University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTING STYLES, CAREER DECISION
SELF-EFFICACY, AND CAREER MATURITY OF ASIAN AMERICAN
COLLEGE STUDENTS

by

Maryann Wu

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

May 2009

Copyright 2009 Maryann Wu
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take the opportunity to thank many individuals who have
helped me to make this dissertation possible. First and foremost, I would like to
thank my chair, Dr. Ruth Chung, who has served as my advisor, encourager, and
mentor for the past year. You are truly a role model to me. You have not only taught
me how to be an astute researcher, but a better counselor to the students I serve each
and every day. It is my hope one day to follow in your footsteps, by guiding and
inspiring other college students in some way, just like you have for me. I would also
like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Ginger Clark and Dr.
Alex Jun, who have provided me valuable feedback throughout the dissertation
process and who have given me the support and encouragement to persevere to the
end. This dissertation would also not have been possible without the statistical
talents of Dr. Yuying Tsong. Thank you for helping me through the hurdles of
sorting through m y data and making sense of it all. Your gifts have been nothing but
a blessing.
Words cannot express the heartfelt love and deepest appreciation that I have
for my father and mother, Tom and May Wu, who have loved and supported me from
day one. You have made so many sacrifices for me throughout the years, just
because you believed in me. Thank you for instilling in me the strong values of an
education, and also providing me with unconditional love and support as I follow
life’s dreams.
iii

I am tremendously grateful to my co-workers, Cindy Martinez, Annie
Mateen, JaBari Brown, Ian Keil, Sarah Holdren, and Sonya Black who I have worked
with over the past three and a half years at the USC Annenberg School for
Communication. I am so proud to be part of such an amazing team dedicated to
serving students. Thank you for molding me into who I have become today,
believing in me that I could make it this far, and providing me with many laughs each
and every day.
Finally, acknowledgements would also not be complete without a special
thank you to university colleagues, Sumi Pendakur, Jade Agua, Joon Kim, Michael
Kurland, Josephine Le, and Dominic Lau who helped promote my study at the
University of Southern California. I am truly indebted to you and the students who
ultimately volunteered to participate in this study. My heart will always be filled
with gratefulness for each and every one of you.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ii

List of Tables vii

Abstract viii

Chapter I: Introduction 1
Career Development 1
Career Development Models 2
Areas of Research on Asian American Career Development 2
Influences on Asian American Career Development 3
Theoretical Frameworks Used in Study 4
Career Decision Self-Efficacy 5
Career Maturity 5
Parenting Styles 6
Acculturation 9
Purpose and Goal of the Study 9
Research Questions for the Study 10

Chapter II: Literature Review 12
Influences on Asian American Career Choice 12
Cultural Influences 12
Parental/Familial Influences 13
Parenting Styles 15
Baumrind’s Framework 15
Figure 1: Parenting Styles 19
Using Baumrind’s Framework with Asian Americans 20
Role of Acculturation in Parenting Styles 23
Career Decision Self-Efficacy 24
Career Decision Self-Efficacy for Asian Americans 26
Parental Influences on Career Decision Self-Efficacy for Asian 27
Americans
Career Maturity 28
Career Maturity for Asian Americans 30
Parental Influences on Career Maturity for Asian Americans 31
Summary 32
Purpose of the Study 35
Research Questions 35

v

Chapter III: Methodology 37
Participants 37
Instruments 42
Parenting St y l e 42
Career Decision Self-Efficacy 44
Career Maturity 47
Acculturation 49
Procedure 51
Data Analysis 52

Chapter IV: Results 53
Preliminary Analyses 53
Correlations 53
Sex and Generational Differences 57
Analyses of Research Questions 57
Research Question 1: Do parenting styles and acculturation 57
predict career decision self-efficacy in Asian American
college students?
Self-Appraisal 57
Occupational Information 58
Goal Selection 59
Planning 60
Problem Solving 61
Total Score 61
Research Question 2: Do parenting styles and acculturation 62
predict career maturity in Asian American college students?
Post-Hoc Analyses 64
Post-Hoc Question 1: Is language acculturation related to 64
career decision self-efficacy and career maturity?
Post-Hoc Question 2: Are enculturation and acculturation 65
related to students’ career choices in traditional fields versus
other career fields?
Post-Hoc Question 3: Is there a relationship between career 66
decision self-efficacy and career maturity?

Chapter V: Discussion 67
Discussion of Results 67
Relationship between Parenting Styles, Acculturation, and 67
Career Decision Self-Efficacy
Relationship between Parenting Styles, Acculturation, and 71
Career Maturity
Additional Findings 73
vi

Implications 74
Limitations of Study 77
Future Directions 80
Conclusion 82

References 84

Appendix A: Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research 93
Appendix B: Demographic Information 95
Appendix C: Parental Authority Questionnaire 97
Appendix D: Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy – Short Form 100
Appendix E: Career Maturity Inventory – Revised Attitude Scale 101
Appendix F: Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale 102

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Frequency Distribution of Student Participants 38
Table 2: Frequency Distribution of Family Income by Race/Ethnicity 39

Table 3: Frequency Distribution of Parental Education 40
Table 4: Frequency Distribution of Parental Education by Race/Ethnicity 41

Table 5: Frequency Distribution of Career Choice 42
Table 6: Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations 55
for Measured Variables

Table 7: Sex and Generational Differences for Major Measured Variables 56

Table 8: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for 58
CDMSE – Self-Appraisal

Table 9: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for 59
CDMSE – Occupational Information

Table 10: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for 60
CDMSE – Goal Selection

Table 11: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for 60
CDMSE – Planning

Table 12: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for 61
CDMSE – Problem Solving

Table 13: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for 62
CDMSE – Total Score

Table 14: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for 63
Career Maturity

viii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to bridge a gap in the current literature by
exploring the relationship between parenting styles and acculturation on the career
development of Asian American college students. Career development was
examined using the theoretical constructs of career decision self-efficacy and career
maturity. Participants included 312 Asian American undergraduate students who
completed an online survey consisting of demographic background information, the
Parental Authority Questionnaire, the Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy – Short
Form, the Career Maturity Inventory – Revised Attitude Scale, and the Asian
American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale. Results have suggested that both
parenting styles and acculturation are important influences on the career development
of Asian American college students. Authoritative parenting was significantly
correlated with higher levels of career decision self-efficacy on all five subscales,
including: Self-Appraisal, Occupational Information, Goal Selection, Planning, and
Problem Solving. Authoritarian parenting was correlated with higher levels of career
decision self-efficacy on two dimensions, including: Self-Appraisal and
Occupational Information. Acculturation to European American culture was found
to be the most significant predictor variable for four out of five subscales of career
decision self-efficacy, except for the subscale of Goal Selection, in which
enculturation to one’s culture of origin was found to be the most significant predictor
variable. Although authoritative and authoritarian parenting were not correlated with
ix

career maturity, permissive parenting was found to be significantly correlated with
lower levels of career maturity. Permissive parenting was ultimately found to be the
most significant predictor variable for lower scores on career maturity. Results of
this study re-emphasize the importance of including familial and cultural variables
when exploring the career development of Asian Americans. These findings also
continue to lend support to the suggestion that authoritarian parenting may have
different connotations for students coming from Asian American households and
m a y subsequently have positive influences on certain aspects of career decision self-
efficacy. Lastly, while acculturation was found to be one of the most important
variables, enculturation was also found to contribute to the career development of
students, highlighting the important need for the use of a bidimensional acculturation
model. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
1

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Career Development

Career development has been defined as the process that one undergoes as he
or she acquires the knowledge, interests, beliefs, and values about his or her work
options. This includes the development of several areas, including one’s
occupational interests, academic aspirations, self-efficacy, and expectations (Bryant,
Zvonkovic, & Reynolds, 2006). Career development has not been viewed as a single
event, but rather a lifelong process that one undergoes from early childhood to
adolescence and into adulthood (Savickas, 2002; Hartung, Porfeli, & Vondracek,
2005). Many different theoretical frameworks have been developed to explain this
process; however, most frameworks have been based on a Western cultural context.
In recent years, researchers and practitioners have increasingly begun to study the
career development process of culturally diverse groups (Flores, 2008). However,
despite the rapid growth of culturally diverse groups in the United States (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2007), and an increasingly large group enrolled in tertiary education,
researchers have acknowledged that very little is still known about the career
development process of many different racial groups (Okubo, Yeh, Lin, Fujita, &
Shea, 2007). With an understanding of the current gap in the research, this study
seeks to explore several variables that contribute to the career development of racial
and ethnic minorities by specifically looking at Asian American college students.
2

Career Development Models
Career development models have been broadly categorized into three main
groups that include: 1) trait and type theories, 2) lifespan theories, and 3) special
focus theories (Sharf, 2006). Trait and type theories have been described as
conceptual models that “emphasize the assessment of interests, abilities,
achievements, personality, and values” (Sharf, 2006, p. xi). Lifespan theories, on the
other hand, have been described as conceptual models that focus on the changing
ways in which “an individual deals with career issues over the entire life span”
(Sharf, 2006, p. 143). Lastly, special focus theories have been described as
conceptual models that use elements of psychology, sociology, and economics to
explain the career development process. A small number of these theories have been
generated to address issues for specific populations, however many of these
fundamental career development models have not addressed the myriad of cultural
variables that play an integral part in the career development of racial and ethnic
minorities. Similarly, no theoretical models have been constructed to describe and
explain the career development process of Asian Americans. The following section
provides an overview of the research that has been conducted on Asian American
career development.
Areas of Research on Asian American Career Development
Current research on Asian American career development has been broadly
grouped into two areas, including: 1) individual levels of analyses, such as career
3

interests, choices, and values, and 2) group and societal levels of analyses, such as
family influences on career development, work adjustment issues, occupational
prestige-related issues, occupational segregation, occupational stereotyping, and
occupational discrimination (Leong & Serafica, 1995; Leong & Gupta, 2007).
Influences on Asian American Career Development
On an individual level, studies have revealed that Asian Americans tend to
pursue a limited range of occupations, predominantly in careers related to
engineering, medicine, computer science, accounting, and business (Leong &
Serafica, 1995; Tang, Fouad, & Smith, 1999). Studies have also revealed that Asian
Americans have shown significant differences in comparison to Caucasians in terms
of occupational values (Leong & Gupta, 2007). It has been suggested that Asian
Americans tend to place a greater emphasis on extrinsic and security values than
Caucasians (Leong, 1991). While these career choices and values made by Asian
Americans may seem like a natural indication of their own career interests and goals,
studies have revealed that there are several group and societal influences that
continue to contribute to the career decisions made by Asian American college
students (Leong & Gupta, 2007).
On a group and societal level, family and culture have been frequently cited
as major influences on the career decisions made by Asian Americans (Leong &
Chou, 1994; Leong & Serafica, 1995; Fouad, Kantamneni, Smothers, Chen,
Fitzpatrick, & Terry, 2008). In a study by Tang et al. (1999), a positive relationship
4

was found between the level of family involvement in the life of the child and the
likelihood of going into a “traditional” (science, technology, and business-related)
occupation (p. 152). Research has suggested that Asian American parents want their
children to pursue occupations that are practical, marketable, and financially secure
(Tang et al., 1999) which may stem from previous experiences with discrimination in
the workplace and previous experiences witnessing other Asian Americans succeed
in certain fields. Consequently, Asian American children have been suggested to
pursue occupations based on their parents’ wishes rather than their own individual
interests and goals (Leong & Gupta, 2007). Given the strong cultural value of filial
piety, Asian Americans may also be following specific career paths based on the
value of respecting parental guidance and authority (Leong & Gupta, 2007). With an
understanding of these powerful influences of family and culture on Asian American
career development, this study attempts to fill a gap in the existing literature by
providing an understanding of the role of parents on the career development of Asian
American college students.
Theoretical Frameworks Used in Study
This study in particular focuses on lifespan and special focus theories by
specifically investigating the theoretical constructs of career decision self-efficacy
and career maturity. Despite the popularity of these theoretical constructs, a limited
number of studies have been conducted on its applicability to racial and ethnic
minority career development.
5

Career decision self-efficacy. Bandura describes self-efficacy as “a person’s
beliefs concerning his or her ability to successfully perform a given task or behavior”
(Betz & Luzzo, 1996, p. 414). More specifically, career decision self-efficacy, as
defined by Hackett and Betz (1995), has broadly been used to describe the self-
efficacy involved in different career-related tasks and behaviors. Put in a different
way, career decision self-efficacy is the belief that one can successfully complete
tasks necessary to make career decisions. “One of the key aspects of progress in
career decision making is (the) willingness to explore the environment” and having
self-efficacy is suggested to “facilitate such exploratory behavior” (Wolfe & Betz,
2004, p. 364). It has been noted that having higher levels of career decision self-
efficacy in adolescence are related to ease in making and implementing career
decisions (Hackett & Betz, 1995). Moreover, Brown and Lent (1996) have stressed
that individuals who may lack the confidence in their abilities to make good career
plans and choices may experience frustration and poor or premature career decisions.
Career maturity. Another important aspect of career development includes
the construct of career maturity pioneered by researchers Donald Super (1957) and
John Crites (1978). According to Super (1957), career maturity has been defined as
the degree to which an individual exhibits career behaviors and choices that are
appropriate for his or her age. Super (1957) has emphasized the importance of
developing career maturity during adolescence, as failure to progress in an
appropriate manner may lead to difficulty in making satisfying career decisions.
6

