related issues such as choosing a major and occupation, gaining information related
to occupations, and developing job search skills (Orndorf & Herr, 1996; Weissberg,
Berentsen, Cote, Carvey, & Health, 1982).
Influences On Identity Development
The Influence of Identity Processing Styles on Identity Development
While the Marcia identity status framework is a widely used theory in
adolescent development, some researchers have questioned whether identity might
be better examined through a more process focused approach, rather than one which
views identity as an outcome variable (Berzonsky, 1989; Grotevant, 1997; Passmore,

9

Fogarty, Bourke, Baker-Evans, 2005). Berzonsky has done the most significant
work advancing a process oriented identity conceptualization with the identification
of distinct cognitive processing orientations called identity styles or identity
processing styles. Berzonsky’s model (1989) builds upon Marcia’s framework and
the assumption that the individuals within the four Marcia identity status types (e.g.,
diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and achievement) have differing processes used
within their identity construction. These identity processing styles are the differing
social-cognitive processes and strategies individuals use to make decisions, process
self-relevant information, and form identity commitments (Berzonsky, 1989;
Berzonsky, Branje, & Meeus, 2007). Or simply put, identity style refers to the
processes by which self-relevant information is evaluated, used, and revised. Both
identity styles and identity status have been strongly linked to identity commitment,
which is the level of an individual’s investment and decision to embrace certain
values, beliefs, and occupational paths (Berzonsky, 2004).
Demonstrating their importance, there is an expanding body of literature
connecting identity styles and similar identity constructs with different academic and
emotional achievements (Berzonsky 1989, 2004; Berzonsky & Ferrari, 1996;
Dollinger, Jakubowski & Dembo, 2004; S.J. Dollinger, S.M.C. Dollinger, &
Centeno, 2005). There is limited research however, relating identity styles to key
identity related outcomes such as identity commitment and career decision self-

10

efficacy, despite career development being an important component of adolescent
identity construction (Erikson, 1968).
The Influence of Parental Environment on Identity Development
Parental patterns and their influence make up an important part of the social
environment in which children and adolescents experience human development and
life transitions (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). Parenting style, which is one important
measure of parental influence, is the interaction of the parental levels of
demandingness (i.e., authority) and responsiveness (i.e., warmth and support).
Parenting styles can be categorized into four groups: permissive-indulgent parents
(i.e., those who make few demands, but show warmth), permissive-neglectful parents
(i.e., those who demonstrate little demand or warmth), authoritarian parents (i.e.,
those who make regular demands and show little warmth), and authoritative parents
(i.e., those who provide demand and warmth in a context of support and flexibility)
(Baumrind, 1991a; Maccoby & Martin, 1983).
The role of parenting style and parental authority upon academic
achievement and psychological development is well documented (Aunola et al.,
2000; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Hickman, Bartholomae, & McKenry, 2000; Kim &
Chung, 2003; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1992;
Steinberg et al., 2006). Authoritative parenting is most often associated with
academic achievement and psychological development. While this trend often has
transcended ethnicity and gender, it has been truer for Caucasian homes more so than

11

other groups (Boveja, 1998; Knight, Virdin, & Roosa, 1994; Mason, Cauce,
Gonzales, & Hiraga, 1996; Park & Bauer, 2002; Steinberg et al, 1991; Steinberg et
al., 2006). Some studies have found that authoritarian parenting was most predictive
of achievement in Asian Americans (Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, &
Dornbusch, 1994) as well as Hispanics (Park & Bauer, 2002), while African
Americans have occasionally had no notable achievement variation between
authoritative or authoritarian parenting environments (Steinberg et al., 1994; Park &
Bauer, 2002).
Cultural and contextual factors such as ethnicity affect the relationship
between parenting styles and achievement. Parenting styles may have different
meanings for different ethnic groups. For example, some caring Asian American
parents may encourage academic achievement in children, not through the closeness
and warmth associated with authoritative parenting, but through hard work,
discipline, and obedience (Chao, 1994; Chao, 2001). Acculturation and generational
status are contextual factors that can illuminate some of the effects of ethnicity
variations in parenting styles and family culture. Some groups, such as Chinese
Americans (Chao, 2001) and Hispanics (Driscoll, Russell, & Crockett, 2008; Hill,
Bush, & Roosa, 2003), sometimes begin more as authoritarian but then move toward
adopting majority (e.g., Caucasian) culture childrearing practices in second
generations and beyond. This movement in parenting practices can make it more

12

likely for later generations of those ethnic groups to demonstrate authoritative
parenting styles in comparison with first generation parents of those groups.
The role these parental relationships and parenting styles have had upon
adolescent identity processing styles has received promising results from Berzonsky
(2004), as it was demonstrated that not only were specific parenting styles and
identity styles associated, but the relationship between adolescent identity
commitments and parental authoritativeness was mediated by identity style. The
findings were very strong as between 8% and 28% of the variation in identity styles
were accounted for by parenting styles, while even more notably, parenting styles
and identity styles combined accounted for 50% of the variation in the strength of
adolescent identity commitment. Such strong relationships should be investigated
further in order to confirm the results and investigate further promise. It could be
particularly helpful to extend the study to a more diverse population, as the study
was primarily Caucasian students, as well as extend the identity commitment
variables to include another identity developmental concept such as career decision
self-efficacy.
Summary and Purpose
In summary, Erikson has laid a foundation for understanding identity
development in adolescents, which has more recently been extended into adolescent
developmental stages and identity cognitive processes by Marcia and Berzonsky.
Some areas in need of further exploration include the contributing parenting factors

13

to adolescent identity processing, particularly with consideration of diverse
populations, as well as the relationship between those parenting factors, identity
processing styles, and identity outcomes such as identity commitment and career
decision self-efficacy.
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship among ethnicity,
parenting styles, identity styles, identity commitment, and career decision self-
efficacy in early college students. More specifically, the study aims to examine the
role of the contextual factors of ethnicity and parenting style on identity style,
identity commitment, and career decision self-efficacy. Additionally, the study
seeks to examine the effect of identity style upon identity commitment and career
decision self-efficacy, as well as discover whether identity style would mediate the
contribution that ethnicity and parenting styles make to identity commitment and
career decision self-efficacy in early undergraduates.
Significance of the Study

The proposed research brings together a number of key constructs related to
adolescent development and parental influences. There has already been significant
research in areas related to parental influences on adolescent identity development
and parental influences on career development. However, the unique combination of
parenting styles, identity styles, identity commitment, and career decision self-
efficacy, as well as the importance of investigating a diverse sample, will provide a
distinctive set of relationships in the literature amongst these constructs and add to

14

the recent promising work of Berzonsky (2004). This study will be unique by 1)
pairing the identity commitment dependent variable with another identity variable,
career decision self-efficacy, as an elaboration of the processing of the career domain
of identity development, and 2) extending the relationship of these variables to
potentially validate the results for an ethnically diverse sample.
The study will also seek to uncover whether or not identity styles function as
a mediating factor between parenting styles and identity commitment and career
decision self-efficacy. By providing an understanding of the interrelation and a
potential mediating factor of these relationships, this study contributes to the
development of potential interventions for those who work with students with low
levels of career decision self-efficacy and less desirable identity processing styles.
Organization of the Study
The introduction thus far has presented the importance of identity
commitment, career decision self-efficacy, and introduced a discussion regarding the
influence of identity styles, parental environment, and ethnicity upon those variables.
The overview was followed by the purpose of the study and the significance of the
study.
Chapter 2 presents a review of the related literature. It will address the
influence and predictive value of the parental environment, ethnicity, and identity
styles, upon identity development.

15

Chapter 3 presents the methodology employed in the study, including the
research design, population and sample, instrumentation and reliability and validity,
demographic and background information, the procedure and data collection, and the
data analysis.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Chapter 5 discusses the results,
and provides recommendations and a conclusion.

16

CHAPTER 2
Review of the Literature
Chapter 1 of this dissertation established identity commitment and career
decision self-efficacy as key concepts in the maturation of adolescent identity,
particularly those navigating the collegiate environment. In order to provide more
depth into the understanding of adolescent identity, the literature review will discuss
1) parenting styles and ethnicity and their relationship to various achievement and
identity development outcomes, 2) identity styles as key variables for processing
self-relevant information and predicting identity development, and 3) a discussion of
the relationships between parenting styles, identity styles, identity commitment, and
career decision self-efficacy, and 4) provide a review of the research questions
driving the study.
Parenting Styles
The influence of parenting and family upon child development and
achievement is an area with significant interest and research. Building upon others’
work on the effects of parental disciplinary approaches and the process of family
socialization, Diana Baumrind pioneered the parenting style typologies
characteristically referenced today through her extensive interviews and observations
of parents throughout the 1970s and 1980s (Baumrind, 1971, 1978). Baumrind
initially included three parental typologies: authoritative, authoritarian, and
permissive. The typologies were based on the interaction of parenting attitudes and

17

practices, including such factors are warmth, control, and involvement. However,
the categorizing of the typologies would be further extended into a four-part
framework – in recognition of the distinction of all four categories possible when the
interaction between parental demandingness and parental responsiveness are
considered – by Maccoby and Martin (1983), and continued in Baumrind (1991a)
and Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, and Dornbusch (1991).
Parental demandingness includes the levels of control, supervision, and
maturity demands; and parental responsiveness includes the levels of warmth,
acceptance, involvement, and the encouragement of self-regulation. The four-part
typology extends Baumrind’s initial three typologies by having two different types of
permissive parenting in which low demandingness is paired with a varying level of
responsiveness resulting in the permissive-indulgent (or nondirective) and
permissive-neglecting categories.
Parenting styles are “a constellation of attitudes toward the child that are
communicated to the child and that, taken together, create an emotional climate in
which the parent's behaviors are expressed” (Darling & Steinberg, 1993, p. 488).
Parenting styles then are the emotional and familial environment of demandingness
and responsiveness which influence specific parenting practices (e.g., active
involvement in monitoring homework completion, spanking), stated goals and values
(e.g., academic achievement is important for my child’s future success), and the non-
goal directed behaviors toward one’s child (e.g., gestures, tone of voice, emotional

18

engagement). While parenting practices are influenced by and typically in line with
parenting styles, they are distinct constructs, and this study will focus primarily on
the environment of the parenting styles.
Permissive-Indulgent. Parenting styles that are low in demandingness, but
high in responsiveness are permissive-indulgent (Baumrind, 1991a; Lamborn et al.,
1991). This category includes a high level of warmth, tolerance, and support, though
permissive-indulgent parents have little control or authority demands, leaving much
behavioral choice and management up to the child. Sometimes this area is simply
referred to as permissive, as some do not find separating the two permissive styles
helpful, while it is also at times described as a nondirective area.
Permissive-Neglecting. Parenting styles which are low in demandingness
and low in responsiveness are permissive-neglecting (Baumrind, 1991a; Lamborn et
al., 1991). This style includes little demand and control, as well as a lack of warmth
and support, and may be characterized by parents who are uninvolved and/or
neglectful with their children. Some refer to this area as simply neglectful, while
some would simply use the term permissive to cover both permissive styles since
both styles have been associated with a variety of undesirable academic and
developmental outcomes.
Authoritarian. Parenting styles which are high in demandingness but low in
responsiveness are authoritarian (Baumrind, 1991a; Lamborn et al., 1991). This
style has high control and involvement with the child’s behavior, attitudes, standards,

19

and respect for authority, but in this style the parents give little rationale behind
rules, provide little warmth, and allow the child little autonomy.
Authoritative. The fourth category, authoritative, includes parenting styles
which are high in both demandingess and responsiveness (Baumrind, 1991a;
Lamborn et al., 1991). In the authoritative style there is a high value and consistency
of rules, expectations, and control, as well as a high measure of warmth, bidirectional
communication, and supportiveness.
Table 2
Parenting Styles

Responsiveness
High Low

Demandingness
High
Authoritative Authoritarian
Low Permissive-
Indulgent
Permissive-
Neglectful

Parenting Styles and Achievement
There has been a significant amount of research that has consistently
associated a variety of achievement related behaviors with the authoritative parenting
style, in areas such as academic achievement and academic adaptive strategies
(Aunola et al., 2000; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Steinberg et al., 1991; Steinberg et al.,
1992), psychological and moral development (Steinberg, 2001; Steinberg et al.,
2006), and self reliance and self esteem (Lamborn et al., 1991). Steinberg, Elmen,
and Mounts (1989) further identified the specific authoritative elements most likely

20

responsible for their positive developmental benefits. The three primary aspects
included a high measure of parental acceptance, high psychological autonomy, and
high behavioral control. These aspects each influenced academic achievement
individually as well as contributed to a general psychosocial maturity, which led to
higher academic achievement.
It appears that children reared in an environment of warmth, fairness, and
expectations are most likely to have academic and other developmental and
psychosocial achievement. It may be that the parental style benefits are due to the
type of relationship fostered by authoritative parents (e.g., one with emotional
support, closeness, and clear expectations). In that case, closeness in the parent-
adolescent relationship could be the factor mediating the relationship between the
authoritative parenting style construct and achievement, and could thus help
illuminate why authoritative parenting style affects some groups and not others
(Chao, 2001).
Authoritarian parenting style has been often linked with undesirable results,
such as low academic achievement and high psychological problems, but has
occasionally also been linked with some desirable results, such as low substance
abuse and high obedience (Dornbusch et al, 1987). There are also a few recent
studies which connect student achievement with authoritarian parenting in certain
contexts, which will be discussed in the upcoming “Parenting Styles and Diverse
Populations” section.

21

The research surrounding permissive parenting styles (both permissive-
indulgent and permissive neglectful) have seen regular association with undesirable
results. The permissive styles score similarly on school performance and problem
behaviors, which is one of the reasons they are most often combined into one group,
but diverge in areas of psychological development and well-being. Permissive styles
combined have been related to low academic achievement, poor academic strategies,
passivity, low psychological function, and high levels of delinquency (Aunola et al.,
2000; Baumrind, 1991a; Dornbusch et al, 1987; Lamborn et al, 1991), while
neglectful parenting has been associated with poor academic performance in all
ethnic groups (Park & Bauer, 2002). However, adolescents of permissive-indulgent
parents score higher than those of permissive-neglectful parents in perceived
competence and work orientation, while those of neglectful parents score higher on
psychological symptoms (Lamborn et al., 1991).
The general pattern of research thus far has seen various positive
achievement outcomes associated with authoritative parenting, mixed results with
authoritarian parenting, and undesirable outcomes associated with the permissive
styles. Some of this pattern however has recently been challenged. Further
achievement relationships with regard to career development will be discussed in an
upcoming section.

22

Parenting Styles and Diverse Populations
Various studies have confirmed the benefits of authoritative parenting styles
on student achievement on a range of populations. Some of the early parenting style
research was done on early and middle adolescents; recently however, many studies
have focused on older students and have also found the positive association between
authoritative parenting style and academic achievement in late adolescents and
young adults in college (Hickman, Bartholomae, & McKenry, 2000; Kim & Chung,
2003).
Parenting styles have differed in relationship to various ethnic groups.
Hispanic and Asian families have been seen to be more authoritarian and less
authoritative when compared with Caucasian groups (Dornbusch et al., 1987; Park &
Bauer, 2002; Steinberg, Dornbusch, and Brown, 1992). This has been especially
evident in first and second-generation homes (Chao, 2001).
Authoritative parenting is most frequently found in Caucasian homes and the
benefits associated with authoritative parenting are sometimes more prominent in
Caucasian households. However, often the benefits associated with authoritative
parenting have been seen to transcend ethnicity and gender (Boveja, 1998; Knight,
Virdin, & Roosa, 1994; Mason, Cauce, Gonzales, & Hiraga, 1996; Park & Bauer,
2002; Steinberg et al, 1991; Steinberg et al., 2006).
Steinberg et al., (2006) for example examined a large group with similarly
low SES who were from poor, urban, largely single parent home families, and were

23

made up of a variety ethnic groups, primarily African American, Hispanic, and
Caucasian. The adolescents in this case who perceived their parents as authoritative
– across all ethnicities and genders – had highly related measures of academic
achievement and psychological maturity. The results are similar to the benefits
found in authoritative parents in Caucasian and affluent settings.
Some research however, has found conflicting results with the relationship
between authoritative parenting and student achievement when looking at different
ethnic groups. Dornbusch et al. (1987) confirmed the relationship between
authoritative parenting and grades for Caucasian students, but the relationship was
not significant for Asian American, African American, or Hispanic students in their
research. Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, and Dornbusch, (1994) found that
authoritative parenting was most beneficial for achievement in Caucasians while
authoritarian was more predictive in Asian Americans.
Steinberg et al. (1992) however found a positive relationship with
authoritative parenting to grades and school engagement for Asian Americans as
well as Caucasians, though not for African Americans and Hispanics. African
American students saw no relationship between authoritative parenting and student
achievement or school engagement, and Hispanic students’ school engagement was
positively related to authoritarian parenting, not authoritative.
Park and Bauer (2002), in a study of more than 12,000 Asian, African
American, Caucasian, and Hispanic adolescents also found that strictness, which is

24

associated with authoritarianism, was most predictive of academic achievement in
Hispanics, while acceptance was most predictive of achievement for Caucasians.
The study also found no academic achievement variance for Asian Americans or
African Americans between authoritative and authoritarian parents. It should be
again noted however that neglectful parenting was associated with poor achievement
for all groups.
Cultural factors within and between different countries affect the relationship
between parenting styles and achievement, as parenting styles may have different
meanings for different ethnic groups (Chao, 1994). Involved and caring Asian
Americans may encourage academic achievement in children, not through closeness
and warmth as many authoritative Caucasian families, but through an approach of
“training” which emphasizes hard work, discipline, and obedience, which may be
indicative of why Asian Americans sometimes score toward an authoritarian
parenting style on the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Chao, 1994; Chao, 2001).
Leung, Lau, and Lam (1998) looked at the relationship between parenting
styles and academic achievement in students in the United States, Hong Kong, and
Australia. The results were not universal. Academic achievement was related to
authoritative parenting in Australia and the United States. Authoritarian parenting
however, both within all Hong Kong families as well as the U.S. and Australian
parents with no college education, was positively related to academic achievement.