Researchers have long acknowledged that parents and family play a large role
in the career development of their children and adolescents. It has been suggested
that parents are “a major source of knowledge and beliefs about occupations” that
children and adolescents learn (Bryant et al., 2006, p. 154). However, the extent to
which parenting styles affect career development, specifically career decision self-
efficacy and career maturity, has yet to be fully explored (Whiston & Keller, 2004;
Bryant et al., 2006). The following section provides a brief overview of parenting
and parenting styles as it relates to career development.
Parenting styles. Parenting can be described as, “a complex activity that
includes many specific behaviors that work individually and together to influence
child outcomes” (Darling, 2000, p. 2). Parenting styles have been described as the
strategies that parents use in raising their children, which include warmth, affection,
involvement, punitiveness, and control (Reitman, Rhode, Hupp, & Altobello, 2002).
Perhaps one of the largest influences on parenting styles and parent-child
relationships has been the seminal work conducted by Diana Baumrind (1968, 1971,
1989, 1991a). Through Baumrind’s research, three different styles of parenting have
been found.
In general, parents labeled as authoritative have been viewed as both
demanding and responsive (Darling, 2000). Authoritative parents often “want their
children to be assertive as well as socially responsible and self-regulated” (Baumrind,
1989, p. 62). They are able to balance “clear, high expectations (for their children)
7

with emotional support and recognition of (their) children’s autonomy. Authoritative
parents have also been characterized as providing a warm family climate for their
children, (but) likewise promoting independence in their children, resulting in a
“more active career exploration on the part of (their) children” (Kerka, 2000, p. 2).
Conversely, authoritarian parents have been considered both highly
demanding and directive, but not responsive (Darling, 2000). Authoritarian parents
“attempt to shape, control, and evaluate (their children’s) behavior and attitudes… in
accordance with a set standard of conduct” (Baumrind, 1989, p. 353). Authoritarian
parents “value obedience as a virtue and favor punitive, forceful measures to curb
self-will… (when) children’s actions or beliefs conflict with their standards of
acceptable conduct” (Baumrind, 1989, p. 353). Obedience is likewise expected from
authoritarian parents without any explanation (Baumrind, 1991a). According to
Kerka (2000), “although authoritarian parenting is associated with school success,
pressures to conform and fulfill parents’ expectations regarding education and
careers can cause a poor fit between the individual and the chosen career, as well as
estranged family relationships and poor mental health” (p. 2).
Lastly, permissive parents have been viewed as low in both responsiveness
and demandingness. Permissive parents provide more warmth than authoritarian
parents, however place few demands on their children (Baumrind, 1991a).
Permissive parents provide their children with a great deal of freedom to make
decisions. They “attempt to behave in a nonpunitive, accepting, and affirmative
8

manner towards their children’s impulses, desires, and actions… (and) make few
maturity demands” (Baumrind, 1989, p. 354). “Families with uninvolved (or
inactive) parents seem unable to function well either because they cannot set
guidelines, or because they do not pursue interests that involve places and persons
outside the family. This makes it more difficult for children to develop self-
knowledge and differentiate their own career goals from their parents’ goals” (Kerka,
2000, p. 2).
Numerous studies have been conducted and a well-established base of
research has been formed with Baumrind’s theoretical framework. Studies have
consistently shown the beneficial effects of authoritative parenting on Caucasian
children and adolescents, including greater academic, social, and psychological
competence, self-esteem, and self-reliance, in comparison to parents who exhibit
authoritarian or permissive parenting styles (Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, &
Dornbusch, 1991; Carlson, Uppal, & Prosser, 2000; Furnham & Cheng, 2000).
However, research on the effects of Baumrind’s parenting styles on developmental
outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities have not been consistent nor extensively
researched (Ang, 2006).
Some debate has been expressed over the applicability of Baumrind’s
parenting styles to racial and ethnic minorities. Chao (1994) has argued that the
concept of authoritarian parenting may not be applicable to Asian Americans due to
meaning, cultural differences, and the use of control by parents. Authoritarian
9

parenting, for example, may be viewed as an expression of care and concern for
Asian American families, rather than an interpretation of strictness or lack of warmth
for their children. The impact of immigration on parenting styles have also led to
inconclusive results in regards to the cross-cultural validity of Baurmind’s parenting
styles (Lim & Lim, 2003).
Acculturation. Similarly, this study explores the important variable of
acculturation when studying Asian American career development and parenting
styles. Acculturation has been defined as “the degree of cultural change that takes
place in values and behaviors” (Liu, 2003, p. 38) when two cultures come into
continuous contact with one another (Berry, 2003; Kwok, 2004; Kim, 2007a).
Studies have “strongly indicated that acculturation plays a role in the types of careers
selected by students” and has also been related to career maturity and career decision
self-efficacy (Liu, 2003, p. 9). Moreover, Kim and Chung (2003) have also
suggested that acculturation has played a role in recent changes in Asian parenting
practices, as Asian Americans parents have increasingly been exposed to the U.S.
culture.
Purpose and Goal of the Study
The purpose of this study is to provide a deeper understanding of the
applicability of Baumrind’s parenting styles to the developmental outcomes of Asian
Americans by investigating the relationship between parenting styles and
acculturation on the career development of Asian American college students. More
10

specifically, the purpose of this study is to investigate if there is a relationship
between parenting styles and acculturation on the specific theoretical constructs of
career decision self-efficacy and career maturity.
Research Questions for the Study
This study aims to investigate the following research questions:
Do parenting styles and acculturation predict career decision self-efficacy in Asian
American college students, and
Do parenting styles and acculturation predict career maturity in Asian American
college students?
The remaining chapters have been organized as follows:
Chapter 2 provides an in-depth analysis into the current research on parenting
styles, including the impact of parenting styles on Asian American children. The role
of parenting styles on career development is discussed, specifically looking at the
theoretical constructs of career decision self-efficacy and career maturity. The role of
acculturation is also discussed as an important factor in each of the variables above.
Chapter 3 subsequently provides the methodology used for this study,
including the demographics of the students who participated, instruments used,
procedures for data collection, and the research design used to analyze the data.
Chapter 4 provides the main results of this study, including correlations
between variables, answers to the research questions posed, as well as post-hoc
analyses.
11

Chapter 5 provides a discussion on the results of the study, its limitations, as
well as implications for both researchers and practitioners interested in understanding
the relationship between parenting styles and acculturation on the career
development of Asian American college students.

12

CHAPTER II
Literature Review
The following review of literature takes a look at the influences on Asian
American career development, including the impact of parenting and parenting
styles. Literature is provided on the main theoretical frameworks used for this study,
including Baumrind’s (1971) parenting styles, Hackett and Betz’s (1981) career
decision self-efficacy, and Crites’ (1978) career maturity. With an understanding of
the heterogeneity of the Asian American population, acculturation is also reviewed as
an important factor influencing each of the variables above.
Influences on Asian American Career Choice
Career choices for Asian Americans have not always been consistently related
with their career interests and goals (Tang et al., 1999). In a study by Fouad et al.
(2008), several domains have been found to influence career choices, including
culture and family as the most “pervasive and influential” roles for Asian American
college students (p. 43).
Cultural influences. Cultural influences have been defined as, “the extent to
which one’s cultural background influences career decision making, as well as the
meanings and values placed on work” (Fouad et al., 2008, p. 49). Asian American
students have reported perceived differences in expectations from their culture of
origin and mainstream American culture (Fouad, et al., 2008). Students have
reported feeling a “part of two different and distinct cultures, working towards
13

integrating and accepting… (both) cultures” (p. 49). These cultural values have
likewise been suggested as influencing one’s “communication styles, sense of family
safety and obligation, ideas of success, and respect towards others,” (Fouad et al.,
2008, p. 50). Participants have also indicated a lack of value in career exploration by
family members and have also perceived a lack of options for their choice of
academic major. Lastly, a desire to represent one’s culture has also been noted as
influencing students’ career choices, along with not wanting to “shame their culture
and family” (Fouad et al., 2008, p. 50). While it may be natural to assume that career
choices are linked to one’s career interests, research continues to indicate the strong
influences of family and culture on Asian American career development.
Parental/familial influences. In a study by Gim (1992), Asian American
adolescents have reported higher levels of parental pressures as a significant factor in
making their career decisions (as cited in Leong & Serafica, 1995). Indeed, parents
have been described as having a stronger influence on the vocational development of
their children than both school and/or peers (Hartung et al., 2005). Moreover, the
parental support and guidance that students receive, and the positive or negative
environment in which students live, have been noted as having greater influences on
career development than characteristics such as family composition and/or the
educational and occupational statuses of family members (Trusty, Watts, & Erdman,
1997).
14

Asian American parents, in particular, have been noted as providing “stronger
parental guidance” in regards to their children’s careers (Leong & Serafrica, 1995, p.
71). Due to an awareness of racial discrimination in the United States, Asian
American parents have been suggested to want their children to pursue careers in
“respected and autonomous” professions where other Asian Americans have
succeeded in the past (Leong & Serafica, 1995, p. 71). According to Leong and
Gupta (2007), this parental influence may be linked with the current
overrepresentation of Asian Americans in math and science fields.
Familial influences include “the extent to which an individual’s family of
origin and current family affect career decision making as well as the meanings and
values placed on work” (Fouad et al., 2008, p. 48). Other notable family influences
on Asian American career choices include family obligations, such as taking care of
family, being physically close to one’s family of origin, and financially supporting
one’s family (Fouad et al., 2008, p. 48). According to Leong and Chou (1994),
“career choice and career advancement (have been) seen more as (a) means of
providing for one’s own family, helping one’s siblings, and fulfilling one’s
responsibility to care for parents in their old age, than as ways of implementing self
attributes” (p. 47). Family support, in terms of financial support and/or emotional
support, have likewise been seen as factors affecting students’ career decisions
(Fouad et al., 2008).
15

Grotevant and Cooper (1986) have noted the important need for children and
adolescents to connect with their parents, as this connection has been viewed as a
fundamental aspect of career development and adolescent well-being. Support,
encouragement, guidance, and open communication between parents and children
have been suggested to facilitate career development (Young, Friesen, & Dillabough,
1991). Consequently, the construct of parenting styles has been viewed as an
important aspect of career development, as it combines important traits of warmth,
affection, involvement, punitiveness, control, responsiveness, and demandingness
(Maccoby & Martin, 1983).
Parenting Styles
Parenting styles have been defined as specific parenting practices and
attitudes that parents express toward their own children (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).
In the parenting process, child and adolescent development is influenced by: 1) the
values and goals parents place on their children in the socialization process, 2) the
parenting practices that they employ, and 3) the attitudes they express toward their
children (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). While the goals parents have in mind when
socializing their children may be similar across cultures, the parenting practices that
they employ and the attitudes that are express may vary (Steinberg, Lamborn,
Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994).
Baumrind’s framework. A seminal contribution in the development of a
theoretical model to define parental characteristics has been Diana Baumrind’s
16

(1968, 1971, 1991a) work on parenting styles. In Baumrind’s original study,
research was conducted on parents of preschool children in Berkeley and Oakland,
California, primarily from Caucasian, middle-class, well-educated families. The
goals of her study were to identify “optimal competence in children and adolescents”
by analyzing parenting styles and characteristics (Baumrind, 1989, p. 349). During
her study, Baumrind used multiple measures to analyze various parenting styles,
including home visits, observations, parents’ ratings, and parental interviews. As an
outcome from Baumrind’s study, three distinct parenting styles were found, labeled,
and identified as: 1) authoritarian, 2) authoritative, and 3) permissive parenting.
With extensive research (Baumrind, 1968, 1971, 1991a), several key traits have been
found in each of the parenting styles.
Authoritative parents demand that their children be responsive to their
parents’ demands, but are responsive to their children’s perspective. Authoritative
parenting has been characterized with the traits of firm yet fair discipline. In this
style of parenting, “parents display warmth, love, and affection toward [their]
children and are democratic in their exchanges with [their] children, despite [their]
firm discipline” (Hickman, Bartholomae, & McKenry, 2000, p. 42). They are
“supportive rather than punitive. They want their children to be assertive as well as
socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as cooperative” (Baumrind, 1991b, p.
62).
17

Authoritarian parents, on the other hand, tend to be strict, harsh, punitive,
and demanding and require obedience from their own children (Baumrind, 1971).
Authoritarian parenting has been characterized by “harsh disciplinary actions and
rigid boundaries, expressed both emotionally and psychologically toward children”
(Hickman et al., 2000, p. 42). Parents monitor their children’s activities carefully
and try to shape their children’s behavior with absolute standards and little verbal
give-and-take between parent and child.
Lastly, permissive parents place few, if any, rules upon their children and use
little punishment. “Communication has a tendency to be nonexistent or minimal, as
evidenced by a hands-off approach to child rearing” (Hickman et al., 2000, p. 42). In
extreme cases, children are given “the freedom to make life decisions without
referring to parents for advice [with their] whereabouts generally unknown to [their]
parents” (Hickman et al., 2000, p. 42).
Moreover, parenting styles have been defined in regards to two other
elements, including: 1) parental responsiveness (warmth, acceptance, support and
involvement) and 2) parental demandingness (control, supervision, and maturity
demands) (Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Baumrind, 1991a). Parental responsiveness
refers to “the extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality, self-
regulation, and self-assertion by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to
children’s special needs and demands” (Baumrind, 1991b, p. 62). Parental
demandingness refers to “the claims parents make on children to become integrated
18

into the family… by their maturity demands, supervision, disciplinary efforts and
willingness to confront the child who disobeys” (Baumrind, 1991b, pp. 61-62).
Using these two dimensions in subsequent studies, Baumrind (1989) and
Maccoby and Martin (1983) developed four types of parenting styles, using the
labels: 1) authoritarian, 2) authoritative, 3) permissive indulgent and 4) permissive
neglecting parenting. A primary differentiation has been made in the division of the
two types of permissive parenting, specifically: 1) permissive indulgent and 2)
permissive neglecting parenting. Parents that have been characterized by low levels
of demandingness and high levels of responsiveness have been described as having
permissive indulgent parenting styles. These parents are “tolerant, warm, and
accepting, yet exercise little authority, and make few demands for mature behavior,
and allow considerable self-regulation by the adolescent” (Glasgow, Dornbusch,
Troyer, Steinberg, & Ritter, 1997, p. 508). Permissive neglecting parenting, on the
other hand, has been characterized by parents who are neither demanding nor
responsive and display “a neglectful or uninvolved pattern of parenting. These
parents do not monitor their children’s behavior or support their interests. Neglectful
parents are often preoccupied with their own problems, and are disengaged from
parental responsibilities” (Glasgow et al., 1997, p. 508). They do not provide
structure for their children and may be “actively rejecting or else neglect(ing) their
childrearing responsibilities altogether” (Baumrind, 1991b, p. 62). Figure 1 provides
a representation of each of the four parenting styles in terms responsiveness
19

(including warmth, acceptance, support, and involvement) and demandingness
(including control, supervision, and maturity demands):
Figure 1
Parenting Styles

Authoritative parents have been described as demanding and responsive, as
well as high in control and high in warmth. Authoritarian parents have been
characterized as directive, but not responsive, and having high control, but low
warmth. Conversely, permissive indulgent parents have been described as more
responsive than they are demanding, having low control, but high warmth. Lastly,
permissive neglecting parents have been characterized as neither demanding nor
responsive and having low control and low warmth (Baumrind, 1971, 1991a, 1991b;
Kim & Rohner, 2002).
Baumrind’s framework has been frequently used and well-accepted due to her
multi-method and longitudinal approach of studying parenting behaviors (Darling &
Steinberg, 1993). For the past 40 years, Baumrind’s parenting styles have been used
in subsequent studies, many of which have supported her assertions and results
(Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Outcomes of Baumrind’s styles have also been
replicated in studies across region, age, sex, and socioeconomic status (Kennell,
20