25

As cultural distinctiveness can be an influence in the patterns of frequency of
parenting styles as well as which parenting styles are associated with achievement
and development, and as inconsistencies in patterns continue for various groups such
as Asian Americans, the need to examine subgroups of some ethnic categories
becomes apparent. Regarding Asian Americans for example, Blair and Qian (1998)
found variation between Filipino and Chinese families. Control, which is associated
with the authoritarian style, was positively related to academic achievement for
Chinese adolescents, but not for Filipino students.
Future research should also consider investigation into examining subgroups,
such as within Asian Americans (e.g. Chinese Americans, Filipino Americans,
Korean Americans, etc.) and Hispanics (e.g. Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans,
etc.), as well as investigating generational status and other acculturation variables. In
some groups, such as Chinese Americans, authoritarian parenting is initially
associated with higher academic achievement in recent immigrants, while future
generations may develop toward authoritative parenting being more common and
more associated with academic achievement (Chao, 2001). These results bring the
role of acculturation and the time spent in the majority culture into view, which is the
focus of the next section.
Acculturation, Generational Status, and Parenting Styles
Acculturation and the time spent in a new culture are contextual factors that
can illuminate some of the effects of ethnicity variations in parenting styles and

26

family culture. Immigrant families may go through a variety of adjustments and
changes as they adapt to and interact with the majority cultural. Acculturation has
long been defined by “when groups of individuals having different cultures come
into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original culture
patterns of either or both groups” (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936, p. 146).
Such changes could include specific behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, customs, language,
food, arts and entertainment, and other areas.
Kim and Chung (2002) note that there is an inadequate amount of research on
Asian American parenting styles corresponding with various developmental
outcomes, particularly noting the lack of studies including group variations, such as
differentiating between Chinese Americans and Korean Americans. In their research
studying collegiate Korean Americans, they extended the parenting styles typology
and additionally tested for other factors, such as the number of years lived in the
United States. This factor was highly predictive, as was the authoritative parenting
style, of high academic competence. Authoritarian parenting was negatively
correlated with academic competence. Self-reliance was found to be positively
related to the number of years lived in the United States, while authoritarian and
permissive parenting styles were predictive of low self-reliance. In one interesting
deviation from previous research, the benefits of authoritative parenting were limited
to academic competence and did not strongly relate to morality for this population.

27

Chao (2001) also tested for the effects of time spent in the United States as a
variable related to parenting style and student achievement. Her study found that
both European Americans as well as second-generation Chinese Americans had
student academic achievement benefits associated with authoritative parenting.
However, this was not the case for first-generation Chinese-Americans. There may
then be a measure of acculturation that influences Chinese-Americans toward
adopting majority culture childrearing practices with second generations and beyond.
Similar results have been discovered with Mexican American families as multiple
studies show that acculturation and time spent in the majority culture encouraged
Mexican Americans to adopt various Caucasian parenting approaches as immigrants
moved into the second and third generations (Buriel, 1993; Driscoll, Russell, and
Crockett, 2008; Hill, Bush, & Roosa, 2003; Varela, Vernberg, Sosa, Riveros,
Mitchell & Mushunkashey, 2004).
But the issue is more complex than mere generational differences. Pong,
Hao, and Gardner (2005) for example found inconsistent patterns of parenting
practices in multiple generations of Asian Americans and Hispanics, and thus believe
this indicates that parenting variables cannot adequately explain generational
differences and influences consistently. They advocate that one source of immigrant
advantage is that parents of the second-generation Asian American and Hispanic
adolescents are less likely to be permissive than parents of the third generation; while
it is also suggested that a source of disadvantage could be that the second generation

28

adolescents have less closeness of relationship with their parents than the third
generation.
It appears as though Asian Americans and Hispanics, or at least some
subgroups within them, are more likely to demonstrate authoritarian parenting in first
generation immigrants, but then those same groups have an increase in reported
authoritative styles after second generations and/or after the family has become more
acculturated. The length someone has lived in the majority culture or their
generational status, does not necessarily equate to acculturation and its emphasis on
adapted behaviors, beliefs, and values, though they are often related. While this
study will not include a specific acculturation measure, the demographic survey will
include questions regarding the students’ generational status and the number of years
the family has spent in the U.S.
Parenting Styles Summary
To summarize the effects of parenting styles on achievement, there are
inconsistencies within the recent research looking at parenting styles and their effects
on student achievement when ethnic and cultural factors are taken into consideration.
While permissive parenting styles consistently produced low achievement, and while
the most common pattern for achievement has been positively related with the
authoritative parenting style, there are still inconsistencies in results when
considering the authoritative and authoritarian style differences within diverse
populations that include measures such as ethnicity and generational status.

29

Identity Styles
Some researchers have questioned whether identity might be better examined
through a more process focused approach, rather than one which views identity as an
outcome variable (Berzonsky, 1989; Grotevant, 1997; Passmore, Fogarty, Bourke,
Baker-Evans, 2005). Berzonsky has done promising work advancing a process-
oriented identity conceptualization with three distinct cognitive processing
orientations he has called identity styles or identity processing styles. Berzonsky’s
model (1989) builds upon Marcia’s framework and the assumption that the
individuals within the four identity status types each have differing processes used in
their identity construction. Identity style is defined as the differing social-cognitive
processes and strategies individuals use to make decisions, process self-relevant
information, and form identity commitments (Berzonsky, Branje, & Meeus, 2007).
Ultimately, identity style simply refers to the processes by which self-relevant
information is evaluated, used, and revised.
Berzonsky (1989) has identified three identity processing styles:
informational, normative, and diffuse-avoidant. The theory notes that
developmentally normal individuals, by the time of post high school adolescence,
have the cognitive ability to engage in different identity processing strategies
(Berzonsky & Ferrari, 1996; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2005). This theory supports the
belief that individual differences and reported cognitive operations, rather than

30

developmental competencies, may be examined through operations such as identity-
processing style to account for variations in identity processes and preferences.
Table 3
Berzonsky’s Identity Processing Styles & Marcia’s Identity Formation Commitments

Crisis/Self-Exploration

High/Yes Low/No

Commitment
High/Yes
Achieved

Foreclosed

Low/No

Moratorium

Diffusion

Informational Style
In relationship to Marcia’s identity status, the informational style is
associated with those who are achieved or in moratorium and its process of forming
commitments (Berzonsky, 1989; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000; Berzonsky & Neimeyer,
1994; Schwartz, Mullis, Waterman, & Dunham, 2000; Streitmatter, 1993).
Adolescents utilizing an informational identity-processing style actively seek out and
process self-relevant information before negotiating identity-related conflicts or
forming clear identity commitments. Adolescents embracing this style, which is the
most active style, are self-reflective, conscientious, open to experience, problem-
focused, demonstrate increased creativity, and are persistent decision makers
(Berzonsky 1989, 2004; Berzonsky & Ferrari, 1996; Dollinger, 1995; S.J. Dollinger,
S.M.C. Dollinger, & Centeno, 2005). Adolescents categorized as informational
Informational
Normative
Diffuse-Avoidant

31

appear to be appropriately moving toward achieving the self-exploration and inner
self-definitions characteristic of moving through Erikson’s (1968) identity
development stage.
The various characteristics associated with the informational processing style
are particularly important and relevant to collegiate populations. Students who
utilized the informational style in Berzonsky and Kuk (2005) were well prepared to
successfully function in the university setting as they were educationally focused,
academically autonomous, socially skilled, and were linked to high academic
performance (e.g., informational style student grades in a particular course were
higher when compared with students who utilized other styles). This confirms other
academic achievement results connected with the informational processing style
(Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000; Boyd et al., 2003). Informational identity has also been
linked with high self-regulation scores (Jakubowski & Dembo, 2004).
Normative Style
Adolescents with a normative identity-processing style engage in identity
conflicts and commitments by somewhat automatically adopting and internalizing
the expectations of significant others. Adolescents regularly engaged in this
processing style may be purposeful and conscientious, somewhat like those in the
informational style, yet are closed and resistant to information that might conflict
with their structured beliefs and values (Berzonsky 1989, 2004; Berzonsky & Kuk,
2000; Dollinger, 1995). In relationship to Marcia’s identity status, the normative

32

style is associated with identity commitments for those in the foreclosed status
(Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000; Berzonsky & Neimeyer, 1994; Schwartz, Mullis,
Waterman, & Dunham, 2000; Streitmatter, 1993).
Those in the normative processing style display some similarities in student
focus and direction as the informational style students. Normative students tend to
have a clear sense of academic and career goals and direction, and are actually higher
in commitment than those using the informational style. There are some significant
divergences, however, when normative style students are compared with
informational style students. Normative students lack academic autonomy and the
ability to function well in low structure educational environments. They also may
have lower tolerance, and lack the emotional autonomy and maturity associated with
developing meaningful relationships (Berzonsky & Kuk, 2005; Boyd et al., 2003).
Berzonsky and Kuk (2000) believe that academic purposes for normative processing
individuals may be more external, much like one might expect from the foreclosed
identity status. Academic achievement outcomes such as grades were not related to
the normative style for Berzonsky and Kuk (2005).
Diffuse-avoidant Style
Adolescents with a diffuse-avoidant identity-processing style procrastinate,
delay, and avoid engaging in identity issues and personal problem solving as long as
possible. Adolescents embracing this style may self-handicap and use other avoiding
strategies. Behavior is often determined by external demands, situational factors,

33

and compliance, rather than purposeful and meaningful decisions related to a
developing sense of self (Berzonsky 1989, 2004; Berzonsky & Ferrari, 1996;
Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000). The diffuse-avoidant style is linked negatively to identity
commitments, as might be expected when compared with the similar low identity
commitment relationship Marcia’s diffusion identity status category displays
(Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000; Berzonsky & Neimeyer, 1994; Schwartz, Mullis,
Waterman, & Dunham, 2000; Streitmatter, 1993).
The diffuse-avoidant style is particularly a problematic cognitive approach
for adolescents entering into a college or university, as this group appears to be ill-
equipped to handle the rigors of college. Diffuse-avoidant students lack a sense of
purpose and scored lowest on commitment, life planning, career planning,
educational involvement and autonomy, and appear to have difficulty forming
meaningful relationships. Diffuse-avoidant students perform the poorest when
different identity styles are compared with academic achievement (Berzonsky and
Kuk, 2005). Diffuse-avoidant students are also negatively associated with
psychological well-being (Vleioras & Bosma, 2005).
Identity Styles and Diverse Populations
Identity styles and gender. While many studies have included a gender
component, there has been little significant gender specific relationship with identity
style. One exception came from Boyd, Hunt, Kandell, and Lucas (2003) who
conducted a study with nearly 3000 participants. There were significant gender

34

differences on a couple subscale scores, as females had higher informational style
scores while males had higher diffusion-avoidant scores.
Generally however, gender has not played a significant role in differences in
most studies. Perhaps the lack of gender influenced identity style differences are
confirmation of the few gender differences found in identity status studies as Kroger
(1997) discovered in a review of gender influences throughout prior decades of
Marcia’s identity status research. That is not to say however that no gender
differences have been seen in identity status, as there have been a few. Berzonsky
(2008) discovered that females had a significantly stronger level of identity
commitment in one study, though again, there was little identity style variation with
their male counterparts. A.M. Berman, Schwartz, Kurtines, and S.L. Berman (2001),
when looking at identity status, saw a disproportionate number of females in the
foreclosed category and a disproportionate number of males in the diffused category.
But generally there has only been a little gender effect on predicting identity status
and identity style, and much less effect of the relationships between identity styles
and outcome variables being moderated by gender (Berzonsky & Kuk, 2005). Both
genders with the same identity style have consistently had similar results on various
achievement outcomes and psychosocial development measures.
Ethnicity and identity styles. Ethnic distinctiveness has been an area lacking
in much the research in identity styles, despite the suggested strong role ethnicity can
play in the development of identity (Schwartz, 2005). Most of the studies done have

35

been conducted on largely homogenous Caucasian populations. However, the Boyd
et al. study (2003) included a large sample representing Asian Americans,
Caucasians, African Americans, and Hispanics, and found significant identity style
differences when comparing the frequency of identity styles used amongst those
different groups. For both men and women, significantly more African Americans
and Hispanics were normative. This result is consistent with Berman et al., (2001)
who saw a high number of Hispanics in the foreclosed identity status category,
which is the status typically associated with the normative identity style.
Interestingly, Boyd et al., (2003) discovered a higher than expected
proportion of Asian American women were diffused, which departs notably from the
trend of most females in the study to be informational. We should remember here to
take various cultural values into consideration when observing ethnic distinctiveness
in identity issues, as the desire to preserve norms and values of the family and
culture of certain groups could encourage certain types of commitments considered
more important than developing individual identity. Boyd et al. (2003), for example,
proposed that Asian American female college students may face competing pressures
from their family system commitments and a potentially incongruent individualistic
American culture to succeed professionally. Such pressure could cause them to feel
ill-equipped to navigate college as well as their goals and identity development. The
Identity Style Inventory avoidant related questions, such as “I try not to think about
or deal with problems as long as I can” are better understood when the family culture

36

and system are taken into account. Surprisingly perhaps, the diffused Asian
American women in this study performed well academically, which is unlike the
poor academic performance typically associated with most diffused populations and
diffused males in particular (Boyd et al., 2003).
Identity Styles Summary
In summary, identity processing styles are the cognitive processes by which
self-relevant information regarding identity development is evaluated, used, and
revised. The three styles have been related to academic achievement as well as
identity related psychological development. Informational style is characterized by
those who are actively processing self-relevant information, open, academic
autonomous, and have high academic performance. The normative style includes
those who engage in identity conflicts and commitments by adopting and
internalizing the expectations of significant others somewhat automatically. They
are purposeful yet resistant to new ideas as they lack the autonomy to navigate
change. The diffuse-avoidant style includes those who delay and avoid engaging in
identity issues and personal problem solving as long as possible. Their behavior is
determined by external demands and situational factors and is associated with high
risk student outcomes such as low academic purpose, achievement, career planning,
and relationship building.
Research has generally not supported strong gender differences, particularly
when looking at gender as a moderator between identity style and achievement

37

measures. Further research is needed to investigate recent variations seen when
ethnicity and identity style are considered together. Further research is also needed
to uncover the contributing factors to identity style use.
Career Decision Self-Efficacy and Diverse Populations
Career decision self-efficacy, or one’s belief about his or her ability to
successfully perform the tasks involved in career related decisions, is influenced by
demographic variables as well as parental environment. Variables, such gender and
ethnicity have been related in some circumstances to CDSE. As already discussed,
the earliest application of career self-efficacy theory was done for particular
application with female students and their collegiate majors; although with regard to
career decision self-efficacy levels in recent studies, there have typically not been
significant gender differences in U.S. population studies (Chung, 2002; Creed,
Patton, Y Prideaux, 2006; Luzzo, 1993; Mau, 2000; Taylor & Popma, 1990). Some
international studies have discovered gender differences. Mau (2000) found that
Taiwanese undergraduate females had lower CDSE than male Taiwanese students,
even though their American counterparts in the study did not have comparable
differences.
And some treatments specifically targeted at increasing CDSE have resulted
in gender differences following the treatments. Kraus and Hughey (1999) found
significant increases in CDSE in females in the high school career intervention
treatment group, while male students saw very little increase. Scott and Ciani (2008)

38

examined the effect of an undergraduate career class upon student CDSE before and
after the course intervention. The class intervention had similar gender scores in
CDSE pre-intervention and increased CDSE in both male and female students post-
intervention; however, the intervention was even more successful for females. For
example, on two subscales in which females and males had equal pre-intervention
self-efficacy scores (planning and problem solving), females had significantly higher
post-intervention scores.
There have been findings of apparent socialized gender differences in some
career related self-efficacy studies. Males have been seen to have higher self-
efficacy levels in historically male-dominated academic and career domains such as
mathematics (Betz & Hackett, 1983; Gwilliam & Betz, 2001; Lapan, Shaughnessy,
& Boggs, 1996; Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke, 1991). It is important here to remember
the role that interest or other factors such as commitment to a career path may play in
reported self-efficacy. For example, when looking at students who have already
made a commitment to the science field of engineering, some research has found no
gender related self-efficacy differences (Hackett, Betz, Casas, & Rocha-Singh, 1992;
Lent et al., 2005)
Regarding ethnic group differences in career decision self-efficacy, the
research has uncovered inconsistent findings. For example, while Gloria and Hird
(1999) found differences in career decision self-efficacy for various majors as well
as within declared and undeclared students, ethnicity was the strongest predictor of

39

CDSE. Caucasian students had higher levels of CDSE than grouped minority
students. Chung (2002), in contrast, found that collegiate African Americans had
higher CDSE than Caucasian students. The differences in group CDSE between
Chung (2002) and Gloria and Hird (1999) could be due to multiple factors. First,
there were few minority students in the Gloria and Hird study, while there was a
large representation of African Americans (27%) in the Chung study. It could be, as
suspected by Chung, that in a college community with a high percentage of African
Americans, that African American students have more resources and role models
contributing to CDSE than what might be available to minorities at a predominantly
Caucasian institution. Secondly, there was a large percentage of females (70%) in
the Chung study, and female African Americans tend to have higher scores than
male African Americans on the CCS career commitment measure (Chung, 2002).
There are also some interesting findings regarding inner-group cultural
differences which predict CDSE. Patel, Salahuddin, and O'Brien (2008) found that
in a Vietnamese American population, English language acculturation and peer
support were both related to increased CDSE. This resembles similarly related
results of a study in which acculturation and English language use predicted
increased career related self-efficacy more so than did length of residence in the
U.S., age, or educational level (Miranda & Umhoefer, 1998). That same study notes
that increased acculturation and language use may contribute to knowledge of career
and educational resources as well as one’s perceived ability to make use of books,

40

internet, other language related media, and teachers and other human resources, in
order to learn information about education and careers that could lead to increased
CDSE.
The bulk of the ethnicity and socio economic status based career related self-
efficacy literature will not be discussed here further both because it is quite large and
because there has been inconsistency throughout much of it in when it is paired with
ethnic and SES variations, just as has been seen and discussed with career decision
self-efficacy.
In summary, career decision self-efficacy is a key characteristic related to the
career self-defining exploration of adolescence. CDSE is one’s belief about his or her
ability to successfully perform the tasks involved in career related decisions, and is
particularly important for early undergraduate students as they navigate identity
exploration, career exploration, academic major selection, and the development of
the knowledge and decision making skills needed to move forward in their education
and life. Research on the factors influencing career development continues to need
further clarification, particularly when examining the relationship of ethnicity and
cultural variables as contributors.
Relationships Between Variables
Parenting Styles, Identity Styles, and Identity Commitment
Limited research has been done that examines which factors, such as family
relationships or parental authority, might contribute to the development of identity

41

styles. Yet, parental authority and support may likely influence the way in which
adolescents process self-relevant information. Mathis and Adams (2004) found
some moderate relationship between family environment and identity style, but did
not find any significant parent-adolescent relational factors significantly associated
with identity style. Berzonsky, Branje, and Meeus (2007) also looked at parenting
variables, though the population consisted of younger adolescents in middle and high
school. In the study, parental solicitation (i.e., adolescent perception on the ways
their parents could obtain behavioral information) was related to the informational
identity style, and parental communication openness was related to a normative
identity style.
Berzonsky (2004) has done the singular study to date which specifically
examined the relationship between parenting style and identity style. The results
indicated that the authoritative parenting style was associated with informational and
normative identity-processing styles, the authoritarian parenting style was associated
with the normative and diffuse-avoidant identity-processing styles, and the
permissive parenting styles were associated with the diffuse-avoidance identity-
processing style. The study also demonstrated that the relationship between
adolescent identity commitments and parental authoritativeness (which was positive)
and permissiveness (which was negative) was mediated by identity style. It appears
that identity commitment is encouraged by authoritative practices such as providing
emotional support and encouraging independence and responsibility. The Berzonsky

42

(2004) results support related work that has indicated that authoritative parenting
relates positively to adolescents’ maturity and autonomy (Steinberg, Elmen, &
Mounts, 1989) and excessive parental psychological control negatively relates to
identity formation (Luyckx, Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, & Berzonsky, 2007).
Hall and Brassard (2008) however found significant variation amongst
ethnicity for the influence of parental support on Marcia’s identity statuses. Parental
support related to higher achievement in Hispanics, higher foreclosure and lower
moratorium in Caucasians, and higher diffusion in African Americans. There is
clearly need for further investigation in the relationship between parenting influences
on identity development, particularly to advance the relationship between parenting
styles and identity styles.
Parenting Styles and Career Decision Self-Efficacy
The relationship of parenting styles and parental influences on achievement
related behaviors has already been thoroughly discussed. The degree to which these
relationships (e.g., authoritative parenting style most frequently associated with
desirable outcomes) remain with regard to career related behaviors and career
decision self-efficacy in particular are not as clear.
While there is no study that examines the relationship of parenting styles and
career decision self-efficacy directly, there are some studies which have engaged
related variables. Gushue and Whitson (2006) have found that parental support in
African American high school adolescents has been predictive of career decision

43

self-efficacy. However, Alliman-Brissett, Turner, and Skovholt (2004) found less
universal findings within African-American adolescents. They found parental
support was a predictor of girls’ career outcome expectations and self-knowledge
confidence, though it was not predictive of career decision self-efficacy. For males,
self-knowledge and career decision self-efficacy were predicted by parental career
modeling behavior, not parental support.
Hargrove, Creagh, and Burgess (2002) found that a variety of family
variables, such as the degree of family conflict and expressiveness, the moral-
religious emphasis, and the intellectual-cultural climate play a role in career decision
self-efficacy. Turner and Lapan (2002) found that parental support for middle school
students predicted career self-efficacy, but not career interest. McWhirter, Hackett,
and Bandalos (1998) found that paternal support was related to career expectations
of Mexican American high school girls.
There have been a number of studies that have suggested that peer and sibling
support in some cases predicts as much or more career and academic related self-
efficacy and other achievement behaviors (Ali, McWhirter, & Chronister, 2005;
Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992). Patel, Salahuddin and O’Brien (2008) found
that peer support was predictive of career decision self-efficacy, while parental
family support was not. This again may illuminate the complexity of cultural and
ethnicity variations. Patel speculates that immigrant students may perceive their
parents as less familiar and knowledgeable about the U.S. educational and

44

occupational systems than their peers, and so those immigrant students’ self-efficacy
could be more persuaded by their peers ideas and influence.
The relationship of family influences on career development is in need of
further advancement, particularly when diverse groups are taken into consideration,
and the lack of specific research with parenting styles and career decision self-
efficacy are taken into account.
Identity Styles, Identity Commitment, and Career Decision Self-Efficacy
Identity exploration and commitment contribute significantly to decision
making processes. Blustein, Devenis, and Kidney (1989), using Marcia’s
framework, indicated that career exploration was positively related to the achieved
and moratorium statuses, while commitment was negatively related to the
moratorium status. A number of studies have confirmed similar results relating low
career exploration and low commitment with increased career indecision (Guerra &
Braungart-Rieker, 1999; Vondracek, Schulenberg, Skorikov, Gillespie, & Wahlheim,
1995; Wallace-Broscious, Serafica, & Osipow, 1994).
There has been little however that related identity development to career
decision self-efficacy specifically. Lucas (1997) found that achievement was
positively related to career decision self-efficacy, while moratorium was negatively
related to CDSE. The study however did not include the foreclosed or diffused
statuses of Marcia’s framework. Nauta and Kahn (2007), extending a similar study
to include all four identity statuses, found that the achievement identity status was

45

again positively related to career decision self-efficacy, while moratorium and
foreclosure were negatively related to CDSE. Chung (2002) found that those with
higher CDSE were more committed to career planning and goal setting, which are
key elements within the adolescent navigation of identity development.
While no studies have related identity processing styles to career decision
self-efficacy, the studies mentioned here indicate that actively engaging in
exploration and commitment relates positively to CDSE, while exploration with no
commitment (and perhaps commitment with no exploration) may lead to lower
CDSE. But it is of particular interest to relate identity processing styles and career
decision self-efficacy in the future as neither is a trait or personality concept, but
both are cognitive processes. Identity style again is the cognitive processes by which
self-relevant information regarding identity development is evaluated, used, and
revised, and career decision self-efficacy is one’s cognitive perception about his or
her ability to successfully perform the tasks involved in career related decisions. In
fact, the five competencies in which the CDSE measures are built upon – self
appraisal, occupational information, goal selection, planning, and problem solving –
share some similarities with the ISI inventory and its measurement of decision
making processes and problem solving. In light of these similarities, as well as the
mediating role identity styles have with identity commitment, there is good reason to
investigate whether or not identity styles might also mediate the relationship between
parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy.

46

Summary of the Literature
Significant research in adolescent identity development and parental
influence has provided a notable literature base. Identity styles, identity
commitment, and career decision self-efficacy are important measures of identity
development and the researcher proposes they be studied together. The literature
review also pointed out the limited clarity and research on the factors influencing
these variables. The review made a particular point of the absence of clear patterns
amongst the relationships when ethnicity is taken into consideration.
Parenting styles have been associated with influencing various measures of
adolescent psychosocial development, including some areas of identity and career
development. The researcher suggests that parenting styles, and the formative
familial environment it describes, have influence upon identity styles, identity
commitment and career decision self-efficacy. It is proposed however that identity
styles mediate the relationship between parenting style and identity commitment and
career decision self-efficacy. Identity styles have been strongly associated with
identity commitment, and as identity styles are a large view of one’s processing of
self-relevant information, they are proposed to also associate strongly with career
decision self-efficacy and one’s perceptions about ability to make career related
decisions.
The need for further research to relate the variables in discussion, and in the
case of parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy, the need for the first

47

research relating those variables, has been discussed. The combination of parenting
styles, identity styles, identity commitment, and career decision self-efficacy, as well
as the importance of investigating a diverse sample, will provide a distinctive set of
relationships in the literature amongst these constructs and add to the recent
promising work in identity styles. Particular research needs which will be addressed
include extending the identity commitment dependent variable to include another
variable (e.g., career decision self-efficacy) as an elaboration of the processing of the
career area of identity, and extending the research of these variables to include an
ethnically diverse sample in order to add to the body of literature still seeking clearer
patterns of relationship between parenting styles, identity styles, and outcomes in
ethnic minorities.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among
ethnicity, parenting styles, identity styles, identity commitment, and career decision
self-efficacy in early college students. The following research questions guided this
investigation:
RQ 1: Do parenting styles differ based on ethnicity?
Hypothesis 1a: Asian American and Hispanic groups will have more
authoritarian parenting styles in comparison with Caucasians.

48

Hypothesis 1b: Caucasian groups will have higher authoritative parenting
styles in comparison with African American, Asian American, and
Hispanic populations.
RQ 2: Do ethnicity and parenting styles predict identity styles?
Hypothesis 2a: Authoritative parenting style will predict higher
informational identity style.
Hypothesis 2b: Authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles will
predict higher normative identity style.
Hypothesis 2c: Authoritative parenting style will predict lower diffuse-
avoidant identity style, while authoritarian and permissive parenting will
predict higher diffuse-avoidant identity style.
RQ 3: Do ethnicity, parenting styles, and identity styles predict identity commitment
and career decision self-efficacy?
Hypothesis 3a: Authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles will
predict higher identity commitment.
Hypothesis 3b: Permissive parenting style will predict lower identity
commitment.

49

Hypothesis 3c: Informational and normative identity styles will predict
higher identity commitment.
Hypothesis 3d: Diffuse-avoidant identity style will predict lower identity
commitment.
Hypothesis 3e: Authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles will
predict higher career decision self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 3f: Permissive parenting style will predict lower career
decision self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 3g: Informational and normative identity styles will predict
higher career decision self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 3h: Diffuse-avoidant identity style will predict lower career
decision self-efficacy.
RQ 4: Do identity styles mediate the relationship between parenting styles and
identity commitment, and parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy?
It is hypothesized that identity styles mediate the effects of parenting styles
on identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy. Consistent with
the hypotheses and relationships discussed in previous RQs, all three
identity styles are hypothesized accordingly to have direct effects on identity

50

commitment and career decision self-efficacy. See figure 1 below for the
hypothesized relationships.
Figure 1
Hypothesized Model Of Relationships Of Parenting Styles And Identity Styles In Relation To Identity
Commitment And Career Decision Self-Efficacy
AuthVV
AuthNN
Permissive
Informational
Normative
Diffuse-
Avoidant
Commitment
Career Decision
Self-Efficacy
Note. This model includes correlated relationships between parenting styles, disturbance terms
between identity styles, and disturbance terms between identity commitment and career
decision self-efficacy not shown in the figure. The model also includes direct paths between
the parenting styles to Commitment and Career Decision Self-Efficacy.

51

CHAPTER 3

Research Methodology

This chapter describes the methodology employed in the study, including the
participants, instrumentation, and procedure.
Participants
Participants for this study were recruited from a four-year private university
in Southern California during the 2008 – 2009 academic year. Anonymous self-
reported surveys were completed by participants online and via paper and pencil. Of
the 224 surveys that were returned, 14 were excluded because they were incomplete.
There was an even gender split in the final sample of 210 participants (50% male and
50% female). The majority of the participants were in their first year of college (n =
189, 90%) and with a declared major (n = 139, 66.2%). The racial background of the
participants in this study were largely Caucasian (n = 118, 56.2%), with the rest of
the participants identified as Asian (n = 23, 11.0%), African American (n = 26,
12.4%), Hispanic (n = 23, 11%), and Biracial or Multiracial (n = 20, 9.5%). More
than 40% (n = 87, 41.4%) of the participants indicated that their family income was
over $150,000, the rest of the participants were fairly evenly distributed among the
other family income levels, except for income less than $25,000 being less than 10%
(n = 13, 6.2%). While most of the participants were born in the US (n = 193,
91.9%), there was a fairly even distribution in generational status between second to
fifth-and-above generation, with only 10% (n = 21) of the participants being first

52

generation American. The age range of the participants were between 18 to 22 years
old (M = 18.4, SD = .64), and the length of time they have lived in the US ranged
from 6 months to 20 years (M = 17.13, SD = 4.06). Table 4 and Table 5 below
illustrate the academic and demographic information of the participants.
Table 4
Academic Information of Participants
n %
High School GPA
2 – 2.49 3 1.4
2.5 – 2.99 16 7.6
3 – 3.49 67 31.9
3.5 – 3.99 88 41.9
4.0 and above 36 17.1
Year in College
Freshmen 189 90.0
Sophomore 19 9.0
Junior 2 1.0
Major
Declared 139 66.2
Undeclared 71 33.8
USC Athlete
Yes 96 45.7
No 114 54.3

53

Table 5
Demographic Information of Participants
n %
Sex
Male 105 50.0
Female 105 50.0
Race
Caucasian 118 56.2
Asian American 23 11.0
African American 26 12.4
Hispanic 23 11.0
Biracial/Multiracial 20 9.5
Generational Status
First 21 10.0
Second 57 27.1
Third 47 22.4
Fourth 37 17.6
Fifth and above 48 22.9
Family Income
Less than $25,000 13 6.2
$25,000 - $49,999 21 10.0
$50,000 - $74,999 27 12.9
$75,000 - $99,999 32 15.2
$100,000 - $149,000 30 14.2
$150,000 and above 87 41.4
Religion
Other 11 5.2
None 49 23.3
Buddhism 2 1.0
Protestant 61 29.0
Catholic 71 33.8
Islam 1 .5
Judaism 15 7.1

Instruments
The survey instrument consisted of five sections: 1) Demographic and
background information (Appendix B), 2) the Parental Authority Questionnaire

54

(PAQ, Appendix C), 4) The Revised Identity Style Inventory (ISI-4, Appendix D),
and 5) The Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale – Short Form (CDSE-SF,
Appendix E).
Demographic and Background Information
Demographic and background data such as age, sex, ethnicity, religion,
generational status, family income, parental figures, high school GPA, parental
schooling, declared major, and current academic attendance year were collected.
Parenting Styles
Participant’s perceptions regarding the parenting styles of their parents were
measured by the most commonly employed parenting styles classification scheme, a
three-fold measure based on Baumrind’s early work (e.g. authoritarian, authoritative,
permissive), the Parent Authority Questionnaire (PAQ, Buri, 1991). Participants
were instructed to respond to the items based on their overall perceptions of recalled
parental behavior. The survey terminology for “parents” was flexible and allowed
participants to refer to whomever they perceived as their parental figures (e.g. two
biological parents, adoptive parents, one parent, grandparent as guardian, etc).
Some versions of the PAQ employ separate forms: one for perceived paternal
authority, and one for perceived maternal authority. This study however used the
cumulative impact of parenting as the selected use of the PAQ. This was done partly
due to the high number of items already being asked in the survey, and partly due to
the convergence in maternal and paternal parenting styles that has been found in

55

prior research. For example, Baumrind (1991) found that 76% of parents had the
same parenting style, while Fletcher, Steinberg, and Sellers (1999) similarly found
that 72% of parents had the same parenting style.
The PAQ, based on Baumrind’s work in developing the parenting style
typologies, includes 30-items scored on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from
“Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” The typologies present in the PAQ were
authoritative (10 items: e.g., "As I was growing up my parents directed the activities
and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and discipline"),
authoritarian (10 items: e.g., "As I was growing up my parents often told me exactly
what they wanted me to do and exactly how they expected me to do it,") and
permissive (10 items: e.g., "As I was growing up my parents seldom gave me
expectations and guidelines for my behavior").
Participants were instructed to respond to the items based on their overall
perceptions of recalled parental behavior. This instrument was selected both because
of its strong psychometric properties as well as its design for college aged
populations. PAQ internal consistency reliability ranged between .74 to .87 and its
test-retest reliability between .77 to .92, and it also has strong discriminant and
criterion-related validity (Buri, 1991). In this study, the authoritative, authoritarian,
and permissive parenting styles had internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) of
.84, .81, and .70, respectively.

56

Identity Styles
Identity style refers to the social-cognitive styles of making decisions, coping
with problems, and negotiating identity related issues. The Revised Identity Style
Inventory (ISI-4), is a revision of the Berzonsky’s ISI (1989), and includes 34-items
presented on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like me” to “Very much like
me.” The three typologies included are informational style (7 items: e.g., “When
making important life decisions, I like to think about my options”), diffuse-avoidant
style (9 items: e.g., “I’m not sure where I’m heading in my life; I guess things will
work themselves out”) and the normative style (8 items: e.g., “I strive to achieve the
goals that my family and friends hold for me”).
Reported coefficient alphas for the ISI-4 in a U.S. sample have been .71, .82,
and .78 for the informational, normative, and diffuse-avoidant style, respectively.
Cronbach’s Alphas were .76, .69, and .77 for the informational, normative, and
diffuse-avoidant styles, respectively (Smits et al, 2008). Test-retest reliability was
.80, .85, and .87 for the informational, normative style, and the diffuse-avoidant
styles, respectively. Stability was .63, .62, and .66 for the informational, normative
style, and the diffuse-avoidant styles, respectively. Test-retest reliability and stability
coefficients were high, indicating low measurement error. The discovery of retest
correlation declining over time suggests possible changes in identity processing
styles over time (Smits et al, 2008; Watson, 2004). Convergent validity is confirmed

57

via relationship between the ISI-4 scores with both the ISI-3 and the IPSQ (Smits et
al, 2008).
In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha values were .79, .77, and .81 for the
informational, normative, and diffuse-avoidant identity styles, respectively.
Identity Commitment
Identity commitment refers to the level of an individual’s investment and
decision to embrace certain values, beliefs, and occupational paths. In addition to
the 24 items assigned to identity styles, the ISI-4 includes 10 items assigned to
identity commitment presented on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like
me” to “Very much like me” (e.g., “I know basically what I believe and don’t
believe”). Coefficient alphas for Identity Commitment were found to be .83 and .82
in two different recent samples (Smits et al, 2008). Test-retest reliability for
Identity Commitment in the similar ISI-3, was .89.
In this study, identity commitment had internal consistency reliability
(Cronbach’s α) of .82.
Career Decision Self-Efficacy
The perceived ability of participants to successfully complete tasks related to
making career-related decisions was assessed by the Career Decision Self-Efficacy
Scale – Short Form (CDSE-SF, Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996; Betz & Taylor, 2001).
The CDSE-SF was adapted from the original Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy
Scale (CDMSE, Taylor & Betz, 1983). The CDSE-SF is a frequently used measure

58

for college aged populations and has received notable study and validation from Betz
and Luzzo (1996). The 25-item CDSE-SF includes a five-point scale ranging from
“No confidence at all” to “Complete confidence” for each question. Five CDSE-SF
subscales include Self-Appraisal (5 items: e.g., “Accurately assess your abilities,”)
Occupational Information (5 items: e.g., “Find out the employment trends for an
occupation over the next ten years,”) Goal Selection (5 items: e.g.,” Select one
occupation from a list of potential occupations you are considering,”) Planning (5
items: e.g., “Make a plan of your goals for the next five years,”) and Problem
Solving (5 items: e.g., “Determine the steps to take if you are having academic
trouble with an aspect of your chosen major”).
Coefficient alpha values were found by Betz et al. (1996) to be between .73
(Self-Appraisal) and .83 (Goal Selection), and .94 for the 25-item total score. Luzzo
(1993) provides evidence for test-retest reliability through a six-week test-retest
coefficient of .83 for the total score. In this study, the overall internal consistency
reliability (Cronbach’s α) was .93, and the Cronbach’s α values for the subscales
were .74 for Self-Appraisal, .72 for Occupational Information, .81 for Goal
Selection, .75 for Planning, and .70 for Problem Solving.
Procedure
Students from an undergraduate educational psychology and learning
strategies class in the 2008 – 2009 academic year were recruited to participated in
this study online. They were contacted by email with a link to an online survey,

59

received a flier with the URL address of the survey during classes, or were able to
complete a paper and pencil version of the survey and submit it to the researcher.
During class, students were given a broad explanation of the study as one that
focused on parental influences upon different areas of student development. The
specific terms of the variables and instruments were not mentioned. As an incentive
to increase survey participation, the professor of the course agreed to provide
students with 5 extra-points toward their final course grade. The extra-credit points
could only account for approximately 1% of possible points in the course as the
course was based on a total exceeding 400 points.
An informed consent (Appendix A) was provided at the beginning of the
online survey and it informed the participants that their participation was voluntary
and information would be kept confidential. Participants also were provided the
researcher’s contact information in case they had further questions relating to the
study.