1994). However, inconclusive results have been found amongst different racial and
ethnic groups (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).
In general, the results of Baumrind’s (1971) studies have suggested that
authoritative parenting has positive and beneficial effects for Caucasian families in
promoting adolescent psychological health and well-being. Several studies have
likewise found significant beneficial effects of authoritative parenting on outcomes
such as self-esteem, academic competence and adjustment, and higher levels of
psychosocial development (Lamborn et al., 1991; Furnham & Cheng, 2000).
Authoritative parenting has also been associated with positive self-perception (Klein,
O’Bryant, & Hopkins, 1996). Conversely, permissive parenting has been associated
with children with higher levels of substance abuse, school misconduct, and less
engagement in the classroom, in comparison to other parenting styles (Lamborn et
al., 1991). To provide an assessment to measure parental authority, John Buri (1991)
created the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ). The PAQ has been based on
Baumrind’s (1971) definitions of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive
parenting, and has been one of the most widely used tools today to investigate
parenting styles.
Using Baumrind’s framework with Asian Americans. Baumrind (1991a) has
acknowledged that parenting styles may have different impacts on the developmental
outcomes of children from different racial and ethnic groups. From the limited
studies that have been conducted, inconclusive results have been found when
21

applying Baumrind’s framework to the developmental outcomes of Asian
Americans. Previous studies have indicated that authoritarian parenting has been the
most widely used parenting style for Asian American families (Lin & Fu, 1990;
Shrake, 1996; Wang & Phinney, 1998), however, more recent studies have indicated
that authoritative parenting is becoming more commonplace and may be attributed to
an increased exposure to Western culture (Kim & Chung, 2003).
In the limited studies that have been done, Park and Bauer (2002) and
Steinberg et al. (1994) have found that authoritative parenting and academic
achievement have only been correlated with students from Caucasian backgrounds.
However, in a study by Kim and Chung (2003), authoritative parenting has been
significantly correlated with higher academic competence and morality, while
authoritarian parenting has been significantly associated with lower self-reliance. In
the same study, years in the United States have been positively associated with self-
reliance. In a study by Rosenthal and Feldman (1992), authoritative control and
parental warmth have been significantly related to adolescent ethnic pride.
In an international study by Leung, Lau, and Lam (1998), authoritative
parenting has been unrelated to academic achievement for Chinese students, but
positively related to academic achievement for European Americans and Australians.
In a different study by Chen, Dong, and Zhou (1997), however, authoritative
parenting was positively related to children’s academic achievement, while
authoritarian parenting was negatively associated with achievement. In a study
22

conducted in Hong Kong by Shek (2002), harsh and demanding parenting
characteristics were associated with low self-esteem, hopelessness, and negative life
satisfaction, whereas concern and responsiveness were associated with positive
psychological well-being.
Researchers have acknowledged that evaluating parenting styles based on
Western parenting concepts and measurements may also not take into consideration
differences from a cultural perspective. Chao (1994) has argued that the concepts of
authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices may not capture the important
features of child rearing in Asian American families. The Confucian doctrine of
filial piety, for example, is the notion that children should unquestionably obey their
parents, respect their authority, and fulfill parental expectations (Wang & Phinney,
1998). While this high control may seem to contradict the development of
independence and self-reliance, it has been noted that Asian American children, in
fact, are encouraged by authoritarian parents to be independent and self-reliant
(Wang & Phinney, 1998). Chao (1994) has noted that this parental authority has
often been used in order to help children achieve specific goals that are deemed
important in Asian culture, such as education. Similarly, Lau and Cheung (1987)
have also pointed out that authoritarian parenting, such as parental obedience and
some aspects of strictness, have been viewed as concern, care, involvement, and/or
fostering family harmony in Asian American families. Thus, the use of control by
23

Asian American families may not necessarily be the equivalent of authoritarian
parenting that has been defined from a Western perspective.
Role of acculturation in parenting styles. Given the different immigration
backgrounds of Asian Americans, acculturation has also been viewed as an important
aspect of how children are raised in the United States. According to a comparison of
child-rearing practices among Chinese, immigrant Chinese, and Caucasian American
parents, Lin and Fu (1990) have found that Chinese parents living in Asia tend to rate
the highest in terms of parental control, with Caucasian American parents rating the
lowest, and immigrant Chinese parents rating in the middle. Lin and Fu (1990) have
suggested that this may be due to the gradual changes amongst immigrants “due to
acculturation, as they adjust and accommodate to the values and practices of the
United States” (p. 432). Thus, given the diverse backgrounds of the Asian American
population, it is important not to overlook the important issues of acculturation when
analyzing parenting styles.
As noted earlier, children and adolescents have been observed struggling in
the career decision-making process without parental support and guidance. The
important attribute of self-efficacy in late adolescence has also been related to
perceived availability of family support (Lopez, 1992). The following section
provides recent research on the parental influences of self-efficacy, with a particular
emphasis on career decision self-efficacy.

24

Career Decision Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy has been viewed as a major influence on students’ career
choices. Self-efficacy has been broadly defined as “a person’s beliefs concerning his
or her ability to successfully perform a given task or behavior” (Betz & Luzzo, 1996,
p. 414). Similarly, career decision self-efficacy has been used as a general term to
describe the belief that one has the abilities to perform various career-related tasks
and behaviors to make career decisions (Hackett & Betz, 1995).
According to Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory, there are four sources
through which self-efficacy expectations can be learned. Self-efficacy can be learned
through: 1) performance accomplishments, by personally mastering experiences, 2)
vicarious experiences, by modeling others, 3) psychological states, by reducing
anxiety levels, and/or 4) verbal persuasion, by receiving suggestions, encouragement
and/or support from others (including family). Self-efficacy can be hindered in
several ways. For example, women and racial/ethnic minorities m a y be unable to
learn vicariously, due to a lack of role models in certain non-traditional careers. This
may also lead them to expect that they may not succeed in non-traditional fields.
Family members, for example, may also encourage or discourage their children from
entering certain fields through various types of verbal persuasion.
The idea of applying Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory to one’s career
decisions first originated in the early 1980s with researchers Nancy Betz and Gail
Hackett. Betz and Hackett both realized the importance of self-efficacy theory in
25

understanding the career development of women, particularly in the underrepresented
fields of math, science, and technology. Although the concept of career self-efficacy
was originally used to understand the career development of women, it has now been
widely used to understand career development in general, as well as the career
development of racial/ethnic minorities (Betz & Hackett, 2006).
Decisions on one’s career have all been subject to the influence of one’s own
self-efficacy beliefs. Betz and Hackett (2006) point to the fact that nearly all
individuals have some behavioral areas where they lack confidence in their abilities.
However, these feelings of inadequacy m a y ultimately lead to an avoidance of certain
academic subjects in school and/or an avoidance of certain career options. Betz and
Serling (1996) have acknowledged that low career decision self-efficacy appears to
be related to a fear of commitment in making career decisions (as cited in Betz &
Luzzo, 1996). Career decision self-efficacy has also been related to academic and
social integration and student retention and departure in college (Peterson, 1993).
To help measure career decision self-efficacy, Taylor and Betz (1983) created
the Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale (CDMSE) and Career Decision
Making Self-Efficacy Scale – Short Form (CDMSE-SF) to measure an individual’s
degree of belief that he or she could successfully complete tasks necessary to make
career decisions. These scales have now widely been used to assess an individual’s
confidence in engaging in tasks and behaviors that are needed to make career
decisions.
26

Career decision self-efficacy for Asian Americans. Although a limited
number of studies have been conducted on career decision self-efficacy for Asian
Americans, current research suggests that acculturation and peer support groups may
be important factors contributing to career decision self-efficacy. According to a
study by Patel, Salahuddin, and O’Brien (2008), “American language acculturation
was predictive of feeling confident in engaging in tasks related to career decision
making” (p. 232). Patel et al. (2008) suggest that English-proficient students may
have the ability to better utilize libraries and career centers “to enhance their
confidence in making decisions… and planning for future careers” (p. 232). In the
same study, peer support was also predictive of career decision-making self-efficacy
for Vietnamese students. It has been suggested that adolescents may view their
immigrant families as less familiar and knowledgeable about the world of work in
the United States, thus relying on peers for support in making career decisions (Patel
et al., 2008).
In a study by Tang et al. (1999), the relationship between acculturation and
occupational interests were explored. Researchers found that less acculturated Asian
Americans chose more typical occupations in science and technology-related
occupations than more acculturated individuals (Tang et al., 1999). In the same
study, it was found that career choices were not only influenced by acculturation, but
factors such as family background and self-efficacy. In a study by Chung (2001), an
examination of the relationship between acculturation and intergenerational conflict
27

of Asian American college students was also conducted. Those who were more
acculturated reported lower levels of intergenerational conflict than individuals who
were either low acculturated or bicultural. Similarly in a study by Liu (2003) on
career decision self-efficacy, acculturation again was viewed as the greatest influence
on one’s career decision self-efficacy.
Several researchers have also pointed to the fact that acculturation levels also
influence one’s willingness to seek out a counselor for personal, academic and/or
career related issues (Kim, 2007b). It has been suggested that more acculturated
individuals have more positive attitudes towards seeking professional help and are
more willing to seek out help, if needed (Kim, 2007b).
Parental influences on career decision self-efficacy for Asian Americans. A
few recent empirical research studies have now focused on parental and familial
influences on the career decision self-efficacy of Asian American college students.
Career decision self-efficacy has been noted as “particularly relevant when studying
college students since it closely mirrors the developmental challenges of students
who are in the process of identifying possible careers, gathering information, and
assessing their own abilities and interests” (Liu, 2003, p. 38). Moreover, in a study
by Hargrove, Creagh, and Burgess (2002), perceived quality of family relationships
(such as frequent expression of anger, aggression and conflict) and family-supported
goals (such as emphasis on achievement in school and work), have been found to
play “a small, yet significant role in college students’ confidence in engaging in
28

developmentally appropriate career planning activities and ability to formulate clear
and stable career goals” (p. 197).
In a study by Liu (2003) on the career decision self-efficacy of Asian
American college students, certain aspects of family relationships have been shown
to be related to the ability to accurately assess one’s own abilities. For example, less
conflict between Asian American college students and their parents has been related
to a more accurate appraisal of oneself. Moreover, less parental pressure on
education and career-related choices has been suggested to also relate to a more
accurate sense of one’s own career-related abilities (Liu, 2003). Moreover, “healthier
problem solving skills within families” have been related to more self-efficacy in
gathering occupational information (Liu, 2003, p. 85).
Career Maturity
In addition to career decision self-efficacy, career maturity has been viewed
as one of the most important aspects of career development (Powell & Luzzo, 1998).
According to Super (1990), individuals go through five stages of career development,
including: growth in childhood, exploration in adolescence, establishment in young
adulthood, maintenance in adulthood, and withdrawal. According to Super’s (1957)
theory, certain career tasks and vocational behaviors are accomplished during each
stage and development along this continuum is viewed as a measurement of career
maturity. Super (1957) and Crites (1978) have defined career maturity as “the extent
to which an individual has mastered vocational development tasks including
29

knowledge and attitudinal components that are appropriate for his or her stage of
career development” (Betz, 1988, p. 80). According to Super (1957), vocational
development includes tasks such as crystallizing, specifying, implementing,
stabilizing, and consolidating one’s career choice. Career maturity has also been
viewed as a psychological construct, similar to intellectual, moral, and social
development (Betz, 1988). Developing career maturity during adolescence has been
emphasized as an important developmental step. Failure to progress in adolescence
has been suggested to lead to difficulty in making satisfying career decisions (Super,
1957).
Researchers have suggested that career maturity has been influenced by
factors such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, family, and acculturation (Schulenberg,
Vondracek, & Crouter, 1984; Kenny, 1990; Hardin, Leong, & Ospiow, 2001;
Whiston & Keller, 2004). As one might expect, students in higher grade levels have
been shown to exhibit higher levels of career maturity than those in lower grade
levels (Wallace-Broscious, Serafica, & Osipow, 1994). In a study by Kenny (1990)
on the influences of gender, the amount of emotional support that males receive from
their parents has been found to significantly relate to one’s career maturity. On the
other hand, the degree to which parents foster autonomy in females has also been
significantly related to career maturity. Not all findings on the impact of gender/sex,
however, have been consistent, and some researchers have been unable to find any
significant differences in career maturity (Patton & Lokan, 2001). In general,
30

however, the “great majority of studies, conducted over two decades, has found that
females of a number of age groups and in several countries have higher scores on
career maturity measures than males” (Patton & Lokan, 2001, p. 37). Researchers
have only found minor or no correlations between career maturity and socioeconomic
status (Patton & Lokan, 2001). However, when differences have been detected,
factors such as work salience (the importance of work in one’s life) have been found
to play a larger role on career maturity than one’s socioeconomic status (Naidoo,
Bowman, & Gerstein, 1998). In addition to age and work commitment, Creed and
Patton (2003) have suggested that self-efficacy and career decidedness (certainty) are
also predictors of career mature attitudes.
The Career Maturity Inventory (CMI), developed by Crites (1978), has been
the most widely studied instrument to assess career maturity. Mature career choice
attitudes have been measured by greater decisiveness in career choices, active
involvement in the process, and independence in decision making (as opposed to
relying on others), a realistic orientation toward work, and the ability to compromise
between one’s own needs and reality (Crites, 1978; Betz, 1988). Using Crites’
(1978) original assessment, the Career Maturity Inventory was subsequently revised
in 1995 by Crites and Savickas and renamed the Career Maturity Inventory – Revised
(CMI-R).
Career maturity for Asian Americans. In several studies examining the
career maturity of Asian Americans, Asian American college students as a whole
31

have been found to exhibit less mature career choice attitudes than Caucasians
(Leong, 1991; Luzzo, 1992). However, Hardin et al. (2001) have studied the role of
acculturation, career maturity, and self-construal (an individual’s sense of self in
relation to others) and have suggested that highly acculturated Asian Americans do
not differ from Caucasians in terms of career maturity or self-construal. In order to
obtain a high score of career maturity, “one must demonstrate low openness to
parental guidance and a strong reliance on oneself” (Hardin et al., 2001, p. 47).
Thus, the authors have suggested that the original Career Maturity Inventory does not
take into account the interdependence of family in more collectivist cultures, such as
Asian American cultures.
Parental influences on career maturity for Asian Americans. There are
currently a limited number of empirical studies that have been conducted on the
influence of parents on the career maturity of Asian Americans. This gap exists
despite the acknowledgement that parents have a strong influence on the career
development and career maturity of college students (Whiston & Keller, 2004).
According to Whiston and Keller (2004), the career maturity of college students is
often influenced by parental emotional support, autonomy support, encouragement,
and warmth. It has been suggested that other family members, such as siblings, also
play an influential role in the career maturity of young adults (Whiston & Keller,
2004).
32

However, as suggested above, the career maturity of Asian Americans must
take into account a preference in “a dependent style (that) reflects (the) culture’s
greater emphasis on (a) collectivistic rather than individualistic orientation in
decision making” (Hardin et al., 2001, p. 49). Thus, students may be more open to
parental influences when making career decisions. As Tang et al. (1999) have
emphasized, one must continuously examine parental and familial influences and
expectations when studying the career choices of Asian Americans college students.
Summary
Researchers have acknowledged that very little is still known about the career
development process of many racial/ethnic groups, including Asian Americans. This
gap in the current research exists despite “a high need for effective career counseling
services expressed by Asian American college students” (Leong & Gupta, 2007, p.
159). Current research on Asian American career development has been broadl y
grouped into two areas, including individual and group levels. Individual levels of
analyses include areas such as career interests, choices, and values. Group levels of
analyses, include characteristics such as family influences on career development,
work adjustment issues, occupational prestige-related issues, occupational
segregation, occupational stereotyping, and occupational discrimination (Leong &
Serafica, 1995; Leong & Gupta, 2007).
Results of current studies have indicated that Asian American career choices
are influenced at both an individual level and group and societal level. Examples of
33

these influences on Asian American career choices include one’s own career
interests, values, career self-efficacy, career maturity, cultural upbringing, and
parental and familial influences. More than any other factor, family and culture
continue to be cited as the two major influences on the career choices and vocational
behaviors made by Asian American college students (Leong & Serafica, 1995).
Indeed, Grotevant and Cooper (1986) have noted the important need for children to
connect with their parents through adolescence and young adulthood, as this
connection has been viewed as a fundamental aspect of career development and
adolescent well-being. Support, encouragement, guidance, and open communication
between parents and children have also been suggested to facilitate career
development (Young et al., 1991).
The theoretical construct of parenting styles has been used as a particularly
effective way of describing the strategies that parents use in raising their children,
which includes the traits of warmth, affection, involvement, punitiveness, and control
(Reitman et al., 2002). Diana Baumrind (1968, 1971, 1991a) has been viewed as a
leading researcher on identifying and defining specific parenting styles. Through her
research, three distinct parenting styles have been found, including: authoritative,
authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles. Current literature using Baumrind’s
(1971) theoretical framework suggests that authoritative parenting for Caucasians
rears the most competent children in all behavioral and psychological dimensions, in
comparison to individuals from authoritarian or permissive households (Lamborn et
34

al., 1991; Kim and Chung, 2003). However, the few studies that have been
conducted on the relationship between Asian American parenting styles and child
and adolescent developmental outcomes have led to inconclusive results.
From the studies that have been conducted on Asian Americans, parental
influences, acculturation and certain aspects of family relationships have all been
suggested to influence one’s career development. These aspects include less conflict
between Asian American college students and their parents, less parental pressure on
education and career-related choices, and healthier problem solving skills between
family members (Liu, 2003).
Two widely studied theoretical constructs on career development include
career decision self-efficacy and career maturity. Career decision self-efficacy has
been used as a general term to describe the belief that one has the abilities to perform
various career-related tasks and behaviors to make career decisions. Additionally,
career maturity has been used as a term to describe the degree to which an individual
exhibits career behaviors and choices that are appropriate for his or her age.
Consequently, with an understanding of the significant impact of parents on
the career development of Asian Americans, this study attempts to look at the
influences of parenting styles on the career decision self-efficacy and career maturity
of Asian American college students. Kim and Chung (2003) have noted that there
continues to be “an inadequate base of research on Asian American parenting styles
and their relationship to various developmental outcomes” (p. 481). Even fewer
35

studies have been conducted examining the influences of Asian American parenting
styles on late adolescents and young adults.
Purpose of the Study
Thus, the purpose of this study is to bridge the gap in the current literature by
empirically investigating the relationship between parenting styles and acculturation
on the career development of Asian American college students. More specifically,
this study seeks to explore the relationship between parenting styles and acculturation
on the career decision self-efficacy and career maturity of Asian American college
students.
Research Questions
The following research questions and hypotheses have been posed for this
study:
Research Question 1:
Do parenting styles and acculturation predict career decision self-efficacy in Asian
American college students?
Hypothesis 1a: Authoritative parents will predict higher levels of career
decision self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 1b: Acculturation to European American culture will predict
higher levels of career decision self-efficacy.