60

CHAPTER 4
Results
This chapter presents and discusses means, standard deviations, and
intercorrelations of all measured variables. Results from the multivariate analysis of
variance, hierarchical multiple regression analyses, and a structural model of the
relations between identity style, parenting style, identity commitment, and career
decision self-efficacy for the four research questions are also presented. An alpha
level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. The four research questions examined in
this study are,
1. Do parenting styles differ based on ethnicity?
2. Do ethnicity and parenting styles predict identity styles?
3. Do ethnicity, parenting style, and identity styles predict identity commitment
and career decision self-efficacy?
4. Do identity styles mediate the relationship between parenting styles and
identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy?
Intercorrelations
The means, standard deviations, and correlations of all of the measured
variables are presented in Table 6.

61

Table 6
Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson-Product Correlation of Measured Variables
Variables M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Sex .08 .03 -.22** .23** -.24*** -.15* .01 .04
2. AuthVV 3.72 .63 -- -.50*** .28*** .30*** .05 -.26*** .28*** .26***
3. AuthNN 3.16 .65 -- -.41*** -.09 .20** .16* .03 -.05
4. Perm 2.53 .54 -- -.06 .13 .15* -.08 -.07
5. Info 4.06 .59 -- -.17* -.36*** .37*** .34***
6. Norm 2.74 .65 -- .28*** .15* -.05
7. D-A 2.58 .71 -- -.52*** -.42***
8. Comm 3.73 .65 -- .61***
9. CDSE 18.89 2.86 --
Note. All scores are scaled scores. 1: Sex (1 = Male, 2 = Female); Parenting Styles (PAQ): 2: AuthVV = Authoritative,
3: AuthNN = Authoritarian, 4. Perm = Permissive; Identity Style: 5. Info = Informational, 6. Norm = Normative, 7. D-A
= Diffuse-Avoidant; 8. Comm = Identity Commitment; 9. CDSE: Career Decision Self-Efficacy.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

61

62

Sex was significantly correlated with permissive parenting styles, r = -.22, p
= .001, and informational, r = .23, p = .001, normative, r = -.24, p < .001, and
diffuse-avoidant identity styles, r = -.15, p = .031, which indicates that male
participants reported experiencing more permissive parenting style and having more
normative and diffuse-avoidant identity styles, where female participants reported
having a more informational identity style.
Participants with a declared major reported having a more informational, r = -
.15, p = .027, and a less diffuse-avoidant identity style, r = .16, p = .024, and higher
career decision self-efficacy, r = -.19, p = .005.
Significant correlations among the three parenting styles and among the three
identity styles were found, as expected. Consistent with previous findings
(Berzonsky, 2003; Berzonsky &Neimeyer, 1994), informational, normative, and
diffusive-avoidant identity styles were significantly correlated with commitment, r =
.37, p < .001; r = .15, p = .032; and r = -.52, p < .001, respectively. In addition,
authoritative parenting style was inversely related with diffusive-avoidant identity
style, r = -.26, p < .001, but was positively correlated with informational identity
style, r = .30, p < .000. Authoritarian parenting style was positively correlated with
both normative and diffusive-avoidant identity styles, r = .20, p = .003 and r = .16, p
= .025, respectively. Finally, Permissive parenting style was positively correlated
with only the diffusive-avoidant identity style, r = .15, p = .036.

63

Research Question 1: Do Parenting Styles Differ based on Ethnicity?
A 3 (parenting style) x 5 (ethnicity) multivariate analyses of variance analysis
(MANOVA) was conducted with parenting styles (Authoritative, Authoritarian,
Permissive) as the criterion variables and ethnicity (Caucasian, Asian American,
African American, Hispanic, Biracial/Multiracial) as the independent variable.
Results indicated that ethnicity differences in participants’ reported parenting styles
when growing up, Wilks’ λ = .87, F (12, 537.48) = 2.42, p = .005.
Follow up univariate analyses revealed that significant differences were
found in authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles based on ethnicity, F (4,
205) = 5.12, p = .001, and F (4, 205) = 5.02, p = .001, respectively. More
specifically, Dunette T-3 post hoc test (when equal variances not assumed, Levene’s
F (4, 205) = 3.52, p = .008) revealed that both African American and Hispanic
participants reported experiencing less authoritative parenting styles compared to
Caucasian participants. In addition, Scheffe post hoc test (when equal variances
assumed, Levene’s F (4, 205) = .49, p = .746) revealed that African American
participants reported experiencing more authoritarian parenting styles compared to
Caucasian participants.
Table 7 illustrates multivariate and univariate analysis of variance statistics.
Table 8 includes the descriptive statistics.

64

Table 7
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for Parenting Styles by Ethnicity with Significant
Post Hoc Tests
Source λ F df p Significant post hoc test
Ethnicity .87 2.42 12 .005
Authoritative*** 5.12 4 .001 Caucasian >
African American,
Hispanic
Authoritarian*** 5.02 4 .001 African American > Caucasian
Permissive 1.92 4 .108
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Table 8
Means and Standard Deviations of Parenting Styles by Ethnicity
Authoritative Authoritarian Permissive
M SD M SD M SD
Caucasian 3.86 .59 3.00 .61 2.61 .52
Asian American 3.53 .92 3.41 .71 2.49 .48
African American 3.41 .57 3.51 .67 2.35 .62
Hispanic 3.45 .33 3.31 .55 2.48 .49
Biracial/Multiracial 3.81 .50 3.18 .69 2.46 .57

Research Question 2: Do Ethnicity and Parenting Style Predict Identity Styles?
Three hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine if
ethnicity and parenting style were predictive of the three identity styles, including 1)
informational, 2) normative, and 3) diffusive-avoidant. Ethnicity was dummy-coded
with Caucasian as the comparison group. Ethnicity was entered in the first step.
Next, parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive) were entered to
examine its contribution above and beyond the effects of ethnicity.
Informational Style
Results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses indicated that
ethnicity was not predictive of informational identity style. The statistics are
illustrated in Table 9.

65

Table 9
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Identity Styles
Variables R
2
R
2
Change
F
Change
B SE β p
Informational Style
Step 1 .009 .46 .765
Asian American .09 .14 .05 .500
African American -.11 .13 -.06 .396
Hispanic -.09 .14 -.05 .513
Biracial/Multiracial .00 .14 .00 .99

Step 2 .119 .110 8.45 .000
Authoritative*** .34 .07 .36 .000
Authoritarian .01 .07 .01 .894
Permissive*

-.16 .08 -.15 .046

Normative Style
Step 1 .019 1.00 .408
Asian American -.09 .15 -.04 .566
African American .00 .14 .00 .996
Hispanic .25 .15 .12 .099
Biracial/Multiracial -.09 .16 -.04 .572

Step 2 .144 .124 9.79 .000
Authoritative** .20 .09 .19 .013
Authoritarian*** .40 .08 .40 .000
Permissive** .29 .08 .24 .001

Diffusive-Avoidant Style
Step 1 .013 .66 .619
Asian American .14 .16 .06 .394
African American .09 .16 .04 .564
Hispanic .17 .16 .07 .303
Biracial/Multiracial -.12 .17 -.05 .493

Step 2 .134 .121 9.45 .000
Authoritative** -.30 .09 -.26 .001
Authoritarian .15 .09 .14 .093
Permissive*** .36 .10 .28 .000
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
After controlling for ethnicity, parenting styles accounted for a significant
11% of the variance in informational identity style, F change (3, 202) = 8.45, p <
.001. More specifically, authoritative and permissive parenting styles were
predictive of participants’ informational identity style, β = .36, p < .001; β = -.15, p =

66

.046;, respectively, suggesting that, after controlling for the effects of ethnicity, those
participants who experienced more authoritative and less permissive parenting styles
reported higher informational identity style, with authoritative parenting style being
the better predictor.
Normative Style
Results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses indicated that
ethnicity was not predictive of normative identity style. After controlling for
ethnicity, parenting styles accounted for a significant 12.4% of the variance in
normative identity style, F change (3, 202) = 9.79, p < .001, and all three parenting
styles were significant predictors. The results suggested that those participants who
experienced higher levels of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting
styles also reported higher level of normative identity style, β = .19, p = .013; β =
.40, p < .001, and β = .24, p < .001, respectively. Further, the best predictor for
normative identity style was authoritarian parenting style.
Diffusive-Avoidant Style
Results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses indicated that
ethnicity was not predictive of diffusive-avoidant identity style. After controlling for
ethnicity, parenting styles accounted for a significant 12.1 % of the variance in
diffusive-avoidant identity style, F change (3, 202) = 9.45, p < .001. More
specifically, authoritative and permissive parenting styles were predictive of
participants’ diffusive-avoidant identity style, β = -.26, p = .001; β = .28, p < .001,

67

respectively, suggesting that, after controlling for the effects of ethnicity, those
participants who experienced less authoritative and more permissive parenting styles
reported higher diffusive-avoidant identity style, with permissive parenting style
being the slightly better predictor.
Research Question 3: Do Ethnicity, Parenting Style, and Identity Styles Predict
Identity Commitment and Career Decision Self-Efficacy?
Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine if
ethnicity, parenting style, and identity styles were predictive of 1) identity
commitment and 2) career decision self-efficacy. Ethnicity was dummy-coded with
Caucasian as the comparison group. Ethnicity was entered in the first step. Next,
parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive) were entered to
examine its contribution above and beyond the effects of ethnicity. Lastly, identity
styles (informational, normative, and diffuse-avoidant) were entered to examine its
effects above and beyond the effects of ethnicity and parenting styles.
Identity Commitment
Results of the hierarchical multiple regression indicated that, ethnicity was
not predictive of identity commitment. After controlling for ethnicity, parenting
style accounted for a significant 12.6% of the variance in identity commitment, F
change (3, 202) = 9.78, p = .000. More specifically, authoritative and authoritarian
parenting styles were predictive of participants’ identity commitment, β = .41, p <
.001; β = .16, p = .046, respectively, suggesting that, after controlling for ethnicity,

68

those participants who experienced more authoritative and authoritarian parenting
styles reported higher identity commitment, with authoritative being the better
predictor. Next, after taking into the effects of ethnicity and parenting styles,
identity styles further accounted for a significant 30.9% of the variance in identity
commitment, F change (3, 199) = 36.60, p < .001. Furthermore, all three identity
styles, informational, normative, and diffuse-avoidant were significant predictors of
identity commitment, above and beyond the effects of ethnicity and parenting styles,
β = .20, p = .001, β = .30, p < .001, and β = -.52, p < .001, respectively, with
diffusive-avoidant having the largest effect. These results suggested that, while
ethnicity itself did not predict identity commitment, after controlling for ethnicity,
those participants with experiences of more authoritative and authoritarian parenting
styles also reported higher identity commitment. In addition, even after the effects of
ethnicity and parenting styles, those participants with less diffuse-avoidant and more
informational and normative identity styles reported higher identity commitment,
with diffusive-avoidant being the strongest predictor among the three identity styles.
Table 10 illustrates the regression analysis statistics.

69

Table 10
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Identity Commitment
Variables R
2
R
2
Change
F
Change
B SE β p
Step 1 .003 .003 .16
Asian American .09 .15 .04 .549
African American -.04 .14 -.02 .779
Hispanic -.03 .15 -.02 .829
Biracial/Multiracial -.04 .16 -.02 .815

Step 2 .130 .126 9.78
Authoritative*** .42 .08 .41 .000
Authoritarian* .16 .08 .16 .046
Permissive -.15 .09 -.13 .088

Step 3 .439 .309 36.60
Informational** .22 .07 .20 .001
Normative*** .30 .06 .30 .000
Diffuse-Avoidant*** -.48 .06 -.52 .000
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
Career Decision Self-Efficacy
Results of the hierarchical multiple regression indicated that, ethnicity was
significant in predicting career decision self-efficacy, and it explained a significant
8.5% of the variance, F change (4, 205) = 4.74, p = .001. More specifically, Asian
American and Hispanic participants reported having lower career decision self-
efficacy compared to Caucasian participants, β = -.25, p < .001; β = -.18, p = .010,
respectively. After controlling for ethnicity, parenting style accounted for an
additional significant 8.0% of the variance in career decision self-efficacy, F change
(3, 202) = 6.45, p = .000. It was found that only authoritative parenting style was a
significant predictor, β = .31, p < .001, suggesting that after controlling for ethnicity
differences, those participants experiencing more authoritative parenting style
reported higher career decision self-efficacy. Next, after taking into the effects of

70

ethnicity and parenting styles, identity styles further accounted for a significant
15.3% of the variance in career decision self-efficacy, F change (3, 199) = 14.84, p <
.001. More specifically, only informational and diffuse-avoidant identity styles were
significant predictors of career decision self-efficacy, above and beyond the effects
of ethnicity and parenting styles, β = .21, p = .002, and β = -.32, p < .001,
respectively, with diffusive-avoidant style having the largest effect. These results
suggested that, while Asian American and Hispanic participants reported having
lower career decision self-efficacy compared to European Americans, after
controlling for ethnicity, those participants with experiences of more authoritative
parenting style reported higher career decision self-efficacy. In addition, even after
the effects of ethnicity and parenting styles, those participants with less diffuse-
avoidant and more informational identity styles reported higher career decision self-
efficacy, with diffusive-avoidant being the better strongest predictor between the two
styles. Table 11 illustrates the regression analysis statistics.

71

Table 11
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Career Decision Self-Efficacy
Variables R
2
R
2
Change
F
Change
B SE β p
Step 1 .085 .085 4.74
Asian American*** -2.26 .63 -.25 .000
African American .28 .60 .03 .639
Hispanic* -1.63 .63 -.18 .010
Biracial/Multiracial -.37 .69 -.04 .582

Step 2 .165 .080 6.45
Authoritative*** 1.41 .35 .31 .000
Authoritarian .35 .35 .08 .324
Permissive -.75 .38 -.14 .050

Step 3 .317 .153 14.84
Informational** 1.01 .32 .21 .002
Normative .24 .29 .06 .404
Diffuse-Avoidant*** -1.30 .27 -.32 .000
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Research Question 4: Do Identity Styles Mediate the Relationship between Parenting
Styles and Identity Commitment and Career Decision Self-Efficacy?
A model was formulated to test the structural relationship between parenting
styles, identity styles, identity commitment, and career decision self-efficacy. Figure
1 illustrates this model.

72

Figure 1
Hypothesized Model Of Relationships Of Parenting Styles And Identity Styles In Relation To Identity
Commitment And Career Decision Self-Efficacy

It is hypothesized that identity styles mediate the effects of parenting styles
on identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy. More specifically, it is
hypothesized that authoritative parenting style has direct effects on all three identity
styles, while authoritarian parenting style only has direct effects on normative and
diffuse-avoidant identity style, and permissive parenting style only has direct effect
on diffuse-avoidant identity style. All three identity styles are hypothesized to have
direct effects on identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy.
In addition, it was also hypothesized that the three parenting styles were
correlated with each other, which was consistent with the results of the correlational
analysis (see Table 6). In addition, since the three different parenting styles shared
AuthVV
AuthNN
Permissive
Informational
Normative
Diffuse-
Avoidant
Commitment
Career Decision
Self-Efficacy
Note. This model includes correlated relationships between parenting styles, disturbance terms
between identity styles, and disturbance terms between identity commitment and career
decision self-efficacy not shown in the figure. The model also includes direct paths between
the parenting styles to Commitment and Career Decision Self-Efficacy.

73

the same underlying construct, it is hypothesized that the residuals are correlated
with each other. Finally, while identity commitment and career decision self-
efficacy are two different constructs, there may be other factors that contribute to
both of these constructs that are not measured and included in the current model.
Therefore, it is hypothesized that the residuals of identity commitment and career
decision self-efficacy are correlated with each other.
Data Preparation
As indicated earlier, all significance tests alpha was set at .05. All measures
were univariate normal with skew less than 1 and kurtosis less than 2.5, satisfying
the recommendations of skew less than 3 and kurtosis less than 4 (Kline, 2005). Z
scores were computed to screen for univariate outliers (those greater than 3.29) and
no cases were excluded in this step (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Further, data was
screened for multivariate outliers by computing Mahalanobis distance, resulting in
the elimination of 4 cases (D
2
< .001), leaving 206 cases in the final analysis for the
model testing. Lastly, the data was also checked for multicollinearity across the
variables. First-order correlations, as well as the means and standard deviations, were
already presented in Table 6 earlier in this chapter. No first-order correlations were
above .60, except the .61 correlation between identity commitment and career
decision self-efficacy, indicating that multicollinearity is not a problem among most
of the measured variables (Kline, 2005), and the correlation between identity
commitment and career decision self-efficacy was included in the model hypothesis.

74

Evaluation Criteria
In determining the criterion for evaluating models in CFA and SEM and to
obtain a relatively good fit between the hypothesized models and observed data,
Bentler Comparative Fit Index (CFI) or the Jöreskog-Sörbom Goodness of Fit Index
(GFI) should be greater than .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1995), the Root Mean Squared Error
of Approximation (RMSEA) should be close to or less than .10 with an upper bound
of the 90% CI of .10 (Browne & Cudek, 1993). The 90% confidence interval (CI) is
interpreted in the same way as one would interpret a one-sample t-test.
The traditional nonsignificant p value of Chi-square is not used as a fit index
because Chi-square statistics is very sensitive to sample size, and its values are often
not interpretable in a standardized way (Kline, 2005). To reduce the sensitivity of
the chi-square statistic to sample size, the decision was made in this study to divide
the chi-square value by the degrees of freedom (X
2
/df). If this ratio is less than 3, the
model is also considered to have a relatively good fit.
Overview of Model Tested
Analyses were conducted with structural equation modeling using AMOS
16.0. Results of the structural equation modeling are shown in Figure 2 with
standardized beta coefficients.

75

Figure 2
Standardized Beta Coefficients of the Hypothesized Model

As seen in figure 2, all path loadings associated with indicators were
significant, except the paths between authoritarian parenting style and diffuse-
avoidant identity style, β = .13, p = .106, and between normative identity style and
career decision self-efficacy, β = .09, p = .174. The direct paths (direct effects after
mediations) between the indicators (parenting styles) and outcomes (commitment
and career decision self-efficacy) were not shown, and none of the mediated direct
effects were significant. When the direct and indirect paths between indicators,
mediators, and outcomes were all included in the model, fit of the model was
considered to be adequate, X
2
/df = 10.95/3 = 3.65; CFI = .982; GFI = .987, RMSEA
= .114 with high CI (90) = .189, based on the aforementioned criteria established for
the analyses. It was considered to be adequate, even though the chi-square/degree of
freedom ratio was slightly above 3, because the other evaluation criteria were met
(CFI, GFI, RMSEA).
AuthVV
AuthNN
Permissive
Informational
Normative
Diffuse-
Avoidant
Commitment
Career Decision
Self-Efficacy
.32
.19
-.25
.31
.13
NS
.18
.23
.21
.31
.09
NS
-.53
-.32

76

As hypothesized, a more authoritative parenting style was associated with
higher informational identity style, and both higher identity commitment and career
decision self-efficacy. A more authoritative parenting style was also associated with
a higher normative identity style, and higher identity commitment, but not career
decision self-efficacy. A more authoritarian parenting style was associated with
higher normative identity style, and only higher identity commitment. A more
authoritarian parenting style was also associated with higher diffuse-avoidant
identity style, and both less identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy. A
more permissive authoritarian parenting style was associated with higher diffuse-
avoidant identity style, and both less identity commitment and career decision self-
efficacy.
Also, in addition to the significance level of the paths, the strengths of the
effects were of interest. Indirect (mediated) and total effects of variables were
calculated so their relative strengths can be compared. The delineation of effects can
help to explain which variables have the strongest total effects on identity
commitment and career decision self-efficacy, and how much of their effects are
direct or indirect (mediated, i.e., through other variables in the model). Table 12
shows the total effects (TE) and direct effects (DE) of parenting styles on outcome
variables (identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy), and the mediated
effects (ME), which are the products of the parenting styles’ effects on the mediators
(identity styles) and the mediators’ effects on the outcome variables (identity

77

commitment and career decision self-efficacy). Table 13 shows the direct effect of
parenting styles on the mediators (identity styles). For a mediated effect to be
significant, both the effect from predictor (parenting style) to the mediator (identity
style) and the effect from the mediator (identity style) to the outcome (identity
commitment and career decision self-efficacy) need to be significant (Preacher &
Hayes, 2008).
Table 12
Direct, Mediated, and Total Effects on Identity Commitment and Career Decision Self-Efficacy
Identity Commitment Career Decision Self-Efficacy
Variable DE ME TE

DE ME TE
Authoritative .080 .263 .343 .151 .164 . 316
Authoritarian .097 .027 .125 .097 -.013 .073
Permissive -.023 -.096 -.119 -.016 -.058 -.075
Informational .229* .212*
Normative .311* .092
Diffusive-
Avoidant
-.531* -.320*
Note: * p < .05

Table 13
Parenting Style Effects on the Mediators (Identity Styles)
Informational Normative Diffusive-Avoidant
Variable DE DE DE
Authoritative .323* .190* -.245*
Authoritarian - .305* .127
Permissive - - .181*
Note: * p < .05

As shown in Table 12 and 13, as well as in Figure 2, informational identity
style was a significant mediator between authoritative parenting style and identity
commitment and career decision self-efficacy. Normative identity style was a
significant mediator between both authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles
and identity commitment, but not with career decision self-efficacy. Finally,

78

diffusive-avoidant identity style was a significant mediator between both
authoritative and permissive parenting styles and both identity commitment and
career decision self-efficacy. More specifically, diffusive-avoidant identity style
serves as a suppressor between permissive parenting style and commitment and
career decision self-efficacy, suggesting those students with parents of higher level
of permissive parenting style reported a higher level of diffusive-avoidant identity
style, which led to lower level of commitment and lower level of career decision
self-efficacy. The results of the mediation model also suggest that those students
with parents of higher authoritative parenting style reported a higher level of
informational identity style, which also led to a higher level of identity commitment
and career decision self-efficacy. In addition, both groups of students with parents of
higher level authoritative or authoritarian parenting styles reported a higher level of
normative identity style, which lead to a higher level of identity commitment, but not
to career decision self-efficacy. Finally, students with parents of a higher level of
authoritative parenting style reported a lower level of diffuse-avoidant identity style,
which led to higher level of commitment and career decision self-efficacy.
A summary of all hypotheses in the study, including which were confirmed,
is provided below in Table 14.

79

Table 14
Hypotheses Confirmations Summary
Hypothesis Confirmation
RQ 1: Do parenting styles differ based on ethnicity?
Hypothesis 1a: Asian American and Hispanic groups will
have more authoritarian parenting styles in comparison
with Caucasians.
No (African Americans reported more
authoritarian parenting style)
Hypothesis 1b: Caucasian groups will have higher
authoritative parenting styles in comparison with African
American, Asian American, and Hispanic populations.
Partly (true in Caucasian relationship to
African Americans and Hispanics)
RQ 2: Do ethnicity and parenting styles predict identity styles?
Hypothesis 2a: Authoritative parenting style will predict
higher informational identity style.
Yes
Hypothesis 2b: Authoritative and authoritarian parenting
styles will predict higher normative identity style.
Yes
Hypothesis 2c: Authoritative parenting style will predict
lower diffuse-avoidant identity style, while authoritarian
and permissive parenting will predict higher diffuse-
avoidant identity style.
Partly (authoritative did predict lower
DA, permissive did predict higher DA,
but authoritarian was not significant)
RQ 3: Do ethnicity, parenting styles, and identity styles predict identity commitment and career decision
self-efficacy?
Hypothesis 3a: Authoritative and authoritarian parenting
styles will predict higher identity commitment.
Yes
Hypothesis 3b: Permissive parenting style will predict
lower identity commitment.
Not significant
Hypothesis 3c: Informational and normative identity
styles will predict higher identity commitment.
Yes
Hypothesis 3d: Diffuse-avoidant identity style will
predict lower identity commitment.
Yes
Hypothesis 3e: Authoritative and authoritarian parenting
styles will predict higher career decision self-efficacy.
Partly (authoritative did predict higher
CDSE, authoritarian was not significant)
Hypothesis 3f: Permissive parenting style will predict
lower career decision self-efficacy.
Not significant (though close at p=.05)
Hypothesis 3g: Informational and normative identity
styles will predict higher career decision self-efficacy.
Partly (informational did predict higher
CDSE, normative was not significant)
Hypothesis 3h: Diffuse-avoidant identity style will
predict lower career decision self-efficacy.
Yes
RQ 4: Do identity styles mediate the relationship between parenting styles and identity commitment, and
parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy?
It is hypothesized that identity styles mediate the
effects of parenting styles on identity commitment
and career decision self-efficacy.
See figure 2 on page 75 for results of
model (all predicted relationships were
confirmed, except relationships between
authoritarian parenting style and diffuse-
avoidant identity style, and normative
identity style and CDSE, were not
significant)
Consistent with the discussion in previous RQs, all
three identity styles are hypothesized accordingly to
have direct effects on identity commitment and
career decision self-efficacy.

80

CHAPTER 5
Discussion
Adolescent identity development is at the forefront of this study. This study
sought to examine the relationships between ethnicity, parenting styles, identity
styles, identity commitment, and career decision self-efficacy in early
undergraduates. Results indicate that the home environment (as observed in
parenting styles) and the way in which adolescents process their sense of self (as
observed in identity styles), are important contributors toward adolescent identity
achievement (as observed in identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy).
Furthermore, some aspects of identity styles were mediators in the relationship
between parenting styles and identity commitment as well as parenting styles and
career decision self-efficacy.
This chapter discusses the findings of this study within the context of
previous research. First, the role of ethnicity upon parenting styles will be discussed.
Second, the effects of parenting styles on identity styles are explored. Third, the
effects of ethnicity, parenting style, and identity style upon identity commitment and
career decision self-efficacy will be discussed. Fourth, the role of identity style as a
mediator between parenting style and identity commitment and career decision self-
efficacy will be discussed. Additionally, implications of the study in relationship to
academic interventions will be addressed as well as limitations and direction for
future research.

81

Ethnicity and Parenting Styles
Differences between ethnicity and parenting styles were found only in
authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles. African American and Hispanic
participants reported less authoritative parenting styles than Caucasian students. And
African American participants reported more authoritarian parenting styles than
Caucasian participants. The limited findings regarding Caucasian populations
supported past research, and this studies’ hypothesis, regarding the considerable
frequency of authoritative parenting in Caucasian families (Dornbusch et al., 1987;
Steinberg, Dornbusch, and Brown, 1992). However, an expected authoritarian
relationship with Asian and Hispanic students was not found, while such a
relationship was evident in African American students.
Chao (2001) has previously discussed the increased likelihood for Asians and
Hispanics experiencing an authoritarian parenting style when being first or second-
generational, which makes the results of this study somewhat surprising, as the
majority of the Asian and Hispanic students were second generation. The lack of
relationship with authoritarian parenting may be due to a number of other factors,
such as those related to group and cultural values. Also, the frequency of parenting
styles with Asian and Hispanic students has not proven consistent in prior research,
and as inconsistencies in patterns continue for various groups, the need to examine
subgroups of some ethnic categories, as well as other cultural variables, is apparent.
Regarding Asian Americans for example, Blair and Qian (1998) found variation

82

between Filipino and Chinese families in parental authority patterns. Control, which
is associated with the authoritarian style, was positively related to academic
achievement for Chinese adolescents, but not for Filipino students.
Future research should then consider investigation into subgroups within
Asian American (e.g. Chinese Americans, Filipino Americans, Korean Americans,
etc.) and Hispanic (e.g. Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, etc.) adolescents, as well
as investigating generational status, acculturation, and other cultural variables.
Ethnicity and Parenting Style as Predictors of Identity Style
Ethnicity was not predictive of any identity style usage. There is limited
prior research connecting ethnicity and identity styles. Boyd et al. (2003) found that
significantly more African Americans and Hispanics were normative. This result is
consistent with Berman et al., (2001) who saw a high number of Hispanics in the
foreclosed identity status category, which is the status typically associated with the
normative identity style. The present study did not confirm any prior findings.
Predicting Informational Identity Style
After controlling for ethnicity, parenting styles accounted for a significant
11% of the variance in informational identity style. Regarding the informational
identity style, authoritative parenting style was predictive of higher informational
identity style, while permissive parenting style was predictive of lower informational
identity style. The authoritative and informational relationship confirms those found
in the Berzonsky (2004) study. Berzonsky however did not see a significant

83

negative relationship between the permissive parenting style and the informational
identity style, as was found in this study. This study, as well as Berzonsky (2004),
support related work indicating that authoritative parenting relates positively to
adolescents’ maturity and autonomy (Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989).
Predicting Normative Identity Style
Parenting styles accounted for a significant 12.4% of the variance of
normative identity style. While each of the three parenting styles was related to
increased normative processing, as anticipated, authoritarian parenting was the
strongest predictor, which was also true for Berzonsky (2004).
Predicting Diffuse-Avoidant Identity Style
Parenting styles accounted for a significant 12.1% of the variance of diffuse-
avoidant identity style. Regarding the diffuse-avoidant identity style, authoritative
parenting predicted less diffuse-avoidance, while permissive parenting predicted
increased diffuse-avoidance. These results were also found by Berzonsky (2004),
though Berzonsky additionally found a positive relationship between authoritarian
parenting and the diffuse-avoidant style, which was not found here.
Predicating Identity Styles Summary
The results suggest, as expected, that participants from families with both
warmth and expectation (i.e., authoritative) had the higher levels of the most active
identity style (i.e., informational), while more demanding and less warm
environments (i.e., authoritarian parenting) encourage adolescents to adopt and

84

internalize the expectations of significant others (i.e., normative), while parenting
with little expectation and authority (i.e., permissive) encourages adolescents to
avoid identity issues (i.e., diffuse-avoidant).
Ethnicity, Parenting Style, and Identity Style as Predictors
of Identity Commitment
This study explored whether ethnicity, parenting style, and identity style
predict identity commitment. Ethnicity however was not predictive of identity
commitment.
Parenting Styles as Predictors of Identity Commitment
12.6% of the variance in identity commitment was accounted for by
parenting styles. More specifically, authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles
were predictive of increased identity commitment. Students who had authoritative
parents with high support and expectation (e.g., "As I was growing up my parents
directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning
and discipline"), as well as those with authoritarian parents with high expectations
and strictness (e.g., "As I was growing up my parents often told me exactly what
they wanted me to do and exactly how they expected me to do it,") had increased
identity commitment (e.g., “I know basically what I believe and don’t believe”).
The results confirm those of Berzonsky (2004) who also found authoritative
parenting to relate to increased identity commitment. The studies diverged in that
the current study also saw authoritarian parenting as predictive of increased identity

85

commitment, while Berzonsky (2004) did not. Also, Berzonsky (2004) saw
permissive parenting inversely related to identity commitment, but that relationship
was not significant in the present study. Perhaps most important however is that in
both studies, authoritative parenting was the best parenting style predictor of identity
commitment. The present and past studies confirm that adolescent identity
commitment is encouraged by authoritative parenting practices such as providing
emotional support and encouraging independence and responsibility.
Identity Styles as Predictors of Identity Commitment
All three identity styles further accounted for 30.9% of the variance in
identity commitment, after ethnicity and parenting effects were taken into
consideration. Informational and normative styles both predicted increased identity
commitment, while diffuse-avoidant, the strongest predictor, was predictive of lower
identity commitment. It appears that students who are intentionally engage in self-
reflection, as seen in the informational style (e.g., “When making important life
decisions, I like to think about my options”), as well as those who understand
making choices in light of the expectations of others, as seen in the normative style
(e.g., “I strive to achieve the goals that my family and friends hold for me”), predict
increased identity commitment, while those using the diffuse-avoidant style (e.g.,
“I’m not sure where I’m heading in my life; I guess things will work themselves
out”) find their avoidance of identity issues and decision making particularly
damaging to making identity commitments. The results confirm Berzonsky (2004)

86

which also found informational and normative identity styles related positively to
commitment with diffuse-avoidant related negatively.
Predicting Identity Commitment Summary
Remarkably, parenting styles and identity styles combined accounted for
43.5% of the variance in identity commitment. The results confirm similarly striking
findings from Berzonsky (2004), who found that parenting styles and identity styles
accounted for over 50% of the variance in identity commitment. The results
demonstrate that those students with experiences of supportive but demanding
parents, and who actively engage in processing and exploring values, beliefs, and
occupation, are those most likely to have increased identity commitments.
Ethnicity, Parenting Styles, and Identity Styles as Predictors of
Career Decision Self-Efficacy
Ethnicity as Predictor of Career Decision Self-Efficacy
8.5% of the variance in career decision self-efficacy was accounted for by
ethnicity, though the only significant relationships found were that of Asian and
Hispanic students both reporting lower CDSE comparatively to the Caucasian
participants. Prior research has uncovered inconsistent findings when relating
ethnicity and career decision self-efficacy. For example, Gloria and Hird (1999)
found Caucasian students had higher levels of CDSE than grouped minority students,
while Chung (2002), in contrast, found that collegiate African Americans had higher
CDSE than Caucasian students.