36

Research Question 2:
Do parenting styles and acculturation predict career maturity in Asian American
college students?
Hypothesis 2a: Authoritative parents will predict higher levels of career
maturity.
Hypothesis 2b: Acculturation to European American culture will predict
higher levels of career maturity.

37

CHAPTER III

Methodology

This study investigated the influence of parenting styles, as well as
acculturation, on the career decision self-efficacy and career maturity of Asian
American college students. The following chapter includes information on the
participants used for the study, instruments utilized, procedures for data collection, as
well as the research design.
Participants
Asian American undergraduate students were recruited from a selective
private research university in Southern California during a one month period in the
fall semester of 2008. A total of 322 undergraduate students volunteered to
participate in this study. Of the 322 survey responses, 10 could not be included in
the study due to incomplete responses or respondents who indicated that they were
not Asian American. A total of 312 survey responses were used in the final data
analyses. Participants in the sample ranged in age from 18 to 24 years old (M =
19.79 years, SD = 1.57). As shown in Table 1, female undergraduate students
comprised 69.2% (n = 213) of the sample, while male undergraduate students
comprised 30.8% (n = 95) of the sample. Students’ race/ethnicity, generational
status, family structure, and family income for the current study are also presented in
Table 1.

38

Table 1
Frequency Distribution of Student Participants
N Percentage

Sex

Male 95 30.8
Female 213 69.2

Race/Ethnicity

Chinese 108 34.6
Filipino 17 5.4
Indian 18 5.8
Japanese 11 3.5
Korean 41 13.1
Laotian 3 1.0
Nepalese 1 0.3
Pacific Islander 1 0.3
Pakistani 1 0.3
Taiwanese 18 5.8
Thai 4 1.3
Vietnamese 18 5.8
Bi-racial 22 7.1
Multi-ethnic 49 15.7

Generational Status

First 77 24.7
Second 202 64.7
Third 18 5.8
Fourth 10 3.2
Above Fourth 5 1.6

Family Structure

Intact 251 81.0
Divorced 29 9.4
Remarried 10 3.2
Other 20 6.5

Family Income

Under $50,000 70 22.6
$50,001 – $100,000 103 33.3
$100,001 – $150,000 69 22.3
Over $150,000 67 21.7

The largest groups of Asian ethnicities who participated in the study were
Chinese (n = 108, 34.6%), Korean (n = 41, 13.1%), Indian (n = 18, 5.8%), Taiwanese
39

Note. Nepalese, Pacific Islander, and Pakistani excluded due to small sample sizes.
a
SE Asian = Southeast Asians (Laotian, Thai, and Vietnamese)

(n = 18, 5.8%), Vietnamese (n = 18, 5.8%), and Filipino (n = 17, 5.4%). In addition
to these participants, 49 students (15.7%) indicated that they were multi-ethnic
Asians, having more than one Asian ethnicity. A majority of students (n = 202,
64.7%) indicated that they were second generation Asian American college students
(born in the United States with at least one parent born outside of the United States).
The majority of participants (n = 251, 81%) also indicated coming from an
intact two-parent household. When asked to self-report on the socioeconomic
background of their family, the majority of respondents (n = 242, 77.8%) indicated
coming from a middle to upper middle class background. Similarly, 33.3% (n = 103)
indicated coming from a family that earned $50,001 - $100,000 while another 22.3%
(n = 69) indicated coming from a family that earned $100,001 - $150,000 per year.
Lowest levels of family income were proportionately found amongst Southeast
Asians, while highest levels of family income were proportionately found amongst
Asian Indians. Family incomes based on race/ethnicity are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Frequency Distribution of Family Income by Race/Ethnicity

40

Participants, in general, indicated high levels of education for both parents as
indicated in Table 3. Of those reporting their father’s education, 75.8% (n = 236)
indicated that their father had a college degree (or more), while 69.1% (n = 215)
indicated that their mother had a college degree (or more).
Table 3
Frequency Distribution of Parental Education
Father Mother
Parental Education N Percentage N Percentage

Less than High School

21

6.8

24

7.7
High School 27 8.7 34 10.9
Some College work (no degree) 27 8.7 38 12.2
College Degree 81 26.0 117 37.6
Some Post-College work (no degree) 9 2.9 10 3.2
Master’s Degree 63 20.3 57 18.3
Some Post-Master’s work (no degree) 14 4.4 9 2.9
Advanced Degree (such as M.D., J.D., Ph.D.) 69 22.2 22 7.1

To investigate within group differences, parental education was disaggregated
by race/ethnicity as shown in Table 4. Lowest levels of education were
proportionately found amongst Southeast Asian parents of Laotian, Thai, and
Vietnamese descent, while highest levels of education were proportionately found
amongst Asian Indian, Chinese, and Taiwanese parents.
41

Table 4
Frequency Distribution of Parental Education by Race/Ethnicity

Note. Nepalese, Pacific Islander, and Pakistani excluded due to small sample sizes.

a
College = Some college work and college degree
b
Graduate/Professional = Some post-college work, master’s degree, some post-master’s work, and
advanced degree
c
SE Asian = Southeast Asians (Laotian, Thai, and Vietnamese)

As shown in Table 5, students who indicated their career choice and
aspiration were able to be grouped into 13 broad areas, including: architecture,
business/accounting/management/marketing, education, engineering/computer
science, entertainment/cinema-television, fine arts, government/public policy,
journalism/writing, law, medicine, music, pharmacy, and social work. Of those who
indicated their career choice and aspiration, the five largest areas were:
business/accounting/management/marketing (n = 86, 28.2%), medicine (n = 58,
19.0%), engineering/computer science (n = 39, 12.5%), entertainment/cinema-
television (n = 27, 8.9%), and journalism/writing (n = 16, 5.2%). Students who were
undecided on their career choice comprised 8.5% (n = 26) of the sample population.

42

Table 5
Frequency Distribution of Career Choice

Career Choice N Percentage

Architecture 6 2.0
Business/Accounting/Management/Marketing 86 28.2
Education 8 2.6
Engineering/Computer Science 38 12.5
Entertainment/Cinema-Television 27 8.9
Fine Arts 7 2.3
Government/Public Policy 8 2.6
Journalism/Writing 16 5.2
Law 10 3.3
Medicine 58 19
Music 1 0.3
Pharmacy 12 3.9
Social Work 2 0.7
Undecided 26 8.5

Instruments

As shown in Appendix A, students were provided an informed consent form
prior to participating in the survey and were notified that all survey responses would
remain confidential. The survey itself was divided into five sections, including: 1)
demographic and background information (Appendix B), 2) recalled parenting style
(Appendix C), 3) career decision self-efficacy (Appendix D), 4) career maturity
(Appendix E) and 5) acculturation level (Appendix F). Detailed information on the
instruments used for this study is described below.
Parenting style. The independent variable of parenting style was assessed
using the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) developed by Buri (1991). The
PAQ was developed specifically for the purpose of measuring Baumrind’s (1971)
authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting prototypes, and has been one of
43

the most widely used tools to investigate parenting styles. Understanding that actual
parental behavior tends to be largely been influenced by one’s perception of
behavior, the PAQ was developed to measure parental authority as recalled by the
child, adolescent, or young adult (Buri, 1991).
With Buri’s (1991) questionnaire, 30 items per parent (10 Authoritative, 10
Authoritarian, and 10 Permissive items) were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale.
Scales ranged from 1 – strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – undecided, 4 – agree, to 5
– strongly agree. Possible scores for each parenting style had a possible range of 10
to 50 with each student receiving a different score for each of the three parenting
styles. Mean scores were calculated by dividing the total score for each parenting
style by 10. Each statement on the PAQ provided students an opportunity to describe
the patterns of authority exercised by their parents while growing up. Sample
statements included: “As I was growing up, my parents did not allow me to question
any decision that they had made” and “As I was growing up, my parents allowed me
to decide most things for myself without a lot of direction from them.”
The PAQ was used due to its appropriateness to the population under study,
as this assessment has been noted as particularly useful for both men and women,
older adolescents, and young adults (Buri, 1991). With the objective of evaluating
parenting styles from a holistic perspective, a combined form of the PAQ [similar to
a recent study by Kim and Chung (2003)] was used to assess overall parenting style,
rather than a separate assessment of both the mother and father.
44

According to Buri (1991), the PAQ continues to have strong reliability and
validity. In a study conducted on the reliability of the PAQ, test-retest reliability over
a two week period ranged from .77 to .92, while internal consistency ranged from .74
to .87. In the same study, Buri (1991) also found strong discriminant-related validity
and criterion-related validity with the PAQ. Furthermore, PAQ scores also did not
appear to be vulnerable to social desirability response bias. For this study, the
internal reliability for the PAQ was found to be comparable to numbers obtained
from Buri’s (1991) study. Internal reliability ranged from .82 for permissive
parenting to .88 for both authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles.
Career decision self-efficacy. To measure career decision self-efficacy,
Taylor and Betz (1983) created the Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale
(CDMSE) and Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale – Short Form (CDMSE-
SF) to measure an individual’s degree of belief that he or she could successfully
complete tasks necessary to make career decisions. These scales have now widely
been used to assess an individual’s confidence in engaging in tasks and behaviors
that are needed to make career decisions. Taylor and Betz (1983) chose Crites’
(1978) model of career choice competencies as a theoretical foundation to develop
this assessment. Taylor and Betz’s (1983) career decision self-efficacy scale includes
five measurements, including: 1) accurate self-appraisal, 2) gathering occupational
information, 3) goal selection, 4) making plans for the future, and 5) problem
solving, as a basis for measuring one’s career decision self-efficacy.
45

As defined by Crites (1978), accurate self-appraisal includes an assessment
of the extent to which one has the knowledge of his or her own abilities. Gathering
occupational information includes an assessment of the extent of knowledge that one
has about the world of work and the duties and tasks of various occupations. Goal
selection includes an assessment of one’s ability to match one’s own individual
attributes to the characteristics of various jobs. Making plans for the future includes
an assessment of one’s ability to properly implement the steps necessary to make a
career decision, such as obtaining the appropriate education and training and finding
employment in one’s field. Lastly, problem solving includes an assessment of one’s
problem-solving or coping abilities in the face of problems in the career-decision
making process (Betz, 1988).
For this study, the dependent variable of career decision self-efficacy was
assessed using the Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale – Short Form
(CDMSE-SF) (Betz & Taylor, 2001). Twenty-five items on each of the five career
choice competencies were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Scales ranged from
1 – no confidence at all, 2 – very little confidence, 3 – moderate confidence, 4 –
much confidence, to 5 – complete confidence. Confidence scores for each task were
calculated by summing the responses for each subscale. Possible subscale scores for
each competency had a possible range of 5 to 25 with total scores ranging from a
minimum of 25 to a maximum of 125. Mean scores were calculated by dividing the
scores for each subscale by 5. Higher scores indicated a higher level of career
46

decision self-efficacy. Sample questions included: “How much confidence do you
have that you could make a plan for the next five years?” and “How much confidence
do you have that you could determine what your ideal job would be?”
The CDMSE and CDMSE-SF continue to be widely used as a high quality
instrument to measure career decision self-efficacy. Researchers continue to verify
the strengths of the CDMSE and CDMSE-SF, including the use of a clearly defined
theory, high internal consistency, and high test-retest reliability. The CDMSE-SF
was adapted from the full-length Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale (Taylor &
Betz, 1983) and research has shown that the 25-item CDMSE-SF is nearly as reliable
and valid as the original 50-item CDMSE. The original CDMSE was shortened to be
more easily used in counseling assessment and also to evaluate career interventions
through pre-posttest measures (Betz & Taylor, 2001). In a study conducted on the
reliability and validity of the CDMSE-SF, internal consistency reliability of the short
form ranged from .73 for Self-Appraisal to .83 for Goal Selection, with a total score
of .94 (Betz & Taylor, 2001). Betz, Klein, and Taylor (1996) have also noted strong
content, concurrent, and construct validity for both the CDMSE and CDMSE-SF.
The CDMSE-SF was also used due to its prior use with ethnic/racial minority
groups, as well as a common use with college-aged populations (Prideaux & Creed,
2001). For the current study, internal reliability ranged from .78 for Self-Appraisal,
Occupational Information, Goal Selection, and Problem Solving to .81 for Planning.
47

Similar internal reliability results were found for the CDMSE-SF total score which
was .94.
Career maturity. Career maturity was measured for this study using the
Career Maturity Inventory – Revised (CMI-R) Attitude Scale, developed by Crites
and Savickas (1995). Several instruments have been constructed to measure career
maturity; however, Crites’ (1973) Career Maturity Inventory continues to be one the
most widely used. Crites’ (1978) original inventory was divided into two sections
including the Competencies Test, to measure the cognitive dimension of decision-
making skills, and the Attitudes Scale, to measure the affective dimension of
attitudes toward the career decision-making process.
Specifically, the CMI Competence Test was designed to measure the degree
to which an individual possessed the career information, planning, and decision-
making skills to make realistic and wise career decisions (Betz, 1988). The five
subscales of the CMI Competence Test included: Self-Appraisal (knowing oneself),
Occupational Information (knowing about jobs), Goal Selection (choosing a job),
Planning (looking ahead), and Problem Solving (knowing what to do).
The CMI Attitude Scale was developed to measure individuals’ attitudes
toward careers and career choices and included the subscales of: Decisiveness (the
extent to which one was definite about making a career choice), Involvement (the
extent to which one was actively participating in the process of making a choice),
Independence (the extent to which one relied on others in the occupational choice),
48