87

Additional measures may be required to further identify cause for
inconsistency and variation. For example, English language use has been seen to be
a key predictor of career decision self-efficacy in various groups, as one’s perceived
ability to make use of books, internet, and other language dependent media and
persons, could dramatically affect one’s ability to learn information about educations
and careers that could lead to increased CDSE (Miranda & Umhoefer, 1998; Patel,
Salahuddin, & O'Brien, 2008). Research on the factors influencing career
development continues to need further clarification, particularly when examining the
relationship of ethnicity and cultural variables as contributors.
Parenting Style as Predictor of Career Decision Self-Efficacy
Parenting style, after controlling for ethnicity, accounted for 8% of the
variance in career decision self-efficacy. As predicted, those students with
authoritative parents reported higher career decision self-efficacy. No other
parenting styles were significantly related to CDSE. These results confirm prior
research that suggest authoritative parenting is associated with a variety of positive
benefits academically (Aunola et al., 2000; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Steinberg et al.,
1991; Steinberg et al., 1992) and developmentally (Steinberg, 2001; Steinberg et al.,
2006). Hargrove, Creagh, and Burgress (2002) found that family expressiveness and
intellectual climate play a role in CDSE, and Leal-Muniz and Constantine (2005)
found parental support to relate to adolescent career exploration. This study extends
prior research in also noting that parental authority predicts CDSE specifically. The

88

results confirm that children reared in an environment of warmth, fairness, and
expectations are often most likely to have academic and other developmental and
psychosocial achievement.
Identity Style as Predictor of Career Decision Self-Efficacy
After controlling for ethnicity and parenting style, identity style accounted for
15.3% of career decision self-efficacy. As predicted, informational identity style
was related to higher CDSE, while diffuse-avoidant identity style was predictive of
lower CDSE. While no prior studies have related identity processing styles to
CDSE, the results support earlier research that relate Marcia’s achieved identity
status to career exploration (Blustein, Devenis, & Kidney, 1989) and career decision
self-efficacy (Lucas, 1997; Nauta & Kahn, 2007). Results indicate that actively
engaging in self-exploration relates positively to career decision self-efficacy.
Predicting Career Decision Self-Efficacy Summary
Ethnicity, parenting styles, and identity styles combined accounted for 31.8%
of the variance in career decision self-efficacy. The results indicate that, while Asian
American and Hispanic participants reported having lower career decision self-
efficacy compared to Caucasians, after controlling for ethnicity, participants with
experiences of more authoritative parental support and expectation reported higher
career decision self-efficacy. In addition, after the effects of ethnicity and parenting
styles are considered, those participants with less diffuse-avoidant and more
informational identity processing styles (i.e. students who are active in seeking out

89

self-relevant information and navigating identity conflicts), reported higher career
decision self-efficacy.
Identity Style as Mediator between Parenting Style and Identity Commitment and
Parenting Style and Career Decision Self-Efficacy
This study explored the relationship between parenting styles, identity styles,
identity commitment, and career decision self-efficacy. It was hypothesized that
identity styles mediate the effects of parenting styles on identity commitment and
career decision self-efficacy.
As hypothesized, a more authoritative parenting style was predictive of
higher informational identity style, and then both higher identity commitment and
career decision self-efficacy. A more authoritative parenting style was also
predictive of a higher normative identity style, and then higher identity commitment,
but not career decision self-efficacy. A more authoritarian parenting style was
predictive of higher normative identity style, and then only higher identity
commitment. A more authoritarian parenting style was also predictive of higher
diffuse-avoidant identity style, and then both less identity commitment and career
decision self-efficacy. A more permissive authoritarian parenting style was
predictive of higher diffuse-avoidant identity style, and then both less identity
commitment and career decision self-efficacy.
When examining the total effects on identity commitment and career decision
self-efficacy, mediating factors were evident. Informational identity style was a

90

significant mediator between authoritative parenting style and identity commitment
and career decision self-efficacy. Normative identity style was a significant
mediator between both authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles and identity
commitment, but not with career decision self-efficacy. Finally, diffusive-avoidant
identity style was a significant mediator between both authoritative and permissive
parenting styles and both identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy.
More specifically, the diffusive-avoidant identity style serves as a suppressor
between permissive parenting style and commitment and career decision self-
efficacy, suggesting those students with parents of increased levels of permissive
parenting styles reported increased levels of diffusive-avoidant identity style, which
led to lower level of commitment and lower level of career decision self-efficacy.
The results of the mediation model also suggest that those students with
parents of higher authoritative parenting style reported more likelihood for the
informational identity style, which also led to higher level of identity commitment
and career decision self-efficacy. In addition, both groups of students with parents of
higher levels of authoritative or authoritarian parenting styles reported a higher level
of normative identity style, which lead to a higher level of identity commitment, but
not to career decision self-efficacy. Finally, students with parents of a higher level
of authoritative parenting style reported a lower level of diffuse-avoidant identity
style, which led to higher level of commitment and career decision self-efficacy.

91

The results confirm Berzonsky’s (2004) findings that reveal identity
commitment is encouraged by a parental environment full of support (authoritative)
and expectation (authoritative and authoritarian). The authoritative environment also
was found here to encourage increased career decision self-efficacy. But the effects
of the parental environment on identity commitment and CDSE were mediated by
the identity processing styles of the students. Two styles had consistent effects on
the outcomes. The diffuse-avoidant style, which includes adolescents with
avoidance and procrastination tendencies, was predictive of low identity
commitment and CDSE, while conversely the active self-exploration associated with
the informational style was predictive of higher identity commitment and CDSE.
The more rigid normative style was predictive of increased identity commitment, but
not related to CDSE.
An Additional Finding and Exploring Multicollinearity: Normative Identity Style
with Increased Identity Commitment but no Effect upon CDSE
It was hypothesized that the normative identity style would predict both
increased identity commitment as well as increased career decision self-efficacy,
though there was evidence to also suggest a relationship between normative identity
style and decreased CDSE as well. Prior research had shown normative identity
style to have relationship with increased identity commitment (Berzonsky, 2004).
Identity commitment was hypothesized to have some strength of correlation with
career decision self-efficacy, leading one to consider whether a similar relationship

92

between the normative identity style and increased identity commitment might also
suggest a likely relationship between normative identity style and increased CDSE,
particularly since there is relationship between career commitments and CDSE
(Chung 2002). However, Nauta and Kahn (2007), in a study with identity statuses
and CDSE, found that the achievement identity status (related to the informational
identity status) was positively related to career decision self-efficacy, while
foreclosure (highly related to the normative style) was negatively related to CDSE.
This provides reason to believe there could be a relationship between the normative
identity style and decreased CDSE. Ultimately in this study, the hypothesized
relationship between the normative identity style and increased identity commitment
was confirmed while there was no significant relationship found between the
normative identity style and career decision self-efficacy.
In this study, identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy (at .609)
were just above the .6 border of being considered to have multicollinearity. While
identity commitment and CDSE clearly have some relationship in their predictors
and components, we also see that they are not ultimately the same construct,
particularly when we look at the variation in relationship they each have with the
normative identity style. These variations are reasonable when examining the
differences in underlying constructs between commitment and CDSE. Identity
commitment is more a measure of decision and outcome, which one would expect to
have a positive relationship with the rigid thinking associated with the normative

93

identity style. CDSE however, is a measure that more examines one’s perceptions
and processes about careers, which rightly it seems could lack the positive
relationship with the rigid normative processing style. In support of the latter point,
excessive parental psychological, which can be one of the key causes of the
normative style, negatively relates to various aspects of identity formation (Luyckx,
Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, & Berzonsky, 2007).
While no prior studies have related identity processing styles to career
decision self-efficacy specifically, the studies mentioned here as well as the current
study indicate that actively engaging in self-exploration relates positively to career
decision self-efficacy, while exploration with no commitment (and perhaps
commitment with no exploration) may lead to little effect or potentially even
lowered career decision self-efficacy.
Implications and Suggestions
When considering the implications of this study, suggestions will be focused
on interventions done with early undergraduates, whom are the target population of
the study, particularly those enrolled in some type of transitional or remediation
course.
When locations for possible interventions for early undergraduates are
considered, the classroom environment is a suitable choice. The classroom is part of
the micro and meso-systems of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model (1986) as one of
the key social contexts which help shape a student’s development. Jakubowski and

94

Dembo (2004) also suggest this context as they recommend using freshmen learning
strategies courses for moving students toward informational identity style. While
there are multiple variables, such as the parental influence seen in this study, that can
affect identity commitment and CDSE, these other variables will not be addressed in
the suggestions below in order to focus the discussion upon controllable
interventions which post-secondary institutions can employ.
The interventions discussed will have multiple considerations; the primary
considerations being how to journey undergraduates toward increased identity
commitments and career decision self-efficacy. Related to this journey will be
encouragement toward some of the strongest predictors for those increased
outcomes, which particularly includes the use of the active processing, engaging, and
problem solving associated with an informational processing style.
Classroom Interventions for the Identity Journey
When examining the influence of identity styles, the majority and consistency
in beneficial outcomes are most associated with the informational style, though it
would be an oversimplification to simply label it the better style than the normative
one and design all programming to encourage it. The development of identity is a
journey. And there are positive benefits associated with both the normative and
informational styles, as seen in this study (e.g., in relationship to identity
commitment). As discussed in Berzonsky (2004), adolescents who perceive their
parents as caring and informed authorities may adapt their parents’ expectations

95

without undergoing significant self-evaluation or exploration, and thus a normative
approach may lead to various positive identity related outcomes. However, the
normative style ultimately does find limitations when an adolescent is required to
adapt and continually make adjustments in his or her own priorities and decision
making. Thus, at some point in their identity journey it is preferred to encourage
students toward the self-evaluative and adaptive strategies best characterized within
an informational style.
There has been minimal discussion in the literature regarding encouraging
certain types of identity styles with specific collegiate practices or interventions.
Berzonsky and Kuk (2000) suggest targeting course exercises for diffuse-avoidant
students through activities such as anticipating problems, identifying ineffective
personal strategies, and practicing constructive coping and problem-solving
strategies. Boyd and Hunt (2003) discuss targeted strategies for each of the styles:
for those in informational style they suggest encouraging further initiative with
interest assessment, career counseling, and providing independently used assessment
tools; for those in the normative style they suggest encouraging more self-exploration
such as examining goals in context of skills, beliefs, and feelings, and examining
family influences; and for those in the diffuse-avoidant style they suggest
strengthening cognitive skills through straightforward activities with feedback, and
raising awareness of academic, career, and identity issues and opportunities.

96

Career exploration courses and course components may also be of some help.
Career courses and freshmen orientation courses including career components often
include similar core components (e.g., using assessments, interviews and/or
interactions with models, providing individualized guidance, and supplying
knowledge, overviews, or guided discovery) to some of the Boyd and Hunt (2003)
suggestions. And those strategies in career courses have proven fruitful as they have
lead to increases in career decision self-efficacy and lowered career related
indecision and dysfunctional thinking (Folsom & Reardon, 2003; Johnson, Nichols,
Buboltz, & Riedesel, 2002; Osborn, Howard, & Leierer, 2007; Peng, 2001; Reese &
Miller, 2006).
While the suggestions by Boyd and Hunt (2003) are not part of a developed
intervention, the suggestions are in line with strengthening the areas of needed
growth with each identity style, and they also reflect interventions for increased
career development, and thus appear as sound recommendations.
Since career interest and direction is a core component of identity
development, time below will be given to exploring collegiate interventions for
increasing career decision self-efficacy in undergraduates.
Classroom Interventions for Increased Career Decision Self-Efficacy
There are a variety of common career development interventions employed
by colleges and universities, such as career counseling, career workshops, and career
and orientation courses. The effectiveness of a career course in comparison to an

97

individual counseling intervention is unclear. Davis and Horne (1986) discovered
that a career course is equally effective at increasing career decision making as
individual counseling; though Whiston, Sexton, and Lasoff (1998) found that career
courses were not as effective as individual counseling sessions. Perhaps the
distinction between the career course and career counseling interventions is not as
plain as one might think, as many career related courses include individual
counseling sessions and many counseling centers employ group counseling or group
workshop techniques.
Due to the relative success of courses as interventions, and the greater
number of students encountered with this intervention (versus individual counseling
center appointments), course related interventions will be emphasized in this
remaining intervention and implications section.
Career courses or freshmen orientation courses including career components
can lead to increases in career decision self-efficacy, and lowered career related
indecision and dysfunctional thinking (Folsom & Reardon, 2003; Johnson et al.,
2002; Osborn, Howard, & Leierer, 2007; Peng, 2001; Reese & Miller, 2006). These
courses have not only been seen to be effective in increasing undergraduates’ career
decision self-efficacy, but such courses are now commonplace throughout U.S.
colleges. Varying surveys and estimates put the range of schools offering a career
course anywhere between 30-70% (Reardon, Leierer, & Donghyuck, 2007).
Strangely, or perhaps because they have been validated as effective, there is a

98

perhaps troubling trend of a decreasing number of research studies being done on the
ever increasing career related orientation courses (Reese & Miller, 2006).
Career courses have varied significantly in their design, approaches, target
population, and amount of academic credit awarded (Folsom & Reardon, 2003). In
fact, there appears to be little uniformity in theoretical approach, despite these
various approaches having similarities in their results by raising career decision-
making self-efficacy. A review by Reese and Miller (2006) notes that although the
commonality of career related courses is increasing throughout colleges and
universities, many of them do not ground their curriculum in specific theories.
One of the most interesting trends has been the success of courses as
interventions regardless of their theoretical approach. Peng (2001) conducted two
different career education courses to test career decidedness (which is highly
correlated with decision making self-efficacy) in Taiwanese students. There was one
course which was focused on cognitive restructuring (it included introducing
cognitive theory, assertive skills training, understanding emotions, dealing with
difficulties in decision making, and sharing feelings regarding goal setting), and one
course focused on career decision skills training (which included exploration of
various subjects and careers, self interest aptitude and personality understanding
though psychological tests, and educational success strategies). Interestingly, both
treatment groups in the two different courses positively affected career decidedness

99

at a similar level when compared with a control group, yet there was no significant
difference in decidedness between the two different treatments.
A promising intervention following the four sources of learning areas was
implemented by Betz and Schifano (2000) in collegiate women. They raised career
self-efficacy in the building and construction professions and included measures
instituted on all four of Bandura’s efficacy learning experience areas. The
intervention included hand tool identification and usage, building useful objects,
relaxation exercises, positive self-talk, and modeling (e.g., tours by a female
architect on construction sites). Significant increases in self-efficacy were achieved.
Another intervention resulting in increased self-efficacy targeting the four learning
sources was conducted by Sullivan and Mahalik (2000) in a 6-week workshop
format.
Interestingly, despite the variety of approaches or theoretical emphases,
various career treatments and courses include similar curricular components, albeit at
differing levels of emphasis. Some of these common career components include
using and interpreting assessments to gauge interest and personality factors, goal
setting and creating an academic and professional plan, interviews and/or
interactions with models, providing individualized guidance and counseling, and
supplying knowledge, overviews, or guided discovery regarding various occupations.
Despite the various approaches and lack of them, there are not only
similarities within the various courses used in the cited research, but similarities in

100

outcomes in raising CDSE. Research then supports the strong benefit of career
interventions in general, however, there needs to be continued investigation into the
specific means and mechanisms by which these positive changes are obtained in
these interventions. For now, it seems particularly promising to design career
interventions that are focused on the four sources of learning self-efficacy as the
interventions are built into the theories from which the constructs are defined. There
needs to be a variety of types of future research, including qualitative, to discover
why and which components of these career courses are those that are truly
contributing to increased CDSE in students, as well as the applicability for diverse
populations of the intervention components.
Implications and Interventions Summary

The classroom setting appears to be one effective and relatively efficient
location of interventions that help encourage identity and career development in
early undergraduates. Some of the previous suggestions for encouraging increased
identity processing (e.g., exploring skills, beliefs, family influences, examining
goals, providing feedback through assessments, and raising awareness of the issues
in identity formation) have similarities with those discussed within career
exploration courses (e.g., using and interpreting assessments for feedback, goal
setting and creating an academic and professional plan, and supplying knowledge,
overviews, or guided discovery regarding various occupations). This relationship is

101

reasonable when recalling the correlation between the identity and career variables
discussed.
In summary, a freshmen orientation or career exploration course might
consider assessing students with various identity and career measures at the start and
end of the course, and within the course develop self-exploration and cognitive skills
activities (e.g., exposure, exploration, feedback, and goal setting) that encourage the
engagement associated with an informational identity processing style. That type of
engagement should ultimately lead to both increased identity commitment and career
decision self-efficacy.
Limitations
Various limitations should be taken into consideration for this study. First,
the data was gathered through self-reports which were dependent on the responders’
perceptions on their own self-awareness and identity development, as well as their
perceptions of their childhood parental environment. These self-reports can lead to
social desirability effects in the responses for a responder’s personal development
and the accuracy in recollection of the home environment. Though it should be
noted that the PAQ is actually designed for adolescents’ use of perception in the
recollection of their childhood parental environment (Buri, 1991). And studies using
self-reports have found consistent patterns between parenting styles and various
outcomes (Steinberg at al., 1991).

102

A second limitation was the generalizability of the results due to the limited
participant population. The applicability of the information could be questioned
based on various common factors of the responders, such as the majority being from
middle and upper class families and most having high school grade point averages at
or above a 3.0. Similarly, the study was limited to voluntary participants from two
classrooms at one university. Students who volunteered to take the survey may be
different than those who did not and from others at the university. Caution then
should be taken before generalizing the findings to other populations with greater
economic and academic diversity.
A third limitation of the study was the measures used. While the
convergence in parenting styles as discussed in chapter 3 between mother and father
is typically strong, there may still be inaccuracies and misunderstandings by the
participants regarding how to reply to the PAQ questions for an overall parenting
style. For example, a student with divorced parents who lives half-time with an
authoritarian father and half-time with a permissive mother may have a difficult time
answering the questions of the PAQ for combined parenting. This student may be
forced to select one parent for which to provide responses, but that parent may or
may not be the primary parental developmental influence on the student’s identity
development.
Also related to the measures used is the limited population use with some of
the measures in previous research. For example, the CDSE-SF has been most

103

frequently used with Caucasian students only. Also, the ISI-4, which included the
measures for identity styles and identity commitment is a recent version of the ISI-3,
has had very little published use. However, reliabilities for all measures used in the
study were sufficient.
In summary, there were a number of limitations due to data gathered by self-
report, limited generalizability, and the limitations in the measures used.
Future Research
Parenting styles and identity processing styles have each proven to be key
indicators of adolescent development and well being. There are a number of
recommendations for future research to further the results of this study. The primary
recommendations include a longitudinal study, testing the presented SEM model on
specific ethnic groups, and including additional measures to test for cultural values
and peer influence.
A longitudinal perspective could be helpful in a similar study. This study
examined early undergraduates, primarily freshmen, in their first year of college. It
could be helpful to assess the identity and career development and changes of
students throughout their time in college and their transition into the workplace. In
such cases it would be interesting to note whether the effects of parenting styles
continued to influence the development of adolescents, as well as in what ways
identity styles remained constant or went through changes throughout that time.

104

The structural equation model presented in this study drew promising results
for the population studied. But the amount of data was not sufficient to test the
model specifically for the various ethnic groups represented. Collecting further data
in order to test the SEM model would be insightful in order to test if the model fits
with some ethnic groups but not others.
Additional measures combined with those used in this study could prove
invaluable in uncovering further causes for variation. In order to better understand
construct differences between various identity related achievement and outcomes,
such as identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy, it will be important to
include some measure of cultural areas that may help account for the areas of
variation. For example, this study saw that Asian and Hispanic students had lower
CDSE than Caucasian students, but this was not true of identity commitment. This
variation could be due for example to differing cultural variables (e.g., collectivistic
versus individualistic values, ethnic identity, acculturation).
Another measure that could prove helpful to include would be one that tests
for peer or sibling influence. There have been a number of studies that have
suggested that peer and sibling support in some cases predicts as much or more
career and academic related self-efficacy and other achievement behaviors as family
environment. For example, Patel, Salahuddin and O’Brien (2008) found that peer
support was predictive of career decision self-efficacy, while parental family support
was not. This again may illuminate the complexity of various cultural and ethnic

105

influences. Patel speculates that immigrant students may perceive their parents as
less familiar and knowledgeable about the U.S. educational and occupational
systems than their peers, and that those immigrant students’ self-efficacy could thus
be more persuaded by their peers’ ideas and influence.
Conclusion
This study sought to examine influences on adolescent development as seen
in the relationship between ethnicity, parenting styles, identity styles, identity
commitment, and career decision self-efficacy in early college students. Results of
this study indicate that ethnicity and parenting styles play a role in predicting identity
style, identity commitment, and career decision self-efficacy in adolescents.
Parenting styles and identity styles combined accounted for 43.5% of the variance in
the strength of identity commitment. While ethnicity was not a factor in predicting
identity commitment, ethnicity, parenting styles, and identity styles combined
accounted for 31.8% of the variance in the level of career decision self-efficacy.
Identity styles – which are essentially the processes by which self-relevant
information is evaluated, used, and revised – was the most significant predictor of
identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy. After ethnicity and parenting
styles were controlled for, identity styles accounted for 30.9% of the variance in
identity commitment and 15.3% of the variance in career decision self-efficacy. As
hypothesized, identity styles mediated the relationship between parenting styles and
identity commitment as well as parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy.

106

At the forefront of the results are the significant role identity styles play in
career decision self-efficacy and especially in developing identity commitments.
While ethnicity, parenting styles, and identity styles each had some predictive
importance for adolescent development, the notable level in which identity styles
account for this development has encouraging possibilities. For example, students
who come from family backgrounds that may not have the most productive parenting
styles can still be targeted with interventions aimed at affecting their identity styles,
with the hope of significantly improving their identity commitments and career
decision self-efficacy as they continue the journey through adolescent identity
development.

107

References
Adams, G. R., Abraham, K. G. & Markstrom, C. A. (1987). The relations among
identity development, self-consciousness, and self-focusing during middle
and late adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 23, 292-297.

Ali, S. R., McWhirter, E. & Chronister, K. (2005). Self-efficacy and vocational
outcome expectations for adolescents of lower SES: A pilot study. Journal of
Career Assessment, 13, 40-58.

Alliman-Brissett, A. E., Turner, S. L. & Skovholt, T. M. (2004). Parent support and
African American adolescents' career self-efficacy. Professional School
Counseling, 7, 124-132.

Aronson, E. (2004). The Social Animal (10th ed.). New York: Worth.

Aunola, K., Stattin, H. & Nurmi, J. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents'
achievement strategies. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 205-222.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental
Psychology, 4, 1-103.

Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental Disciplinary Patterns and Social Competence in
Children. Youth and Society, 9, 239-75.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and
substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95.

Berman, A. M., Schwartz, S. J., Kurtines, W. M., & Berman, S. L. (2001). The
process of exploration in identity formation: The role of style and
competence. Journal of Adolescence, 24(4), 513-528.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1989). Identity style: Conceptualization and measurement.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 4, 268-282.

Berzonsky, M. D. (2003). Identity style and well-being: Does commitment matter?
Identity, 3, 131 – 142.

108

Berzonsky, M. D. (2004). Identity style, parental authority, and identity commitment.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(3), 213-220.

Berzonsky, M. D. (2008). Identity formation: The role of identity processing style
and cognitive processes. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(3), 645-
655.

Berzonsky, M. D., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. (2007). Identity-processing style,
psychosocial resources, and adolescents' perceptions of parent-adolescent
relations. Journal of Early Adolescence, 27(3), 324-345.

Berzonsky, M. D., & Kuk, L. S. (2000). Identity status, identity processing style, and
the transition to university. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(1), 81-98.

Berzonsky, M. D., & Kuk, L. S. (2005). Identity style, psychosocial maturity, and
academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(1), 235-
247.

Berzonsky, M. D., & Ferrari, J. R. (1996). Identity orientation and decisional
strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 20(5), 597-606.

Berzonsky, M. D., & Neimeyer, G. J. (1994). Ego identity status and identity
processing orientation: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of
Research in Personality, 28(4), 425-435.

Betz, N. E. (2004). Self-Efficacy: Contributions of Self-Efficacy Theory to Career
Counseling: A Personal Perspective. The Career Development Quarterly, 52
(4), 340-353.

Betz, N. E. & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy
expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 28, 399-410.

Betz, N. E. & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy
expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 23, 329-345

Betz, N. & Luzzo, D. (1996). Career assessment and the Career Decision-Making
Self-Efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 413-428.

109

Betz, N. & Schifano, R. (2000). Evaluation of an intervention to increase Realistic
self-efficacy in college women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 35-52.

Blair, S. L., & Qian, Z. (1998). Family and Asian students’ educational performance.
Journal of Family Issues, 19, 355–374.

Blustein, D. L., Devenis, L. E., & Kidney, B. A. (1989). Relationship between the
identity formation process and career development. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 36(2), 196-202.

Boveja, M. E. (1998). Parenting styles and adolescents' learning strategies in the
urban community. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 26,
110-119.

Boyd, V. S., Hunt, P. F., Kandell, J. J., & Lucas, M. S. (2003). Relationship between
identity processing style and academic success in undergraduate students.
Journal of College Student Development, 44(2), 155-167.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-
742.

Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.
A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.) Testing structural equation models (pp.136 –
162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Buri, J. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment,
57, 110-119.

Buriel, R. (1993). Childrearing orientations in Mexican American families: The
influence of generation and sociocultural factors. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 55, 987-1000.

Chandler, L. A., & Gallagher, R. P. (1996). Developing a taxonomy for problems
seen at a university counseling center. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 29(1), 4-12.

Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style:
Understanding: Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training.
Child Development, 65, 1111–1120.

110

Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for
Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832-
1843.

Chung, Y. B. (2002). Career decision-making self-efficacy and career commitment:
Gender and ethnic differences among college students. Journal of Career
Development, 28, 277-284.

Conger, R., Ge, X., Elder, G., Jr., Lorenz, F., & Simons, R. (1994). Economic stress,
coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child
Development, 65, 541–561.

Creed, P. A. & Patton, W. (2003). Predicting two components of career maturity in
school based adolescents. Journal of Career Development, 29, 277-290.

Creed, P., Patton, W. & Prideaux, L. (2006). Causal relationship between career
indecision and career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Career
Development, 33, 47-65

Darling, N. & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: an integrative model.
Child Development, 113, 487-496.

Davis, R. C. & Horne, A. M. (1986). The effect of small group counseling and a
career course on career decidedness and maturity. Vocational Guidance
Quarterly, 34, 255-262.

Dollinger, S. M. C. (1995). Identity styles and the five-factor model of personality.
Journal of Research in Personality, 29(4), 475-479.

Dollinger, S. J., Dollinger, S. M. C., & Centeno, L. (2005). Identity and creativity.
Identity, 5(4), 315-339.

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F. & Fraleigh, M. J.
(1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance.
Child Development, 58, 5, 1244-1257.

Driscoll, A. K., Russell, S. T., & Crockett, L. J. (2008). Parenting styles and youth
well-being across immigrant generations. Journal of Family Issues, 29(2), 185-
209.

111

Erikson, E. H. (1956). The problem of ego identity. Journal of the American
Psychoanalytic Association, 4, 56-121.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Fletcher, A. C., Steinberg, L., & Sellers, E. D. (1999). Adolescents’ well-being as a
function of perceived interparental consistency. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 61, 599-610.

Flores, L. Y. & O'Brien, K. M. (2002). The career development of Mexican
American adolescent women: A test of social cognitive career theory.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 14-27.

Folsom, B. & Reardon, R. (2003). College career courses: Design and accountability.
Journal of Career Assessment, 11, 421-450.

Gainor, K. A. & Lent, R. W. (1998). Social cognitive expectations and racial identity
attitudes in predicting the math choice intentions of Black college students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 403-413.

Gianakos, I. (1999). Patterns of career choice and career decision-making self-
efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 244-258.

Glasgow, K. L., Dornbusch, S. M., Troyer, L., Steinberg, L., & Ritter, P. L. (1997).
Parenting styles, adolescents’ attributions, and educational outcomes in nine
heterogeneous high schools. Child Development, 68, 507-529.

Gloria, A. M. & Hird, J. S. (1999). Influences of ethnic and nonethnic variables on
the career decision-making self-efficacy of college students. Career
Development Quarterly, 48, 157-174

Gore, P. A., Jr. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes.
Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 92-115.

Grotevant, H. D. (1997). Identity processes: Integrating social psychological and
developmental approaches. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 354-357.

Guay, F., Senecal, C., Gauthier, L. & Fernet, C. (2003). Predicting career indecision:
A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
50, 165-177

112

Guerra, A. L. & Braungart-Rieker, J. M. (1999). Predicting career indecision in
college students: The roles of identity formation and parental relationship
factors. Career Development Quarterly, 47, 255-266.

Gushue, G. V., Clarke, C. P., Pantzer, K. M. & Scanlan, K. R. L. (2006). Self-
efficacy, perceptions of barriers, vocational identity, and the career
exploration behavior of Latino/a high school students. The Career
Development Quarterly, 54, 307–317.

Gushue, G. V. & Whitson, M. L. (2006). The relationship among support, ethnic
identity, career decision self-efficacy, and outcome expectations in African
American high school students: Applying social cognitive career theory.
Journal of Career Development, 33, 112–124

Gwilliam, L. R. & Betz, N. E. (2001). Validity of measures of math- and science-
related self-efficacy for African Americans and European Americans.
Journal of Career Assessment, 9, 261-281

Hackett, G., Betz, N. E., Casas, J. M. & Rocha-Singh, I. A. (1992). Gender,
ethnicity, and social cognitive factors predicting the academic achievement of
students in engineering. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 527-538

Hargrove, B. K., Creagh, M. G. & Burgess, B. L. (2002). Family interaction patterns
as predictors of vocational identity and career decision-making self-efficacy.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 185-201.

Hickman, G.P., Bartholomae, S. & McKenry, (2000). Influence of parenting style on
the adjustment and academic achievement of college freshmen. Journal of
College Student Development, 41, 41-54.

Hill, N. E., Bush, K. R., & Roosa, M. W. (2003). Parenting and family socialization
strategies and children’s mental health: Low-income Mexican-American and
Euro-American mothers and children. Child Development, 74, 189-04.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6 (1), 1-55.

Jakubowski, T. G. & Dembo, M. H. (2004). The influence of self-efficacy, identity
style, and stage of change on academic self-regulation. Journal of College
Reading and Learning, 35, 5-22.

113

Johnson, P., Nichols, C. N., Buboltz, W. C., Jr. & Riedesel, B. (2002). Assessing a
holistic trait and factor approach to career development of college students.
Journal of College Counseling, 5 (1), 4-14.

Kim, H., & Chung, R. (2003). Relationship of Recalled Parenting Style to Self-
Perception in Korean American College Students. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 164, 4, 481-492.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2
nd

ed.). New Work: Guilford.
Knight, G., Virdin, L. & Roosa, M. (1994). Socialization and family correlates of
mental health outcomes among Hispanic and Anglo American children:
Consideration of cross-ethnic scalar equivalence. Child Development, 65,
212-224.

Kroger, J. (1997). Gender and identity: The intersection of structure, content and
context. Sex Roles, 36(11-12), 747-770.

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L. & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of
competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative,
authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62,
1049-1065.

Lapan, R. T., Shaughnessy, P. & Boggs, E. (1996). Efficacy expectations and
vocational interests as mediators between sex and choice of math/science
college majors: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49,
277-291

Leal-Muniz, V., & Constantine, M.G. (2005). Predictors of the Career Commitment
Process in Mexican American College Students. Journal of Career
Assessment, 13 (2), 204-215.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Sheu, H. B., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B. R. & Gloster, C. S.
(2005). Social cognitive predictors of academic interests and goals in
engineering: Utility for women and students at historically Black universities.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 84-92

Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G. & Bieschke, K. J. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy:
Sources and relation to science-based career choice. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 38, 424-430

114

Leung, K., Lau, S. & Lam, W. L. (1998). Parenting styles and academic
achievement: A cross-cultural study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 157-172.

Lucas, M. (1997). Identity development, career development, and psychological
separation from parents: Similarities and differences between men and
women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 123-132.

Luyckx, K., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., & Berzonsky, M. D.
(2007). Parental psychological control and dimensions of identity formation
in emerging adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(3), 546-550.

Luzzo, D. A. (1993). Reliability and validity testing of the Career Decision-Making
Self-Efficacy Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 26, 137-142.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent-child interaction. Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4.
Socialization, Personality, and Social Development, Wiley, New York.

Maples, M. R. & Luzzo, D. A. (2005). Evaluating DISCOVERS effectiveness in
enhancing college students' social cognitive career development. Career
Development Quarterly, 53, 274-285.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.

Mason, C., Cauce, A., Gonzales, N. & Hiraga, Y. (1996). Neither too sweet nor too
sour: Problem peers, maternal control, and problem behavior in African
American adolescents. Child Development, 67, 2115-2130.

Mathis, S., & Adams, G. R. (2004). Family climate and identity style during late
adolescence. Identity, 4(1), 77-95.

Mau, W.C. (2000). Cultural differences in career decision-making styles and self-
efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 365-378.

McWhirter, E. H., Hackett, G. & Bandalos, D. L. (1998). A causal model of the
educational plans and career expectations of Mexican American high school
girls. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 166-181.

115

Miranda, A. O. & Umhoefer, D. L. (1998). Acculturation, language use, and
demographic variable as predictors of the career self-efficacy. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 26, 39-52.

Multon, K. D., Heppner, M. J., Gysbers, N. C., Zook, C. & Ellis-Kalton, C. A.
(2001). Client psychological distress: An important factor in career
counseling. Career Development Quarterly, 49, 324-335.

Orndorff, R. M. & Herr, E. L. (1996). A comparative study of declared and
undeclared college students on career uncertainty and involvement in career
development activities. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 632-639.

Osborn, D. S., Howard, D. K., & Leierer, S. J. (2007). The effect of a career
development course on the dysfunctional career thoughts of racially and
ethnically diverse college freshmen. The Career Development Quarterly, 55
(4), 365-377.

Passmore, N. L., Fogarty, G. J., Bourke, C. J., & Baker-Evans, S. F. (2005). Parental
bonding and identity style as correlates of self-esteem among adult adoptees
and nonadoptees. Family Relations, 54, 523-534.

Patel, S. G., Salahuddin, N. M., & O'Brien, K. M. (2008). Career decision-making
self-efficacy of vietnamese adolescents: The role of acculturation, social
support, socioeconomic status, and racism. Journal of Career Development,
34(3), 218-240.

Peng, H. (2001). Comparing the effectiveness of two different career education
courses on career decidedness for college freshman: An exploratory study.
Journal of Career Development, 28, 29-41.

Pong, S., Hao, L., & Gardner, E. (2005). The roles of parenting styles and social
capital in the school performance of immigrant Asian and Hispanic
adolescents. Social Science Quarterly, 86(4), 928-949.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.
Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879 – 891.

Reardon, R.C., Leierer, S.J., & Donghyuck, L. (2007). Charting grades over 26
years to evaluate a career course. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(4), 483-
498.

116

Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of
acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152.

Reese, R. J., & Miller, C. D. (2006). Effects of a University Career Development
Course on Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy. Journal of Career
Assessment, 14 (2), 252-266.

Schwartz, S. J. (2005). A new identity for identity research: Recommendations for
expanding and refocusing the identity literature. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 20, 293-308.

Schwartz, S. J., Mullis, R. L., Waterman, A. S., & Dunham, R. M. (2000). Ego
identity status, identity style, and personal expressiveness: An empirical
investigation of three convergent constructs. Journal of Adolescent Research,
15(4), 504-521.

Scott, A. B., & Ciani, K. D. (2008). Effects of an undergraduate career class on
men's and women's career decision-making self-efficacy and vocational
identity. Journal of Career Development, 34(3), 263-285.

Smits, I., Soenens, B., Berzonsky, M., Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Kunnen, S., &
Bosma, H. (2008). The Identity Style Inventory – Version 4: A Cross-
National Study in Scale Development and Validation. Unpublished
manuscript.

Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting
styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review,
17, 125-146.

Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent-adolescent relations in
retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1-19.

Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M. & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in
adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist,
47, 723-729.

Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D. & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting,
psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child
Development, 60, 1424-1436.

117

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M. & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of
parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting,
school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63,
1266-1281.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M.
(1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents
from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child
Development, 65, 754–770.

Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D. & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991).
Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological
niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 19-36.

Steinberg, L., Blatt-Eisengart, I., & Cauffman, E. (2006). Patterns of Competence
and Adjustment Among Adolescents from Authoritative, Authoritarian,
Indulgent, and Neglectful Homes: A Replication in a Sample of Serious
Juvenile Offenders Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 1, 47-58.

Streitmatter, J. (1993). Identity status and identity style: A replication study. Journal
of Adolescence, 16(2), 211-215.

Sullivan, K. R. & Mahalik, J. R. (2000). Increasing career self-efficacy for women:
evaluating a group intervention. Journal of Counseling & Development,
78(1), 54-62.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4
th
ed).
New York: Harper Collins.

Tang, M., Fouad, N. A. & Smith, P. L. (1999). Asian Americans' career choices: A
path model to examine factors influencing their career choices. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 54, 142-157.

Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the
understanding and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 22(1), 63-81.

Taylor, K. M. & Popma, J. (1990). Construct validity of the Career Decision-Making
Self-Efficacy Scale and the relationship of CDMSE to vocational indecision.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 17-31.