Orientation (task or pleasure orientations in one’s attitudes towards work), and
Compromise (the extent to which one was willing to compromise between needs and
reality) (Crites, 1978, Kidd, 2006). Mature career choice attitudes were measured by
greater decisiveness in career choices, active involvement in the process,
independence in decision making (as opposed to relying on others), a realistic
orientation toward work, and the ability to compromise between one’s own needs
and reality (Crites, 1978, Betz , 1988).
Using Crites’ (1978) original assessment, the Career Maturity Inventory was
subsequently revised in 1995 by Crites and Savickas and renamed the Career
Maturity Inventory – Revised (CMI-R). The original Career Maturity Inventory was
redesigned for several reasons: 1) to shorten administration time, 2) to extend its
applicability to college students and employed adults, 3) to extend its usefulness in
diagnosing career choice problems, 4) to make it more relevant and useable in career
interventions, and 5) to provide the opportunity for a variety of data analyses
(Busacca & Taber, 2002). With concerns about the applicability of the CMI to racial
minorities, Crites and Savickas (1996) also revised the inventory to include
statements that were free of racial or gender bias. The new 50-item CMI-R provides
three scores, including: 1) an attitude scale, identifying the attitudes and feelings one
has toward making a career choice, 2) a competence test, to measure one’s
knowledge about occupations and decisions involved in choosing a career, and 3) an
overall career maturity score (Crites & Savickas, 1996). Due to similarities between
49

the CMI-R competency test and the career decision making self-efficacy assessment,
the attitude scale was used to measure career maturity for this study.
With the new CMI-R Attitude Scale, 25 multiple choice statements were
provided, with a choice of either “Agree” or “Disagree.” Possible scores ranged
from 1 to 25, with higher scores indicating more career mature attitudes. Sample
statements included: “Everyone seems to tell me something different, as a result I
don’t know which kind of work to choose” and “If someone would tell me what
occupation to enter, I would feel much better” (Crites and Savickas, 1996).
In a preliminary investigation, Busacca and Taber (2002) found modest
reliability for the new CMI-R. Internal reliability for the Attitude Scale was
calculated at .54. Busacca and Taber (2002) also found modest construct and
criterion related validity for the revised CMI. More investigations into the reliability
and validity of the CMI-R need to be conducted. However, Crites and Savickas
(1996) indicate that the revised CMI should have similarly strong reliabili t y and
construct and criterion-related validity as the 1978 version, due to its statements
being selected directly from the previous version. Internal reliability for the current
study was similarly modest at .58.
Acculturation. The control variable of acculturation was measured using the
Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AAMAS) (Chung et al.,
2004). The AAMAS was developed to assess the “acculturation level of Asian
Americans and its relationship to psychological functioning” (Chung et al., 2004, p.
50

66). In the AAMAS, acculturation is measured on three scales of AAMAS Culture
of Origin (AAMAS-CO), AAMAS Asian American (AAMAS-AA), and AAMAS
European American (AAMAS-EA). For the purpose of this study, similar to a study
conducted by Liu (2003), only the two scales of AAMAS-CO and AAMAS-EA were
included, to assess enculturation of one’s Asian culture and acculturation to the
European American culture.
For this study, the AAMAS scale consisted of 10 items on a 6-point Likert-
type scale measuring items of cultural behavior, cultural identity, and cultural
knowledge. Subscales on the AAMAS had a possible range of 1 – not very well to 6
– ve r y well. Scores were obtained based on the average rating for the total scores on
both Culture of Origin and European American culture. Higher scores indicated a
stronger orientation to the cultural dimension being measured (AAMAS-CO or
AAMAS-EA). Sample questions included: “How well do you speak the language of:
a) your own Asian culture of origin, and b) English?” and “How knowledgeable are
you about the culture and traditions of: a) your own Asian culture of origin?, and b)
the White mainstream groups?” (Chung, et al., 2004).
While there are several instruments to measure acculturation, the AAMAS
was developed for several reasons. The AAMAS provides the opportunity to assess
acculturation to native and host cultures independently, includes a pan-ethnic Asian
American dimension, and is cited for its ease of use across multiple Asian ethnic
groups (Chung et al., 2004). The AAMAS was also used due to its recognition of the
51

heterogeneity of the Asian American population, and the complexity of the
acculturation process. Moreover, the AAMAS has also been previously used with
college-aged populations and assessments of career development.
Several studies have also shown that the AAMAS has both strong reliability
and validity. Internal reliability in one study, for example, showed a coefficient
alpha of .87 for the AAMAS-CO and .81 for the AAMAS-EA (Chung et al., 2004).
Chung et al. (2004) have also noted criterion-related validity, with an “expected
pattern of correlations between the AAMAS-CO and generational status” (p. 77).
“Increase in generational status was associated with diminished adherence to culture
of origin” (Chung et al., 2004, p. 78). Concurrent validity for the AAMAS was also
found with the Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Scale (SL-ASIA) and the Asian Values
Scale (AVS) (Chung et al., 2004). Internal reliability for the current study for
AAMAS-EA and AAMAS-CO scales were found to be .73 and .82, respectively.
Procedure
The investigator for this study contacted the Asian American student services
office on campus to request that the online survey be sent out via e-mail to Asian
American undergraduate students. All undergraduate grade levels were sampled to
attempt to provide a representative data sample. A brief description of the survey, a
link to the survey, and a notice on confidentiality were included in the e-mail.
Students participating in the online survey were provided with an informed consent
form notifying them of the purpose of the study, procedures for completion, potential
52

risks and benefits, confidentiality, and rights as participants. To maintain
confidentiality of the participants, only the primary investigators for this study were
granted access to data. All identifying information from the survey was kept in a
separate location from survey responses. The average time to complete the survey
was approximately 17 minutes. As an incentive for completing the survey, students
were given the opportunity to enter a raffle for an iPod touch or a $25 or $50 gift
certificate to the bookstore.
Data Analysis
For the data analysis, parenting style and acculturation were used as the
independent variables while career decision self-efficacy and career maturity were
used as the two dependent variables. Parenting style and acculturation levels were
measured using students’ scores from the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ)
and the Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AAMAS). Career
decision self-efficacy was measured using the five indices of Self-Appraisal,
Occupational Information, Goal Selection, Planning, and Problem Solving from the
Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale – Short Form (CDMSE-SF), while
career maturity attitudes were measured using scores from the Career Maturity
Inventory – Revised (CMI-R). To examine the four hypotheses, including the role of
parenting styles and acculturation on career decision self-efficacy, and the role of
parenting styles and acculturation on career maturity, simultaneous multiple
regression analyses were deemed appropriate.
53

CHAPTER IV

Results
The following chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the results of
the study, including preliminary analyses, analyses of the research questions, as well
as post-hoc analyses.
Preliminary Analyses
Correlations. Pearson product correlation analyses were conducted to
examine the relationships between demographic variables (such as sex, age, years in
the United States, and generational status), along with parenting styles, acculturation,
career decision self-efficacy, and career maturity. Results are summarized in Table
6. For this study, sex of the student was significantly correlated with permissive
parenting (r = -.14, p = .01), however not associated with authoritative or
authoritarian parenting. Sex was also found to be correlated with the overall career
maturity of the student (r = .16, p = .01). Means and standard deviations of the main
measured variables by sex are presented in Table 7.
Age of the student was inversely associated with authoritative parenting (r =
-.17, p = .00). However, no significant correlations were found between age and
authoritarian parenting or age and permissive parenting. The number of years the
student had resided in the United States was positively correlated with authoritarian
parenting (r = .12, p = .03), while inversely correlated with permissive parenting (r =
-.13, p = .02). As one would expect, the number of years the student had resided in
54

the United States was inversely correlated with their culture of origin (r = -.34, p =
.00), while positively associated with their European American culture (r = .18, p =
.00). The number of years in the United States for the student was also associated
with significantly greater career maturity (r = .16, p = .01). Generational status was
found to be positively correlated with authoritative parenting (r = .16, p = .01) as
well as European American culture (r = .16, p = .01), while negatively correlated
with one’s culture of origin (r = -.24, p = .00). Means and standard deviations for the
main measured variables by generational status are presented in Table 7.
In regards to parenting styles, authoritarian parenting was found to be
inversely correlated with authoritative parenting (r = -.36, p = .00) and permissive
parenting (r = -.34, p = .00), while positively associated with one’s culture of origin
(r = .11, p = .05). Authoritative parenting was also found to be significantly
correlated with European American culture (r = .27, p = .00), as well as all five
subscales of career decision self-efficacy including Self-Appraisal (r = .20, p = .00),
Occupational Information (r = .17, p = .00), Goal Selection (r = .19, p = .00),
Planning (r = .17, p = .00), and Problem Solving (r = .17, p = .00), and the total score
(r = .20, p = .00). Permissive parenting was not found to be correlated with any of
the career decision self-efficacy subscales, however negatively correlated with career
maturity (r = -.16, p = .00). Years of education for the mother and father, family
income, as well as family structure, had no significance on the career decision self-
efficacy or career maturity of Asian American college students for this study.

55

Table 6
Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables

56

Table 7
Sex and Generational Differences for Major Measured Variables

57

Sex and generational differences. Preliminary analyses revealed sex
differences in parenting styles. More specifically, male students reported higher
levels of permissive parenting in comparison to female students. Female students
also reported higher levels of career maturity than male students for this study.
Students who had higher generational status also reported higher levels of
authoritative parenting. As one would expect, students with higher generational
status also had lower scores on Culture or Origin and higher scores on European
American culture (see Table 7).
Analyses of Research Questions
Research Question 1: Do parenting styles and acculturation predict career decision
self-efficacy in Asian American college students?
To determine to what extent parenting styles and acculturation predict career
decision self-efficacy, five separate simultaneous multiple regressions were
performed using the three subscales of Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive
parenting, as well as the two acculturation subscales of Culture of Origin and
European American culture. The criterion variables used for the analyses were the
five domains of career decision self-efficacy – Self-Appraisal, Occupational
Information, Goal Selection, Planning, and Problem Solving. The regression results
for each domain are discussed separately below.
Self-appraisal. Results for the self-efficacy subscale of Self-Appraisal
revealed overall significance for the prediction model (F (5, 306) = 9.21, p < .001)

58

with 13% of the variance being explained. Authoritarian and authoritative parenting
styles and both enculturation (Culture of Origin) and acculturation (European
American culture) were significant predictors of self-appraisal (see Table 8). Results
of this analysis suggested that Asian American students who reported coming from
authoritarian and authoritative households tended to have higher self-appraisal self-
efficacy. Additionally, students who were both enculturated and acculturated
reported higher self-appraisal scores.
Table 8
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for CDMSE – Self-Appraisal
Variables R
2
F Β SE β p
CDMSE – Self-Appraisal .131 9.209 .001

PAQ

AUTHNN – Authoritarian .122 .053 .136 .023
AUTHVV – Authoritative .162 .057 .179 .004
PERMSSV – Permissive .020 .061 .019 .744

AAMAS

CO – Culture of Origin .100 .042 .132 .016
EA – European American .219 .060 .208 .001

Occupational information. Results for the self-efficacy subscale of
Occupational Information revealed overall significance for the prediction model (F
(5, 306) = 10.18, p < .001) with 14% of the variance being explained. Authoritarian
and authoritative parenting styles and both enculturation (Culture of Origin) and
acculturation (European American culture) were all significant predictors of scores
on the Occupational Information subscale (see Table 9). The results of this analysis
suggested that Asian American students who reported coming from authoritarian and

59

authoritative households also tended to have higher scores on the career self-efficacy
subscale of Occupational Information. Those who were both enculturated and
acculturated also reported higher self-efficacy in Occupational Information.
Table 9
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for CDMSE – Occupational
Information
Variables R
2
F Β SE β p
CDMSE – Occupational
Information
.143 10.178 .001

PAQ

AUTHNN – Authoritarian .121 .055 .131 .028
AUTHVV – Authoritative .182 .058 .195 .002
PERMSSV – Permissive -.118 .062 -.112 .060

AAMAS

CO – Culture of Origin .112 .043 .143 .009
EA – European American .220 .062 .201 .001

Goal selection. Results for the self-efficacy subscale of Goal Selection
revealed overall significance for the prediction model (F (5, 306) = 8.46, p < .001)
with 12% of the variance being explained. Authoritative parenting only and both
enculturation (Culture of Origin) and acculturation (European American culture)
were significant predictors of scores on the Goal Selection subscale (see Table 10).
Thus, it was only students who reported coming from authoritative households that
tended to have higher scores on the subscale of Goal Selection. No significant
relationships were found for authoritarian or permissive households. Additionally,
those who were both enculturated and acculturated had higher scores on the subscale
of Goal Selection.

60

Table 10
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for CDMSE – Goal Selection
Variables R
2
F Β SE β p
CDMSE – Goal Selection .121 8.461 .001

PAQ

AUTHNN – Authoritarian .107 .055 .117 .052
AUTHVV – Authoritative .147 .058 .159 .012
PERMSSV – Permissive .056 .063 .053 .374

AAMAS

CO – Culture of Origin .134 .043 .172 .002
EA – European American .183 .062 .169 .003

Planning. Results for the self-efficacy subscale of Planning revealed overall
significance for the prediction model (F (5, 306) = 10.04, p < .001) with 14% of the
variance being explained. Authoritative parenting only and both enculturation
(Culture of Origin) and acculturation (European American culture) were significant
predictors of scores on the Planning subscale (see Table 11). Thus, it was only
students who reported coming from authoritative households that tended to have
higher scores on the subscale of Planning. Additionally, those who were both
enculturated and acculturated reported higher scores on making plans for the future.
Table 11
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for CDMSE – Planning
Variables R
2
F Β SE β p
CDMSE – Planning .141 10.037 .001

PAQ

AUTHNN – Authoritarian .109 .057 .114 .055
AUTHVV – Authoritative .159 .060 .164 .009
PERMSSV – Permissive -.070 .065 -.064 .280

AAMAS

CO – Culture of Origin .102 .044 .125 .022
EA – European American .276 .064 .244 .001

61

Problem solving. Results from the self-efficacy subscale of Problem Solving
revealed overall significance for the prediction model (F (5, 306) = 9.78, p < .001)
with 14% of the variance being explained. Authoritative parenting only and both
enculturation (Culture of Origin) and acculturation (European American culture)
were significant predictors of Problem Solving (see Table 12). Authoritarian and
permissive parenting styles were not significant predictors of problem solving self-
efficacy for the study. Thus, it was Asian American students who reported coming
from authoritative households that tended to have higher problem solving self-
efficacy. Additionally, those who were both enculturated and acculturated reported
higher problem solving scores.
Table 12
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for CDMSE – Problem Solving
Variables R
2
F β SE β p
CDMSE – Problem Solving .138 9.780 .001

PAQ

AUTHNN – Authoritarian .067 .054 .073 .222
AUTHVV – Authoritative .144 .058 .155 .013
PERMSSV – Permissive -.091 .062 -.087 .145

AAMAS

CO – Culture of Origin .106 .041 .137 .013
EA – European American .263 .061 .243 .001

Total score. Finally, results from one’s career decision self-efficacy total
score revealed overall significance for the prediction model (F (5, 306) = 12.02, p <
.001) with 16% of the variance being explained. Authoritarian parenting,
authoritative parenting, enculturation to one’s culture of origin and acculturation to

62

European American culture were all significant predictors of one’s career decision
self-efficacy total score (see Table 13). Permissive parenting was not a significant
predictor of one’s career decision self-efficacy total score. Overall, Asian American
students who reported coming from authoritarian and authoritative households
tended to have higher career decision making self-efficacy total scores. Additionally,
students who were both enculturated and acculturated reported higher career decision
self-efficacy total scores.
Table 13
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for CDMSE – Total Score
Variables R
2
F β SE β p
CDMSE – Total Score .164 12.021 .001

PAQ

AUTHNN – Authoritarian .518 .239 .127 .031
AUTHVV – Authoritative .794 .253 .192 .002
PERMSSV – Permissive -.212 .272 -.045 .437

AAMAS

CO – Culture of Origin .555 .186 .160 .003
EA – European American 1.152 .268 .239 .001

Research Question 2: Do parenting styles and acculturation predict career maturity
in Asian American college students?
To determine to what extent parenting styles and acculturation predicted
career maturity, simultaneous multiple regression was performed using three
subscales of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive styles, as well as two
acculturation subscales of Culture of Origin and European American culture. The
criterion variable used was career maturity.

63

Results revealed overall significance for the prediction model (F (5, 305) =
4.62, p < .001) with 7% of variance being explained. Permissive parenting styles and
acculturation to European American culture were significant predictors of career
maturity (see Table 14). These results suggested that Asian American students who
reported coming from permissive households tended to have lower levels of career
maturity. Non-significant findings were found for students who reported coming
from authoritative or authoritarian households. Additionally, students who were
more acculturated to the European American culture also reported higher levels of
career maturity.
Table 14
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Career Maturity
Variables R
2
F β SE β p
CMI-R – Career Maturity .070 4.621 .001

PAQ

AUTHNN – Authoritarian -.152 .272 -.034 .577
AUTHVV – Authoritative .548 .290 .122 .060
PERMSSV – Permissive -1.095 .310 -.217 .001

AAMAS

CO – Culture of Origin .194 .212 .052 .360
EA – European American .624 .306 .120 .042

Overall, acculturation to European American culture was found to be the
most significant predictor variable for most of the subscales of career decision self-
efficacy ( β = .17 to .24), except for the subscale of Goal Selection, in which Culture
of Origin was found to be the most significant predictor variable ( β = .17).
Permissive parenting was found to be the most significant predictor variable among

64

the different parenting styles and two dimensions of acculturation for lower career
maturity ( β = -.22) in this study.
Post-Hoc Analyses

Due to the richness of the data and the literature related to the data, post-hoc
analyses were also conducted to answer questions related to the career decision self-
efficacy and career maturity of Asian American college students.
Post-Hoc Question 1: Is language acculturation related to career decision
self-efficacy and career maturity?
Patel et al. (2008) suggested that language acculturation, in particular, was
predictive of “feeling confident in engaging in tasks related to career decision
making” (p. 232). Using the language subscale of the AAMAS, an additional
correlational analysis was conducted to investigate whether there were similar
relationships that existed for the career development variables in this study. English
language acculturation was found to be significantly correlated with all five subscales
of career decision self-efficacy, including Self-Appraisal (r = .25, p = .00),
Occupational Information (r = .28, p = .00), Goal Selection (r = .21, p = .00),
Planning (r = .27, p = .00), and Problem Solving (r = .27, p = .00). No significant
correlations were found however, between English language acculturation and career
maturity.

65

Post-Hoc Question 2: Are enculturation and acculturation related to
students’ career choices in traditional fields versus other career fields?
Several researchers also suggested that less acculturated Asian Americans
chose more traditional career choices in business, science, and technology than their
counterparts who were more acculturated (Leong & Serafica, 1995; Tang et al.,
1999). To investigate whether this assertion held true for the current study, a
correlational analysis was conducted by categorizing students’ career choices as
“traditional” or “non-traditional.” “Traditional” fields included students who were
pursuing career options in: business, accounting, management, marketing,
engineering, computer science, medicine, and pharmacy. “Non-traditional” fields
included students who were pursuing all other career options, which included:
architecture, education, entertainment, cinema-television, fine arts, government,
public policy, journalism, law, music, and social work. Based on this correlational
analysis, students who reported higher levels of European American acculturation
also reported more career choices outside of business, science, and technology-
related fields (r = -.12, p = .04). No significant correlations were found, however,
between enculturation to one’s culture of origin and traditional career choices within
business, science, and technology-related fields.

66

Post-Hoc Question 3: Is there a relationship between career decision self-
efficacy and career maturity?
Lastly, Creed and Patton (2003) revealed that self-efficacy and career
decidedness were often indicative of career mature attitudes for students. To
investigate if the same held true for the current study, a correlational analysis was
conducted between career decision self-efficacy and career maturity. This study did
support this assertion, as career decision self-efficacy and career maturity were
significantly and positively associated with each other, suggesting that students who
reported higher total career decision self-efficacy, also reported higher levels of
career maturity (r = .46, p = .00).

67

CHAPTER V

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to bridge a gap in the current literature by
empirically investigating the relationship between parenting styles and acculturation
on the career development of Asian American college students. More specifically,
this study sought to explore the relationship between parenting styles and
acculturation on the career decision self-efficacy and career maturity of Asian
American college students. Results of this study suggest that parenting styles and
acculturation can both be used as important variables to understand the influences on
career development for Asian American college students. The following chapter
provides a summary and discussion of the results, as well as theoretical and applied
implications. Limitations of this study are also discussed as well as possible
directions for future research.
Discussion of Results
Relationship between Parenting Styles, Acculturation and Career Decision
Self-Efficacy
This study sought to explore if parenting styles and acculturation predicted
the career decision self-efficacy of Asian American college students. More
specifically, it was hypothesized that students who reported coming from
authoritative households would have higher levels of career decision self-efficacy.
For this study, authoritative parenting was correlated with all five subscales of career

68

decision self-efficacy. Authoritarian parenting was also found to be a significant
predictor of career decision self-efficacy for the subscales of Self-Appraisal and
Occupational Information. However, it was only students who reported coming from
authoritative households that tended to have higher scores on all five subscales of
career decision self-efficacy. These findings continue to validate research by
Baumrind (1971), Lamborn et al. (1991), Klein et al. (1996), and Furnham & Cheng
(2000) that suggest that authoritative parenting has positive and beneficial influences
on the psychological health, psychosocial development, and positive self-perception
of adolescents. While Baumrind (1991a) has acknowledged that parenting styles
may have different impacts on the developmental outcomes of different racial and
ethnic groups, results of this study suggest that her conceptual framework can also be
applied to Asian American college students in relation to career decision self-
efficacy.
As suggested by Chao (1994), Wang and Phinney (1998), and Lau and
Cheung (1987), some traits of authoritarian parenting for Asian Americans, such as
parental obedience and some aspects of strictness, can also viewed as concern, care,
involvement, and/or fostering family harmony in Asian American families and may
not be the equivalent of authoritarian parenting as defined from a Western
perspective. As exemplified through this study, authoritarian parenting did in fact
predict higher scores on some subscales of career decision self-efficacy. Evidence
from this study suggests that authoritarian parents from Asian American households

69

do in fact encourage their children and adolescents to be independent and self-reliant,
despite the use of control.
Secondly, it was hypothesized that acculturation to European American
culture would predict higher levels of career decision self-efficacy for Asian
American college students. This study also supported this hypothesis, as
acculturation to European American culture was correlated with all five subscales of
career decision self-efficacy. More specifically, students who reported higher levels
of acculturation to European American culture also reported higher scores on career
decision self-efficacy. Interestingly, enculturation to one’s culture of origin was also
found to be a significant predictor with all five subscales of career decision self-
efficacy, as students who reported higher levels of enculturation also reported higher
career decision self-efficacy scores.
The results of this study reiterate the importance of including the variable of
acculturation when studying Asian American students given the heterogeneity of the
population. More specifically, these results highlight themes identified by Liu (2003)
and Patel el al. (2008) that acculturative factors play an important role in the career
decision self-efficacy of Asian American college students. These results continue to
support the argument made by Chung et al. (2004) that models of acculturation need
to be, at minimum, bidimensional in nature, as students who may be highly
acculturated to the values of European American culture may also be simultaneously
enculturated to their culture of origin.

70

Previous research (Kwok, 2004) has suggested that Asian American students
who hold strong ethnic ties to their culture of origin also tend to have a more positive
self-concept, particularly in regards to their family relationships. It could be
speculated that the strong family relationships for students who were both
acculturated to their European American culture and enculturated to their culture of
origin m a y have contributed to greater career decision self-efficacy for this study.
Taken as a whole, the results of this study continue to support the assertions
made by Fouad et al. (2008) that both family and culture play a significant role in the
career development of Asian American college students. Furthermore, this study
continues to support research by Young et al. (1991) that parenting traits such as
support, encouragement, guidance, and open communication are suggested to
facilitate career development. Indeed, the positive traits of authoritative parenting, as
well as higher acculturation and enculturation levels, were shown to be beneficial for
the students in this study in regards to their career decision self-efficacy.
Ultimately, acculturation to European American culture was found to be the
most significant major predictor variable for most of the subscales of career decision
self-efficacy, except for the subscale of Goal Selection in which Culture of Origin
was found to be the most significant predictor variable. One could speculate that
goal selection self-efficacy for students high on enculturation could be influenced by
the values placed on family relationships in an Asian collectivist culture that may
help facilitate their career choices and selection of goals.

71

Relationship between Parenting Styles, Acculturation and Career Maturity
To provide another dimension to examine career development, this study also
sought to examine the relationship between parenting styles, acculturation, and the
career maturity of Asian American college students. It was hypothesized that
students who reported coming from authoritative households would have higher
levels of career maturity. However, authoritative parenting did not prove to be a
significant predictor for the career maturity of Asian American college students in
this study. In an interesting contrast, however, it was students who described coming
from permissive households that significantly reported lower levels of career
maturity for this study. Moreover, permissive parenting was found to be the most
significant predictor of lower scores on career maturity.
Several plausible explanations could be given, including the very nature of
permissive parenting. As previously discussed, few rules, if any, are placed on
children and adolescents from permissive households. Behavior is often not
monitored and interests are often not supported. There are likewise “few demands
for mature behavior, allowing considerable self-regulation by the adolescent”
(Glasgow et al., 1997, p. 508). Communication between parent and child is also
often minimal and in some extreme cases, children and adolescents are given “the
freedom to make life decisions without referring to parents for advice” (Hickman et
al., 2000, p. 42). It could be theorized that students who come from permissive
households do not have the parental support or expectations needed to help them in

72

exploring possible career opportunities or making satisfying career decisions in life.
Without feeling a sense of connection or integration into a family unit, students may
also not feel the need to uphold to healthy standards that may be in place for students
from other households.
Authoritative parenting did not prove to be a significant predictor for the
career maturity of Asian American college students, as hypothesized. Although the
original Career Maturity Inventory was subsequently revised in 1995 to attempt to
include statements that were free of racial bias, it is strongly speculated that the
revised inventory may not be entirely applicable to Asian American college students.
In order to obtain a high score of career maturity, one must still demonstrate a strong
reliance on making independent career decisions, contrary to the strong value of
interdependence for many Asian American families and a desire to make decisions
together. For example, the statement, “Choosing an occupation is something you
have to do on your own,” would require an answer of “agree” in order to have the
more “career mature” response.
Secondly, it was hypothesized that acculturation to European American
culture would predict higher levels of career maturity for Asian American college
students. This hypothesis was supported, as students who reported being more
acculturated to the European American culture also reported higher levels of career
maturity. These findings continue to support previous research by Hardin et al.

73

(2001) that suggest that highly acculturated Asian Americans have similar attitudes
to Caucasians in terms of their career mature attitudes.
Additional Findings
Male students for this study reported higher levels of permissive parenting in
comparison to female students, but correspondingly, female students reported higher
levels of career maturity than male students. These results are consistent with the
majority of studies that indicate that “females of a number of age groups and in
several countries have higher scores on career maturity measures than males” (Patton
& Lokan, 2001, p. 37). Although age of the student was inversely correlated with
authoritative parenting, age was not correlated with authoritarian parenting,
permissive parenting, career decision self-efficacy, or career maturity for this study.
It is largely speculated that these insignificant correlations were due to students’ ages
being controlled and limited to students who were 18-24 years of age. Lastly,
demographic variables such as years of education for the mother and father, family
income, as well as family structure, had no significance on the career decision self-
efficacy and career maturity of Asian American college students for this study.
These results lend support to previous research that suggest that parental guidance
and support, as well as the environment in which students live in, ultimately have
greater influences on the career development of children than the educational or
occupational statuses of their parents (Trusty et al., 1997).

74

Implications
The results of this study provide important implications for researchers
currently developing theories to explain Asian American career development. The
role of parents, parenting styles, and acculturation must continue to be considered as
important variables when developing an understanding of the factors involved in the
career development of Asian Americans. Yet despite the continued discourse on the
importance of these variables, few empirical studies have actually been conducted on
the specific role of parents and parenting styles on Asian American career
development. More development is needed in this area. While mixed results have
been found using Baumrind’s (1971) theoretical framework on racial/ethnic
minorities, this study supports its continued use, with an understanding that
acculturation may play an even more important role in the career development
outcomes of Asian American college students.
With the use of a bidimensional acculturation model for this study, results
revealed that both acculturation to European American culture and enculturation to
one’s culture of origin had a positive influence on the career decision self-efficacy of
Asian American students. However, results revealed that it was only acculturation to
European American culture and not enculturation to one’s culture of origin that had
an influence on the career maturity of students in this study. These findings continue
to show the nuances in the complex process of acculturation for Asian Americans.
Future research on the career development of Asian Americans must be prudent to

75

include assessments that include acculturation and enculturation as distinct yet
related concepts.
While the positive outcomes of authoritative parenting were clear for the
career decision self-efficacy of students in this study, results revealed that
authoritarian parenting also had some positive influences for students on the
subscales of Self-Appraisal and Occupational Information. These results open up
new important theoretical implications for researchers studying parenting styles using
Baumrind’s (1971) typology with Asian Americans. Current literature suggests that
authoritative parenting for Caucasians rears the most competent children in all
behavioral and psychological dimensions. Authoritarian parenting, conversely, is
suggested to lead to poor mental health, estranged family relationships, and low self-
esteem for students (Shek, 1999; Kerka, 2000). However, the results of this study
reveal that there are positive attributes of authoritarian parenting in regards to
promoting the career decision self-efficacy of Asian Americans. The results from
this study also lend support for Chao’s (1994) assertion that authoritarian parenting
may not have the same connotation for Asian American students as defined from a
Western perspective, and that this type of parental authority may be viewed as
positive involvement in the life of the child and adolescent.
While the theoretical concept of career maturity has long been used as a
prevalent variable in understanding the career development of adolescents (Prideaux
& Creed, 2001), results from the current study suggest that the current assessment

76

may need to be modified to take into account the cultural differences in the career
development of different racial/ethnic groups, including Asian Americans. It would
be wise for researchers to also take into consideration the changing patterns of
parenting styles, most notably the recent millennial generation that is increasingly
relying on interdependent decision making with their parents (Murray, 1997).
Certainly, the construct of career maturity is still viewed as an important part of the
career development of adolescents; however, it may be valuable to take into
consideration the evolutionary changes in the career decision making process for
college students today.
Results of this study have several important practical implications to be taken
into consideration. Individuals in advising and counseling roles must continue to
take into consideration the important familial and cultural factors that may play a role
in the career interests, choices, and development of Asian American college students
(Leong & Gupta, 2007). Advisors and counselors should be prudent in asking
students about the specific roles that their family and culture may play in their lives,
as well as the expectations that may or may not be placed on them in regards to their
career. Based on the feedback of the student, assistance could be provided on w a y s
to encourage healthy child-parent relationships and discussions to facilitate their
career development (Liu, 2003).
While career assessments may be helpful in understanding the intricacies of
career development, considerable care and caution must also be taken when utilizing

77

these instruments with racial/ethnic minorities. Without valid and reliable results on
the applicability of these instruments for Asian Americans, careful consideration
must be taken to understanding the personal and contextual variables of the student
that include parental/familial influences, as well as acculturation.
Lastly, the results of the current study revealed that students who reported
higher levels of European American acculturation also reported more career choices
outside of business, science, and technology. These findings itself are important, to
understand the role acculturation has played in the recent career choices made by
Asian Americans. However, just as importantly, enculturation to one’s culture of
origin was not significantly correlated with students choosing a traditional career
choice in business, science, or technology for this study. While additional studies
must be conducted, these new findings are important for practitioners who may be
under the incorrect assumption that greater enculturation to a student’s culture of
origin may be related to a proclivity to choose a “traditional” career.
Limitations of Study
Several limitations must be taken into consideration for this study, including
issues of design, internal and external validity, generalizability, and instrumentation.
First and foremost, with the use of a self-report survey, results of this study relied on
the subjective experiences of parental upbringing, as well as students’ own ratings of
their career development and acculturation levels. This study may have been limited
with any discrepancies between students’ perceived parenting styles and actual

78

parenting styles. However, the PAQ was originally developed with an understanding
that behavior is largely influenced by one’s perception of parental behavior, and was
therefore designed to be recalled by the child, adolescent, or young adult (Buri,
1991).
With the use of a self-report survey to describe students’ own career
development and acculturation levels, there is the inherent risk of a social desirability
bias. Students may have been uncomfortable providing an open and honest
assessment of their own career development and/or acculturation level and may have
answered based on what they believed was socially desirable, despite the online
survey being anonymous and confidential.
Second, this study was limited by the type of students who participated in this
study, as the majority of students who participated were students who originated
from intact homes, with middle to upper middle class backgrounds, and highly
educated parents. Caution should be heeded in generalizing these findings to the
general population of Asian Americans who may come from different family
structures and/or different socioeconomic backgrounds. Moreover, limitations must
be noted in the ethnic group differences of Asian Americans for this study. A
majority of students for this study came from six main Asian ethnic groups that
included: Chinese, Korean, Indian, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, and Filipino. With a
larger representation of some Asian ethnic groups, the results from this study may be
more applicable to certain Asian ethnic groups more than others. Caution must be

79

taken in generalizing these results to all Asian American ethnic groups. Due to an
imbalance in the number of students from different Asian ethnic groups, ethnic
differences could not be conducted for this study. A large group of participants for
this study, however, were multi-ethnic Asians with more than one Asian ethnicity.
Future research may be more meaningful with a larger number of participants from
all Asian ethnic subgroups.
Another limitation of this study was in the sex differences of students who
decided to participate. A large majority of survey respondents for this study were
female. Although there were still significant correlational differences that were able
to be detected between sexes in the preliminary analysis, this study may not have
provided an entirely accurate picture of both sexes, due to the smaller number of
males who self-selected to participate in this study.
A fourth limitation to this study was in the type of design used for this study.
Due to the non-experimental nature of this study, statistical analyses could only be
provided on the degree of the relationships between the independent and dependent
variables. No cause-and-effect relationships could be implied that parenting styles
and acculturation caused the resulting career decision self-efficacy or career maturity
of students in this study.
Lastly, a fifth limitation to this study was in the instrumentation used for
this study. Although the AAMAS was specifically developed for use with Asian
Americans, there have been a limited number of studies that have been conducted

80

using the PAQ, CDMSE-SF, and CMI-R specifically with Asian Americans. Thus,
caution must be used when analyzing the results of this study, as personal and
contextual factors must be taken into consideration, as well. Although strong
reliabilities were found for most of the measures in this study, more empirical
research must be conducted on each of these measures, specifically for racial/ethnic
minorities. For example, although Cronbach alpha reliability of the CMI-R was
higher than previous reliability studies conducted, internal reliability was still only
modest at best, warranting a further examination of its continued use and
appropriateness with Asian Americans.
Future Directions
The opportunity for future research on the relationship between Asian
American parenting styles, acculturation, and the career development remains strong.
While this study provided a cross-sectional study of the relationship between
parenting styles, acculturation, and career development, it would be valuable to
conduct a longitudinal study on these meaningful relationships by expanding the
study to a broader age range and also following the career development of
individuals from childhood to adulthood. While the use of self-report survey
methods provide an understanding of the relationships between important variables,
future research may want to include a combination of self-reports, interviews, and
case studies to provide an even greater contextualization on the influences of career
development for Asian American students.

81

With an understanding of the importance of acculturation when studying
Asian Americans, future research may want to also examine the acculturation levels
of parents when studying the specific influences of career development for Asian
American children and adolescents. Moreover, it would be valuable to also
determine the specific type of expectations that parents may have for their children in
regards to their future career choices.
Understanding that authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting
styles have an important influence on the career development of Asian American
college students, another fruitful area of research may be an investigation into the
salient characteristics of each parenting style that may have greater influences on
career development. This type of literature may be of important use for researchers
and practitioners interested in learning about the healthy attributes of parenting styles
that can lead to the positive career attitudes of their students.
With some questions into the applicability of the current instruments used to
measure parenting styles and career development, more research should be conducted
on the appropriateness of these measures for Asian American students. As Leong
and Serafica (1995) suggest, studies may want to be done to test the cultural validity
of current instruments and modify them as needed for Asian American students. If
instruments cannot be modified appropriately, Leong and Serafica (1995)
recommend constructing new instruments to provide accurate and reliable measures.

82

Lastly, with the demographic, economic, and cultural shifts of a new
generation of Asian Americans in the United States, it may be helpful to do research
on the unique changes that may be occurring in parenting and parenting styles. As a
new wave of Asian Americans become parents, changes may occur in how children
and adolescents are raised. Researchers must begin to investigate potentially new
influences on the career development of the next generation of Asian American
students.
Conclusion
This study ultimately sought to bridge a gap in the current literature by
investigating the relationship between parenting styles and acculturation on the
career development of Asian American college students. Results of this study
revealed that that parenting styles and acculturation were both significant predictors
of the career decision self-efficacy and career maturity of Asian American college
students. More specifically, authoritative parenting and acculturation were found to
be important influences on all aspects of career decision self-efficacy. In addition,
authoritarian parenting and enculturation to one’s culture of origin also had
unanticipated, positive influences on certain aspects of career decision self-efficacy.
Authoritative parenting was not found to be correlated with the career maturity of
students. However, acculturation to European American culture was found to be
correlated with higher levels of career maturity. In an unanticipated finding,

83

permissive parenting was found to be correlated with lower levels of career maturity
for the Asian American college students in this study.
While some studies have investigated the various cultural and familial
influences on the career development of Asian American college students, this study
provided a unique opportunity for researchers and practitioners to gain an
understanding of the specific relationship between parenting styles and acculturation
on the career development of Asian American college students. This study
highlighted both the positive and negative influences of parenting styles on the career
development of Asian American college students, as well as the underlying
importance of acculturation. It is with this new knowledge that researchers and
practitioners can continue to build a stronger understanding of the role of parenting
styles and acculturation on the career development of Asian American college
students.

84

REFERENCES
Ang, R.P. (2006). Effects of parenting style on personal and social variables for
Asian adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(4), 503-511.

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

Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence,
3(11), 255-282.

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

Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child
development today and tomorrow (pp. 349-378). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baumrind, D. (1991a). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In
P.A. Cowan & E.M. Hetherington (Eds.), Advances in family research (pp.
11-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

Berry, J.W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K.M. Chun, P.B.
Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory,
measurement, and applied research (pp. 17-37). Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association.

Betz, N.E. (1988). The assessment of career development and maturity. In W.B.
Walsh & S.H. Osipow (Eds.), Career decision making (pp. 77-136).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Betz, N.E., & Hackett, G. (2006). Career self-efficacy theory: Back to the future.
Journal of Career Assessment, 14(1), 3-11.

Betz, N.E., Klein, K.L., & Taylor, K.M. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the
Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment,
4, 47-57.

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

85

Betz, N.E., & Taylor, K.M. (2001). Manual for the Career Decision Self-Efficacy
Scale and CDMSE – Short Form. Columbus, OH: Department of
Psychology, The Ohio State University.

Brown, S.D., & Lent, R.W. (1996). A social cognitive framework for career choice
counseling. The Career Development Quarterly, 44, 354-366.

Bryant, B.K., Zvonkovic, A.M., Reynolds, P. (2006). Parenting in relation to child
and adolescent vocational development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69,
149-175.

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

Busacca, L.A., & Taber, B.J. (2002). The Career Maturity Inventory – Revised: A
preliminary psychometric investigation. Journal of Career Assessment,
10(4), 441-455.

Carlson, C., Uppal, S., & Prosser, E.C. (2000). Ethnic differences in processes
contributing to the self-esteem of early adolescent girls. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 20, 44-68.

Chao, R.K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style:
Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training.
Child Development, 65(4), 1111-1119.

Chen, X., Dong, Q, & Zhou, H. (1997). Authoritative and authoritarian parenting
practices and social and school performance in Chinese children. 21(4), 855-
873.

Chung, R.H.G. (2001). Gender, ethnicity, and acculturation in intergenerational
conflict of Asian American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 7(4), 376-386.

Chung, R.H.G., Kim, B.S.K., & Abreu, J.M. (2004). Asian American
Multidimensional Acculturation Scale: Development, factor analysis,
reliability and validity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,
10(1), 66-80.

Creed, P. A., & Patton, W. (2003). Predicting two components of career maturity in
school based adolescents. Journal of Career Development, 29(4), 277-290.

86

Crites, J.O. (1978). The career maturity inventory (2
nd
ed.). Monterey, CA:
CTB/McGraw-Hill.

Crites, J.O., & Savickas, M.L. (1996). Revision of the career maturity inventory.
Journal of Career Assessment, 4(2), 131-138.

Darling, N. (2000). Parenting style and its correlates (Report No. EDO-PS-99-3).
Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427896)

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative
model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496.

Flores, L.Y. (2008). Career development research and practice with diverse cultural
and gender groups, Journal of Career Development, 34(3), 215-217.

Fouad, N.A., Kantamneni, N., Smothers, M.K., Chen, Y.L., Fitzpatrick, M., & Terry,
S. (2008). Asian American career development: A qualitative analysis.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43(1), 43-59.

Furnham, A., & Cheng, H. (2000). Perceived parental behavior, self-esteem, and
happiness. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 35, 463-470.

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(3), 507-529.

Grotevant, H.D., & Cooper, C.R. (1986). Exploration as a predictor of congruence in
adolescents’ career choices. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 209-215.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N.E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career
development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18(3), 326-339.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N.E. (1995). Self-efficacy and career choice and development.
In J.E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory,
research, and application (pp. 249-280). New York: Plenum Press.

Hardin, E.E., Leong, F.T.L., & Osipow, S.H. (2001). Cultural relativity in the
conceptualization of career maturity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 36-
52.

87

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.

Hartung, P.J. Porfeli, E.J., & Vondracek, F.W. (2005). Child vocational
development: A review and reconsideration. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
66, 385-419.

Hickman, G.P., Bartholomae, S., & McKenry, P.C. (2000). Influence of parenting
styles on the adjustment and academic achievement of traditional college
freshmen. Journal of College Student Development, 41(1), 41-54.

Kennell, B.L. (1994). The relationship between parenting style and epistemological
beliefs. Masters Abstracts International, 45(5), 2672.

Kenny, M.E. (1990). College seniors’ perceptions of parental attachments: The value
and stability of family ties. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 39-
46.

Kerka, S. (2000). Parenting and career development (Report No. EDO-CE-00-214).
Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 440251)

Kidd, J.M. (2006). Understanding career counselling: Theory, research and practice.
London: Sage Publications.

Kim, B.S.K. (2007a). Acculturation and enculturation. In F.T.L Leong, A.P. Inman,
A. Abreo, L.H. Yang, L. Kinoshita, & M. Fu (Eds.)., Handbook of Asian
American psychology (pp. 141-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kim, B.S.K. (2007b). Adherence to Asian and European American cultural values
and attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help among Asian
American college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(4), 474-
480.

Kim, H., & Chung, R.H. (2003). Relationship of recalled parenting style to self-
perception in Korean American college students. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 164(4), 481-492.

Kim, K., & Rohner, R.P. (2002). Parental warmth, control, and involvement in
schooling: Predicting academic achievement among Korean American
adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(2), 127-140.

88

Klein, H.A., O’Bryant, K., Hopkins, H.R. (1996). Recalled parental authority style
and self-perception in college men and women. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 157, 5-17.

Kwok, D.C. (2004). The influence of acculturation and self-concept on the
psychological help-seeking attitudes of Asian American college students.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 2004). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 65(09), 4897.

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.

Lau, S., & Cheung P.C. (1987). Relations between Chinese adolescents’ perception
of parental control and organization and their perception of parental warmth.
Developmental Psychology, 23(5), 726-729.

Leong, F.T.L. (1991). Career development attributes and occupational values of
Asian Americans and White American college students. Career
Development Quarterly, 39, 221-230.

Leong, F.T.L., & Chou, E.L. (1994). The role of ethnic identity and acculturation in
the vocational behavior of Asian Americans: An integrative review. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 44, 155-172.

Leong, F.T.L., & Gupta, A. (2007). Career development and vocational behaviors of
Asian Americans. In F.T.L Leong, A.P. Inman, A. Abreo, L.H. Yang, L.
Kinoshita, & M. Fu (Eds.), Handbook of Asian American psychology (pp.
159-178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Leong, F.T.L., & Serafica, F.C. (1995). Career development of Asian Americans: A
research area in need of a good theory. In F.T.L. Leong (Ed.), Career
development and vocational behavior of racial and ethnic minorities (pp. 67-
102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

89

Lim, S., & Lim, B.K. (2003). Parenting style and child outcomes in Chinese and
immigrant Chinese families – current findings and cross-cultural
considerations in conceptualization and research. Marriage & Family
Review, 35, 21-43.

Lin, C., & Fu, V. (1990). A comparison of child-rearing practice among Chinese,
immigrant Chinese, and Caucasian-American parents. Child Development,
61, 429-433.

Liu, Y. (2003). The roles of acculturation and family relationships in the career
decision self-efficacy of Asian American college students (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 64(12), 4372.

Lopez, F.G. (1992). Family dynamics and late adolescent identity development. In
S.D. Brown & R.W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp.
251-313). New York: Wiley.

Luzzo, D.A. (1992). Ethnic group and social class differences in college students’
career development. Career Development Quarterly, 41, 161-173.

Maccoby, E.E., & Martin, J.A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen & E. M. Heatherington (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality, and social
development (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

Murray, N.D. (1997). Welcome to the future: The millennial generation. Journal of
Career Planning & Employment, 57(3), 36-42.

Naidoo, A.V., Bowman, S.L., & Gerstein, L.H. (1998). Demographics, causality,
work salience and the career maturity of African-American students: A causal
model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 8, 367-373.

Okubo, Y., Yeh, C.J., Lin, P., Fujita, K., & Shea, J.M. (2007). The career decision-
making process of Chinese American youth. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 85, 440-449.

Park, H.S., & Bauer, S. (2002). Parenting practices, ethnicity, socioeconomic status
and academic achievement in adolescents. School Psychology International,
23, 386-397.

90

Patel, S.G., Salahuddin, N.M., & O’Brien, K.M. (2008). Career decision-making
self-efficacy of Vietnamese adolescents. Journal of Career Development,
34(3), 218-240.

Patton, W, & Lokan, J. (2001). Perspectives on Donald Super’s construct of career
maturity. Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 1, 31-48.

Peterson, S.L. (1993). Career decision-making self-efficacy and institutional
integration of underprepared college students. Research in Higher
Education, 34, 659-683.

Powell, D.F., & Luzzo, D.A. (1998). Evaluating factors associated with the career
maturity of high school students. The Career Development Quarterly, 47,
145-158.

Prideaux, L., & Creed, P.A. (2001). Career maturity, career decision-making self-
efficacy and career decision: A review of the accrued evidence. Australian
Journal of Career Development, 10(3), 7-12.

Reitman, D., Rhode, P.C., Hupp, S.D.A., & Altobello, C. (2002). Development and
validation of the parental authority questionnaire – revised. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 24(2), 119-127.

Rosenthal, D.A., & Feldman, S.S. (1992). The relationship between parenting
behavior and ethnic identity in Chinese-American and Chinese-Australian
adolescents. International Journal of Psychology, 27(1), 19-31.

Savickas, M. L. (2002). Career construction: A developmental theory of vocational
behavior. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (pp. 149-205).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schulenberg, J.E., Vondracek, F.W., & Crouter, A.C. (1984). The influence of the
family on vocational development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 46,
129-143.

Sharf, R.S. (2006). Applying career development theory to counseling (4
th
ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Shek, D.T.L. (2002). Parenting characteristics and parent-adolescent conflict: A
longitudinal study in the Chinese culture. Journal of Family Issues, 23(2).
189-208.

91

Shrake, E.K. (1996). Perceived parenting styles, ethnic identity, and associated
problem behaviors among Korean-American adolescents. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 57(10), 4557. (UMI No. 9708803)

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

Super, D.E. (1957). The psychology of careers. New York: Harper & Row.

Super, D.E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In D.
Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development (pp. 197-261).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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, 63-81.

Trusty, J., Watts, R.E., & Erdman, P. (1997). Predictors of parents’ involvement in
their teens’ career development. Journal of Career Development, 23(3), 189-
201.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Annual estimates of the population by sex, race, and
Hispanic or Latino origin for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006.
Retrieved March 29, 2008, from
http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2006-srh.html

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.

Wang, C.C., & Phinney, J.S. (1998). Differences in child rearing attitudes between
immigrant Chinese mothers and Anglo-American mothers. Early
Development and Parenting, 7, 181-189.

92

Whiston, S.C., & Keller, B.K. (2004). The influences of the family of origin on
career development: A review and analysis. The Counseling Psychologist,
32(4), 493-568.

Wolfe, J.B., & Betz, N.E. (2004). The relationship of attachment variables to career
decision-making self-efficacy and fear of commitment. The Career
Development Quarterly, 52, 363-369.

Young, R.A., Friesen, J.D., & Dillabough, J.M. (1991). Personal constructions of
family influence related to career development. Canadian Journal of
Counseling, 25, 183-190.

93

APPENDIX A
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Maryann Wu, M.A., and Ruth
H. Chung, Ph.D., from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. The results will contribute to the completion of Maryann Wu’s doctoral
dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you are an
Asian American undergraduate student between 18-24 years old. Your participation is
voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to gather information about how you feel about making career
decisions and how your relationships with your parents, along with your cultural
background, may influence your career decision-making. The questions you will be asked
are about activities involved in deciding on a career, your relationships with your parents,
and your cultural practices. Your participation in this study will help us to understand the
factors that are important to Asian American college students as they begin deciding on a
career to pursue.

You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as much time as you
need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss it with your family or friends.

Completion of this questionnaire will constitute consent to participate in this research
project.

PROCEDURES
You are asked to complete the following online questionnaire that will take about twenty
minutes to complete. If you are unable to complete the questionnaire in one setting, you
may save your progress and return to the website at a later time.

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 deciding on a career or the relationships with
your parents, please contact counselors at the university counseling center and/or the career
center.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Your participation in this study will help us with ongoing research on the career
development and vocational behaviors of Asian American college students.

94

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
By participating in this survey, you are eligible to enter a raffle to win an iPod Touch, a $50
university bookstore gift certificate, or a $25 university bookstore gift certificate. In order
to participate in the raffle, you will need to provide your name and e-mail address at the end
of the survey, which will be stored separately from your survey responses. You will be
notified at the e-mail address you provide us, if you are chosen as a raffle winner.

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 to the online survey will
be downloaded directly by Maryann Wu, M.A. 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 and 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. You may also refuse to
answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. 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, Maryann Wu, M.A. at maryann@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 PARTICIPANTS
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 participant 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 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.

95

APPENDIX B
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Please provide the following information:

1. Age _____

2. Sex ____Male ____Female

3. How many years of education do you have after high school? ___________

4. What is your racial/ethnic background (check all that apply)?
_____ Asian Indian _____ Cambodian _____ Chinese _____Filipino
_____ Hmong _____ Japanese _____ Korean _____ Laotian
_____ Taiwanese _____ Vietnamese _____ Pacific Islander
_____ Other Asian (specify) _______________________________________

5. In what country were you born? _________________________

6. How long have you lived in the U.S.? ___________ years

7. What generation are you?
____ 1st generation (if you are NOT born in the U.S.)
____ 2nd generation (if you are born in the U.S. but at least 1 parent is not)
____ 3rd generation (if at least one grandparent is born in the U.S.)
____ 4th generation (if at least one great-grandparent is born in the U.S.)
____ above 4th generation

8. What is your family structure?
____ Intact ____ Divorced
____ Remarried ____ Other

9. How would you describe the socioeconomic class background of your family?
_____ Working class _____ Upper middle class
_____ Lower middle class _____ Upper class
_____ Middle class

10. What is your annual family income?
_____ less than $25,000
_____ $25,001-50,000
_____ $50,001-75,000
_____ $75,001-100,000
_____ $100,001-150,000
_____ Over $150,000

96

11. How many years of education does your father have?
Note: Please complete this information based on the person who was most involved in
parenting you as a father whether it be your biological father, stepfather, grandfather, or
some other significant father figure.

<6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22+
jr high high school college master’s advanced degree
such as M.D., J.D., Ph.D.

12. How many years of education does your mother have?
Note: Please complete this information based on the person who was most involved in
parenting you as a mother whether it be your biological mother, stepmother, grandmother,
or some other significant mother figure.

<6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22+
jr high high school college master’s advanced degree
such as M.D., J.D., Ph.D.

13. Choice of major: _________________

14. Career choice/aspiration:_____________________

97

APPENDIX C

PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE
BURI (1991)

For each of the following statements, indicate the number on the 5-point scale that best indicates
how that statement applies to you and your parents. Try to read and think about each statement as
it applies to you and your parents (both mother and father) during your years growing up at home.
There are no right or wrong answers, so don’t spend a lot of time on any one item. We are looking
for your overall impression regarding each statement. Be sure not to omit any items.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

1. While I was growing up, my parents felt that in a well-
run home the children should have their way in the
family as often as the parents do.
1 2 3 4 5

2. Even if their children didn’t agree with them, my
parents 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 parents 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 parents discussed the reasoning
behind the policy with the children in the family.
1 2 3 4 5

5. My parents 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 parents 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 parents might want.
1 2 3 4 5

7. As I was growing up, my parents did not allow me to
question any decision that they had made.
1 2 3 4 5

8. As I was growing up, my parents directed the activities
and decisions of the children in the family through
reasoning and discipline.
1 2 3 4 5

9. My parents have always felt that more force should be
used by parents in order to get their children to behave
the way they are supposed to.
1 2 3 4 5

98

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

10. As I was growing up, my parents 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 parents expected
of me in my family, but I also felt free to discuss those
expectations with my parents when I felt that they were
unreasonable.
1 2 3 4 5

12. My parents felt that wise parents should teach their
children early just who is boss in the family.
1 2 3 4 5

13. As I was growing up, my parents 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 parents 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
parents consistently gave us direction and guidance in
rational and objective ways.
1 2 3 4 5

16. As I was growing up, my parents would get very upset
if I tried to disagree with them.
1 2 3 4 5

17. My parents feel that most problems in society would be
solved if parents 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 parents 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 parents allowed me to decide
most things for myself without a lot of direction from
them.
1 2 3 4 5

20. As I was growing up, my parents 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

99

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
21. My parents did not view themselves as responsible for
directing and guiding my behavior as I was growing
up.
1 2 3 4 5
22. My parents 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 parents 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 parents 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 parents have always felt that most problems in
society would be solved if we could get parents to
strictly and forcibly deal with their children when they
don’t do what they are supposed to as they are growing
up.
1 2 3 4 5

26. As I was growing up, my parents 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 parents 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 parents 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 parents 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 parents 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

100

APPENDIX D

CAREER DECISION MAKING SELF-EFFICACY – SHORT FORM
BETZ AND TAYLOR (2001)

INSTRUCTIONS: For each statement below, please read carefully and indicate how much confidence
you have that you could accomplish each of these tasks by marking your answer according to the key.

NO
CONFIDENCE
AT ALL
VERY LITTLE
CONFIDENCE
MODERATE
CONFIDENCE
MUCH
CONFIDENCE
COMPLETE
CONFIDENCE
1 2 3 4 5

Example: How much confidence do you have that you could:
a. Summarize the skills you have developed in the jobs you have held?
If your response was "Moderate Confidence," you would fill out the number 3 on the answer sheet.

HOW MUCH CONFIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT YOU COULD:
1. Find information in the library about occupations you are interested in.
2. Select one major from a list of potential majors you are considering.
3. Make a plan of your goals for the next five years.
4. Determine the steps to take if you are having academic trouble with an aspect of your chosen
major.
5. Accurately assess your abilities.
6. Select one occupation from a list of potential occupations you are considering.
7. Determine the steps you need to take to successfully complete your chosen major.
8. Persistently work at your major or career goal even when you get frustrated.
9. Determine what your ideal job would be.
10. Find out the employment trends for an occupation over the next ten years.
11. Choose a career that will fit your preferred lifestyle.
12. Prepare a good resume.
13. Change majors if you did not like your first choice.
14. Decide what you value most in an occupation.
15. Find out about the average yearly earnings of people in an occupation.
16. Make a career decision and then not worry whether it was right or wrong.
17. Change occupations if you are not satisfied with the one you enter.
18. Figure out what you are and are not ready to sacrifice to achieve your career goals.
19. Talk with a person already employed in a field you are interested in.
20. Choose a major or career that will fit your interests.
21. Identify employers, firms, and institutions relevant to your career possibilities.
22. Define the type of lifestyle you would like to live.
23. Find information about graduate or professional schools.
24. Successfully manage the job interview process.
25. Identify some reasonable major or career alternatives if you are unable to get your first choice.

101

APPENDIX E

CAREER MATURITY INVENTORY – REVISED ATTITUDE SCALE
CRITES AND SAVICKAS (1996)

Read the statements below and mark your answers by indicating “A” (agree) or “D” (disagree) as
appropriate. Please answer these statements as they apply to you right now, as best you can.

1. A D Everyone seems to tell me something different, as a result I don’t know which kind of work to
choose.
2. A D It’s probably just as easy to be successful in one occupation as it is in another.
3. A D I have little or no idea of what working will be like.
4. A D Once you choose a job, you can’t choose another.
5. A D I keep wondering how I can reconcile the kind of person I am and the kind of person I want to
be in my future occupation.
6. A D Sometimes you have to take a job that is not your first choice.
7. A D Work is dull and unpleasant.
8. A D I can’t understand how some people can be so set about what they want to do.
9. A D As far as choosing an occupation is concerned, something will come along sooner or later.
10. A D Choosing an occupation is something you have to do on your own.
11. A D As long as I can remember, I’ve known what kind of work I want to do.
12. A D There may not be any openings in the job I want the most.
13. A D I don’t know how to go about getting into the kind of work I want to do.
14. A D There is no point in deciding on a job when the future is so uncertain.
15. A D I spend a lot of time wishing I could do work I know I can never do.
16. A D If someone would tell me what occupation to enter, I would feel much better.
17. A D I know very little about the requirements of jobs.
18. A D When choosing an occupation, you should consider several different ones.
19. A D There is only one occupation for each person.
20. A D The best thing to do is to try out several jobs, and then choose the one you like best.
21. A D You get into an occupation mostly by chance.
22. A D I seldom think about the job I want to enter.
23. A D You almost always have to settle for a job that’s less than you had hoped for.
24. A D I really can’t find any work that has much appeal to me.
25. A D I’d rather work than play.

102

APPENDIX F

ASIAN AMERICAN MULTIDIMENSIONAL ACCULTURATION SCALE
CHUNG, KIM, & ABREU (2004)

Instructions: Use the scale below to answer the following questions. Please indicate the number that
best represents your view on each item.

Not very well Somewhat Very well
1 2 3 4 5 6

1. How well do speak the language of –
a. Your own Asian culture of origin 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English 1 2 3 4 5 6

2. How well do you understand the language of –
a. Your own Asian culture of origin 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English 1 2 3 4 5 6

3. How well do you read and write in the language of –
a. Your own Asian culture of origin 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English 1 2 3 4 5 6

4. How often do you listen to music or look at movies and magazines from –
a. Your own Asian culture of origin 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English 1 2 3 4 5 6

5. How much do you like the food of –
a. Your own Asian culture of origin 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English 1 2 3 4 5 6

6. How often do you eat the food of –
a. Your own Asian culture of origin 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English 1 2 3 4 5 6

7. How knowledgeable are you about the history of –
a. Your own Asian culture of origin 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English 1 2 3 4 5 6

8. How knowledgeable are you about the culture and traditions of –
a. Your own Asian culture of origin 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English 1 2 3 4 5 6

9. How much do you practice the traditions and keep the holidays of –
a. Your own Asian culture of origin 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English 1 2 3 4 5 6

10. How much do you identify with –

a. Your own Asian culture of origin 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English 1 2 3 4 5 6

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The relationship of model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Exploring the relationship between academic achievement and classroom behavior of Asian American elementary school students

PDF

The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students

PDF

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

PDF

Are acculturation and parenting styles related to academic achievement among Latino students?

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

The relationship between students’ computer self-efficacy, self-regulation, and engagement in distance learning

PDF

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

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

Psychosociocultural predictors of help seeking among Latino community college students

PDF

What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice?

PDF

The relationship between motivational factors and engagement in an urban high school setting

PDF

The relationship between ethnicity, self-efficacy, and beliefs about diversity to instructional and transformational leadership practices of urban school principals

PDF

The relationship between levels of expertise, task difficulty, perceived self-efficacy, and mental effort investment in task performance

Asset Metadata

Creator Wu, Maryann (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/06/2009

Defense Date 03/11/2009

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

Tag Asian American,career decision self-efficacy,career maturity,OAI-PMH Harvest,parenting styles

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth, H. (committee chair), Clark, Ginger (committee member), Jun, Alexander (committee member)

Creator Email maryann@usc.edu,maryannwu@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2055

Unique identifier UC1321512

Identifier etd-Wu-2786 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-205985 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2055 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Wu-2786.pdf

Dmrecord 205985

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Wu, Maryann

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