118

Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L. & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between self-
beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educational
Psychologist, 39, 111-133.

Varela, R. E., Vernberg, E. M., Sanchez-Sosa, J. J., Riveros, A., Mitchell, M. &
Mashunkashey, J. (2004). Parenting style of Mexican, Mexican American,
and Caucasian-Non -Hispanic families: Social context and cultural
influences. Journal of family Psychology, 18, 651-657.
Vondracek, F. W., Schulenberg, J., Skorikov, V., Gillespie, L. K. & Wahlheim, C.
(1995). The relationship of identity status to career indecision during
adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 17-29.

Wallace-Broscious, A., Serafica, F. C. & Osipow, S. H. (1994). Adolescent career
development: Relationships to self-concept and identity status. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 4, 127-149.

Watson, D. (2004). Stability versus change, dependability versus error: Issues in the
assessment of personality over time. Journal of Research in Personality, 38,
319-350.

Weissberg, Ml, Berentsen, M., Cote, A., Carvey, B., & Health, K. (1982). An
assessment of the personal, career and academic needs of undergraduate
students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 23, 115-122.

Whiston, S. C., Sexton, T. L. & Lasoff, D. L. (1998). Career intervention outcome: A
replication and extension of Oliver and Spokane (1988). Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 45, 150-165.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for
academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal
setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-67.

119

Appendix A

Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research

Information Sheet Regarding Participation in Research Study

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Ruth H. Chung, Ph.D.,
and Ryan J. White from the Rossier School ogradef Education at the University of
Southern California. The results will contribute to the completion of Ryan J. White’s
doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study
because you are both enrolled as an undergraduate in a college or university and are
also a student in the EDPT 110 Motivation and Learning Strategies course. You
must be at least 18 years of age to participate. Your participation is voluntary.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to gather information regarding your perceptions on your
own career decisions, identity, and your parental environment growing up. The
questions you will be asked reflect these areas of interest and will help us to
understand factors that are important to college student development.

You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether or not to participate. Completion of this
questionnaire will constitute consent to participate in this research project. You are
asked to complete the following questionnaire that will take approximately twenty to
thirty minutes to complete.

Potential Risks and Discomforts
There are minimal to no potential negative effects from participating in this study.
However, if you react strongly to any of the questions on the questionnaire and wish
to discuss your feelings or concerns related to yourself or your relationships with
your parents, please contact counselors at the university counseling center and/or the
career center.

Potential Benefits to Subjects and Society
Your participation in this study will help us with ongoing research on the identity
and career development of college students.

Compensation for Participation
There is no financial compensation for participation. However, by participating in
this questionnaire, your EDPT 110 Motivation and Learning Strategies professor at
the University of Southern California has agreed to provide you with 5 extra-credit

120

points in the course. In order to receive your extra-credit points, you will need to
provide your name and e-mail address at the end of the survey. You are not
obligated to enter your name and e-mail in order to participate in the survey, though
it is required in order to identify you if you want to receive the extra-credit points.
Please note that your name and e-mail address will not be stored with your survey
responses, will never be used in a way to reveal a student’s identity, and survey data
will not be analyzed until after the graded completion of EDPT 110.

Confidentiality
Information obtained in the survey will only be reported in an aggregated form
without any potentially identifiable descriptions connected to individuals. Any
information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or
as required by law.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. Your responses if
taking the hard-copy survey will be collected only by Ryan J. White. Your responses
if taking the online survey will be downloaded directly by Ryan J. White. Only
members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this study.
The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file cabinet/password
protected computer. The data will be stored for three years after the study has been
completed and then destroyed.

Participation and Withdrawal
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind and can stop
the survey at any time. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if
circumstances arise which warrant doing so.

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Ruth Chung, Ph.D. at rchung@usc.edu, Ryan J. White at ryan.white@usc.edu or
call or visit (213) 740-9323, at the Rossier School of Education, USC, WPH 802,
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038.

Rights of Research Subjects
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research
team to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research

121

staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice
Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

122

Appendix B

Demographic and Background Information
Personal Background
Please check the items that describe you and fill in the requested information.
• Age _____

• Sex: ____Male ____Female

• What is your ethnicity (check all that apply)?
____White/Caucasian
____Asian/Asian American
____Black/African American
____Hispanic/Latino
________________________ Other - please specify

• What was your high school GPA?
____ Less than 1.0
____ 1.0-1.49
____ 1.5-1.99
____ 2.0-2.49
____ 2.5-2.99
____ 3.0-3.49
____ 3.5-3.99
____ 4.0 or above

• What year are you in at college?
____ Freshmen
____ Sophomore
____ Junior
____ Senior

• Do you have a declared or undeclared major?
____Declared ____Undeclared

List major if declared _____________________

123

• Are you a USC athlete?
____Yes ____No

• In what semester are you taking EDPT 110?
____Fall 2008 ____Spring 2009

• In what country were you born?___________________________________

• How long have you lived in the U.S.? ___________years

• How would you describe the socioeconomic class background of your family?
_____ working class
_____ lower middle class
_____ middle class
_____ upper middle class
_____ upper class

• What is your annual family income?
____Less than $25,000
____$25,000-$49,999
____$50,000-$74,999
____$75,000-$99,999
____$100,000-$149,000
____$150,000 and above

• Which religion do you practice?
____None ____Buddhism ____Protestant Christianity
____Catholic Christianity ____Hinduism ____Islam
____Judaism ____Confucianism Other ___________________

• How much education does your father have? (circle the answer)
jr high
high school
some college
completed college
masters
doctoral/advanced

124

• How much education does your mother have? (circle the answer)
jr high
high school
some college
completed college
masters
doctoral/advanced

• Please indicate the generation that best applies to you:
____1
st
generation (you were born in another country)
____2
nd
generation (you were born in the U.S., & at least 1 parent was not
____3
rd
generation (you & parents born in U.S., & at least 1 grandparent born in
the U.S.)
____4
th
generation (you & parents born in U.S., & at least 1 great-
grandparent born in the U.S.)
____ 5
th
generation and above

• Who are your primary guardians (most likely whom you live with)?
____Mother only ____Mother and father ____Father and step-mother
____Father only ____Mother and step-father ____One or both grandparents
________________________ Other - please specify

125

Appendix C
The Parental Authority Questionnaire
Parental Information Section
Directions: For each of the following statements, circle the number on the 1 to 5-point
scale that best indicates how that statement applies to you and your parent/s (or
guardian/s) 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 question.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
1.
While I was growing up, my parent/s felt that in a well-run home
the children should have their way in the family as often as the
parent/s do.
1 2 3 4 5
2.
Even if their children didn’t agree with them, my parent/s felt that
it was for our own good if we were forced to conform to what they
thought was right.
1 2 3 4 5
3.
Whenever my parent/s told me to do something as I was growing
up, they 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
parent/s discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the
children in the family.
1 2 3 4 5
5.
My parent/s have always encouraged verbal give-and-take
whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were
unreasonable.
1 2 3 4 5
6.
My parent/s have always felt that what 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 what their parent/s might want.
1 2 3 4 5
7.
As I was growing up, my parent/s did not allow me to question
any decision that they had made.
1 2 3 4 5

126

8.
As I was growing up, my parent/s directed the activities and
decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and
discipline.
1 2 3 4 5
9.
My parent/s have always felt that more force should be used by
parent/s 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 parent/s did not feel that I needed to
obey rules and regulations of behavior simply because someone in
authority had established them.
1 2 3 4 5
11.
As I was growing up, I knew what my parent/s expected of me in
my family, but I also felt free to discuss those expectations with
my parent/s when I felt that they were unreasonable.
1 2 3 4 5
12.
My parent/s felt that wise parent/s should teach their children early
just who is boss in the family.
1 2 3 4 5
13.
As I was growing up, my parent/s seldom gave me expectations
and guidelines for my behavior.
1 2 3 4 5
14.
Most of the time as I was growing up, my parent/s 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 parent/s
consistently gave us direction and guidance in rational and
objective ways.
1 2 3 4 5
16.
As I was growing up, my parent/s would get very upset if I tried to
disagree with them.
1 2 3 4 5
17.
My parent/s feel that most problems in society would be solved if
parent/s would not restrict their children’s activities, decisions,
and desires as they are growing up.
1 2 3 4 5
18.
As I was growing up, my parent/s let me know what behaviors
they expected of me, and if I didn’t meet those expectations, they
punished me.
1 2 3 4 5
19.
As I was growing up, my parent/s allowed me to decide most
things for myself without a lot of direction from them.
1 2 3 4 5

127

20.
As I was growing up, my parent/s took the children’s opinions into
consideration when making family decisions, but they would not
decide for something simply because the children wanted it.
1 2 3 4 5
21.
My parent/s did not view themselves as responsible for directing
and guiding my behavior as I was growing up.
1 2 3 4 5
22.
My parent/s had clear standards of behavior for the children in our
home as I was growing up, but they were willing to adjust those
standards to the needs of each of the individual children in the
family.
1 2 3 4 5
23.
My parent/s gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I
was growing up and they expected me to follow their direction,
but they were 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 parent/s allowed me to form my own
point of view on family matters and they generally allowed me to
decide for myself what I was going to do.
1 2 3 4 5
25.
My parent/s have always felt that most problems in society would
be solved if we could get parent/s 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 parent/s often told me exactly what they
wanted me to do and how they expected me to do it.
1 2 3 4 5
27.
As I was growing up, my parent/s gave me clear direction for my
behaviors and activities, but they were also understanding when I
disagreed with them.
1 2 3 4 5
28.
As I was growing up, my parent/s did not direct the behaviors,
activities, and desires of the children in the family.
1 2 3 4 5
29.
As I was growing up, I knew what my parent/s expected of me in
the family and they insisted that I conform to those expectations
simply out of respect for their authority.
1 2 3 4 5
30.
As I was growing up, if my parent/s made a decision in the family
that hurt me, they were willing to discuss that decision with me
and to admit it if they had made a mistake.
1 2 3 4 5

128

Appendix D
Identity Style Inventory (ISI-4)
Personal Similarities Section
Directions: Please read each statement below about beliefs, attitudes, and ways of
dealing with issues, then use it to describe yourself. Circle the number on the 1 to 5
point scale to indicate the extent to which you think the statement represents you as
being either uncharacteristic (1), characteristic (5), or somewhere in-between (2, 3,
or 4). There are no right or wrong answers, so don’t spend a lot of time on any one
question.
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Like Me Very much like me

1.
I know basically what I believe and don’t believe.
1 2 3 4 5
2.
I automatically adopt and follow the values I was brought
up with.
1 2 3 4 5
3.
I’m not sure where I’m heading in my life; I guess things
will work themselves out.
1 2 3 4 5
4.
I know what I want to do with my future.
1 2 3 4 5
5.
Talking to others helps me explore my personal beliefs.
1 2 3 4 5
6.
I strive to achieve the goals that my family and friends hold
for me.
1 2 3 4 5
7.
I am not really sure what I believe.
1 2 3 4 5
8.
When facing a life decision, I take into account different
points of view before making a choice.
1 2 3 4 5
9.
I have always known what I believe and don’t believe; I
never really have doubts about my beliefs.
1 2 3 4 5
10.
Many times, by not concerning myself with personal
problems, they work themselves out.
1 2 3 4 5
11.
I am not sure which values I really hold.
1 2 3 4 5

129

12.
I never question what I want to do with my life because I
tend to follow what important people expect me to do.
1 2 3 4 5
13.
I am not really thinking about my future now, it is still a
long way off.
1 2 3 4 5
14.
I am not sure what I want to do in the future.
1 2 3 4 5
15.
When facing a life decision, I try to analyze the situation in
order to understand it.
1 2 3 4 5
16.
I think it is better to adopt a firm set of beliefs than to be
open-minded.
1 2 3 4 5
17.
When I have to make an important life decision, I try to
wait as long as possible in order to see what will happen.
1 2 3 4 5
18.
I have clear and definite life goals.
1 2 3 4 5
19.
I am not sure what I want out of life.
1 2 3 4 5
20.
When making important life decisions, I like to think about
my options.
1 2 3 4 5
21.
I think it’s better to hold on to fixed values rather than to
consider alternative value systems.
1 2 3 4 5
22.
I try not to think about or deal with personal problems as
long as I can.
1 2 3 4 5
23.
I have a definite set of values that I use to make personal
decisions.
1 2 3 4 5
24.
I handle problems in my life by actively reflecting on them.
1 2 3 4 5
25.
I prefer to deal with situations in which I can rely on social
norms and standards.
1 2 3 4 5
26.
I try to avoid personal situations that require me to think a
lot and deal with them on my own.
1 2 3 4 5
27.
I am emotionally involved and committed to specific values
and ideals.
1 2 3 4 5
28.
When making important life decisions, I like to have as
much information as possible.
1 2 3 4 5

130

29.
When I make a decision about my future, I automatically
follow what close friends or relatives expect from me.
1 2 3 4 5
30.
Sometimes I refuse to believe a problem will happen, and
things manage to work themselves out.
1 2 3 4 5
31.
When others say something that challenges my personal
values or beliefs, I automatically disregard what they have
to say.
1 2 3 4 5
32. Who I am changes from situation to situation.
1 2 3 4 5
33.
It is important for me to obtain and evaluate information
from a variety of sources before I make important life
decisions.
1 2 3 4 5
34.
When personal problems arise, I try to delay acting as long
as possible.
1 2 3 4 5

131

Appendix E
The Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale – Short Form (CDSE-SF)

Personal Planning Section
Directions: For each statement below, please read carefully and indicate how much
confidence you have that you could accomplish each task by circling your answer in
the number key next to each question. There are no right or wrong answers, so don’t
spend a lot of time on any one question.
1 2 3 4 5
No Confidence Very Little Moderate Much Complete
Confidence Confidence
How much confidence do you have that you could:
1.
Find information in the library about occupations you are
interested in.
1 2 3 4 5
2.
Select one major from a list of potential majors you are
considering.
1 2 3 4 5
3.
Make a plan of your goals for the next five years.
1 2 3 4 5
4.
Determine the steps to take if you are having academic
trouble with an aspect of your chosen major.
1 2 3 4 5
5.
Accurately assess your abilities.
1 2 3 4 5
6.
Select one occupation from a list of potential occupations
you are considering.
1 2 3 4 5
7.
Determine the steps you need to take to successfully
complete your chosen major.
1 2 3 4 5
8.
Persistently work at your major or career goal even when
you get frustrated.
1 2 3 4 5
9.
Determine what your ideal job would be.
1 2 3 4 5
10.
Find out the employment trends for an occupation over the
next ten years.
1 2 3 4 5
11.
Choose a career that will fit your preferred lifestyle.
1 2 3 4 5

132

12.
Prepare a good resume.
1 2 3 4 5
13.
Change majors if you did not like your first choice.
1 2 3 4 5
14.
Decide what you value most in an occupation.
1 2 3 4 5
15.
Find out about the average yearly earnings of people in an
occupation.
1 2 3 4 5
16.
Make a career decision and then not worry whether it was
right or wrong.
1 2 3 4 5
17.
Change occupations if you are not satisfied with the one
you enter.
1 2 3 4 5
18.
Figure out what you are and are not ready to sacrifice to
achieve your career goals.
1 2 3 4 5
19.
Talk with a person already employed in a field you are
interested in.
1 2 3 4 5
20.
Choose a major or career that will fit your interests.
1 2 3 4 5
21.
Identify employers, firms, and institutions relevant to your
career possibilities.
1 2 3 4 5
22.
Define the type of lifestyle you would like to live.
1 2 3 4 5
23.
Find information about graduate or professional schools.
1 2 3 4 5
24.
Successfully manage the job interview process.
1 2 3 4 5
25.
Identify some reasonable major or career alternatives if you
are unable to get your first choice.
1 2 3 4 5

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among ethnicity, parenting styles, identity styles, identity commitment, and career decision self-efficacy in early college students. A non-experimental quantitative design was utilized to sample 210 students from a four-year private university in Southern California. The survey consisted of demographic information, the Parental Authority Questionnaire, the Identity Style Inventory - Version 4, and the Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy - Short Form.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The relationship between parenting styles, career decision self-efficacy, and career maturity of Asian American college students

PDF

The relationship of gratitude and subjective well-being to self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs among college students

PDF

Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of student behavior and relationship quality: an exploration of racial congruence and self-identity development

PDF

The impact of the mindful method Youth Empowerment Seminar (YES!) on students' self-efficacy, self-regulation, and academic performance for becoming college- and career-ready

PDF

The relationship of teachers' parenting styles and Asian American students' reading motivation

PDF

The effect of reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-regulation on the achievement and persistence of community college students enrolled in basic skills reading courses

PDF

Examining Latino parents' perspective on parent involvement at the secondary level: why should we care

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

What are the relationships among program delivery, classroom experience, content knowledge, and demographics on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy?

PDF

Motivation, language learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and acculturation patterns among two groups of English learners

PDF

Perceptions of inequality: racism, ethnic identity and student development for a master of education degree

PDF

The examination of academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking, academic self-efficacy, and student satisfaction of higher education students taking on-campus and online course formats

PDF

The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment

PDF

The relationship of values and parenting styles on academic achievement and occupational choice among Jewish-Americans and Jewish-Iranian Americans

PDF

The parent voice: an exploratory study to understand Latino parent involvement in schools

PDF

The relationship among the nurturance and monitoring dimensions of parenting, academic self-concept, and acculturation, in the academic achievement of Latino college students

PDF

Relationship of teacher's parenting style to instructional strategies and student achievement

PDF

Factors influencing nursing students' motivation to succeed

PDF

Parenting children of affluence

Asset Metadata

Creator White, Ryan J. (author)

Core Title The role of parenting style, ethnicity, and identity style on identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Psychology)

Publication Date 08/06/2009

Defense Date 05/14/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag career decision self-efficacy,career development,identity,identity commitment,identity style,OAI-PMH Harvest,parenting style

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth, H. (committee chair), Dembo, Myron H. (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email rjameswhite@gmail.com,ryan.white@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2516

Unique identifier UC1330853

Identifier etd-White-2992 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-175527 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2516 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-White-2992.pdf

Dmrecord 175527

Document Type Dissertation

Rights White, Ryan J.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu